Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Skills used by players on other players.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7533295" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>feels like</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7533295, member: 6779196"] 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 [i]feels like[/i] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Skills used by players on other players.
Top