Skills used by players on other players.

GameOgre · Dec 10, 2018

clearstream said:
So it seems like where we diverge is that I think of Persuasion as "just another game mechanic". And I don't think of agency as all or nothing. I think it is possible to lose agency over some things, without losing all agency. And I am not concerned that some agency can be lost to being grappled (speed 0 = no agency to move), being in the wrong circumstances (bright light = no agency to hide), or being under the effects of a spell (dominate person = no agency to choose actions). Seeing as becoming grappled uses Strength (Athletics), I seem to have already conceded skills some power over some agency. Thus, as I see it, the problem with Charisma (Persuasion) isn't one of agency per se, but one of definition and degree. Being grappled is concrete. My character's speed is 0, but they can still cast spells or attack, and there are rules for getting out of the grapple. Where is the rule for getting out of "persuaded"? What can I do or not do? Grapple controls Speed. Persuaded potentially controls everything. That seems far too powerful, and not sufficiently well defined to feel really happy about.

When a character persuades a NPC, a neutral arbiter (the DM) decides what part of agency is given up, for how long, and what circumstances can interrupt that. A DM can hand wave lack of definition in that regard. When a character persuades a character, that lack of definition becomes a real problem. It puts a burden on a DM to very quickly come up with fair feeling parameters. I might simply lower the stakes for the Barbarian. "Look, if Face wins you must do something to help the villagers, but that can be anything from throwing them a few coppers, to going the full nine yards." The point isn't whether that is the right thing to do, the point is only to illustrate how ambiguous the terms of Persuasion are. I find it more rationally coherent to say that spells are accepted because they have strong mechanical clarity. Not because it's okay to lose agency to some game mechanics, but not others.

That's true. I am addressing the agency discussion, and silent on the PvP discussion. They are both complex: it's often easier to make progress on one problem at a time.

That post got to me.

I didn't think of it like that but you are right.

Because a lot of the social skills are very vague I just figured that the player would do what felt right for her character but it might/would create some confusion in a newer player wanting to know just what that means. Just how far to take the influence and how to end it. Because it's so vague I felt it was safe but I can see how someone might take that same vagueness as bewilderingly unsafe.

Sadras · Dec 10, 2018

clearstream said:
When a character persuades a NPC, a neutral arbiter (the DM) decides what part of agency is given up, for how long, and what circumstances can interrupt that. A DM can hand wave lack of definition in that regard. When a character persuades a character, that lack of definition becomes a real problem. It puts a burden on a DM to very quickly come up with fair feeling parameters.

Why does the DM need to get involved?
The players amongst themselves can determine which arguments would sway their characters.
There is no need for a save ends - that would be foolish.

Sacrosanct · Dec 10, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
Using Persuasion on another PC, and requiring both a roll and compliance with the result, is bad because it violates both principles: it's both loss of player agency by DM fiat and forced PvP.

How does following the rules mean it's a loss of player agency by DM fiat? It's not DM Fiat to enforce attack rolls, or skill checks, or any other roll. DM fiat is changing the rules based on the DM's desire. The opposite of what you're saying.

I don't see the difference in a PC using persuasion on another PC by following the skill check rules, and a PC wrestling another PC using the established grappling rules.

Would the player in question here with the barbarian who disagrees they should have to be persuaded agree that if his PC wanted to arm wrestle the wizard PC, then the player for the wizard to be able to say after failing the roll, "Sorry, but that's not right. Bill can't force my PC to lose if I don't want, even if he's super strong, my PC is really weak, and I failed the roll. So he doesn't beat me. That's taking away my player agency."

I doubt it. I know there's an unwritten social rule that you don't mess with other players' PCs. That's a fast way to get people to stop playing together. However, it's a player issue, not a game issue at all. Part of me wants to say, "If you don't want your barbarian to be persuaded, then don't use INT and WIS as your dump stat." Stat allotment is all about deciding risks vs rewards in what you want. Either way, there's nothing in the game itself that's at issue here. It's the behavior of the players that's causing the issues

Ovinomancer · Dec 10, 2018

Sacrosanct said:
How does following the rules mean it's a loss of player agency by DM fiat? It's not DM Fiat to enforce attack rolls, or skill checks, or any other roll. DM fiat is changing the rules based on the DM's desire. The opposite of what you're saying.

I don't see the difference in a PC using persuasion on another PC by following the skill check rules, and a PC wrestling another PC using the established grappling rules.

