Skills used by players on other players.

[Satyrn]

I do not understand why some players refuse to see the way of it.

I was gonna ask why you're shouting down everybody who's trying to help you understand why they sympathize with the barbarian player, but I reread your first post and realized you weren't asking for enlightment.

This was just a rant, right?

 

[iserith]

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

The question really boils down to whether the DM can say what my character does. I can find no support for that (short of magical compulsion), and plenty of support that suggests otherwise.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

There was a game once where the a player was frustrated because his sorcerer character wanted to join a friend in a bar fight but the fighter wouldn't let him and grappled him. The DM only let the him break the grapple in the usual way. The grappled player kept 'roll playing' and was pleading with the fighter (in and out of character) to let him join the fight but the fighter wouldn't submit.

So, this scenario can be frustrating on multiple levels, not just in social situations. The fighter character was taking away player agency(by not letting the sorcerer join the brawl) by using combat tactics and the sorcerer was unable to use his social skills to convince the fighter to let him go because social skills used against a fellow player take away player agency and a player should get to decide what his character does and doesn't do. Yet, the sorcerer really should have been able to persuade his comrade to let him go...

There was lots of frustration post-game.

If I were to have DM'd this game I would have let the sorcerer resist the grapple with persuasion rather than use acrobatics/athletics with the justification that he was convincing the fighter to let him go.

So, in the scenario the OP described, if you are doing PvP over differing opinions:

I'd first ask the players if it was important enough to start a conflict over it.
Then we'd hammer out the stakes (what happens if the barbarian loses and what happens if the bard loses)
Then I'd allow them to use whatever skills and stats were appropriate to the narration.
Then I'd make them do an extended test against each other with the agreed upon skills

This way the social contract is maintained in advance, all mechanics (social and physical) are equally important and the players have agreed to the stakes.

So, if the bard uses persuasion and charisma, I might allow the barbarian to use intimidation and strength to resist.

Bard, "You should help me. Trust me, it'll all work out fine!"
Barbarian, "I can maybe help you out, but if I do and it goes south, I'm going to break every bone in your body"

If the barbarian wins, it's not because the bard failed to persuade but because the barbarian intimidated the bard and got him to back down.

Like any fight, I wouldn't make it one single roll (combats are often several rolls). I might make it three using various skills with the person to win two of three being the victor.

 

[GameOgre]

Also at no time was anyone suggesting that "YOU FAILED THE CHECK,NOW YOU DO WHATEVER HE SAID"

That would be mind control. No What I was suggesting is that "YOU figure out how your character acted with the idea that he now was influenced by the other character".

See the difference?

Do you insist when a pc makes the persuasion check against a NPC that that NPC is now under the pc's control? Dos the pc get to decide how the npc behaves and what happens?

I know when I'm DMing I don't. The npc is question will tend to view that pc in the most favorable way yeah but if it's something important or if its something they just wouldn't allow the npc wouldn't go along with it. Instead the npc would explain why the pc is wrong or why he cant do that" Sorry Sir if I sold this potion to you for 1 cp the owner would have my hide! I can give you a 25% discount however as that is allowed in some situations. That's the best I can do and even that might get me in a little trouble if he finds out you are not in the city guard."

 

[GameOgre]

I was gonna ask why you're shouting down everybody who's trying to help you understand why they sympathize with the barbarian player, but I reread your first post and realized you weren't asking for enlightment.

This was just a rant, right?

Honestly to some extent your right. I am aggravated with the opposite views inferior opinion(in my opinion) and was wanting to either be swayed that I was wrong (and that happened to a certain degree, I think for a game with no pc verse pc action allowed that yes the player was right) or to get the other side to see my view(if not actually agree with it).

As far as the actual game goes I just resolved the issue.

I talked to the group and asked for a vote. It was 2 in favor of physical pvp fine and none social and 4 in favor of all pvp on the table,social and physical.

So the new rule is that in that game all is fair when skill use comes into play.

The two who heavily did not want it are not thrilled but agreed to give it a try.

 

[Satyrn]

Also at no time was anyone suggesting that "YOU FAILED THE CHECK,NOW YOU DO WHATEVER HE SAID"

That would be mind control. No What I was suggesting is that "YOU figure out how your character acted with the idea that he now was influenced by the other character".

See the difference?

So, this sounds like in the original scenario, where "The Barb failed and so I told him the Face man sounded very convincing and that his instinct was to go along with it, for the face mans sake if nothing else" the barbarian could have still chosen to not go along with it.

Is that right?

 

[clearstream]

Sorry but I don't follow this at all.

Perhaps a simpler expression of model A is to say that there are no character intents. There are only player intents, and character acts. This conflicts with the RAW because you end up not deciding how your character "thinks", as "thinks" should include "intents" and you definitely aren't allowed to decide that for your character in any way that is separate from deciding it for yourself, the player.

In model B, a player can form intents about their character's intents. Something like this "I intend that my character intends to do X". Again, for emphasis, this is what RAW could literally guide me to believe: I as player get to decide how my character "thinks". That only really makes sense if my character's thoughts are separate from my own. I am not an evil Sorceress intent on conquering the Prime Material, but by Tiamat's metallic bosom, my character is! (Insert whatever fictional motives take your fancy.)

I'm sure that didn't help, but I tried...

 

[GameOgre]

So, this sounds like in the original scenario, where "The Barb failed and so I told him the Face man sounded very convincing and that his instinct was to go along with it, for the face mans sake if nothing else" the barbarian could have still chosen to not go along with it.

Is that right?

Oh sure. Just because the rogue convinced him to help doesn't mean he is forced to do whatever the bard wanted. Maybe he considered the villagers horrible and they will betray the party and while his good hearted friend fell for there tricks the barb isn't about to. Maybe he does something else to help his friend,he might even be right! Maybe he leaves and hurries to find the rest of the party to tell them what the stupid bard got up to so they can come back and save him, maybe he instead goes to find the other barbarians camped outside of town to get them to save the soft townspeople. Maybe he does join in and help the bard but keep a eye on whats going on and be ready.....or whatever else the Player of the barbarian thinks his character would do.

 

[iserith]

Oh sure. Just because the rogue convinced him to help doesn't mean he is forced to do whatever the bard wanted. Maybe he considered the villagers horrible and they will betray the party and while his good hearted friend fell for there tricks the barb isn't about to. Maybe he does something else to help his friend,he might even be right! Maybe he leaves and hurries to find the rest of the party to tell them what the stupid bard got up to so they can come back and save him, maybe he instead goes to find the other barbarians camped outside of town to get them to save the soft townspeople. Maybe he does join in and help the bard but keep a eye on whats going on and be ready.....or whatever else the Player of the barbarian thinks his character would do.

In which case there was no point to this interaction and the subsequent fallout at all in my view. To me it would have been better to play as I do - the rogue's player makes the case and the barbarian's player chooses what to do.

This is reminiscent of previous discussions where monsters try to intimidate PCs and the DM calls for an ability check, establishing on a sufficient result that the PC is intimidated, but he or she can act however he or she wants. Really no point to that as I see it.

 

[jgsugden]

Inputs and outputs. The PC decides what to do with information, but they do not always control over the inputs of information they receive.

The barbarian had a position and belief. He was firmly grounded in his belief. He saw no reason to change his mind and believed there was no grounds to change his position. Then the bard spoke... and that made him see there was a flaw, perceived or real, in his stace. He was wrong - or at least not entirely right.

And from there it is up to the barbarian player to decide what to do. Does he decide to stick to his guns because he is stubborn, even though he knows he is wrong? Does he concede to the bard's point? That is up to the player, but the player should base that decision on the information that the PC believes.