Skills used by players on other players.

[Oofta]

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.

I don't see the contradiction. Physical activities can be resolved with die rolls. What someone is thinking can be influenced by, but not resolved by, die rolls unless magic is involved. End of story.

By dictating what the barbarian thinks, you have effectively stated that the barbarian doesn't belong to the player running the character. Instead the PC really belongs to you. Or to paraphrase an old meme as a DM you are saying "All character are belong to me".

So here is a question for you guys who disagree with my view.

If you were DMing a game that allowed interparty conflict and one character built a pure combat oriented character and the other built a social character and the combat character got it into his head to attack the social one and the social one was trying to persuade him not to kill him.

How would you DM this? You would let the combat character use all of his abilities on the social one and disallow the social one from using his to defend himself?

The social one can try to convince NPCs to come to their aid. But they can't control the thoughts of the attacking PC without magic. If, for example, they do a deception check, the only thing you can tell the attacker is that the social character is sincere. What happens next is up to the players.

Don't want that to happen? Don't allow PVP.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So here is a question for you guys who disagree with my view.

If you were DMing a game that allowed interparty conflict and one character built a pure combat oriented character and the other built a social character and the combat character got it into his head to attack the social one and the social one was trying to persuade him not to kill him.

How would you DM this? You would let the combat character use all of his abilities on the social one and disallow the social one from using his to defend himself?

I feel like this question (willfully?) ignores what some of us have been saying, and doesn't even remotely address the post it is referring to. It kind of feels like one of those discussions where the other person is just waiting for their chance to make their point, and isn't really listening to what you are saying.

But that aside, I have two answers for you:

1) As I and others have said, the way some of us adjudicate interparty conflict is by allowing the target of any hostile action (that would include persuasion) to narrate the outcome. So it's perfectly symmetric.

2) Skill use is NOT a spell or an attack. There are very, very few rules that say, "If you roll a success at your skill, here is the outcome...". There is certainly nothing that says a successful Persuade roll compels action. So if you're in a game that allows "interparty conflict" using dice rolls, and you show up with social skills while everybody else is using spells and physical attacks (which DO have specific rules describing outcomes) then you're kind of like the proverbial guy who brings a knife to a gun fight.

 

[FrogReaver]

So here is a question for you guys who disagree with my view.

If you were DMing a game that allowed interparty conflict and one character built a pure combat oriented character and the other built a social character and the combat character got it into his head to attack the social one and the social one was trying to persuade him not to kill him.

How would you DM this? You would let the combat character use all of his abilities on the social one and disallow the social one from using his to defend himself?

Let me elaborate on what I'm answering. So I take it that you are meaning the Barbarian is threatening to kill the Bard and approaching him. The Bard believes him to be serious etc. Oh and assuming this game allows PVP conflict.

Then, The bard can attempt to persuade the Barbarian not to kill him. However, the barbarian player decides whether there was any uncertainty in whether he could be persuaded or whether he automatically was persuaded or whether the persuasion attempt failed. If he decided there was uncertainty then a persuasion check would be performed. Whether through roll or roleplay decision he decides whatever the bard said was unpersuasive to him then the bard better start running away or bracing himself for impact.

By the way I was originally thinking of a situation where the barbarian just decided to swing at the Bard and initiate combat without any indication he was about to do this.

 

[Hriston]

The Basic Rules give a couple definitions of roleplaying under “Social Interaction”. The first is a general definition: “Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role.” This tells us nothing about who determines what a particular role entails. The second definition is D&D-specific: “In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks.” (emphasis added)

It isn’t me, or any other player at the table, that determines those things for your character. It’s you. And given that D&D is an RPG, that’s what we’re all here for, to make those decisions for ourselves. Anything that takes that away from a player (barring magical exceptions, of course) undermines the basic activity of playing the game.

However, this doesn’t mean there’s no mechanical option for influencing the thoughts and actions of another player’s PC. It just means the social interaction mechanics are not it. You have to work with the player, not against him/her. 5E has given us this lovely tool called Inspiration. By framing requests, arguments, threats, etc. in terms which speak to the personal characteristics of a PC, another character can gain influence over his/her decision making by creating an opportunity for that PC’s player to gain Inspiration, incentivizing an otherwise undesirable choice.

The premise of my games includes PCs’ personal characteristics being commonly known by all the players at the table, but even at tables where they aren’t, they could be learned through a successful Insight check as they can from NPCs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

For me, on the OP, the crux is choice. The player gets to choose how his PC acts and thinks. She doesn't get to choose to not be attacked, or to see something hidden, or to not be stolen from. But she dies get to choose how she reacts to each of these. If you allow skill use to ket one player usurp choice from another, this is wrong.

Does this lead to a situation where the model of social accumen breaks down? Yes, it does, because we're playing a game. The goal to play is to enable fun, and it's not fun to have someone else control your character, or require you to play a certain way because they built a social character and you did not. Control over choice is _the_ enabler of fun in the game.

Yes, it's not terribly fun if the beatstick hits you, and that's where social contract enablers like "target PC decides outcome" help level the choice playing field. Or any number of other contracts. Physically attacking someone with lethal weapons isn't something that is tolerated among allies. If the barbarian does this, what's the rest of the party doing? It requires everyone to enforce the social contract -- it's not the GM's sole responsibility to encourage good play, nor is it their sole power to enforce it.

 

[delericho]

The guy playing the barbarian is right. As DM you get to control everything else in the game world. The only thing he gets to control is his character.

Unless the character is under the influence of some sort of mind controlling magic, hands off!.

 

[FrogReaver]

and I notice you 100% avoided saying how you would rule it. My take on what you are saying is that you would let the combat pc slaughter the social one while not letting the social one use his abilities before the combat actually started.

I guess that's awesome if your a combat oriented pc. In such a case my guess is this wouldn't even come up again as no one would make social pc's.

By the way this is my roadmap of what would happen to the bard. I did answer your question earlier in the post I first responded to it in. Thanks for the false accuasation.

No one is saying the social character cannot use his abilities. We are saying that his abilities don't actually work the way you are having them work. As I have pointed out:
1. They work on the PC the same way they would on the NPC.
2. Sometimes the outcome will be certain and no check needed
3. Sometimes the outcome will be uncertain and a check required
4. The DM normally determines if the outcome is certain or uncertain in most situations.
5. The only situation that decision rests on the player is if that certainty/uncertainty question is one that is centered on the PC's thoughts and potential actions.
6. Unlike most other skills, persuasion is one where the uncertainty/certainty can only be determined by the player forming the PC's decisions.

In your bard tries to talk barbarian out of attacking him. The bard is attempting to do that. However, the result of his attempt doesn't rest on a dice roll alone, or the dm, it rests on the barbarian player.

 

[Guest 6801328]

One question any DM might want to ask him/herself, when tempted to demand that a player behave a certain way, is why? Is it truly for reasons of fairness/symmetry? Or is it because we all have different aesthetic preferences, and we would like our story to unfold in the way we have envisioned?

I know I've been disappointed when I've imagined my world in a certain way and somebody decides to play a character that just doesn't fit with that aesthetic. Let's say I'm trying to run something with a gothic horror feel, for example, and one guy's idea of a good time is to show up as "The Count". Yes, from Sesame Street.

Sometimes you just have to roll with it. It's the players' game, too.

 

[GameOgre]

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"

 

[iserith]

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"

That suggests to me that (1) combat and exploration pillars may be over-represented in the campaign as compared to social interaction challenges (a DM issue), and (2) a conversation needs to be had to get the players on the same page with regard to cooperatively roleplaying and helping others be awesome (a group issue).