Skills used by players on other players.

GameOgre said:

What separates Social skills from other skills?

Click to expand...

In one word, agency. Its the reason that players would rather lose half their health than get stunned for a round. The reason that players often would rather face death than get captured.

Roleplaying comes down to making choices. When those choices are taken away, players react badly. It simply goes with the territory. Call it human nature, but yes social skills are absolutely different.


To the OP, I think you started out doing it right. They made a check, and you used it to describe how the scene looks to the character. But then the character made his choice...its his character, so to me that should have been the end of it. Ultimately you pushed it a bit by forcing him how he should react to it, and that's when things went off the rails.

It really comes down to how you view the game. IMO, characters should RP their ability scores, and should at least consider being persuaded/deceived/intimidated by someone else (PC or NPC). Of course, some things can trump even rolls, especially traits, bonds, and flaws.

Depending on what the other option was (I'm assuming it wasn't a binary help/don't help situation), the Barbarian could have accepted the rolls, but provided a better reason why not. For example, if it's help the village or chase the bad guy, then chasing the bad guy may appeal to a bloodthirsty barbarian more than helping a village. If the barbarians is more of a mercenary type, he could agree to help if the persuading player offers some reward. In both examples the roll is taken into consideration, but might be ignored. This style does require some on the fly RP, which not everyone is good at.

Some people don't agree with this style, viewing the character as a set of numbers that only have some relevance when dice are involved. To those types, a 3 Charisma character could be strikingly handsome, a 3 Int a tactical genius, etc. To those types, players control their character in any way they desire, unless restricted by some game mechanic. DMs who do this have monsters act in the most advantageous way in combat, regardless of actual intelligence, and seldom (if ever) flee, since their only purpose is to fight the PCs.

Both styles have merit, but they often cause friction when occurring in the same game.

So, I do allow social skills to be used by PCs against PCs. However, there's an issue of subtlety to it.

GameOgre said:

The Barb failed and so I told him the Face man sounded very convincing and that his instinct was to go along with it, for the face mans sake if nothing else. I explained this wasn't something like charm or mind control but to try to role play the change of heart after listening to the face mans words.

Click to expand...

That quote illustrates where I have a problem with your approach. I wouldn't have described the successful check as the barbarian's instincts being to go along with it, or with him having a change of heart. I would have described the face man as making a persuasive argument for why they should do it (either a logical and well-reasoned argument, or an emotionally stirring argument, depending on how it was done by the face man). I'd then ask the player of the barbarian to keep this in mind when weighing what they choose to do, and what reasoning they may choose to not do what the face man suggested.

Ultimately, it's the barbarian making the decision by weighing the argument against what he wanted to do (or not do). If the barbarian's reasons for not doing a thing outweighs the argument of the face man, despite a fabulous check by the face man, then so be it.

I handle social skill use against NPCs the same way. You can't compel them to do what you want them to because of a good check. However, your check can influence the factors they use in making decisions. In other words, no Diplomancers at my table.

Lord Mhoram said:

To me using a skill (even a social skill) to influence another character is tantamount to using combat skills (like swinging a sword) at that character. Personally If I had a GM that made my character "go along" because another character used a social skill on me- thus taking away player (not character) agency and the GM allowed or encouraged that - I'd walk. If you allow PC vs PC combat and encourage that as easily as you did the social skill, then that is how your game works. But then I ban PC vs PC combat, so I am comfortable banning PC vs PC skill influence on agency.

Click to expand...

I think you're conflating two concerns here.

One is - should a player character swing their sword at another player character? PC vs PC combat. That depends on groups, but for many groups the PCs agree they won't attack one another.

A distinctly different concern is - if a player character swung their sword at another player character, and if they roll the attack die and it hits, then should that attack deal damage? Do the game mechanics apply PC to PC? This isn't a question of whether it would be right to do so, but if they did do so, do the game mechanics apply.

Say for my group, we love in-game PvP. We'll stab a fellow adventurer in the back the moment it profits us to do so. That's how we roll and we all signed up to it. It's our social contract. We're clearly not in breach of our social contract therefore if we use our character abilities on one another. So we can focus on the other concern: do those abilities mechanically apply to each other's characters? Or not?

iserith said:

A player determines how his or her character thinks, acts, and talks. Only the player may determine this, short of exceptions like magical compulsion.

Click to expand...

This admits the possibility of an argument that successful skill use is like magical compulsion.

Consider Dexterity (Stealth) skill use. PC Alice satisfies the requirements for a hide check and wants to hide from PC Barbie. She rolls 16 against Barbie's 13 passive Wisdom (Perception). According to the game mechanics, she is hidden. Barbie can't see her and doesn't know where she is. Clearly if that is admitted to be true, then it becomes harder to see why a similar Contest, Alice's Charisma (Persuasion) against Barbie's Wisdom (Insight) might not work?

