Skills used by players on other players.

Mouseferatu · Dec 8, 2018

Am I the only one noticing that this discussion thread is, in and of itself, an answer to the topic of the OP?

clearstream · Dec 8, 2018

FrogReaver said:
I've explained like 10x in this thread what the difference is.
1. Skill checks require uncertainty.
2. A player decides how their character thinks and acts and talks.

In a case where the character is grappled. I as the player decide how my character acts. I decide it acts by walking away. Except, I think everyone agrees that it can't.

I hope this demonstrates that what you're offering is really a unique exception. For every other mechanic in the game, the player decides how they want their character to think, act and talk. They don't decide whether those things are implementable by their character: the game mechanics mediate that.

I as player can say my character intends X. This can be parsed as "I intend that my character intends...."

iserith · Dec 8, 2018

clearstream said:
“In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks.”

Player: I hit the orc.
DM: Your character needs to make an attack roll.
Player: I hide from Joe.
DM: Okay, Joe we're using your character's passive Perception unless you're taking time to search, Bob make a Stealth check using your character's Dexterity (Stealth) skill.
Player: I resist the Mindflayer's blast!
DM: Your character needs to make a saving throw.

What you seem to end up saying is that every rule in the game except skill checks that use Charisma, is a special exception to that general rule. It feels valid to question that. Once we take into account the player-character duality, what is happening that is concretely different? Sure, in every case the player has intentions, and in every other case those are mediated through game mechanics.

My point was that you can look at it as an exception either way so this line of argument isn't actually useful.

FrogReaver · Dec 8, 2018

clearstream said:
In a case where the character is grappled. I as the player decide how my character acts. I decide it acts by walking away. Except, I think everyone agrees that it can't.

I hope this demonstrates that what you're offering is really a unique exception. For every other mechanic in the game, the player decides how they want their character to think, act and talk. They don't decide whether those things are mechanically implementable: the game mechanics mediate that.

Correction. You decide to attempt to walk away and quickly find that you cannot move because you are grappled. Nothing in this scenario is preventing your character from attempting to do something he thought he should do.

(***All actions are attempted actions until completed).

In the example of persuasion, the bards persuasion is being used to prevent your PC from even wanting to do something else. It's preventing the PC in question from thinking whatever he wants to think.

GameOgre · Dec 8, 2018

FrogReaver said:
Correction. You decide to attempt to walk away and quickly find that you cannot move because you are grappled. Nothing in this scenario is preventing your character from attempting to do something he thought he should do.

(***All actions are attempted actions until completed).

In the example of persuasion, the bards persuasion is being used to prevent your PC from even wanting to do something else. It's preventing the PC in question from thinking whatever he wants to think.

Correction. You decide to attempt to hold to your conviction to not help the villagers but that dang Bard started talking and now you are lifting lumber to help repair the barn.

clearstream · Dec 8, 2018

iserith said:
My point was that you can look at it as an exception either way so this line of argument isn't actually useful.

Do you mean that it's really down to the individual group, with equal justice on either interpretation?

In background analysis of games (game studies and philosophy of games) about a decade ago it was suggested that there is always a duality in the relationship of player to game. There is player as the real person, still a member of their society and culture, thinking about all kinds of things as well as what they are doing in the game. And there is player as subject to the game, obedient to the rules of the game. Several people suggested it and Miguel Sicart writes it up pretty well. It wasn't specifically directed at RPGs. What we're hitting here possibly relates to that duality. We have two models (at least) that people are using. To sketch it out very roughly:

Model A
Player intents and Character intents are the same thing. Character acts like walking, hiding or perceiving things are mediated through the mechanics.

Model B
Player's have intents. Those intents say what character intents, like intending to walk, hide or perceive, are. Character intents, and character acts, like walking, hiding or perceiving things, are all mediated through the mechanics.

