How do you feel about player-on-player dice rolling?

PrometheanVigil · May 28, 2019

As straight-forward as the title.

Immortal Sun · May 28, 2019

Depends on its purpose I suppose.

Umbran · May 28, 2019

The dice rolling, itself, isn't a big deal. The question is - what kind of conflict are the players resolving, and are we okay with having that kind of conflict between players at the table?

Len · May 28, 2019

What type of player-on-player dice rolling are you talking about?

If you mean one player taking advantage of their character's persuasion skill to control what other players' characters do, then no, we don't do that. If one player wants their character to persuade or deceive the others, it's done by role-playing.

In cases where one character has to fight against the others due to lycanthropy, domination, or the like, then yes, that player will roll dice against the others. We wouldn't normally accept a player's character attacking another because "that's what he would do" (except in exceptional circumstances).

ccs · May 28, 2019

Anything that can be done to an NPC/monster can be done to a character.
Doesn't matter if the source is something under my (the DM) control or by another player.

If there's a problem it will be dealt with.

Li Shenron · May 28, 2019

ccs said:
Anything that can be done to an NPC/monster can be done to a character.

Well yes, but then I have to ask: if a monster wins a persuasion/intimidation check against a PC, do you force the PC to behave in the way the monster wants? If it's a deception check, do you force the PC to believe? I don't. I just tell the player that the monster looks very convincing, but ultimately I let the player choose how to follow that. And so I would do the same on a PvP contest.

ccs · May 28, 2019

Li Shenron said:
Well yes, but then I have to ask: if a monster wins a persuasion/intimidation check against a PC, do you force the PC to behave in the way the monster wants? If it's a deception check, do you force the PC to believe? I don't. I just tell the player that the monster looks very convincing, but ultimately I let the player choose how to follow that. And so I would do the same on a PvP contest.

It's not on the scale of charm, mind control or dominate etc, but in short, if it's to dice rolls, yes.
Especially if you as a player expect to ever be able to use any of those skills vs NPCs/monsters.
Afterall, you'd expect me as the DM to in good faith play that guard etc that you'd just successfully persuaded/intimidated or whatever. Wouldn't you?
So why shouldn't I expect the same from the players?
The moment players break that in my game is the moment that they lose the ability to make those skill checks themselves for the rest of the campaign.

As far as PvP?
Other than requiring everyone to play the results of any die rolls made in good faith, I'm not involved. It's between the players to resolve. Unless there's a problem.

Li Shenron · May 28, 2019

ccs said:
Afterall, you'd expect me as the DM to in good faith play that guard etc that you'd just successfully persuaded/intimidated or whatever. Wouldn't you?

No. It's more complicated. But in general, I expect nothing, I just play and see the results. The DM even decides whether I have to roll at all, then she decides how much I have to roll, then narrates the results... I do not even really know that I succeeded if I see the guard appear persuaded, as it could be a trick.

But maybe as a DM you roll in the open, and that is certainly going to create expectations on the players.

Ovinomancer · May 28, 2019

ccs said:
It's not on the scale of charm, mind control or dominate etc, but in short, if it's to dice rolls, yes.
Especially if you as a player expect to ever be able to use any of those skills vs NPCs/monsters.
Afterall, you'd expect me as the DM to in good faith play that guard etc that you'd just successfully persuaded/intimidated or whatever. Wouldn't you?
So why shouldn't I expect the same from the players?
The moment players break that in my game is the moment that they lose the ability to make those skill checks themselves for the rest of the campaign.

As far as PvP?
Other than requiring everyone to play the results of any die rolls made in good faith, I'm not involved. It's between the players to resolve. Unless there's a problem.

Interesting. Normally, the only authority a player has is over their character's action declarations -- not success, obviously, but in what they attempt. You're placing restrictions on what they can attempt through NPC social skills (and perhaps other things), thereby reducing the only authority players have. Do you compensate by sharing authority in other areas?

This is also ignoring that you, as GM, have complete knowledge of the PC's abilities, have complete authority over NPC builds, have complete authority over setting, have complete authority over the current fuctional positioning, and have complete authority to declare NPC actions against the PCs. And you use this to control what the PCs do? Whatever for?