D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Crimson Longinus]

A thin layer of dust covers covers this otherwise empty, unlit room. A few cobwebs cling to the bare walls. No other exits are visible.

These descriptions are functionally identical so quibbling about which to use seems pretty pointless.

 

[Charlaquin]

Informing the narrative is the crucial function of the game mechanics. They need do no more than that.

I disagree. In RPGs there’s a certain balance to be maintained between narration and mechanical execution, which I believe is best (and here I mean “best for me;” other people have different preferences, and that’s fine) served by reserving mechanical resolution for actions with mechanical consequence.

A corollary is that for a group accustomed to ignoring the results in some cases (in an aspect of the game, say) then those results can't inform their narrative so reasonably enough, they will not attach value to them. Were that group to choose instead to not ignore the results, value would be resumed.

It strikes me that in a way, RPGs might be analysed strictly as information systems. Real world psychological and social consequences ride on the game mechanics only in that those mechanics produce information: informing such consequences. That profoundly justifies groups doing what is right for them, as local meanings of play vary. It would be as you say valueless for a group to avail themselves of a mechanism that produces no meaning for them. For a group that said mechanism delivers meaning to, it will instead be valuable.

I actually quite like that definition.

 

[Charlaquin]

I look at it as describing what they think they are perceiving. This is what your eyes (and nose and ears) tell you. Do you trust them?

That’s the definition of perception though. What their eyes, nose, and ears tell them (or, technically, how their brains interpret what those organs are telling them) is what they perceive, even if what they perceive isn’t consistent with reality.

It takes some investigation to determine if their perceptions are correct or not.

Agreed, but I don’t think it’s necessary to use ambiguous language to plant that seed. Not to say that one shouldn’t use such language. Again, this is an aesthetic preference, not something the books suggest.

 

[Charlaquin]

These descriptions are functionally identical so quibbling about which to use seems pretty pointless.

They are. I just prefer mine stylistically (as I’m sure @Lanefan does theirs).

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm not sure if I can have a fruitful conversation with a grown man who can't properly distinguish between love and seduction.

/sigh

I'm not sure I can have a fruitful conversation with somebody who makes ridiculously snarky comments like that.

Or who assumes I'm a man.

Or even fully grown.

But, getting back on topic, I'm putting both seduction and love into the category of:
- Do not have the same name as a skill on the character sheet
- Have a high probability of making people uncomfortable with the idea that the DM can dictate an NPCs success in influencing a PC

And are you saying that seduction falls on one side of the line (meaning that the DM can roll for an NPC's attempt to seduce, and the player is expected to abide by the result) and love falls on the other (meaning that the player has full authority over whether their character falls in love?

And, again, how do you define that line? Is it just a gut feeling on your part? What if your players have a different gut feeling?

 

[Aldarc]

But, getting back on topic, I'm putting both seduction and love into the category of:
- Do not have the same name as a skill on the character sheet
- Have a high probability of making people uncomfortable with the idea that the DM can dictate an NPCs success in influencing a PC

And are you saying that seduction falls on one side of the line (meaning that the DM can roll for an NPC's attempt to seduce, and the player is expected to abide by the result) and love falls on the other (meaning that the player has full authority over whether their character falls in love?

And, again, how do you define that line? Is it just a gut feeling on your part? What if your players have a different gut feeling?

You are welcome to re-read what I slready said about love as a check in TTRPGs. That should provide a good indication of why.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You are welcome to re-read what I slready said about love as a check in TTRPGs. That should provide a good indication of why.

Ok but where is your line?

 

[Aldarc]

Ok but where is your line?

Why? Do you need to know where to start your slippery slope? Because I'm not interested in engaging yet another line-drawing fallacy on this forum.

 

[Lanefan]

Why? Do you need to know where to start your slippery slope? Because I'm not interested in engaging yet another line-drawing fallacy on this forum.

Hell, I dunno - draw enough lines and you'll have a map. Fill that map with monsters and treasure and you'll have an adventure; and away we go!

 

[Bill Zebub]

Why? Do you need to know where to start your slippery slope? Because I'm not interested in engaging yet another line-drawing fallacy on this forum.

Because I want to know if there is a system to how you differentiate that players would understand. Or is it just your arbitrary choice?