Skills used by players on other players.

[robus]

The dice are used to resolve uncertainty, but there is no uncertainty when it’s PC vs PC when they’re discussing plans of action, each player makes their case for their character and each makes their own decision for how to proceed.

The only time when you should have dice resolve intra-PC contests is with strength, constitution or dexterity checks such as arm-wrestling for some gold, or playing a drinking game, for example.

But it’s best to generally steer clear for precisely the reason in the OP.

 

[clearstream]

There's a big difference between a physical challenge - whether that's arm wrestling or detecting someone in the dark - and a social challenge. The former can be decided with a die roll, the latter can be influenced by a die roll.

As far as "virtually" amounting to a DC, no. There might be if there were significant trickery/lies/deceit. In my scenario I might be convinced to kill the boyfriend if I believed I or someone else was in imminent danger of being killed and the only way to stop them wast to kill them. Even then I'd probably have to see the boyfriend pointing a loaded gun and I might shoot first. But ... that would require far, far more than a simple conversation.

I don't reduce PCs or NPCs to a simple set of numbers controlled by die rolls.

I think this thread is a great example of something I see on this and other message boards. It seems like you don't really want feedback, you want affirmation. In this case you simply aren't going to get that from me, no matter how much you post. I've thought about this over the years (this isn't the first time it's come up) and I fundamentally disagree with what you're saying. What you see as a roleplaying opportunity is something I see as antithetical to roleplaying. You want to reduce a characters thoughts, decisions and reactions to a simple contest, one which the high charisma player will most likely win the vast majority of time. My characters are far more than their numbers and their decisions and actions (or attempted actions) shouldn't be controlled by numbers alone unless there is magic involved.

So I agree with the barbarian's player, if I were him and you insisted on running the game this way I would find a different game.

I'm looking always to learn, not to paint you into a corner where you need to concede that I or anyone else is right. With that front and center, where I keep struggling with what you say is that it seems to contain a straight contradiction.

On one hand, you say that some things can be decided with a die roll and that's all fine. In those cases, it seems like the PC/NPC involved was satisfactorily reduced to a die roll. On the other hand, you say that PCs/NPCs can't be reduced to die rolls. That seems like it is in contradiction.

It's like saying - Alice is allowed to impact what you do with the number she assigned to her Strength, but not with the number she assigned to her Charisma. Say Barbie decides to make Alice stop helping the villagers by grappling her with Athletics. Now, I think characters shouldn't use hostile effects on one another at all, but not all groups play that way. So if we are in a group where it's okay to do it, are you fine with Barbie imposing her will on Alice with Athletics, but not with Alice imposing her will on Barbie with Persuasion? That's the part I don't follow.

 

[robus]

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

Because there is a mind-meld between player and character and so that aspect of play is able to be resolved without needing dice. The player and the character both listen to the proposal and the player is able to determine their characters response. Imagination and response are one. So I would say this is true for all 3 mental based abilities: Wisdom, Intelligence and Charisma. Note this is only for PC vs PC contests.

For physical abilities it is fine to have them resolved by the dice, as the players know what they want their characters to achieve, but can’t be sure of the outcome.

Players get to control very little in the game, so their control of their characters interpretation and desired response to stimuli is sacrosanct. It can only be overcome by magic.

 

[FrogReaver]

#1 Skills checks are only called for when there is uncertainty in the outcome.
#2 The Barbarian player not the DM or other player determines if there if there is any uncertainty in what his PC will attempt to do.
#3 Since the Barbarian player decided there was no way his PC would be persuaded to do that then there should have never been a skill check
#4 This is different than attack rolls because when you attack there is always uncertainty. Thus there is no question about whether a check or roll is needed and no question about how to resolve such a check or roll.

Ultimately, you made a terrible call as DM. The check never should have been called for. The logical argument wasn't that the Barbarian's skills don't work if the other players doesn't. That's a terrible argument (see above).

More importantly the other player shouldn't be trying to do things that impact the other players fun. You as DM really shouldn't be siding with him to force the other player to do something he finds unfun. That said I'd probably have happily played into the other PC persuading my barbarian to do something because it sounds like it would have been more fun to me. But that still doesn't change that I am a player am in charge of my PC's actions.

 

[clearstream]

Because there is a mind-meld between player and character and so that aspect of play is able to be resolved without needing dice. The player and the character both listen to the proposal and the player is able to determine their characters response. Imagination and response are one. So I would say this is true for all 3 mental based abilities: Wisdom, Intelligence and Charisma.

I think something like this line of argument is the most productive approach. In order to sustain a on-surface frank contradiction between say - allowing Athletics to grapple versus Persuasion to persuade - it seems right to go ahead and argue that there is something categorically different between Strength skills and Charisma skills. Wisdom is less clear, due to the common contest with Dexterity (Stealth).

 

[GameOgre]

It came from you.

More or less it sounds to me that all the three of you have failed.

The face man player failed to want to impose his PC will on another player.
You failed in siding with him and force a skill check to be the final arbiter.
The Barbarian's player failed when he overreacted and tried to use something in-game against the first PC.

But you are the DM so you have more responsibility. You wonder why here you are again? Don't do it again. Don't let players force anything to each other. Don't pretend that because the stats allow a PC to beat another at something, then doing so is a legitimate move. It is not. The game is meant to be cooperative, and forcing others action by Charisma is just as uncooperative as attacking them with a weapon. If someone doesn't play cooperatively then they are failing at the game's first and most important premise. Pretending that it's "because roleplay" is just lame.

The group does (not often) enjoy inter-party conflict does happen. People role play their characters and sometimes those characters do come into conflict. It has even once or twice resulted in dead characters.This is over years of play. It frankly does not happen very often but it does happen.

