D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Lanefan]

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.

Agreed; it's incumbent on the DM to play with integrity, and even more so due to the imbalance of power.

Some DMs can do this without issue. Others, well, perhaps the less said the better...

 

[Lanefan]

Thinking more about this, literally all of @Lanefan's arguments come down to, "But what if somebody is playing in bad faith?" (Which often seems to actually mean, "...playing with a different idea of fun than mine?")

Bad faith is bad faith, no matter whose idea of fun might be offended.

The reason I often bring it up is that I don't think there's enough thought given - be it in these discussions or at the design level - toward finding ways and means of legislating or ruling or rules-writing against bad faith play.

Well, what if the DM is acting in bad faith? What if the DM doesn't want their great plot derailed? What if the DM is overly attached to a favorite NPC? What if the DM thinks a player is being annoying and wants to punish them? What if the DM is bringing in non-D&D grudges? What if, for any of these reasons, the DM decides an NPC is going to persuade/intimidate/deceive/seduce a PC?

As I just posted a moment ago, a DM also has to act with integrity and good faith. This is why I strongly support the DM-as-neutral-arbiter model.

That said, a DM who consistently acts in bad faith likely won't be a DM for very long, once the players catch on.

Or, how about this: the DM adjudicates how those things work on their characters, and the players adjudicate how those things work on their characters.

If this is your end stance then believe it or not we're in agreement!

My point is - and has been all along - that this agreed-on model renders social mechanics redundant, and thus they can be safely removed from the game without affecting anything.

 

[Lanefan]

And because I anticipate someone is going to say this: no, automatic failure is not the worst possible outcome, because automatic failure generally means no change in circumstances. If I can’t learn if the character is lying by watching for patterns in his fidgeting, I lose nothing for trying.

Depending on the situation, you might lose something.

Auto-fail still counts as a fail, meaning there may be consequences to trying. In the example where you auto-fail the lie detection, maybe the potentially-lying speaker notices you staring a bit too intently and reacts by becoming a bit more hostile toward you.

Trying to climb a wall that's flat-out too much for you (i.e. auto-fail) can still leave you face-planted on the ground, down 5 points damage after a 20-foot fall.

I didn’t know if he was lying before, and I don’t know if he’s lying after. But because failed checks come with a cost or consequence, I do stand to lose something on a failed check.

Now this is an interesting take, and perhaps explains some things: you're saying that auto-success and auto-fail are not the same as checks and thus don't (and can't) have consequences?

Because they are. Even though the pass-fail state may be automatic and thus no dice are rolled, it's still an attempted action and there can still be consequences.

 

[Maxperson]

The reason I often bring it up is that I don't think there's enough thought given - be it in these discussions or at the design level - toward finding ways and means of legislating or ruling or rules-writing against bad faith play.

There's no point. Bad faith play on either side can't be legislated away. If someone is going to engage in it, they aren't going to be following rules when they do it.

As I just posted a moment ago, a DM also has to act with integrity and good faith. This is why I strongly support the DM-as-neutral-arbiter model.

Good faith on both sides is critical.

 

[Charlaquin]

PHB 174 establishes that - The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results. This is silent on who decides that an outcome is uncertain.

Agreed.

DMG 237 establishes that a DM should - Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions: Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure? Is a task so inappropriate or impossible-such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work? If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate. A DM consults themselves, in making their decision.

Agreed.

PHB 6 establishes that - the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions. Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action. DM can decide that a challenge makes something that would otherwise be certain, uncertain.

I’m not sure how you’re reaching the bolded conclusion from the quoted text. This text seems to me to convey essentially the same information as the previous quote - don’t call for a roll if the action is devoid of conflict.

PHB 185 establishes that - Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks. Roleplaying is a part of every aspect of the game, and it comes to the fore during social interactions.

Agreed. So the conclusion I would draw from this is, If an action would cause a character to think, act, or talk in a specific way, the player determines if it succeeds in doing so.

And for completeness we have the Sage Advice - An NPC ability check can't force a PC to think/feel/do/sense something.

Sure. I don’t think Sage Advice really matters in interpreting RAW, but this supports my argument, so I won’t look too closely into that gift horse’s mouth.

PHB 7 - Specific Beats General - can among other things create an exception that makes something that would be certain, uncertain, or that forces a PC to think, feel, do, or sense something. This is silent on who decides when that applies.

I can’t help but notice that you didn’t provide the exact quote here like you did for the others. “This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.” Notably, the actual quote does distinguish between the general rules and game elements that break the general rules. The rules for skills are in section 2, which is noted as especially being where the general rules are found, and they are not racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, or monster abilities.

DMG 5 - Master of Rules. DM decides when and how to apply the rules.

Yes, which is why we are discussing what the rules support rather than what they allow, since here they allow the DM to do anything they want.

