Skills used by players on other players.

ccs said:

I don't run games where the PCs are immune to something simply because they're PCs.






Never claimed it was.

Click to expand...

Immune to what? There is no defined mechanical effect of Persuade. There's nothing to be immune to.

Can I "use my Arcana skill" to mind control a fellow PC? How about Animal Handling? (humans are a type of animal, right?) Can I use Religion to brain wash them?

Why does a good bonus to the Persuade skill give me some kind of magical control over what other characters think?

iserith said:

In D&D 5e, a character's faults are largely defined by his or her personal characteristics though which are a far better marker in my experience than "whatever an 8 means." <snippage>

I wonder how many people who buy into ability scores meaning something important with regard to the character's portrayal also use personal characteristics and Inspiration. My gut says they don't, by and large, but that is a total guess based only on the vibe I get from this and similar discussions over the past few years. If that's true, then we have a group of people who have the same goal as many of us, but whose chosen solution doesn't appear to be very effective.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting question. I can tell you that it varies quite a bit. (I mean, back in the day you didn't have much to go on.) Overall, what you're describing here is why is prefer Fate to D&D. Fate mechanizes and makes it clear what you're signing onto when you choose your aspects. Most of the older players I know roundly ignore the background characteristics. (Heck, our current DM doesn't even use Inspiration at all.) Which isn't to say that they don't like some depth of character, they just seem to prefer it come from in-play incidents.

iserith said:

I know that in my games, if the players are portraying a disagreement, it's done for color. The players know that they will settle on the first idea that was proffered (with subsequent additions) anyway, so any in-fighting is just for funsies and is resolved in a minute or so. And even that is rare because we got 4 hours to play and sh-stuff to do. Ain't got time for throwing dice at each other when there are worlds to save and glory to be had!

Click to expand...

Different groups. Most of the members of my group have been playing together for years. Just a couple years ago, two of them came to blows (in game) over the direction the party would take. We were playing an earlier edition, so no direct social mechanics could be accessed.

...of course, this group is also a group that let loose a ghoul-pocalypse because they couldn't be bothered to clean up after a battle. We also tend to use arson as our primary "heroic" method of fighting at low levels.

Ratskinner said:

That's an interesting question. I can tell you that it varies quite a bit. (I mean, back in the day you didn't have much to go on.) Overall, what you're describing here is why is prefer Fate to D&D. Fate mechanizes and makes it clear what you're signing onto when you choose your aspects. Most of the older players I know roundly ignore the background characteristics. (Heck, our current DM doesn't even use Inspiration at all.) Which isn't to say that they don't like some depth of character, they just seem to prefer it come from in-play incidents.

Click to expand...

Pardon for the butt-in, but this last seems a strange statement in defense of stats as roleplaying limitations, yeah?

Ovinomancer said:

Again, though, this only applies to persuades directed at PCs -- who's thoughts, by the rules, are the sole authority (barring magic) of the player. A high CHA, Persuade proficient PC will still excel at the task vs non-PCs, which, let's be honest, is the vast majority of any possible uses.

Having NPCs persuade PCs, though, really reeks of DM control -- the DM establishes the NPC bonus, establishes the scene, and established the attempt, then forces a result through a die roll? In fairness, I used to agree with this until I realized that it was a thin rationalization for me, as DM, pushing an agenda on the players through using my superior power over the fiction. I don't do this, although I will say things like "[the NPC] is silver-tongued and makes an excellent argument." That's window-dressing, the players have the ability to do what they want with that.

Click to expand...

I look at the parallel with Deception. I mean, all NPCs are no better or worse at lying than the DM? Obviously, a DM and the mechanics have the ability to modify what a character believes to be true about the world (even without spells). At least to the extent of determining whether a PC believes the NPC to be lying. How is "the DM establishes the NPC bonus, establishes the scene, and established the attempt, then forces a result through a die roll? " any different from a combat scene?

Side note: I too have switched to mostly summarizing NPC speeches, giving a list of points....not that it matters too much with my current group. They always react in 6 different directions, regardless.

Ovinomancer said:

Pardon for the butt-in, but this last seems a strange statement in defense of stats as roleplaying limitations, yeah?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean.

clearstream said:

There's been some focus on "uncertain": for me the honest answer to that in regard to a skill is that it's uncertain if the DM decides it is uncertain. We could no doubt enumerate our reasons why we do/don't believe situation X is uncertain. Wargamers sometimes say that the dice represent the myriad of factors that the rules can't simulate. Rosewater speaks about the value of randomness in creating surprise... and I often use it for tension in my games. Garfield discusses uncertainty for increasing variety, protecting egos, broadening audiences; and also player skill in dealing with randomness. When I think of real life, it's not like a movie: if I rewound ten minutes of real life, things could turn out differently on the second run through. D&D is like that, too: maybe everything should be treated as containing some inherent uncertainty.

