What is "railroading" to you (as a player)?

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. I get that you house rule social skills to work on PCs. I would not play in your game.

From a RAW standpoint I am not wrong. Social skills aren't for use against PCs. You can't find one example under the social skill section of an NPC using a skill on a PC. Every example and all of the writing is for use by PCs against NPCs.

Do the rules say social skills don't work on PCs? What game?

 

[Micah Sweet]

What do you mean?

If the players discussed their plans in front of the GM, then the GM has that knowledge before the attempt is made. But, the Players could always change their mind, or even lie about their intentions to the GM until something happens.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Do the rules say social skills don't work on PCs? What game?

If we're talking 5e, do the rules say they can be used on PCs?

The PHB states that players decide what their characters think and do. (Somebody else will have to pull up the exact quote; I gave my PHB away.)

There is a general rule of "specific overrides general".

Everything on attribute rolls and proficiency bonuses ("skills") is described from the perspective of PCs.

So there is no specific rules that NPCs rolling persuasion, etc. overrides the general rule that players make their own decisions.

We had a big debate on this a few years ago and the best/only evidence that NPCs get to "use social skills" (cited, ironically, by the person with whom you are arguing, who I have blocked) was that in the entire Monster Manual there can be found a handful of entries with bonuses to social skills. But there is no description of how they are supposed to be used, which could be on other NPCs, or if they are just there for colorl

 

[Micah Sweet]

If we're talking 5e, do the rules say they can be used on PCs?

The PHB states that players decide what their characters think and do. (Somebody else will have to pull up the exact quote; I gave my PHB away.)

There is a general rule of "specific overrides general".

Everything on attribute rolls and proficiency bonuses ("skills") is described from the perspective of PCs.

So there is no specific rules that NPCs rolling persuasion, etc. overrides the general rule that players make their own decisions.

We had a big debate on this a few years ago and the best/only evidence that NPCs get to "use social skills" (cited, ironically, by the person with whom you are arguing, who I have blocked) was that in the entire Monster Manual there can be found a handful of entries with bonuses to social skills. But there is no description of how they are supposed to be used, which could be on other NPCs, or if they are just there for colorl

Sounds like a fair amount of RAI to support your view, but no RAW (I assume you mean 5.0, since I don't care what 5.5 has to say on that or any other subject). Fair enough, but I'm still going to adjudicate it my way.

 

[bloodtide]

This is the flaw of treating the PCs and NPCs symmetrically, because you are right, the GM knows whether or not the PC is "lying". However, what the GM may not know or chooses to leave up to the dice is how the NPC will respond to that lie. The information ratio is uneven, a good system accounts for those imbalances and creates plausible in-game results for everyone. That the GM can't be "tricked" is tangential.

Assuming you don't have a hostile game with hostile players hiding things.....

Most intelligent DMs will just about always know if a PC is lying, as the DM does know everything about the PC and player and most players will "play themselves as their character".

The DM does not always know that the PC is lying. If the PC is lying to an NPC about having the MacGuffin, I know it's a lie. If the PC is telling an urchin that he will give him 5 gold after he delivers a message, I have no clue if the PC is lying or not. The same if the group tells the merchant that if he pays half of the 500gp now, and half upon completion of the quest, that they aren't lying to him and are planning on running off with 250gp.

The problem here is this is not true of most players. As most players don't role play a character, the DM will just about always know what the player will do and think and want and everything else.

The thing is this:

"A NPC rolled 26 on their joke telling roll."

Did you laugh?

Sure, you can pretend it was funny and force a fake laugh, but it just doesn't feel the same than the GM actually presenting the NPC as funny and you genuinely finding it so. Real feeling requires presenting the situation so that it happens. And it is not hard for NPCs to convince PCs of all sort of things, as the GM controls how everything is presented. And for the players it feels far more satisfying to be genuinely surprised when the NPC they trusted turns out to be traitor, if they actually believed them instead of just pretending to believe them because the dice said so. (And again, we can see why the same thing cannot work in reverse with the omniscient GM.)