A possible exit to our dilemma is this. Determining how your character thinks, acts, or talks is not the same as determining means of resolution. Nor is it a general fiat over outcomes. It is a fiat over how those outcomes impact on how your character thinks, acts, or talks. This is consistent with all the text, and requires no circular arguments.

The player doesn’t determine the means of resolution, the DM does. The player decides how their character thinks, acts, and talks, which means if an action would cause a character to think, act, or talk in a way contrary to the player’s decision, it is not uncertain and the text we have reviewed so far would not support them in calling for an ability check to resolve it.

An example, chosen to get at an egregious case and show it to be resolved.

DM The tea-lady glowers, and threatening to revoke your biscuit privileges, wants you to sit back down. Describes circumstances.
PC Is this pre-school? I'm going to stand up to her. Stand up, get it?! Says what they want to attempt.
DM How about those biscuit privileges? Are you just sacrificing those? DM puts something on the line.
PC Yeah, right, and she has that amazing shortbread. Okay, I'm going to sweet talk her some. Chooses their approach.
DM Okay, the challenge here is that this lady has dealt with generations of all-too-clever students like yourself, her fierceness is legendary. It's a contest, your CHA against hers. You can include Persuasion, she includes Intimidation. Roll. Says how it will be resolved.
Rolls - NPC wins.
DM Remember that sweet, sweet shortbread. That's now a thing of the past, and frankly this woman is pretty scary. You might feel somewhat intimidated. Want to sit back down? Narrates outcome.
PC in world 1 - Yeah, okay, I'm sheepish and slink back to my seat. Roleplays taking into account the outcome.
PC in world 2 - Nah, I stay right where I am. Roleplays, applying their PHB 185 fiat.

You call this an egregious example, but I don’t see anything going on here that conflicts with my reading of the rules. The player took an action - trying to sweet-talk the tea lady into letting them retain their biscuit privileges despite not sitting down. The DM determined that the outcome of this action is uncertain - the sweet talking might convince the tea lady to let them retain their biscuit privileges, or it might not. Determining that there was uncertainty, and the characters are acting against each other’s goals, the DM called for a Charisma (Persuasion) vs. Charisma (Intimidation) contest. The player failed this contest, so they did not make progress towards their goal of getting the tea lady to let them retain their biscuit privileges. Then the player got to decide what their character thought and did about this (either deciding to sit down in world 1, or deciding not to sit down in world 2). The DM here did not make any call that isn’t supported by the rules, as I understand them, though I would note that saying “you might feel somewhat intimidated” is kind of putting their thumb on the scale and I would consider it poor form.

If you thought I would take issue with this example, I don’t think you are understanding my position.

For me it helps to make sure the basic loop, described right up-front in PHB 6, is followed thoughtfully. Frame interactions from the point of view of what the player characters are attempting: they are the protagonists. Explain what the challenges are, what's at stake, etc, and then as DM decide how that will be resolved. That yields good consistency with the text as a whole. @Maxperson @Bill Zebub @Lyxen for vis.

Yep, I agree 100% with that.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, most definitely.

If it helps your brainstorming, our current campaign uses crit fails in combat only. Only 1 per turn (so as to not penalize multi attack, action surge, haste, and the like). And, the player imposes the punishment on themselves. I’ve seen damaged weapons, stuck weapons, hitting self, just looking silly, falling prone…

I think if I was going to do a “critical fumble rule” it would really be an equipment damage rule, tied to natural 1s and possibly 20s. For example, I could see something like, “when you roll an natural 1 on a weapon attack roll, your weapon is damaged and takes [some penalty] until it’s repaired. When you are hit by a critical hit, any armor you are wearing is damaged and takes [some penalty] until it’s repaired. If it would be damaged again before being repaired, it breaks instead. If a damaged weapon or armor would become damaged again, it breaks instead and can’t be used until it’s repaired” or something like that. Like I said, it’s still a half-formed idea.

 

[Charlaquin]

Depending on the situation, you might lose something.

Auto-fail still counts as a fail, meaning there may be consequences to trying. In the example where you auto-fail the lie detection, maybe the potentially-lying speaker notices you staring a bit too intently and reacts by becoming a bit more hostile toward you.

Trying to climb a wall that's flat-out too much for you (i.e. auto-fail) can still leave you face-planted on the ground, down 5 points damage after a 20-foot fall.

Now this is an interesting take, and perhaps explains some things: you're saying that auto-success and auto-fail are not the same as checks and thus don't (and can't) have consequences?

Because they are. Even though the pass-fail state may be automatic and thus no dice are rolled, it's still an attempted action and there can still be consequences.

Automatic success and failure are not the same as checks, no. I wouldn’t say they can’t have consequences, just that, unlike checks, they don’t necessarily have consequences. But, like, generally I feel like it would be weird to impose a consequence for attempting something that can’t succeed. Like, if the player says they try to jump to the moon they aren’t going to succeed so there’s no point in rolling. But it’s not like I’m going to say “ok, you jump pretty high but you don’t make it to the moon and you rake 1d6 bludgeoning damage when you land” or whatever. I’m just going to say they can’t jump to the moon and move on.