That player for instance who played the barbarian once had the barbarian turn on a party member and attacked and slew him because that character was taking advantage of a ally of the pc's in a horrible way.

I realize this type of play isn't for everyone. Different strokes for different folks. If at your table you want to outlaw character to character conflict then yes I can see outlawing social aspects of it as well.

However.....if you and your group have a style that allows such play then it's silly and bad game play to allow physical conflict but not social conflict. If you did so you would simply end up with low skilled social characters but highly skilled physical ones across the board. Why play a character who can't use his skills when he might really need them over a character that is always able to use his skills and abilities?

 

[Guest 6801328]

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

Nothing. But social skills are what we are discussing here.

The way I handle PvP at my table(s)...and trying to Persuade or Intimidate another player is very much PvP...is that the target of an attack gets to narrate the result, with no dice rolling.

So if player A attacks player B with a sword, player B simply gets to describe what happens. And I do have players who will willingly say, "Ok, I get hit and take X damage..." Others will say, "I duck and the sword whistles over my head." Sometimes they'll attack back, sometimes they'll just keep dodging until the attacker figures out that in my game it takes two to tango. (Thanks to either [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] or [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION], I can't remember which, for introducing me to this approach.)

And, yeah, since Persuade is really an attack on another character, so the target gets to decide what happens.

 

[GameOgre]

Nothing. But social skills are what we are discussing here.

The way I handle PvP at my table(s)...and trying to Persuade or Intimidate another player is very much PvP...is that the target of an attack gets to narrate the result, with no dice rolling.

So if player A attacks player B with a sword, player B simply gets to describe what happens. And I do have players who will willingly say, "Ok, I get hit and take X damage..." Others will say, "I duck and the sword whistles over my head." Sometimes they'll attack back, sometimes they'll just keep dodging until the attacker figures out that in my game it takes two to tango. (Thanks to either [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] or [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION], I can't remember which, for introducing me to this approach.)

And, yeah, since Persuade is really an attack on another character, so the target gets to decide what happens.

I agree with such rules. you treat the characters as equal and apply the rules equally.

This is fine by my book. All I'm saying is if you allow one character to use his skills on another pc but disallow the other pc from using his skills on him in turn...that is messed up game play.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But social skills are not spells or attacks. They do not have the force of such things and don't take away the players agency but help direct that agency. It's called role playing. Your character might be talked into things he wouldn't normally do but yeah that's what happens when dealing with incredibly characteristic people! Why wouldn't you just role play that.

You're right, it is roleplaying but it is just one flavor of roleplaying. But it's, effectively, the director telling the actor "act this way..." Instead of the actor deciding how they think the character should act. Sure, sometimes the players make choices that I wouldn't choose, but that's why D&D is different from, say, a play.

I believe the social skills are there to allow the DM to be neutral when taking on the parts of all those NPCs. As a DM I don't want to have to decide if my NPCs are persuaded or deceived or intimidated by the PCs. I'd rather roll the dice instead of having to decide if my NPC would find this particular argument compelling. Because that would be the player persuading me, not the character persuading the NPC.

Do you imagine a player is going to have fun if you force him to act in a certain way, to comply with your notions of roleplaying?

Here's something to consider: don't take a high Persuade roll to mean "you persuaded the target". It just means, "You made a persuasive argument." How others react to that persuasive argument is up to them. It might be, "Yeah, Mr. Bard, I can't really find a flaw with your logic, but you always do that with your fancy college words. I'm going to dig my heels in even more just to spite you." Or literally countless other reasons why the person wasn't persuaded. (You might want to encourage your barbarian to play around with this sort of thing. Don't tell him to do something different, just ask him to...you know...roleplay his choices.)

I'm sure you've been in the situation where somebody has presented an argument in which you can't find any holes, but it still doesn't make you change your mind. Right?

Just let everybody roleplay in the way that they enjoy. If you really can't handle that, don't invite the person who has different opinions.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm looking always to learn, not to paint you into a corner where you need to concede that I or anyone else is right. With that front and center, where I keep struggling with what you say is that it seems to contain a straight contradiction.

On one hand, you say that some things can be decided with a die roll and that's all fine. In those cases, it seems like the PC/NPC involved was satisfactorily reduced to a die roll. On the other hand, you say that PCs/NPCs can't be reduced to die rolls. That seems like it is in contradiction.

It's like saying - Alice is allowed to impact what you do with the number she assigned to her Strength, but not with the number she assigned to her Charisma. Say Barbie decides to make Alice stop helping the villagers by grappling her with Athletics. Now, I think characters shouldn't use hostile effects on one another at all, but not all groups play that way. So if we are in a group where it's okay to do it, are you fine with Barbie imposing her will on Alice with Athletics, but not with Alice imposing her will on Barbie with Persuasion? That's the part I don't follow.

But there is uncertainty about hiding, about attacking, about swimming, about arm wresling, about grappling.

Once the Player of the Barbarian decides his PC already has his mind made up about a particular course of action then there is no uncertainty there. Let me pose this question to you. Suppose their is an NPC Barbarian loves his brother. Can the Bard use a simple persuasion check to persuade him to kill his brother? I think everyone here agrees that no check should even be asked for in that scenario. The outcome of that attempted persuasion is that it never works.

So then if that Barbarian is a PC who decides how much he loves his brother and if he will kill him? The player of course. Should a Bard be able to persuade him to kill his brother? Just like with the NPC version, if the player really loves his brother and would never kill him then he could never be persuaded of such. There should never be a check made if someone tries to persuade him of that.

So where does the decision power for whether a PC would ever do something or not? It comes from the player. Ultimately this means PC vs PC that some skills work and some skills don't. But you need to understand why that is. It's because players determine the amount of certainty or uncertainty in the things their PC's do.