Skills used by players on other players.

Lord Mhoram said:

I don't know if that is a typo, but it is perfect roll playing to make the character/player do what the charismatic guy wants, but bad roleplaying.

Click to expand...

So, you think listening to someone else and being convinced to do what they want instead of your original thought on the matter is out of character on any of your characters? See I just don't get it. This happens every single day in every single community in every single country in the entire world. Role playing this happening in game however is BAD Role Playing?

and yeah just typo its like 2 am here.


I will say I think it shouldn't even really be rolled for. It should actually just be role played. It's just like the other systems in the game however. If you didn't make players roll for things they would never ever get hit and always hit and do max damage and make every save.

In this case they would NEVER be fooled or taken advantage of. THAT is simply bad role playing.

Lord Mhoram said:

But social contract trumps role-playing, in my opinion. Making this player do something he doesn't want to do because of skill and "roleplaying" is no better than the CN jerk who screws everything up and says "I'm just roleplaying my character". Who knows - maybe the Barbarian had a situation like what happened in game as part of the player's mental construction of that character and backstory, and this sequence brings that up and he is "No, not gonna do that, it's not good". So he won't do what the charismatic guy wants. Then he is completely justified, in character and being a perfect roleplayer, to not go along.
My characters often surprise me with attitudes and decisions I don't expect when I play them - that is the exact reason I play.

As for the first part - anything imposed from outside that forces the player to act differently than he sees how his character would act/react is taking away player agency.

Click to expand...

Does your social contract include playing the character as written and developed? Can I say that my 6 Con character auto-saved versus a spell or dodged a sword because I chose to? Can a character with poor fighting skills just choose to stab an enemy in the heart in the name of Player Agency? If not, then why can a low Intuition/Willpower/whatever character's player suddenly sprout those abilities when he wants them? Player Agency is exercised in making the choices about your stats in the first place.

Now, to be clear, its also exercised when you make the specific actions the character takes. That is, the charismatic character might convince the Barbarian to help the village, but barbarian is not a zombie or pet. The Barbarian can help in whatever way seems best to him. The Persuasion check is not about taking control of another character, its about changing what that character thinks/understands/believes about a situation. Roleplaying that change is part of playing the character.

GameOgre said:

Why? I mean you specifically mentioned social skills and not other skills. What separates Social skills from other skills?

Click to expand...

In my game, the PC thing stop at PVP. So, I am really not treating social different.

In your game, if the barbarian player decides two days into the trek some other "unrelated" annoyance drives him to decide to attack and kill the face, you gonna let that play out "by skill and dice" too? Barb gonna lose their cool now and again, and dumb ones, often over just a misunderstanding.

Perhaps you do.

***but*** bigger question... did you make it clear before chargen that in your game social skills could be used to **change the minds** of player characters by other player characters so that everybody could prepare and build knowing that? My bet is, state that up front, you will see far fewer gullible stupid pcs snd a lot of face/counter-face builds.

If you didn't, sprung it on me in play, I would just hand you the PC and either split or build a new PC "to rule them all" or at least be resistant to it. I am sure everybody would love my rogue dicing all the "what does our group do" choices, right?

GameOgre said:

So, you think listening to someone else and being convinced to do what they want instead of your original thought on the matter is out of character on any of your characters? See I just don't get it. This happens every single day in every single community in every single country in the entire world. Role playing this happening in game however is BAD Role Playing?

and yeah just typo its like 2 am here.


I will say I think it shouldn't even really be rolled for. It should actually just be role played. It's just like the other systems in the game however. If you didn't make players roll for things they would never ever get hit and always hit and do max damage and make every save.

In this case they would NEVER be fooled or taken advantage of. THAT is simply bad role playing.

Click to expand...

I agree it happens, but it should NEVER be the result of a die roll of one player vs another - it's between the players and characters. That is what takes it out of roleplaying - the Barbarians player is not being allowed to roleplay his character the way he envisions him. Maybe that has social consequences later (such as 5eyku noted) but the idea of going along should not be forced on him by mechanics - unless it is a charm or such.

In my games anything a PC could do to an NPC they can try & do to a fellow PC.
Likewise NPCs can do everything to a PC that could be done to them....

Ratskinner said:

Does your social contract include playing the character as written and developed? Can I say that my 6 Con character auto-saved versus a spell or dodged a sword because I chose to? Can a character with poor fighting skills just choose to stab an enemy in the heart in the name of Player Agency? If not, then why can a low Intuition/Willpower/whatever character's player suddenly sprout those abilities when he wants them? Player Agency is exercised in making the choices about your stats in the first place.

