D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

If they are taking all the text of the rulebooks into consideration, they would find that no, it can’t succeed because how the character thinks, speaks, and acts is up to the player, not the dice, to determine. So no ability check is supported in being called for.

This isn't right. The text expressly provides for a DM to decide if there is challenge present that makes what the player determines, uncertain and thus require a check. I thought you had conceded this point!?

 

[clearstream]

Ok, I see what you’re saying. Yes, a successful outcome would of course be narrated differently than a failed one, so in that sense the result of the roll does inform the DM’s narration. I meant more that I don’t see support for the DM calling for a roll solely to inform their description.

More than one consequence may pend on the roll. That's what my tea-lady example showed. Part of the consequence was a revocation of biscuit privileges. No more shortbread for the recalcitrant student! Another part of the consequence was a possible feeling of intimidation (tea-lady was clearly not persuaded, and in high dander) and it was up to the player to decide if they will roleplay that.

 

[clearstream]

Here's an attempt to clarify things for those with fruit blindness:

When a character declares an action, a.k.a. "tries something", and the DM rules that the attempt fails (or possibly calls for a roll), what is the reason given for why they will (or might) fail? What thing is preventing the character from achieving their goal?

Note that this isn't "what chain of events got us here", which might include, "Somebody cast a spell on you" or "Somebody hit you with a truck" or "Somebody tried to persuade you").

It's "What is actually preventing me from doing X?"

How the DM explains it says a lot about what's going on.

Apples:
1. A specific rule that imposes a defined mechanical condition: Restrained, 0 HP, Charmed, Grappled, etc.
2. A physical reality so obvious it doesn't need rules: there is a wall in the way, you're in free fall, there is no oxygen, etc.
3. No specific mechanic allowing physical reality to be ignored: hobbits don't breathe fire, you don't know that spell, etc.

Oranges:
"You just can't"
"Your character wouldn't do that"
"You are trying to get an in-game advantage instead of playing your character"

The thing about Oranges is that if you keep pushing and digging and seeking clarity, eventually you are going to arrive at those pesky "thoughts and feelings" of the character, but without a named mechanic (Charmed, Restrained, Frightened, Zero HP) to back them up.

With the Apples, that's not necessary. It doesn't matter what the character is thinking or feeling, halflings can't breathe fire. It doesn't matter what they are thinking or feeling, when you are Restrained you can't move.

I'm not sure I can explain the difference any better than that. If anybody still wants to insist there is no distinction, well I guess we're at an impasse.

I like your post. Bear in mind that it is all imaginary. A character being tied up is just as imaginary as a character huddling on the floor in fear. The fluff is different, but the crunch is identical. The impasse is that if an ability check can tie a character up (preventing action) then why arbitrarily decide that an ability check can't cow a character (preventing action.)

There is a difference, but it is really hard to get at and still hasn't been properly articulated in this thread. Earlier I mentioned volition. That is because another poster had talked about a distinction between a player-character moving downward, and a player being forced to decide to have their character move downward. Perhaps look at how we scan the sentence.

1. you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks
2. you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks

Is it that - so long as I get to say what I want to try and do, no matter if I can do that, the sentence requirement is met? Or is it that - so long as I get to say the manner in which I do it, no matter if I can do it in that manner or not, the sentence requirement is met? It can feasibly be both, right? But how do I say the manner in which I am tied up? Isn't that up to the character doing the tying up? And what is the effect of saying what I want to try and do if I can't do it?

Responsive to your closing thoughts, maybe it is saying that - given that my character could do X, it is up to me if they do X. We feel like when our character is (in our imagination) tied up, they could not do X, so it is not up to me if they do X. Whereas we feel like when our character is (in our imagination) upbraided by an NPC, they could still do X, so it remains up to me if they do X.

Perhaps you can see how arbitrary that distinction really is. It is to do with the particular meaning we give to volition. We can readily imagine a world where every creature has a degree of psychic power, so that when they upbraid one another they really can make it that they cannot do X, by making it that they cannot choose to do X.

That's what I meant by "subtle", before. It's not half so settled as it might seem on surface.

 

[clearstream]

@Bill Zebub

1. There are no psychological facts in the game-world.
2. There are psychological facts in the real-world, relating to players and DM.
3. Game rules cannot alter psychological facts.

Therefore.

• Given the only facts bearing on if a character I control takes action X are psychological facts.
• In that case, it is not possible for game rules to play any part in deciding if that character takes action X.

As you might see, I take the most parsimonious path to preserving the truth of this theory. I say that game rules can't overwrite psychological facts, while allowing the game rules to otherwise continue to work in their normal way. I simply say that - when all's said and done - they can do no harm to psychological facts.

I also allow for a subtlety that I believe can enhance our roleplay. I don't say that psychological facts are informationally isolated from the outcome of game rules. Only that the rules cannot alter them. Psychological facts can alter themselves, if they feel moved to by the outcome of the game rules. There may be other facts that are altered by the game rules with that same outcome, and I preserve that possibility instead of destroying it.






[EDIT I hope you will notice an assumption that is at issue in connection with the above, which is that ability checks within the scope of Persuasion and Intimidation are attempting to alter psychological facts. That is a very odd assumption, because if it is true that game rules cannot alter psychological facts, it is unreasonable that these game rules should be attempting to do so. Thus we might suppose another set of facts, about the character's volition. Those obviously could be altered by the game rules. You can see how unstated positions on whether the abilities are attempting to alter psychological facts or character-volition facts, and whether those are even separable, must lead to disagreement.