One might prefer then to argue that magical compulsion means only spells. Say we don't mind a bit of PvP and Alice stabs Barbie with a poisoned dagger? Dealing enough damage to Barbie, who fails her save, to knock her to "dying". If those mechanics work between the characters - and there is no reason at all in the game mechanics to suppose they would not - and Alice knocked Barbie to "dying". Didn't she just change how Barbie acts, without casting a spell?

I think this line of reasoning ends up in a place where, for whatever reason, we need to make a special exception for "social skills". The OP called attention to that right off the bat. For some reason, we're fine with other skills and features operating as written between characters even if they aren't spells. Yet, when it comes to social skills, we want to put up a shield.

For me, the test of good roleplaying is your character acting as they, not you, would act. The Barbarian player would have added to the enjoyment of the group by taking and enhancing the narrative thread created by the Face player.

MechaPilot said:

So, I do allow social skills to be used by PCs against PCs. However, there's an issue of subtlety to it.



That quote illustrates where I have a problem with your approach. I wouldn't have described the successful check as the barbarian's instincts being to go along with it, or with him having a change of heart. I would have described the face man as making a persuasive argument for why they should do it (either a logical and well-reasoned argument, or an emotionally stirring argument, depending on how it was done by the face man). I'd then ask the player of the barbarian to keep this in mind when weighing what they choose to do, and what reasoning they may choose to not do what the face man suggested.

Ultimately, it's the barbarian making the decision by weighing the argument against what he wanted to do (or not do). If the barbarian's reasons for not doing a thing outweighs the argument of the face man, despite a fabulous check by the face man, then so be it.

I handle social skill use against NPCs the same way. You can't compel them to do what you want them to because of a good check. However, your check can influence the factors they use in making decisions. In other words, no Diplomancers at my table.

Click to expand...

This, exactly. There is a happy middle ground between "I'm the DM, and I know better than you how your character ought to be roleplayed" and "PCs are super special snowflakes who don't play by the same rules as other people in the world". Persuasion and Deception affect the character's information input, just like Perception and Investigation. What the character does with the information is up to them. Deception/Insight, in particular, is just Stealth/Perception but for social situations. Deception no more forces a character to believe a lie than Stealth forces a character to believe nothing is hiding from them; it just means they can't spot it. Persuasion is admittedly a bit trickier to handle, and I do generally prefer to let players roleplay such interactions and leave the dice as a last resort, but when it comes down to it, I'm with MechaPilot: inform the persuadee that the persuader has made a compelling case, and trust them to roleplay their character fittingly.

As [MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION] stated, social skills are not magic. Someone trying to persuade someone else does nothing to compel that person to do something, they just make a very persuasive argument.

Whether the PC or NPC agrees to follow along with the suggestion is up to the person running the character. In the OP's scenario, the charismatic character would likely have been able to order the barbarian around for the entire campaign, with the barbarian never making a decision for themselves. That would have sucked for the person playing the barbarian unless that's the character they wanted to play from the beginning.

Let's take a real world scenario. Assume I'm a young heterosexual unattached male (which admittedly hasn't been true for a while) and the most beautiful woman I've ever met approaches me and tells me we can have a night of passion. All I have to do is murder her boyfriend. I'll probably get away with it because there's no connection between the two of us. Would I do it? Of course not, no matter how persuasive she is. Would some guys do it? Of course, murders have happened for less. But the point is I am the one making that decision, there is virtually no level of persuasiveness that could convince me.

Even someone with limited mental capabilities should make their own decisions, unless they specifically told you at the start of the game that they would not.

Oofta said:

As @MechaPilot stated, social skills are not magic. Someone trying to persuade someone else does nothing to compel that person to do something, they just make a very persuasive argument.

Click to expand...

Where I stall on this is the implication that when someone is hidden, and a character fails their passive and active perception checks, they just need to... look more intently? It implies that some but not all skills have no effect on characters. What I dislike there is the picking and choosing.

Oofta said:

Whether the PC or NPC agrees to follow along with the suggestion is up to the person running the character. In the OP's scenario, the charismatic character would likely have been able to order the barbarian around for the entire campaign, with the barbarian never making a decision for themselves.

Click to expand...

An alternative is that how they follow the suggestion is up to the player. Player and DM can consider consider factors like how long the persuasion might last, and what might erode it. Right after the conversation, the barbarian feels convinced this would be a good idea. Later, when someone else questions it, they start to have doubts. There are so many ways to play this I find the notion that the barbarian never makes a decision for themselves to be of course understandable, but actually only how it looks on the surface, before player imagination is applied. The face is a natural leader and the barbarian needs strong reasons to not follow that lead.

Oofta said:

the most beautiful woman I've ever met approaches me and tells me we can have a night of passion. All I have to do is murder her boyfriend. I'll probably get away with it because there's no connection between the two of us. Would I do it? Of course not, no matter how persuasive she is. Would some guys do it? Of course, murders have happened for less. But the point is I am the one making that decision, there is virtually no level of persuasiveness that could convince me.

Click to expand...

