D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

because the poster believes that he has read the 1 true way to play and they will not deviate form that original idea no matter the evidence presented.

Quite literally nobody in this thread has argued that he or she has the one true way to play. Nobody.

 

[Charlaquin]

The problem, I think, comes from people using RAW and RAI in a different way from what the devs intend. Everything in the book is - by definition - written, so everything in the book is RAW. Now, the devs themselves don't make differences about what it's in there, they call everything rules and everything guidelines, and considering that everything is flexible anyway for any given DM, it makes sense. Some will consider some sections of the book as rules, others as guidelines, who cares ? Actually, there is only one type of person who cares, more about this below.

The RAI is defined by the devs themselves as "what the designers meant when they wrote something", but again, first no difference between rules and guidelines, just between what has been written and a possible interpretation of it. But even if you make a difference between a rule and a guideline in the books, I think it's clear that it's as easy to determine the intent from a rule than from a guideline, actually more so.

Also note that, from the dev "In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent." And that's it.

So I think it's a bad idea to consider some sections of the books as RAW and others as RAI, it's clearly not aligned with the definition, and by doing it you would just start another semantic war.

THIS!!!!

 

[HammerMan]

Where it is silent, there it does not make any change. So as written, your Warblades add their WIS and DEX to initiative. You could have something like, Warblades use WIS instead of DEX for initiative. Jack of Trades gives half-prof to all ability checks and a wisdom check is still an ability check.

IF I wrote that rule i am sure I would intend it that way, I am also sure some % of the readers would not read it that way without more info.

 

[HammerMan]

Quite literally nobody in this thread has argued that he or she has the one true way to play. Nobody.

no not one true way to play, one true way to intrepret the rules

 

[Lyxen]

I don't agree with that. I can fully argue that a clearly written rule can only be interpreted one way, while still believing and arguing that changing it to fit your group is the right thing to do, because there are thousands of different ways to play the game. One True Wayism is arguing that your way is the only right way to play the game.

And that's fine, because there is a difference between people insisting on RAW (which is what I wrote, and which usually goes with saying that only some parts of the RAW are rules and others - the ones that don't go their way - are at best guidelines if not fluff to be ignored) and people who are just discussing what is written in the books with an open mind.

 

[Charlaquin]

And that's fine, because there is a difference between people insisting on RAW (which is what I wrote, and which usually goes with saying that only some parts of the RAW are rules and others - the ones that don't go their way - are at best guidelines if not fluff to be ignored)

The bolded seems to me to be what clearstream is doing. I’ve been arguing that everything written in the rulebooks is RAW, and that it is in fact possible to arrive at RAI from a complete and thorough reading of RAW alone (as I and others have done).

and people who are just discussing what is written in the books with an open mind.

I think we’re all coming with an open mind. Literally all of us agree that it’s ok to run the game however you want. The only thing we’re arguing about is if RAW supports certain rulings or not (primarily, calling for an ability check to resolve an action that would force a PC to think, feel, or do something without the player deciding for them to.) But if you want to rule that way anyway? Awesome, more power to you, have fun however you like.

 

[HammerMan]

I think we’re all coming with an open mind.

I don't know about that...

Literally all of us agree that it’s ok to run the game however you want.

yes 100% agree

The only thing we’re arguing about is if RAW supports certain rulings or not (primarily, calling for an ability check to resolve an action that would force a PC to think, feel, or do something without the player deciding for them to.) But if you want to rule that way anyway? Awesome, more power to you, have fun however you like.

the problem is that 100 pages in both sides have presented why they think they are right... at this point nothing is going to change. I am not going to stumble on the right wording to persuade you, and you are not going to persuade me, and this goes for all of us. for atleast 30 pages all I have asked is to understand we both have valid readings that we just disagree on... and I have gotten more and more "Do what you want but you are wrong"

 

[Charlaquin]

NO I am addressing the advice... Use X, I disagree with useing X by itself and suggest you either instead or also do Y.

that is exactly what I would ask you based on your advice.

Advice to do X is not advice not to do Y. Since in this case Y is basic best DMing practices, I didn’t think it was necessary to advise Y. X is the thing I know many DMs don’t do, so I advise doing it (in addition to Y) if you want to encourage players to roleplay characters with flaws.

And to reiterate, Y is talking to your players about what you all find fun. X is using the background characteristics and inspiration rules.

 

[Maxperson]

no not one true way to play, one true way to intrepret the rules

Some rules do only have one way to interpret them, with other "interpretations" being misinterpretations. Let's take this rule, "When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." The "when" indicates with no room for other interpretations that the following has to happen before second part of the sentence. So the one way to interpret that rule is that you have to determine uncertainty BEFORE the dice determine the results. That means in no uncertain terms that if the outcome is certain(success or failure), the dice are not used. Any other interpretation is a misinterpretation.

 

[Charlaquin]

the problem is that 100 pages in both sides have presented why they think they are right... at this point nothing is going to change. I am not going to stumble on the right wording to persuade you, and you are not going to persuade me, and this goes for all of us. for atleast 30 pages all I have asked is to understand we both have valid readings that we just disagree on... and I have gotten more and more "Do what you want but you are wrong"

I certainly don’t think your mind is going to be changed. But @Lyxen earlier raised an excellent point that I did in fact concede, and @clearstream has many times acknowledged good points others have made (even while continuing to disagree with them) and adapted his own arguments to account for them. The conversation is in fact moving forward, and I for one think that’s worthwhile even if no one is ultimately “convinced.” Testing our perspectives and arguments against one another is valuable in and of itself.