In this regard however, we should apply Occams Razor. Seeing as psychological facts alone are sufficient to motivate character actions, it is not necessary that there be any character-volition facts. As we should prefer not to multiple entities unnecessarily, and given it is up to us what is included in our game theory, we should not commit to the existence of character-volition facts. Or to put it another way, we should understand the necessity of character-volition facts before we commit to them. One way they could be necessary is if they were the only facts other than psychological facts that could possibly bear on if a character takes action X. However, we have what we think of as physical facts to do that job in the game-world.

The problem is, that leaves Persuasion and Intimidation stranded as game mechanics. Setting aside that they are simply a mistake, one way to salvage them is to suppose that there are volition facts for all creatures in the game-world other than player-characters. We might suppose that such creatures need volition facts as they lack psychological facts to motivate them. It would be strange to think so, however, because it is obvious that DM can and must supply motivating psychological facts in their relation.

Thus we need a hypothesis that makes it required that creatures other than player characters have a mixture of psychological and volition facts to motivate them. One is to observe that they are regulated by a set of rules that do not apply to player-characters, which are the social interaction rules in the DMG. Those rules create cases where no physical facts bear on if a creature takes action X, but volition and psychological facts still do. I think we suppose that the volition facts trump psychological facts in such cases, but as it is up to DM whether and how they apply, that produces no particular dystopia. (Another of the very many reasons for robustly preserving DM mastery of rules.)]

 

[HammerMan]

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 uncertain part is IF THEY CAN rip the bar off

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.

and if the reaction depends on the ability of the PC to actually intimidate them?

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.

no you check to see if PCs pass/fail at the action weather the goal is possible or not

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.

And I don't think any socil skill can force PCs or NPCs to do anything

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.

 

[HammerMan]

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.)

the only disadvantage is time and emersion. IF I add an extra step to every non attack roll check it adds time, and time that is spent giving the player info the character doesn't have.

 

[HammerMan]

Heck, some people even consider failure to be interesting. A new quirk or direction for the plot to go!

yeah, Thats me too

 

[HammerMan]

The only circularity is that some people refuse to accept what the text says, so we have to keep repeating ourselves.

except after a week of us showing WHY we read it as NPC/PC can both use the skills you refuse to accept it...

 

[Bill Zebub]

@Bill Zebub

1. There are no psychological facts in the game-world.
2. There are psychological facts in the real-world, relating to players and DM.
3. Game rules cannot alter psychological facts.

Therefore.

• Given the only facts bearing on if a character I control takes action X are psychological facts.
• In that case, it is not possible for game rules to play any part in deciding if that character takes action X.

As you might see, I take the most parsimonious path to preserving the truth of this theory. I say that game rules can't overwrite psychological facts, while allowing the game rules to otherwise continue to work in their normal way. I simply say that - when all's said and done - they can do no harm to psychological facts.

I also allow for a subtlety that I believe can enhance our roleplay. I don't say that psychological facts are informationally isolated from the outcome of game rules. Only that the rules cannot alter them. Psychological facts can alter themselves, if they feel moved to by the outcome of the game rules. There may be other facts that are altered by the game rules with that same outcome, and I preserve that possibility instead of destroying it.






[EDIT I hope you will notice an assumption that is at issue in connection with the above, which is that ability checks within the scope of Persuasion and Intimidation are attempting to alter psychological facts. That is a very odd assumption, because if it is true that game rules cannot alter psychological facts, it is unreasonable that these game rules should be attempting to do so. Thus we might suppose another set of facts, about the character's volition. Those obviously could be altered by the game rules. You can see how unstated positions on whether the abilities are attempting to alter psychological facts or character-volition facts, and whether those are even separable, must lead to disagreement.

In this regard however, we should apply Occams Razor. Seeing as psychological facts alone are sufficient to motivate character actions, it is not necessary that there be any character-volition facts. As we should prefer not to multiple entities unnecessarily, and given it is up to us what is included in our game theory, we should not commit to the existence of character-volition facts. Or to put it another way, we should understand the necessity of character-volition facts before we commit to them. One way they could be necessary is if they were the only facts other than psychological facts that could possibly bear on if a character takes action X. However, we have what we think of as physical facts to do that job in the game-world.

The problem is, that leaves Persuasion and Intimidation stranded as game mechanics. Setting aside that they are simply a mistake, one way to salvage them is to suppose that there are volition facts for all creatures in the game-world other than player-characters. We might suppose that such creatures need volition facts as they lack psychological facts to motivate them. It would be strange to think so, however, because it is obvious that DM can and must supply motivating psychological facts in their relation.

Thus we need a hypothesis that makes it required that creatures other than player characters have a mixture of psychological and volition facts to motivate them. One is to observe that they are regulated by a set of rules that do not apply to player-characters, which are the social interaction rules in the DMG. Those rules create cases where no physical facts bear on if a creature takes action X, but volition and psychological facts still do. I think we suppose that the volition facts trump psychological facts in such cases, but as it is up to DM whether and how they apply, that produces no particular dystopia. (Another of the very many reasons for robustly preserving DM mastery of rules.)]

There’s a lot of gymnastics there (and the previous post) trying to prove the distinction doesn’t exist. Fruitlessly, once again.

But instead of refuting the increasingly odd arguments one by one, let me turn this around: instead of you constantly try to find an inconsistency in my definitions, let me ask you: how do you define the difference between DM and player authority over PC control? Is there a line? Or is it just wherever the DM decides in the moment?

 

[Bill Zebub]

except after a week of us showing WHY we read it as NPC/PC can both use the skills you refuse to accept it...

Well, I acknowledge that if you dismiss the roleplaying rule as mere guidance, but take other similarly written passages as rules, and distort the meanings of “general” and “specific”, and are willing to give the DM authority to arbitrarily rule that NPC attempts to influence PCs are automatically successful….with all of the above, I can see how you could twist RAW and ignore RAI to get there.