Skills used by players on other players.

[Satyrn]

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.

Nice. I think this is what everyone "against" you in this thread would want to hear.

This really didn't seem to be what you were saying. It really looked like you were telling the Barb player that the persuasion check meant that while he was still technically in control of his own character, his actions had to be in line with going along with it. So, we misunderstood and this thread exploded.

I bet your barb player thought you were saying the same sort of thing we thought, and your game exploded (luckily, only slightly).

 

[Charlaquin]

So, something I think might be missing from this conversation is who is in control of the character. What do I mean by that? Well, let’s look at a simple attempt to persuade a guard to let the party past, using mundane means. The player describes what their character does to try to persuade the guard, maybe by speaking in character, or maybe in third person, saying “my character tries to politely explain to the guard why it’s important to let us pass.” Then the DM decides if that action has a chance of succeeding at the goal or not, if a check is needed to determine its success or not, and if so, what check (in this case, probably Charisma + Persuasion). The DM still has agency here, she has the power to say that this guard simply cannot be swayed by polite requests, she’s a woman of action, and only action will change her mind.

Now, what if the player casts charm person on the guard? Now the DM no longer has a say in whether or not that works. The rules state exactly how the spell functions, whether the DM thinks this is something the guard “would do” or not. Now, yes, the DM is the final arbiter of the rules and it is technically within their power to say the spell doesn’t work that way in this instance. But generally speaking, the purpose of codifying the effects of the spell is to put the power in the player’s hands to say “here’s how this action is going to be resolved.” Mind control spells remove the subject’s agency by removing (or at least reducing) the ability of the person controlling the character to influence the outcome.

Now apply this to a PvP action. When Harold tries to persuade Jessica’s character to go along with his character’s plan, and the DM tells Harold to make a Charisma + Persuasion check, Jessica’s character doesn’t really have agency in the situation, because the person in control of the character (Jessica) didn’t get a say in how that character reacts. She didn’t get to decide that her character is a woman of action who won’t be swayed by words alone, the DM just went ahead and decided that, yes, this attempt to persuade her character has a chance of success and failure, and that Charisma + Persuasion is the most appropriate way to resolve it. It may not represent mind control in the fiction, but it feels like mind control to Jessica, because, like mind control, it removes her ability to decide how her character reacts. From the perspective of the person who is in control of the character, it is functionally alike to a mind control spell, in a way that it would not be alike to a mind control spell if the target was an NPC.

This is why I have players resolve any PvP actions taken against their character. In this situation, they are in control of the subject of a player-initiated action. That should function the same way it does when I’m in control of the subject of a player-initiated action.

 

[GameOgre]

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.

I kind of agree with this view. With one exception. Players are less likely to out and out ignore something if they had to make a check for it. Even my tactical guys if they get intimidated will have their characters react to that in some way. Maybe it would be to all out attack the npc who did it explaining"it's out of fear" or simply switching to fight someone else or running away (I mean it could happen).

What they are not likely to do is ignore the in game intimidation.

That's really all we are looking for in the persuasion check ect... You still control your character and what he thinks but this did happen and how does he handle it?

What we were getting before was" I wanted to walk away from these villagers and my friend and yeah he talked a good talk and made one sweet persuasion check but I'm going to have my character not even hear it. My character is not moved by anything he said regardless. in other words the player wasn't swayed so his character wasn't either.

Well it's a game, The Player isn't in the village the Character is. The Player isn't even going to be fearful (he is playing a game) or easy to persuade (he is playing a game and doesn't have to listen and cant see or hear the pleas or see his friends cheerful smile) He might be very wise or smart and now fall for simple cons ect...but his character might dang well do so.

Having mechanical support can help reinforce the role playing. "my Barbarian doesn't give a crap about these villagers but make a roll mister rogue and lets see how smooth your talk can be! 27? Wow! ok my guy rolled a 7 insight. ok so....you see my Barbarian reconsider and seems to look at you more kindly. I will help you after all friend! DM I want to attack the rogue to hit him in the head, I want to knock him out and carry him out of here, as he does so he says"trust me buddy,you will thank me later".

 

[Satyrn]

I kind of agree with this view. With one exception. Players are less likely to out and out ignore something if they had to make a check for it. Even my tactical guys if they get intimidated will have their characters react to that in some way. Maybe it would be to all out attack the npc who did it explaining"it's out of fear" or simply switching to fight someone else or running away (I mean it could happen).

What they are not likely to do is ignore the in game intimidation.

That's really all we are looking for in the persuasion check ect... You still control your character and what he thinks but this did happen and how does he handle it?

What we were getting before was" I wanted to walk away from these villagers and my friend and yeah he talked a good talk and made one sweet persuasion check but I'm going to have my character not even hear it. My character is not moved by anything he said regardless. in other words the player wasn't swayed so his character wasn't either.

Well it's a game, The Player isn't in the village the Character is. The Player isn't even going to be fearful (he is playing a game) or easy to persuade (he is playing a game and doesn't have to listen and cant see or hear the pleas or see his friends cheerful smile) He might be very wise or smart and now fall for simple cons ect...but his character might dang well do so.

