D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

You are upholding that one line, and ignoring all the other lines that stand equally well, and make it DM-decides.

I'm not. "The DM decides" rules do not contradict that line. That line informs the DM of WHEN to decide. The DM decides when a check is called for. How does he decide? He looks at the rules that affect timing and uses those to make his decision.

In particular, the theory of a prior-certainty that resists exceptions within the scope of ability checks is an obvious red flag.

It's not a theory. It's a rule.

it must sustain the power of PHB 7 to make any specific beat general, anywhere in the game system.

Sure. A more specific rule would override it, but there are no more specific rules that I am aware of. A vague "The DM decides" is more general than a very specific, "When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

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.

Numerous mentions do not give it greater force or make it more specific. The DM calls for a check when there is a chance of failure(outcome uncertain). AND "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure." Those are both very specific rules.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You literally said that you had multiple people reading it in a way that supports THE other way of reading it, as support for you being correct. That's an Appeal to Authority

 

[HammerMan]

You literally said that you had multiple people reading it in a way that supports THE other way of reading it, as support for you being correct. That's an Appeal to Authority

go back and reread it, like Iserth you are miss understanding what is written, I am not claiming I am right, I am claiming no one can be right/wrong on interpretations... my evedence that this is so includes (but is not limited to) the fact that in this very thread multi posters have shown over and over agian how they read it like I do. I don't even claim to be the majority, just that it is not clear it is up to interpreting the rules (and WotC wrote it that way)

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I don’t think that matter is at all settled. If we take all of the text (rules and guidance) as RAW, where do you see support in that RAW for calling for an ability check to resolve an action that would result in a player’s character doing, thinking, or feeling something not of the player’s choice?

 

[Charlaquin]

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

PHB 185 says roleplaying is involved in every part of the game.

 

[Lyxen]

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

The "honestly" might be a bit strong here. The fact is that it's only a game, and we are only have a limited amount of time to play it. And some character types have much more appeal to us than others. Even if we are roleplaying mostly ourselves, or even if we are always roleplaying the same archetype game after game, it's still roleplaying, and not something that we have any right to look down upon. It's a matter of personal preference and taste, and in some cases a matter of simple ability, and criticising people for that is not nice in what is simply a game.

We have a number of players like that, and we recognise it, and we accept it at our tables. The guy who is always mischievous and manipulative, even when playing a paladin. The guy who refuses to back down from everyone and who challenges every one even when playing a weak character, etc. What we do is discuss this openly with them and tell them that it's not a problem but that maybe some archetypes are not the best for them because they will have trouble roleplaying even what they decided to play, especially in a long campaign. And because it's done without judgment and for the fun of everyone at the table, it usually goes well.

But these types of characters are perfectly legitimate, especially in a heroic game like D&D. Now, you might expect more in terms of roleplay at your table, or you might have a specific setting like Ravenloft which requires characters to be terrified/horrified now and then, which might make some character types not the best for the ambiance that you are looking for. Again, it's not a question of value or (dis)honesty, it's just the fact that sometimes, some people are not suited to play well with the way a table plays.

 

[Maxperson]

"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.

Well, no, it literally can't. It may not use the word "then", but it's an if-then sentence. If this, then that. Choosing "that" first would be to get the order incorrect and therefore would be a misuse of that rule. The circular aspect is a clue that it's not the right(RAW reading) way to do it.

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.

Circumstantial game reasons for uncertainty will be decided BEFORE the roll happens. If there are circumstances like being beat to hell, exhausted or whatever, those are examples of things that could put a certain outcome in doubt, requiring a roll. They aren't contradictions to what I am saying or the rule in question.

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.

This falls into the realm of playstyle. Sure, a playstyle can alter the other rules of the game. If you are engaging the roll with it rule, it's a more specific rule than the general one requiring rolls only when the outcome is uncertain and there is a meaningful chance of failure. It specifically says to roll for just about everything, so that's what you do.

An example of specific beats general doesn't change the ability check rule into a guideline. Not that in 5e a rule isn't a guideline and a guideline isn't a rule. 5e doesn't really differentiate between the two.

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.

I don't think player agency is the reason behind what we are arguing. Player agency certainly touches on it, since allowing the player to decide does give the player more agency, but it's not the motivator. The rule is the motivator.

As an side, player agency is mentioned in the DMG one time on page 241 when talking about when to award inspiration.

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.

Fair enough.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

“The poster” has said clearly and repeatedly that all ways of playing are valid, and there is no bad way to play. The only thing they are claiming is that the rules as written clearly say certain things. But they have acknowledged, again clearly and repeatedly, that everybody should play in the way they enjoy.

You are, of course, free to express opinions about the game. But your willful mis-reading of other posters is not ok.

 

[Lyxen]

PHB 185 says roleplaying is involved in every part of the game.

Indeed, and on top of that, as per the PH introduction, "The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery." So by definition it is a roleplaying game, the intent of it is to roleplay.

After that, there are so many ways to roleplay that it makes these definitions a bit vague. I also would like to point out that the "definition" of roleplaying in the PH on pg 185 must actually not be take for a real definition. You could be deciding how your character thinks, acts, and talks and still not really be roleplaying in the sense of interpreting a personality, even your own. It's just one of the consequences of what the implications of roleplaying, the examples in the rest of the section are actually much more informative, but still only examples.

 

[Maxperson]

go back and reread it, like Iserth you are miss understanding what is written, I am not claiming I am right, I am claiming no one can be right/wrong on interpretations...

I understand that, but you are not correct. There are some clearly written rules where people can be right or wrong with interpretations.

my evedence that this is so includes (but is not limited to) the fact that in this very thread multi posters have shown over and over agian how they read it like I do.

Yes. An Appeal to Popularity. Others doing it is not evidence of you being correct.