D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

It's not only in my mind, I say it out loud to the players at our table.

that was the quastion, if you tell them. Do you think that you telling them is RAW, the interpretation you use, or a house rule?

Player wants their PC to do A to accomplish B. I, as DM, decide the outcome is uncertain and there is a meaningful consequence for failure. I tell them the DC is XX. On a success, B (or something close to B) will happen. On a failure, C happens! (Alternatively, if B is essential, I go with success with a setback which works out as: on a failure, B or something close to B happens and, also, C!)

 

[HammerMan]

I will note that while I think this is best practice, I believe the rules are silent on whether or not the DM should tell the players the DC and potential consequences. Unless it’s suggested somewhere that I missed.

yeah I am 50/50 on this with newer players or ones that are more shy I side more with telling them, with established groups I side more with not

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Sure it does - if the roll fails you-as-DM need to know a) why it failed and b) whether this would be obvious to the PCs.

Yes - it failed because it was less than the DC I set. It's obvious to the players because I tell them the DC.

In the fiction, the failure state, which I've also told them, then happens. I can add all kinds of flavor to the adjudication at that point if I want.

The results and rationale of failng to climb a wall would usually be obvious, e.g. you used a loose stone as a handhold, the stone crashed to the ground and you almost followed it. The results of trying to talk past a guard not so much - sure she says "No" but there's a rationale behind that somewhere and you-as-DM need to dream up what it is; and quickly in case the PCs try again, or try a different approach.

Other than the fact that I've trained myself to avoid the word "you" as much as possible when describing the environment or adjudications, yeah, I follow. In the case of talking past a greedy guard, I'll have the guard refuse passage as adjudication of a failed roll. Then maybe have the guard look around and whisper to them "what's it worth to you... jingle jangle... eh?" Or something of the sort. But that has nothing to do with the roll. That has to do with resetting the environment which is step 1 of the play loop.

You then IMO need to narrate the failure as it appears in the fiction.

The failure is self explanatory. I think you are mashing up the steps of the play loop here.

That flavour is the whole point, as it can serve to inform the players/PCs as to why the attempt failed and - maybe - give ideas or clues (be they false or true or both!) as to what to do next.

Yep, that's step 1, describe the environment, then step 2: "What do you do next?" (other than the false clues part, that is. I don't have time for false clues - the players miss enough real clues as it is, lol)

 

[Swarmkeeper]

that was the quastion, if you tell them. Do you think that you telling them is RAW, the interpretation you use, or a house rule?

I'm not aware of any rules/guidance* that say to tell the players the ability check stakes or not. I choose to tell them. That works well for our table. What do you do?

As @Charlaquin pointed out above

 

[Charlaquin]

again the same as climbing the mountain.

You’re gonna have to elaborate because this doesn’t mean anything to me.

The PC can't say "I rip off the bar and open the door" (I mean they can say it, but the Str/athletics check can say they ripp the bar off and it still be magically sealed)

If ripping the bar off the door can’t cause the door to open, it isn’t uncertain whether or not the approach of ripping the bar off the door will succeed in the goal of getting the door to open, so no roll is needed to resolve the outcome. You can simply narrate the character ripping the bar off the door and the door remaining closed.

The PC can't say that intimidating them will make them talk (again educated guess would be yes, and they can assume, but it is up to the DM)

Sure, and if the DM decides that they won’t talk, then no roll is required to resolve the outcome of the action. The DM can simply narrate the NPC reacting to the attempt as they see fit, and not talking. However, if the DM decides that the NPC might talk, and might not, a Charisma (Intimidation) check is how the rules would support them in determining which of those outcomes occurs.

ow we added FEEL now, that changes things... feel can be a sense or a response. I can feel something is off (outside my control) I can feel feed up with having to keep explaining myself (50/50 here) or I can feel happy (I think minus magic 100% in control of the player) we have been using think to avoid the 'feel' issue of English words being complex.

I’ve been saying “feel” for I don’t even know how many pages, because that’s what the “roleplaying rule” says.

However if YOU decided that in YOUR games that is never a possibility or uncertainty that is fine... it isn't RAW, but it is fine, I even understand how you interpret it that way, even if I don't. -Raw is anything can be uncertain and it is up to the DM, my own house rules would replace DM with table, but I think that is clear-

Again, PHB 185 (is that the page number? Again, I’ve been referencing D&D Beyond, which lacks page numbers) says the player decides what their character thinks, feels, and does, so that means an attempt to make them think, feel, or do something the player didn’t decide is not uncertain. Unless the player decides it is, I guess.

Okay, so we both feel that NPC can make any check a PC can, we just disagree on the fact that in your reading 1 sub set of attribute checks is something that can not be used becuse you (within your right as a DM) have decided and ruled it can never be uncertain.

Incorrect. I do not think that there is any subset of ability checks that NPCs can’t “use.” What I think is that, when a character’s goal (whether PC or NPC) is to force a PC to think, feel, or do something, an ability check is not the appropriate way to resolve that action because the outcome is not uncertain (per PHB 185). There are plenty of actions which wouldn’t force a PC to think, feel, or do something, which might have uncertain outcomes and therefore be appropriate to resolve with Charisma checks. There are probably also actions that might otherwise be appropriate to resolve with checks using abilities other than Charisma, but when the goal is to force a PC to do, think, or feel something on a success, and would therefore not be appropriate to resolve with a check.

DO you understand why that seems like a carve out by other words (and a much more complex work around to get to it)?

Yes; I understand that if someone thinks of ability checks as discrete actions in and of themselves instead of as a mechanic the DM uses to determine whether or not a specific approach succeeds at accomplishing a specific goal, it would indeed look like a carve-out.

 

[Bill Zebub]

okay, same thing with the PC...

Right again!

And just like when the PC tried it on the NPC and the DM got to determine if it worked on "their character" (using dice if they so choose), when the NPC tries it on the PC, the owner of the character...the player...gets to decide if it works. Using dice if they feel like it.

Seriously, I don't understand what this obsession is with not trusting the players with the authority to contribute positively to the story. @Lanefan is so worried about players trying to maneuver for "in-game advantage", but DMs are human, too, and they are just as likely...if not more so...to mis-use their power to keep their carefully planned plot on track, instead of giving players agency and seeing where the story goes.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So I have to ask: if you're a player and you saw a fellow player outright cheating at your table what would you do?

There are very few things I would consider "outright cheating". I guess I can think of two things:

1) Lying in some way about dice rolls
2) Lying about resources (spell slots, hit points, expertise dice, which spells are memorized, etc.)

I think the first time this happened whoever noticed would say, "Hahahaha!!! Bill just changed his dice roll!" and we would all laugh our @$$es off and make fun of him. If it happened regularly we would probably stop inviting them.

 

[Charlaquin]

yeah I am 50/50 on this with newer players or ones that are more shy I side more with telling them, with established groups I side more with not

I personally see advantages to telling the players the DC and potential outcomes, and no advantages to not telling them, which is why I choose to tell them. But, this is something I don’t think the rules provide specific guidance on.

In fact, if someone were to suggest that the rules don’t support me in ruling this way, I think they would be correct. (I don’t think they support either option in this case; they are silent on the matter, so either way you rule on the matter, you are doing so without support.)

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m typing too quickly because I’m trying to keep up with how fast this thread is going and I keep making typos.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I’m typing too quickly because I’m trying to keep up with how fast this thread is going and I keep making typos.

I spend as much time correcting typos (or just unclear writing) in previous posts as I do writing new ones.