Having mechanical support can help reinforce the role playing. "my Barbarian doesn't give a crap about these villagers but make a roll mister rogue and lets see how smooth your talk can be! 27? Wow! ok my guy rolled a 7 insight. ok so....you see my Barbarian reconsider and seems to look at you more kindly. I will help you after all friend! DM I want to attack the rogue to hit him in the head, I want to knock him out and carry him out of here, as he does so he says"trust me buddy,you will thank me later".

This sounds like an excellent place to be awarding inspiration. The player choosing to play up being intimidate/persuaded gets rewarded for the sort of roleplay you want to encourage.

You might wind up having the barbarian player wanting the bard constantly talking him into things, so maybe put a limit of once/level on that specific interaction netting inspiration.

 

[robus]

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.

I really don’t understand why players want to harass other players. Don’t we play this game to escape that stuff and have some fun? So now you’ve got two players who, if they want to keep playing at your table, have to be willing to be harrassed periodically while trying to have fun.

For me, I’d be looking for a new table...

 

[GameOgre]

I really don’t understand why players want to harass other players. Don’t we play this game to escape that stuff and have some fun? So now you’ve got two players who, if they want to keep playing at your table, have to be willing to be harrassed periodically while trying to have fun.

For me, I’d be looking for a new table...

and I would have no problems with that. Frankly I don't care. I'm fine and even suggested one of the options be no pvp at all. I mean it's rare as it is and about the only time the table gets interrupted is when it happens. Why not just cross it off and people have their characters get along? But not one player voted for that option.

At the same time...shrug I'm ok with it. It's not like anyone said"I wouldn't find that fun" the closest i got to that is"I wouldn't have made my character wis and int so low,can I change some stats around?" I said sure and that was that.

I also would more than welcome ANYONE who wants to DM and run things differently around here, to please do so. I have gotten to play one game in the past 40 years. I will play under whatever rules the DM wants lol. Just let me play.

 

[5ekyu]

I at no time demand anyone act like anything. I simply think the player field should be equal. If you are going to empower some pc's and not other pc's those left out will over time cease to exist.

But it this way. If in my games I house rules sneak attack out of the game and skills as well. None would ever play rogues. Rogues as a class would cease to exist.

If you enable combat oriented pc's and yet not allow social characters to use their abilities in the same way then soon you will not have any social characters.

This isn't theory I have done this in the past. I used to think the same way others do and social skills were for npc's only. Over time the players would swap out social characters for pure combat builds and when asked about it would say"why should I make a social character? They are gimped when using their abilities around the people they are around the most. 90% of my characters interactions are done with the same totally immune people who don't seem to ever want to role play their characters in such a way as to allow my characters strengths to shine. No Thanks"

"But it this way. If in my games I house rules sneak attack out of the game and skills as well. None would ever play rogues. Rogues as a class would cease to exist"
But that's not what's being described.

The social guy skills are fully functional against all NPCs. His Deception skill is also good dverywhere.

So, sneaks and skill out of the game is false comparison.

Do you see nobody playing Rogues in non-pvp games because their sneak doesn't work vs other players?

That's more to the case.

But here is a question, does your game have any bonus mechanics like inspiration that reward "roleplaying the way the gm wants you to or says your should" that the barbarian de facto gave up by choosing to instead roleplay how he wanted to?

 

[iserith]

I kind of agree with this view. With one exception. Players are less likely to out and out ignore something if they had to make a check for it. Even my tactical guys if they get intimidated will have their characters react to that in some way. Maybe it would be to all out attack the npc who did it explaining"it's out of fear" or simply switching to fight someone else or running away (I mean it could happen).

What they are not likely to do is ignore the in game intimidation.

That's really all we are looking for in the persuasion check ect... You still control your character and what he thinks but this did happen and how does he handle it?

What we were getting before was" I wanted to walk away from these villagers and my friend and yeah he talked a good talk and made one sweet persuasion check but I'm going to have my character not even hear it. My character is not moved by anything he said regardless. in other words the player wasn't swayed so his character wasn't either.

The question for me arises: Why should the DM care if the player ignores the attempt at deception, intimidation, or persuasion? It's really none of his or her business, right?

Well it's a game, The Player isn't in the village the Character is. The Player isn't even going to be fearful (he is playing a game) or easy to persuade (he is playing a game and doesn't have to listen and cant see or hear the pleas or see his friends cheerful smile) He might be very wise or smart and now fall for simple cons ect...but his character might dang well do so.

Having mechanical support can help reinforce the role playing. "my Barbarian doesn't give a crap about these villagers but make a roll mister rogue and lets see how smooth your talk can be! 27? Wow! ok my guy rolled a 7 insight. ok so....you see my Barbarian reconsider and seems to look at you more kindly. I will help you after all friend! DM I want to attack the rogue to hit him in the head, I want to knock him out and carry him out of here, as he does so he says"trust me buddy,you will thank me later".

I don't have an issue if the player decides to, effectively, flip a coin to decide what the character does. I would have a problem if the DM is telling me my character thinks the rogue's argument works on me.

 

[GameOgre]

The question for me arises: Why should the DM care if the player ignores the attempt at deception, intimidation, or persuasion? It's really none of his or her business, right?

Please explain further.

 

[iserith]

Please explain further.

You said "Players are less likely to out and out ignore something if they had to make a check for it."

The DM is the one who calls for checks, so this has the look of the DM caring about whether the players have their characters act deceived, persuaded, or intimidated by a fellow PC.

Why care about that at all as DM?