That's why I think the honest answer is, it's uncertain if the DM decides it is. Even if that is through the DM appointing the players to decide whether or not it's uncertain. Uncertainty is a sliding scale, because in speaking of uncertain some good questions are - how uncertain, and what am I uncertain about? Whoever decides the odds and the stakes plays a big role in deciding the meaning of uncertainty. For groups like those I've played with, that is the DM, although the players can certainly have their characters do things that will change the odds or up the stakes!

Click to expand...

There's some bit of truth to saying "it's uncertain if the DM decides it is", but indulge me for a moment.

The question I'm trying to ask is how can a DM that is not in control of a PC's thoughts, decide if an NPC or other PC attempting to persuade him is uncertain? Of course the DM is going to ultimately decide if it's uncertain, but I wanna know how a DM is going to make that decision. So, if you were the DM and deciding whether an NPC or other PC attempting to persuade a PC was uncertain give me some examples of what would cause you to call that situation uncertain.

EDIT: I wanted to add that for an NPC the justification is simple. I as DM now the NPC's thoughts and know that the NPC is conflicted enough that a well made case could change his mind. Thus there is uncertainty.

Ratskinner said:

I look at the parallel with Deception. I mean, all NPCs are no better or worse at lying than the DM? Obviously, a DM and the mechanics have the ability to modify what a character believes to be true about the world (even without spells). At least to the extent of determining whether a PC believes the NPC to be lying. How is "the DM establishes the NPC bonus, establishes the scene, and established the attempt, then forces a result through a die roll? " any different from a combat scene?

Side note: I too have switched to mostly summarizing NPC speeches, giving a list of points....not that it matters too much with my current group. They always react in 6 different directions, regardless.

Click to expand...

Because the DM in the first case is using that power to essentially declare actions for the PC -- or, at least, very much limit the available choices of the PC. In combat, things happen to the PC, but the player still always get to choose what it is the PC tries to do next. In the persuade case, you're categorically removing possibilities of what the player can choose to try to do with their PC.

Ratskinner said:

I'm not sure what you mean.

Click to expand...

Well, you've said that your group uses the ability scores of the PC to inform how that PC should be roleplayed. But, here you're saying that your group prefers roleplaying to be determined in-play, which ability scores are not -- any less than traits, bonds, etc., are. There seems to be a contradiction. Maybe.

Ovinomancer said:

Well, you've said that your group uses the ability scores of the PC to inform how that PC should be roleplayed. But, here you're saying that your group prefers roleplaying to be determined in-play, which ability scores are not -- any less than traits, bonds, etc., are. There seems to be a contradiction. Maybe.

Click to expand...

Why are you acting like ability scores and the paint by number pregenerated ideals,flaws and bonds are anything alike? Backgrounds are very malleable, don't like the options make up your own, don't want to use them at all? That's fine to. Want to use premade backgrounds but put your own ideals and flaws in? Sure go ahead.

Stats are not like that. You roll,assign and then role-play and the rest with what they are.

It looks a lot like your trolling.

At this point are you actually trying to get him to see your side? Do you think your going to change anything?

What he does at his table isn't going to effect you and I think this thread has done a lot to show that both sides are right,neither side 100% but enough that we can understand that yeah people are viewing things differently and that's ok. Neither side is engaging in bad or hurtful game play, it's just a difference of opinion in a rpg that aims to have much of it left up to the players and DM.

I think sometimes we get so caught up in the argument that we forget that we are all on the same side. We love rpg's! There are few enough of us out there lets agree to disagree and still hold each other in a positive light.

You told us what you would do, how you feel about it and why. That's cool man, I would have no issue with playing in that game. That doesn't mean I agree, just that eh it's not that big a thing. When I'm a player I'm more than willing to twist my likes and dislikes to whatever the poor smuck who I conned into doing all the work and letting me play in his game want!

I can role play in any game. Enjoy any (healthy) play-style. I had to say Healthy as I once joined a Vampire The Masquerade game that ended up being WAY more S&M than I was comfortable with lol. Though even then...I guess if THEY were having a blast who am I to say it was wrong?

Peace, my man.

ccs said:

I don't run games where the PCs are immune to something simply because they're PCs.

Click to expand...

There's no special "immunity" for anyone. NPCs are run the same way: a PC persuading an NPC makes their case, rolls a check to see how convincing the case sounds, and then the DM (i.e., the NPC's player) decides using that information whether or not the NPC is swayed. The player is never taking control of the NPC, and can't persuade the NPC to do anything wildly out of character (as determined, again, by the DM). So why should persuasion directed at PCs be any different?