Of course this is the BIG HUGE problem with any social mechanics: They just don't work for real.

Sure you can tell a DC 10 joke, and any character who fails their Laugh Save with laugh. But that is about as exciting...or funny....as watching paint dry.

That certainly helps! But things of course can be represented in different ways, not necessarily by acting, it can be also via evocative descriptions and other storytelling techniques. But yeah, if the GM cannot evoke genuine feeling in the players somehow, they will never be a very good GM. Like imagine watching a movie that did not evoke any feelings in you. What a drag.

I would say this is important for both players and DMs.

Yes, as DMs are more unique then players a good 95% of the game feeling and atmosphere and pacing and immersion and everything else falls on them. But the players can't just sit there and be like "whatever". They have a part and role to play too (literally).

 

[Bill Zebub]

Sounds like a fair amount of RAI to support your view, but no RAW (I assume you mean 5.0, since I don't care what 5.5 has to say on that or any other subject). Fair enough, but I'm still going to adjudicate it my way.

Um, it's both. Sure, a lot of RAI. But there is absolutely zero RAW to support NPCs "using social skills" on players. I mean, the game doesn't have really any rules at all for how social skills are to be used, and what they can accomplish. It's entirely up to the GM.

So: no RAW either way, except for the part about "players decide for their characters", and lots of RAI that NPCs can't compel PCs with social skills.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Um, it's both. Sure, a lot of RAI. But there is absolutely zero RAW to support NPCs "using social skills" on players. I mean, the game doesn't have really any rules at all for how social skills are to be used, and what they can accomplish. It's entirely up to the GM.

So: no RAW either way, except for the part about "players decide for their characters", and lots of RAI that NPCs can't compel PCs with social skills.

That's not both. That's what I said. A good amount of RAI, no RAW. Although, if they specifically leave it to the GM, then it's back in our court.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That's not both. That's what I said. A good amount of RAI, no RAW. Although, if they specifically leave it to the GM, then it's back in our court.

Ultimately it's all up to the GM, right?

And "players decide for their characters" is RAW. There's no applicable RAW that overrides that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So at least in 5.0 there is somewhat concrete guidance on how to apply ability checks in social situation on pages 244 and 245 of the DMG, and it absolutely is written with the assumption that the PCs are making checks to affect the attitude of the NPCs but not the reverse.

 

[pemerton]

Once again, I think the solution to that is:

1) The player doesn't actually know what the NPC is. Leverage that doubt to try to intimidate them! If they fail to be intimidated, well, that could turn out bad for them.

But how should the GM be doing this?

I often GM RPGs where the NPCs/creatures who oppose the PCs have Beliefs, Instincts, Nature etc. (I have in mind particularly Torchbearer and Burning Wheel.) As a GM, I'm expected to have regard to these traits in declaring actions for my NPCs/creatures. The players, if they know or infer what those traits are, can use that information to make their plans. For me to declare actions for my NPCs/creatures without having regard to those traits would be something like cheating, or at least pretty unfair play.

Turning back to the intimidating Orc, how tough/threatening should I narrate the Orc as seeming? The starting point for that, in D&D-esque games, is level/HD/CR. Is it reasonable to depart from that, to try and trick the players into thinking the Orc is tougher than it really is? This is where it seems to me that having regard to the Orc's skills is reasonable. I mean, if I don't have regard to those - if they aren't something that I have regard to in presenting the fiction of the Orc - then what are they even doing there?

Attempts to intimidate are not fear spells. Attempts to know if somebody is lying are not detect lie spells. Attempts to persuade are not charm spells.

The GM does not have to assign a probability and roll a die; they can just decide whether or not it works.

But not arbitrarily, surely? I mean, if one character has WIS (Insight) -1, and the other has WIS (Insight) +10, shouldn't the latter more often than the former "determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move"? (The skill description is taken from here: Using Ability Scores)