 

[clearstream]

I’m not sure how you’re reaching the bolded conclusion from the quoted text. This text seems to me to convey essentially the same information as the previous quote - don’t call for a roll if the action is devoid of conflict.

It may do - but I do not believe we need to resolve our dispute in this regard - because of PHB 6. Opening a door is typically easy - the meaning is automatic or certain once you consider the text overall - but a DM might say there is some challenge that requires a check.

Thus, even if for the sake of argument we adopt your view of PHB 174, and our player determines something about how their character will think, act, or talk, their DM can still in that case explain the challenge and consequences, and call for a check. What the DM would need to step outside the text to do, would be to force the outcome upon their character without consideration to 185, unless it is a set limit or s>g exception.

If you thought I would take issue with this example, I don’t think you are understanding my position.

I didn't think you would take issue with it. The conclusion that my theory adjusts is whether (what I have called) 'prior-certainty' can act to prevent a DM calling for a check? In fact, it naturally makes sense that the DM should only call for a check if they have decided that there is some challenge that introduces uncertainty. That answers the question for 174. Crossing an empty room is on the same footing as PHB 185 fiat: both may be normally certain albeit a DM can establish that there is a challenge introducing uncertainty.

A DM could also call for a check because something is a subject to randomisation somehow, but we must assume that is not available here (or if it is, that is informationally hidden from the rest of the system.) In a sense, I believe that is what your argument really objects to. It reasonably enough asserts that player determining how their character thinks, acts, and talks, is not subject to randomisation (or at least, not at the DM's whim while working within the text.) That endorses that there should only be a check if a DM decides a challenge is involved.

 

[clearstream]

Automatic success and failure are not the same as checks, no. I wouldn’t say they can’t have consequences, just that, unlike checks, they don’t necessarily have consequences. But, like, generally I feel like it would be weird to impose a consequence for attempting something that can’t succeed. Like, if the player says they try to jump to the moon they aren’t going to succeed so there’s no point in rolling. But it’s not like I’m going to say “ok, you jump pretty high but you don’t make it to the moon and you rake 1d6 bludgeoning damage when you land” or whatever. I’m just going to say they can’t jump to the moon and move on.

Segueing from that, a player-character could try to jump a distance beyond what they can achieve automatically, but within what they can possibly jump. An ability check will tell us how they act in that regard, i.e. how far they jump. We could call the range they can jump a set limit, but then the player can't decide there is no uncertainty as to how their character ends up acting.

Another case under strength, is where another creature tries to push or pull you underwater or otherwise interfere with your swimming. Being pushed is deciding something about how you act, and that is called out as subject to a check. The case is somewhat specific, but no more specific than prying information out of a prisoner. These are some of the cases I have been thinking about in interrogating the theory of prior-certainty.

 

[Charlaquin]

It may do - but I do not believe we need to resolve our dispute in this regard - because of PHB 6. Opening a door is typically easy - the meaning is automatic or certain once you consider the text overall - but a DM might say there is some challenge that requires a check.

Thus, even if for the sake of argument we adopt your view of PHB 174, and our player determines something about how their character will think, act, or talk, their DM can still in that case explain the challenge and consequences, and call for a check.

Ok. So when a player declares their character thinks, says, or does something, if there is some factor that would make that challenging (e.g. modify memory may prevent the character from thinking something, silence or zone of truth may prevent them from saying something, any number of obstacles may prevent them from doing some action or at least make it challenging to do), a check might be needed to resolve that uncertainty. That is accurate, but not related to the case of an NPC (or a PC for that matter) taking an action to try to force a PC to think, say, or do something not of the player’s decision.

What the DM would need to step outside the text to do, would be to force the outcome upon their character without consideration to 185, unless it is a set limit or s>g exception.

Yes… that is what I’ve been arguing…

I didn't think you would take issue with it. The conclusion that my theory adjusts is whether (what I have called) 'prior-certainty' can act to prevent a DM calling for a check? In fact, it naturally makes sense that the DM should only call for a check if they have decided that there is some challenge that introduces uncertainty. That answers the question for 174. Crossing an empty room is on the same footing as PHB 185 fiat: both may be normally certain albeit a DM can establish that there is a challenge introducing uncertainty.
A DM could also call for a check because something is a subject to randomisation somehow, but we must assume that is not available here (or if it is, that is informationally hidden from the rest of the system.) In a sense, I believe that is what your argument really objects to. It reasonably enough asserts that player determining how their character thinks, acts, and talks, is not subject to randomisation (or at least, not at the DM's whim while working within the text.) That endorses that there should only be a check if a DM decides a challenge is involved.

Sorry, I don’t follow what you’re saying here.