Model B hypothesises a duality between player and character that appears to be sustained in the literature. Model A relies on denying that duality, and in doing so creates some interesting mysteries around the Charisma-based skills. I mean "mysteries" here in a strong sense: the exact reason for their behaviour isn't really explained. This is kind of hard to articulate, but I'll try. Some spells seem to be able to insert themselves between player intent and character intent. Yet, if there is really no space there, then they shouldn't be able to do that. Ergo, there is space there, or space can be created there. If space can be created there, why don't I prefer an explanation where that space is always there? Or even if I don't, why do I believe only spells can create that space? It's a mystery.

Absent this point, Occam's Razor would guide me to prefer Model A. But Model A ends up being more complicated than Model B, because it has this bit of space that has to come in and out of existence, on cue. Character intents are, I might argue, exactly as fictional as character actions.

FrogReaver · Dec 8, 2018

GameOgre said:
Correction. You decide to attempt to hold to your conviction to not help the villagers but that dang Bard started talking and now you are lifting lumber to help repair the barn.

That would not be persuasion, that would be mind control.

GameOgre · Dec 8, 2018

FrogReaver said:
That would not be persuasion, that would be mind control.

That is funny as heck. I guess you believe in real life mind control being used millions of time per day across the world. THAT EXACT thing happens EVERY day.

This is the best reason why I cant understand the other sides view really. It's so common it might very well happen right here in this thread. Someone had a certain viw and someone else talks them out of that view. But no,that's impossible right? That's some magical mind control.

hmm for as rare as that is to happen in a online debate...you might be right! LOL

iserith · Dec 8, 2018

clearstream said:
Do you mean that it's really down to the individual group, with equal justice on either interpretation?

I'm just saying that trying to determine what is the exception to what is not actually helpful since it can be argued either way with no end.

clearstream said:
In background analysis of games (game studies and philosophy of games) about a decade ago it was suggested that there is always a duality in the relationship of player to game. There is player as the real person, still a member of their society and culture, thinking about all kinds of things as well as what they are doing in the game. And there is player as subject to the game, obedient to the rules of the game. Several people suggested it and Miguel Sicart writes it up pretty well. It wasn't specifically directed at RPGs. What we're hitting here possibly relates to that duality. We have two models (at least) that people are using. To sketch it out very roughly:

Model A
Player intents and Character intents are the same thing. Character acts like walking, hiding or perceiving things are mediated through the mechanics.

Model B
Player's have intents. Those intents say what character intents, like intending to walk, hide or perceive, are. Character intents, and character acts, like walking, hiding or perceiving things, are all mediated through the mechanics.

Model B hypothesises a duality between player and character that appears to be sustained in the literature. Model A relies on denying that duality, and in doing so creates some interesting mysteries around the Charisma-based skills. I mean "mysteries" here in a strong sense: the exact reason for their behaviour isn't really explained. This is kind of hard to articulate, but I'll try. Some spells seem to be able to insert themselves between player intent and character intent. Yet, if there is really no space there, then they shouldn't be able to do that. Ergo, there is space there, or space can be created there. If space can be created there, why don't I prefer an explanation where that space is always there? Or even if I don't, why do I believe only spells can create that space? It's a mystery.

Absent this point, Occam's Razor would guide me to prefer Model A. But Model A ends up being more complicated than Model B, because it has this bit of space that has to come in and out of existence, on cue. Character intents are, I might argue, exactly as fictional as character actions.

Sorry but I don't follow this at all.

robus · Dec 8, 2018

iserith said:
While I still think there's some confusion here about the nature of ability checks and their relation to the fiction, one could easily say that it's the Strength (Athletics) checks or the like which are the "special exception" to the general rule of the player determining how his or her character thinks, acts, and talks.

I’d that contested checks between PCs only happens if both players consent to the contest. For example Player A says “I challenge Bob the barbarian to an arm wrestle over who gets the +2 greataxe.” If Bob’s player decides they want to participate then the dice are rolled to resolve the contest. Otherwise no wrestling.

I.e. like we’re learning in life in general, consent is key to happy intra-party interactions