Would the player in question here with the barbarian who disagrees they should have to be persuaded agree that if his PC wanted to arm wrestle the wizard PC, then the player for the wizard to be able to say after failing the roll, "Sorry, but that's not right. Bill can't force my PC to lose if I don't want, even if he's super strong, my PC is really weak, and I failed the roll. So he doesn't beat me. That's taking away my player agency."

I doubt it. I know there's an unwritten social rule that you don't mess with other players' PCs. That's a fast way to get people to stop playing together. However, it's a player issue, not a game issue at all. Part of me wants to say, "If you don't want your barbarian to be persuaded, then don't use INT and WIS as your dump stat." Stat allotment is all about deciding risks vs rewards in what you want. Either way, there's nothing in the game itself that's at issue here. It's the behavior of the players that's causing the issues

So, then, what does persuasion do? Can you convince they barbarian PC to murder his brother with a big enough roll? If not, then where's the line for what you can make another player do? Where is it acceptable to remove another player's choice?

Thise other examples are things that happen to the PC that they can then decide what to do about, not making the PC your puppet with a good roll.

Sacrosanct · Dec 10, 2018

Ovinomancer said:
So, then, what does persuasion do? Can you convince they barbarian PC to murder his brother with a big enough roll? If not, then where's the line for what you can make another player do? Where is it acceptable to remove another player's choice?

Thise other examples are things that happen to the PC that they can then decide what to do about, not making the PC your puppet with a good roll.

There are rules and guidelines already in the book about how it works. So no, you can't use it to convince the PC to kill his brother. Hyperbole like that isn't constructive to having a discussion.

DEFCON 1 · Dec 10, 2018

clearstream said:
So it seems like where we diverge is that I think of Persuasion as "just another game mechanic". And I don't think of agency as all or nothing. I think it is possible to lose agency over some things, without losing all agency. And I am not concerned that some agency can be lost to being grappled (speed 0 = no agency to move), being in the wrong circumstances (bright light = no agency to hide), or being under the effects of a spell (dominate person = no agency to choose actions). Seeing as becoming grappled uses Strength (Athletics), I seem to have already conceded skills some power over some agency. Thus, as I see it, the problem with Charisma (Persuasion) isn't one of agency per se, but one of definition and degree. Being grappled is concrete. My character's speed is 0, but they can still cast spells or attack, and there are rules for getting out of the grapple. Where is the rule for getting out of "persuaded"? What can I do or not do? Grapple controls Speed. Persuaded potentially controls everything. That seems far too powerful, and not sufficiently well defined to feel really happy about.

When a character persuades a NPC, a neutral arbiter (the DM) decides what part of agency is given up, for how long, and what circumstances can interrupt that. A DM can hand wave lack of definition in that regard. When a character persuades a character, that lack of definition becomes a real problem. It puts a burden on a DM to very quickly come up with fair feeling parameters. I might simply lower the stakes for the Barbarian. "Look, if Face wins you must do something to help the villagers, but that can be anything from throwing them a few coppers, to going the full nine yards." The point isn't whether that is the right thing to do, the point is only to illustrate how ambiguous the terms of Persuasion are. I find it more rationally coherent to say that spells are accepted because they have strong mechanical clarity. Not because it's okay to lose agency to some game mechanics, but not others.

Personally, I think this is the point in time where the best way for a DM to deal with this is through the use of Inspiration (as its been said previously.) While we usually only use Inspiration through the BIFTs (Bonds, Ideals, Flaws and Traits) system, there's no reason why you can't use it for other things as well.

If the Barbarian character had already had a Flaw entitled "Easily persuaded", when the Rogue tried to convince the Barbarian to help, the DM could easily have just said to the Barbarian "You don't know if you want to, but the Rogue is fairly convincing. You can have Inspiration if you go along with it due to your Flaw." At this point, the Rogue should be happy because their skill in Persuasion is having a noticeable effect (the Barbarian is being incentivized to go along with it), and the Barbarian should be happy because even if the player doesn't want to due to not seeing a "reward" in the story for them, they are being rewarded at the metagame level for following their Flaw.

But what happens if the Barbarian doesn't have that specific Flaw written down on their character sheet? Well to me the obvious response is "So what?" The BIFT system really only keeps track of ONE Flaw (usually the most important one to a character), but none of us have a only single Flaw. We all have many. And there are many Flaws that are built into the game that we don't traditionally see as through the prism of the BIFTs, but they *are* flaws to a certain extent. I don't think anyone would say that having a low Intelligence is not a potential flaw. So why not use the Inspiration system for these situations as well?