Now, to be clear, its also exercised when you make the specific actions the character takes. That is, the charismatic character might convince the Barbarian to help the village, but barbarian is not a zombie or pet. The Barbarian can help in whatever way seems best to him. The Persuasion check is not about taking control of another character, its about changing what that character thinks/understands/believes about a situation. Roleplaying that change is part of playing the character.

Click to expand...

or you know what? Maybe the Barbarain has good reasons to not help, or thinks he does.

Maybe he does indeed still refuse to help them but instead waits nearby to sweep in and save the face man when the villagers betray him instead!

The persuasion role doesn't mean he has to follow some plan only that that character is persuaded to help. The player gets to decide what form that takes.

Ratskinner said:

Does your social contract include playing the character as written and developed? Can I say that my 6 Con character auto-saved versus a spell or dodged a sword because I chose to? Can a character with poor fighting skills just choose to stab an enemy in the heart in the name of Player Agency? If not, then why can a low Intuition/Willpower/whatever character's player suddenly sprout those abilities when he wants them? Player Agency is exercised in making the choices about your stats in the first place.

Now, to be clear, its also exercised when you make the specific actions the character takes. That is, the charismatic character might convince the Barbarian to help the village, but barbarian is not a zombie or pet. The Barbarian can help in whatever way seems best to him. The Persuasion check is not about taking control of another character, its about changing what that character thinks/understands/believes about a situation. Roleplaying that change is part of playing the character.

Click to expand...

We play very different games. My group (which admittedly has been together for 20 years) never does PvP in combat or in social skills. It is understood when a game is created that the PCs want to be heroes (we tend towards superhero and high fantasy) - so that kind of stuff doesn't happen.

As for your first paragraph - sure - assuming all of that conflict is PC vs PC. You pulll out the dice and use them when fighting the enemy, they aren't used on other players or PCs. At least that is how we play. We look at player choice and control of his character as inviolate, unless acted upon by supernatural means. The "tactical" choices of high and low stats, combat ability etc is concerned with fighting the bad guys, not each other.

GameOgre said:

or you know what? Maybe the Barbarain has good reasons to not help, or thinks he does.

Maybe he does indeed still refuse to help them but instead waits nearby to sweep in and save the face man when the villagers betray him instead!

The persuasion role doesn't mean he has to follow some plan only that that character is persuaded to help. The player gets to decide what form that takes.

Click to expand...

I read your initial post differently - this isn't something that I would be comfortable with... but it isn't a deprotagonizing as I originally thought.

An ability check is called for when the outcome of an action is an uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence of failure. Only the DM may call for an ability check.

A player determines how his or her character thinks, acts, and talks. Only the player may determine this, short of exceptions like magical compulsion.

There is no uncertainty as to the outcome of an action made to influence a character: It's whatever the player of that character says it is.

If there is no uncertainty, then there is no ability check.

I never got the appeal of playing dumb characters. It's very limiting and in my experience people just use it as an excuse to act chaotically for a laugh, or perhaps to talk a little like Goofy. Then when it comes time to being dumb when it would be significant, suddenly they want the wisdom of Solomon.

I have had great fun playing social interactions btw PCs. I was once a LE cleric who was a religious zealot sociopath murderer killing all sinners and my spell of choice was Zone Of Truth and I used it on a PC who I felt was not sticking to the tenets the player said he was devoted to. In the opposite direction, I was once a CG nice kid of say 17, a rogue. My friend was playing a high charisma person a few years older, so I always deferred to that character and played it as if he was an authority figure. I don't think he ever noticed but it did alter his roleplaying since he would wind up being forced to make the plans or do extra talking with the NPCs since I just played it like he was the leader.

There is no right way to roleplay I guess, but the safest approach is for everyone to not try to be Brando and instead go for John Wayne: Just play different spins on yourself. I know what I would do at all times, so I can be me the evil wizard, or me the saintly paladin, and there is no chance I will be forced to roleplay something I don't want to since if I am doing it it must make sense to me. That to me seems more immersive with the role you are playing than just arbitrarily deciding "now I will play Lou Costello the ranger" and leads to better actual playing of the role. I have never been a brain damaged barbarian, so really could not give a convincing portrayal of one. I could play Ken the Barbarian quite easily.