How do you feel about player-on-player dice rolling?
- Thread starter PrometheanVigil
- Start date
Like many others, I'd like to know more about the question.
Most games that I run are based on the premise of a team working together to solve problems. In these cases, players are expected to build characters who can plausibly be part of the team. In GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, this is often represented mechanically as having a 5-point disadvantage called Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions). There may be still some die-rolls against each other, but these will be more about good-natured competition (who can climb the wall the fastest, who wins the card game, who can compose the best ode, who can impress the prince with their charming banter etc.) than about actual conflict or attempts to control each other.
I find that the middle-school groups that I facilitate often want to go to full PVP in a quick minute. Sometimes I intervene (if the players are unable to handle it); other times I let it go, and they usually realize after a session or two that killing each other isn't as exciting as going on adventures.
From a mechanical perspective, in the GURPS games that I run, there's nothing preventing PCs from using their abilities against each other. Influence rolls (i.e., trying to affect the reactions of another person through mundane means rather than forcing it through magic) are never enforced against PCs. The players can roll against each other and role-play based on that, but it's not like the suave diplomat can just control the rest of the group like puppets.
Most games that I run are based on the premise of a team working together to solve problems. In these cases, players are expected to build characters who can plausibly be part of the team. In GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, this is often represented mechanically as having a 5-point disadvantage called Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions). There may be still some die-rolls against each other, but these will be more about good-natured competition (who can climb the wall the fastest, who wins the card game, who can compose the best ode, who can impress the prince with their charming banter etc.) than about actual conflict or attempts to control each other.
I find that the middle-school groups that I facilitate often want to go to full PVP in a quick minute. Sometimes I intervene (if the players are unable to handle it); other times I let it go, and they usually realize after a session or two that killing each other isn't as exciting as going on adventures.
From a mechanical perspective, in the GURPS games that I run, there's nothing preventing PCs from using their abilities against each other. Influence rolls (i.e., trying to affect the reactions of another person through mundane means rather than forcing it through magic) are never enforced against PCs. The players can roll against each other and role-play based on that, but it's not like the suave diplomat can just control the rest of the group like puppets.
This is mostly a system issue.
Eg 4e D&D has no system for resolving PC vs PC social conflict, and its combat system isn't very satisfactory for PC vs PC martial conflict.
Whereas Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic handles PC vs PC social or martial quite easily.
Sometimes I will interpolate a system into a game that doesn't have one by default. Eg in my Classic Traveller game, on a couple of occasions when debate between the players about what to do next is becoming a bit interminable, I'll get them to frame it as two options, line the PCs up on each side, and then have them dice off, with a bonus to a given side for having Leaders and/or Nobles as advocates.
Eg 4e D&D has no system for resolving PC vs PC social conflict, and its combat system isn't very satisfactory for PC vs PC martial conflict.
Whereas Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic handles PC vs PC social or martial quite easily.
Sometimes I will interpolate a system into a game that doesn't have one by default. Eg in my Classic Traveller game, on a couple of occasions when debate between the players about what to do next is becoming a bit interminable, I'll get them to frame it as two options, line the PCs up on each side, and then have them dice off, with a bonus to a given side for having Leaders and/or Nobles as advocates.
muppetmuppet
Explorer
SPOILERS FOR LFR ASSAULT ON MYTH NANTAR.
I had some player on player dice rolling in the last session which is very unusual for my games. One player had got into his hand a glowing green thing of very dubious nature which the party believed may have been animating an undead.
So one other player asked him to put it down on the ground until they decided what to do with it just in case it was dangerous. I had passed a note to the player saying he wouldn't do this expecting the party to ask this, it is pretty much their go to move in this kind of situation. Next one player made a quick grab for the item which the first player was holding in one hand reasonably openly in front of them looking into it. This needed a player vs player roll. The second player succeeded and now had the item. Aha would you like to place that on the ground say the rest. "No" says player 2. Player 2 holds the item carefully and tightly. A couple of strong characters now grapple player 2's PC. The item is carefully prised from her grip and player 3 is now asked to put the item down. Predictably he refuses. The half orc tries to intimidate player 3 by saying put down the item or I will chop off your arm. This was a social skill which I rule cannot be decided by dice between pc's so player 3 merely has to answer or do whatever he thinks is sensible. In fact in this case it would not have mattered because player 3 wasn't going to put the item down even if the intimidate is successful. The grapple plan began again but player 3 teleported away.
I had some player on player dice rolling in the last session which is very unusual for my games. One player had got into his hand a glowing green thing of very dubious nature which the party believed may have been animating an undead.
So one other player asked him to put it down on the ground until they decided what to do with it just in case it was dangerous. I had passed a note to the player saying he wouldn't do this expecting the party to ask this, it is pretty much their go to move in this kind of situation. Next one player made a quick grab for the item which the first player was holding in one hand reasonably openly in front of them looking into it. This needed a player vs player roll. The second player succeeded and now had the item. Aha would you like to place that on the ground say the rest. "No" says player 2. Player 2 holds the item carefully and tightly. A couple of strong characters now grapple player 2's PC. The item is carefully prised from her grip and player 3 is now asked to put the item down. Predictably he refuses. The half orc tries to intimidate player 3 by saying put down the item or I will chop off your arm. This was a social skill which I rule cannot be decided by dice between pc's so player 3 merely has to answer or do whatever he thinks is sensible. In fact in this case it would not have mattered because player 3 wasn't going to put the item down even if the intimidate is successful. The grapple plan began again but player 3 teleported away.
In my book it will entirely depend upon the situation in question, and the game system. As a rule, I don't get in the way of characters messing with or fighting other characters, as long as the nature of the conflict is solely in-game based. Players having a problem with other players over out-of-game matters, which then spills over onto the actions within the adventure is an entirely different matter IMO, and one that should always be avoided.
In a D&D game, I probably wouldn't allow a Diplomacy roll in order for one character to make another character do something, but in a Song of Ice and Fire game, where a character runs an Intrigue against another character, in order to do the same thing, I would probably allow it. But again, it also depends on what the goal is. There's a difference between a character bluffing a fellow character, in order to get away with something the other character would otherwise oppose, and someone trying to get the other character to commit suicide or something comparably "fatal".
In a D&D game, I probably wouldn't allow a Diplomacy roll in order for one character to make another character do something, but in a Song of Ice and Fire game, where a character runs an Intrigue against another character, in order to do the same thing, I would probably allow it. But again, it also depends on what the goal is. There's a difference between a character bluffing a fellow character, in order to get away with something the other character would otherwise oppose, and someone trying to get the other character to commit suicide or something comparably "fatal".
Jacob Lewis
Ye Olde GM
I don't know what this is, but I feel like I need to clear my internet browser history. So thanks for that!
I don't allow it at all. The surface area of the average player is too unstable and too uneven to get fair rolls. I require my players to roll on large, flat, level surfaces.I'm so confused by the thread's main question. My initial mental picture of "player on player dice-rolling"... was not what people are discussing in this thread
PVP social skills are 100% as effective as EVP social skills-- the target player knows how "persuasive" the other character is, and then does whatever the Hell they want anyway, no questions asked. PVP charms/compulsions, I remind the caster that these spells have durations and that the target knows they've been targetted. Like stealing from the other PCs, I consider enchanting the other PCs to be a form of naked hostility that justifies retaliation up to and including lethal force. If this is insufficient deterrent to prevent mind control from becoming a problem, the problem player will be invited to leave. Pretty much anything else? Let the good times roll; if someone wants to be hostile to the other PCs, the other PCs are more than capable of getting hostile back.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
- Poll