Rogue tries to be convincing and the Barbarian doesn't want to go along with it. DM has the Rogue roll a Persuasion check, and the Barbarian an Intelligence check. If the Rogue wins, the DM tells the Barbarian that they sound really convincing, and that they'll earn a point of Inspiration if they allow themselves to be convinced. At that point, the Barbarian can still choose to not go along with it because the DM isn't forcing the issue on anyone... but at least the Barbarian player can feel rewarded for deliberately playing to character, even if it is outside the BIFT system.

Sadras · Dec 10, 2018

Sacrosanct said:
There are rules and guidelines already in the book about how it works. So no, you can't use it to convince the PC to kill his brother. Hyperbole like that isn't constructive to having a discussion.

I'd also go so far as to leave that is in the player's domain. If and how the character can be persuaded on an issue should be left in the player's domain, just as the DM controls his/her NPCs. So I don't think a persuasion check can just easily be called for any time a player wishes to push his character's agenda/ideas over other characters. It needs to make sense in the fiction for the characters to be open to such persuasion.

Charlaquin · Dec 10, 2018

Sacrosanct said:
I don't see the difference in a PC using persuasion on another PC by following the skill check rules, and a PC wrestling another PC using the established grappling rules.

Me either. That’s why I have the targeted character’s player resolve any hostile action taken against them by another PC, whether it is physical, social, or otherwise.

Sacrosanct said:
Would the player in question here with the barbarian who disagrees they should have to be persuaded agree that if his PC wanted to arm wrestle the wizard PC, then the player for the wizard to be able to say after failing the roll, "Sorry, but that's not right. Bill can't force my PC to lose if I don't want, even if he's super strong, my PC is really weak, and I failed the roll. So he doesn't beat me. That's taking away my player agency."

This analogy doesn’t really work, because an arm wrestling contest isn’t a hostile action taken by one character against another. It’s a contest agreed upon by both parties. If, on the other hand, Bill’s character challenged the wizard to an arm wrestling contest and she refused, and then Bill attempts to force the matter by grappling the wizard? At my table it would be the wizard’s player (let’s call her Sarah) who decides how to resolve the action. Now, if she decides to let the outcome be determined by a dice roll, then no, she can’t change her mind after seeing the results of the roll, just like I can’t make an attack roll for a monster, see that it misses, and then declare that it hits anyway. If your call is that the dice are going to determine the outcome, you have to abide by the result of the roll. However, at my table, Sarah is absolutely allowed to say that Bill’s attempt to grapple her character fails without a roll.

iserith · Dec 10, 2018

Sacrosanct said:
How does following the rules mean it's a loss of player agency by DM fiat? It's not DM Fiat to enforce attack rolls, or skill checks, or any other roll. DM fiat is changing the rules based on the DM's desire. The opposite of what you're saying.

I don't see the difference in a PC using persuasion on another PC by following the skill check rules, and a PC wrestling another PC using the established grappling rules.

Would the player in question here with the barbarian who disagrees they should have to be persuaded agree that if his PC wanted to arm wrestle the wizard PC, then the player for the wizard to be able to say after failing the roll, "Sorry, but that's not right. Bill can't force my PC to lose if I don't want, even if he's super strong, my PC is really weak, and I failed the roll. So he doesn't beat me. That's taking away my player agency."

I doubt it. I know there's an unwritten social rule that you don't mess with other players' PCs. That's a fast way to get people to stop playing together. However, it's a player issue, not a game issue at all. Part of me wants to say, "If you don't want your barbarian to be persuaded, then don't use INT and WIS as your dump stat." Stat allotment is all about deciding risks vs rewards in what you want. Either way, there's nothing in the game itself that's at issue here. It's the behavior of the players that's causing the issues

The DM can only call for an ability check when there's uncertainty as to the outcome of a task. The task here is "Convince barbarian to go along with rogue's plan." Players can't call for or decide to make ability checks.

The question is whether there is uncertainty as to the outcome of the task. And the answer is: There isn't. A player determines how the character thinks and acts - thus the outcome is whatever the player of the barbarian says it is. With the outcome being known, there is no uncertainty, and the DM therefore cannot call for an ability check to resolve this matter.