D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

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.

and again, If multi people tell you they have read all that legalize word play and STILL think that it supportst he other way of reading it.

 

[HammerMan]

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.

Yes I admit you and max and iserith have all made good points. I even can see why and how you read it. I disagree. But I am not calling your way invalid or wrong. Iserith has repeatedly use the troll smile emoji and said "play how you like even if it's wrong"

 

[Maxperson]

and again, If multi people tell you they have read all that legalize word play and STILL think that it supportst he other way of reading it.

They we have multiple misinterpretations. AND an Appeal to Popularity

 

[clearstream]

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).

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.

If you are counting all rules and guidelines as "RAW" then there is no way from the text to say which is better supported. The issue is not the conflation, it is the disingenuity of then attempting to still claim higher ground (what "RAW" supports.) @Lyxen has been pointing out that there is no such higher ground. The only way one can argue such a view is through cherry picking, special pleading, etc, as @Ovinomancer pointed out pages past.

 

[Faolyn]

Nope. But I get to decide if/when he's intimidated, not some roll. If he's highly emotional and a bit of a coward, I will portray him that way.

Which is how it should be. But we're talking about people who refuse to play their characters honestly like that.

 

[clearstream]

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.

You are upholding that one line, and ignoring all the other lines that stand equally well, and make it DM-decides. In particular, the theory of a prior-certainty that resists exceptions within the scope of ability checks is an obvious red flag. Whatever your theory is, it must sustain the power of PHB 7 to make any specific beat general, anywhere in the game system. Not to mention numerous cases that bestow the DM with power to decide what process to apply, and whether there is uncertainty, in every case.

 

[Maxperson]

Which is how it should be. But we're talking about people who refuse to play their characters honestly like that.

In my experience, this primarily happens in games where everyone is playing like that. It seldom happens in a group of the other type and when it does, a talk with the player changes that.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Agreed, we are making a degree of progress. In that vein, I noticed something. PHB 185 does not require a player to roleplay. It's passive. It tells you what happens when a player is roleplaying, but it does not tell you that a player must roleplay. Therefore, in a group where players choose not to roleplay*, there can be no obstacle to DM-decides, right?

*Where "roleplay" is what it is defined to be in PHB 185

 

[HammerMan]

They we have multiple misinterpretations. AND an Appeal to Popularity

this is wrong, an appeal to popularity is "I am right because more people agree with me" not "We have multi different valid readings and interpretations in this very thread... try again.

 

[Lyxen]

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 is actually a very good example of something that is more a guideline than a hard rule (the kind that you have in a boardgame), because it all depends as to how you interpret "uncertain". If it was a boardgame, the writing would be more like "When a creature has 10 hp or more...", but with a wording like "when the outcome is uncertain..." different people can (and have, all along this thread" proposed interpretations of "uncertain" that actually show that this is way more a guideline than a rule.

"Uncertain" can actually be very circular in this simple sentence, it could be uncertain because you have decided to use dices to resolve it, for example. Or it might be uncertain because it depends on simple circumstances, on whoever using the skill being at the top of his shape or not, of simple luck, or whether he knows (or not) that what he does is adapted (or not) to the target of the skill, etc. It also might be linked to very "meta" considerations like whether you are Rolling with It or Ignoring the Dice (The Role of Dice), how much you believe in player agency being something inviolate, etc.

And especially on this last point, which I've seen being used in this thread, I would like to remind people that it's not something that is ever used in the rulebooks themselves. The only thing there has to do with advice and table rules, nothing hard and fast. So stating that a result is not uncertain because the player will determine the result is for me a really, really REALLY strong example of the "rule" above being twisted into something that has nothing to do with the RAI, just because some people strongly believe in a principle that is far from being universal and is actually not supported by any of the rules or even guidelines.

So no, that "rule" is actually much more of a guideline to me... Which does not mean that you are wrong, but that there are so many ways to play the game that statements like this have actually a high likelihood to be not applicable to at least some of us due to the extremely open nature of the game.