Doesn't "virtually" amount to setting an appropriate DC? I think one complaint the barbarian can have is that a contest against their unmodified Insight doesn't capture what was asked. From their perspective, helping the villagers meant sacrificing something else they wanted to do, and perhaps taking a risk. Maybe they're helping people that as a barbarian they see as intruders on the land. They could have argued for disadvantage on the Face's check, and in at the same time, in some cases, advantage on their own, to capture their reluctance. And if they find themselves constantly being "played", then downgrading their relationship from friendly (as allies) to eventually hostile (which could add +5 to their check, on top of disadvantage/advantage looking at the DMG). As they have time to dwell on how they just keep getting lead into things they don't at heart want to do. A neutral observer, like a Bard or Cleric, might feel concerned for their easily-led friend, and offer guidance.

Social skills are consistently an area where, perhaps due to lack of nuance in the mechanics, groups often feel cautious of saying - these apply equally to monsters, NPCs and PCs. Yet my overriding feeling is that it is exactly events like this - prompted by dice rolls - that can create roleplaying opportunities.

clearstream said:

Where I stall on this is the implication that when someone is hidden, and a character fails their passive and active perception checks, they just need to... look more intently? It implies that some but not all skills have no effect on characters. What I dislike there is the picking and choosing.


An alternative is that how they follow the suggestion is up to the player. Player and DM can consider consider factors like how long the persuasion might last, and what might erode it. Right after the conversation, the barbarian feels convinced this would be a good idea. Later, when someone else questions it, they start to have doubts. There are so many ways to play this I find the notion that the barbarian never makes a decision for themselves to be of course understandable, but actually only how it looks on the surface, before player imagination is applied. The face is a natural leader and the barbarian needs strong reasons to not follow that lead.


Doesn't "virtually" amount to setting an appropriate DC? I think one complaint the barbarian can have is that a contest against their unmodified Insight doesn't capture what was asked. From their perspective, helping the villagers meant sacrificing something else they wanted to do, and perhaps taking a risk. Maybe they're helping people that as a barbarian they see as intruders on the land. They could have argued for disadvantage on the Face's check, and in at the same time, in some cases, advantage on their own, to capture their reluctance. And if they find themselves constantly being "played", then downgrading their relationship from friendly (as allies) to eventually hostile (which could add +5 to their check, on top of disadvantage/advantage looking at the DMG). As they have time to dwell on how they just keep getting lead into things they don't at heart want to do. A neutral observer, like a Bard or Cleric, might feel concerned for their easily-led friend, and offer guidance.

Social skills are consistently an area where, perhaps due to lack of nuance in the mechanics, groups often feel cautious of saying - these apply equally to monsters, NPCs and PCs. Yet my overriding feeling is that it is exactly events like this - prompted by dice rolls - that can create roleplaying opportunities.

Click to expand...

There's a big difference between a physical challenge - whether that's arm wrestling or detecting someone in the dark - and a social challenge. The former can be decided with a die roll, the latter can be influenced by a die roll.

As far as "virtually" amounting to a DC, no. There might be if there were significant trickery/lies/deceit. In my scenario I might be convinced to kill the boyfriend if I believed I or someone else was in imminent danger of being killed and the only way to stop them wast to kill them. Even then I'd probably have to see the boyfriend pointing a loaded gun and I might shoot first. But ... that would require far, far more than a simple conversation.

I don't reduce PCs or NPCs to a simple set of numbers controlled by die rolls.

I think this thread is a great example of something I see on this and other message boards. It seems like you don't really want feedback, you want affirmation. In this case you simply aren't going to get that from me, no matter how much you post. I've thought about this over the years (this isn't the first time it's come up) and I fundamentally disagree with what you're saying. What you see as a roleplaying opportunity is something I see as antithetical to roleplaying. You want to reduce a characters thoughts, decisions and reactions to a simple contest, one which the high charisma player will most likely win the vast majority of time. My characters are far more than their numbers and their decisions and actions (or attempted actions) shouldn't be controlled by numbers alone unless there is magic involved.

So I agree with the barbarian's player, if I were him and you insisted on running the game this way I would find a different game.

GameOgre said:

So here we go again.

...

This isn't the first time this has been brought up in the game and I just do not understand where it is coming from.

Click to expand...

It came from you.

More or less it sounds to me that all the three of you have failed.

The face man player failed to want to impose his PC will on another player.
You failed in siding with him and force a skill check to be the final arbiter.
The Barbarian's player failed when he overreacted and tried to use something in-game against the first PC.

But you are the DM so you have more responsibility. You wonder why here you are again? Don't do it again. Don't let players force anything to each other. Don't pretend that because the stats allow a PC to beat another at something, then doing so is a legitimate move. It is not. The game is meant to be cooperative, and forcing others action by Charisma is just as uncooperative as attacking them with a weapon. If someone doesn't play cooperatively then they are failing at the game's first and most important premise. Pretending that it's "because roleplay" is just lame.