Skills used by players on other players.

[FrogReaver]

The Player said"yeah i don't care, I don't want to do that. who gives a #$#$ about this village? I want to go get some xp from that dungeon we left last week." When the player of the rogue started to talk to him in character he said"No XP in that crap man".

When I forced him to react in character he was outright hostile. Really I think he just was having a bad day. It happens. He was having a rough week at work I think.



I do not run adventures. It's a do whatever you want type of game. Sure I might have Storms King Thunder as a backdrop and if the pc's want to get involved then i would be game, however i'm actually much more comfortable with the pc's doing whatever floats their boat.

No the party did not help the village BUT....the barbarian was right. The villagers hand been infiltrated by a evil cult and although many innocent villagers did end up dying the party would have been double crossed at some point because the Ogre/giant invasion was planned out by the cult who would have tried to make sure the pc's were eliminated before they could interfere.

Now instead there is a growing Giant Power allied with a evil cult in that region. Actually only about 40 miles away from the home village of the Barbarian.....

So sounds to me like the partys barbarian was irritated and just wanted to go smash face / get stronger / test himself. Awesome. So how exactly are you sure that kind of response wasn't an accurately roleplayed response to how his barbarian was feeling at the moment?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Nothing. But social skills are what we are discussing here.

The way I handle PvP at my table(s)...and trying to Persuade or Intimidate another player is very much PvP...is that the target of an attack gets to narrate the result, with no dice rolling.

So if player A attacks player B with a sword, player B simply gets to describe what happens. And I do have players who will willingly say, "Ok, I get hit and take X damage..." Others will say, "I duck and the sword whistles over my head." Sometimes they'll attack back, sometimes they'll just keep dodging until the attacker figures out that in my game it takes two to tango. (Thanks to either [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] or [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION], I can't remember which, for introducing me to this approach.)

And, yeah, since Persuade is really an attack on another character, so the target gets to decide what happens.

That is my favorite approach to player-on-player action. While it does sidestep the game system and the usual task resolution (roll a d20, etc.), the tradeoff is voluntaryism and consent. Someone disinterested in engaging in that way can opt out. Someone interested in engaging in that way can opt in and build on what’s happening.

I can’t even tell you how much shenanigans you skip in a kids/young adults game when you do pvp this way.

Here’s what I do, for any PvP action whether physical, social, or otherwise:

The action is resolved, as per the conversation of the game: the player initiating the action describes what they want to accomplish, and how their character attempts to accomplish it, in which terms of the fiction. The DM determines the results of the action, potentially calling for a check to resolve uncertainty in the outcome, then narrates the results. Except I have the player of the targeted character act in the DM’s roll in this case. So, if Nico’s character attacks Adrian’s character, Adrian decides if the action has a chance of success, a chance of failure, a consequence for failure, and if so, what sort of check needs to be made, if any, to resolve that uncertainty, and narrates the results, same way I would of an NPC or monster was the target.

Shoutout to [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] for giving me the idea.

This is perhaps the most important DM lesson that I've learned on ENWorld. Thank you [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] et al! I only wish I had learned it sooner as it might just have prevented someone from leaving our group. I froze and stuttered when one PC drew his bow and shot when the other PC popped out of a secret door in a cliffside (as a means of rejoining the group after the player was absent the prior session). I was at a total loss for how to handle the situation as I never imagined it coming up - I just expected the party to be cohesive. After some hemming and hawing, we moved on, but the damage was done in and out of game. A very bad mistake which will now never happen again because of this most excellent advice. The offender is no longer at our table either.

 

[Blue]

Let me ask this from the other side. One that doesn't affect character agency.

Character A tells the group something. The character is lying.

Character B is suspicious - maybe they think character A is charmed, or carrying out a mission for their faction, or it doesn't jive with other information. Player B asks the DM if their character thinks Character A is lying.

Is it in-line for the DM to ask for a bluff vs. insight role if the first character wasn't telling the truth?

(Alternately: for those who are using the Isereth (?) method where pvp is determined by the person being affected, is the bluff a "pvp attack" and it needs to be disclosed to player B that it was a lie so they can determine how they respond?)

This is just wondering about social skill use vs. other characters when player agency isn't at risk. I think the answer to this sort might help define where the line is for some.

 

[iserith]

Well, now I'm torn.

On the one hand, AFAIAC, it is never, ever okay to tell a player how their character must react to something unless magic is involved.

On the other, I have zero use for anyone who replies to an in-character argument, or makes an in-character decision, based on out-of-character issues like "Where can I find the most XP?"

It seems reasonable to me that some adventurers might weigh two options and go with the one that will provide him or her with the most benefit. And oddly enough in this case, for reasons that probably amount to a lucky guess, that choice ended up being the right one (to the extent I understand GameOgre's description).

 

[Seramus]

Player agency issues usually come down to frequency. Most players don't mind losing some agency if it happens once in a while, but they will get upset if it happens too often or the other players do not compromise now and then. You can usually find a happy medium with good communication.

That said...

There are plenty of great players out there who do not flip out about player agency. You might be in a situation where you are roleplaying with your friends and want to continue doing that, but you can always make friends with amazing players who don't have the same flaws as your current players. Sometimes it's okay to let a player go, even if that player is your friend.

 

[iserith]

Let me ask this from the other side. One that doesn't affect character agency.

Character A tells the group something. The character is lying.

Character B is suspicious - maybe they think character A is charmed, or carrying out a mission for their faction, or it doesn't jive with other information. Player B asks the DM if their character thinks Character A is lying.

My response to these sorts of questions is "Only you can say what your character thinks."

Is it in-line for the DM to ask for a bluff vs. insight role if the first character wasn't telling the truth?

(Alternately: for those who are using the Isereth (?) method where pvp is determined by the person being affected, is the bluff a "pvp attack" and it needs to be disclosed to player B that it was a lie so they can determine how they respond?)

This is just wondering about social skill use vs. other characters when player agency isn't at risk. I think the answer to this sort might help define where the line is for some.

The way this plays out at our table is that the character tells a lie, both players know it since presumably nobody's really in the dark about this as we're all there at the table, and then the player whose character is being lied to decides whether it would be more fun to play along with it, to be suspicious, or whatever. This choice might be informed by personality traits, ideals, bonds, or flaws and be worth Inspiration. Someone with a flaw that amounts to be gullible could choose to fall for it and claim some sweet, sweet Inspiration.

There's a couple of characters I DM for that spring to mind. One of them has the flaw "I have a tell that reveals when I'm lying." So he will purposefully tell a lie of some kind each session and then his eye gets really winky. He takes Inspiration. The players can then decide if they want to pick up on that tell or not. Another character has a trait something along the lines of him lying about anything even when he doesn't have to. At least once a session, he waits for the perfect moment and just starts lying through his teeth in a way that's just hilarious. He also takes Inspiration. It's super fun. There's a lot of fun to be had in this area without the dice.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Question: would you allow a pc to walk into the throne room and persuade the king to abdicate and turn the crown over to the pc?

I’m guessing not. Why not? Because we all know that there are limits to what skills can do, and that is clearly one of them. So, you, as the DM rule that there is nothing the pc can roll to convince the king to do so. You get to do that, because you are the DM and you know the limits of what the king would and would not reasonably do.

For the same reason, players get to make that determination for their characters. The player gets to decide what their character would and would not be persuaded to do. They get to make that call.

Would you let the “face” persuade the other pcs where to move, what spells to cast, and how to spend their turns during a fight? Why not? Because then the only person playing the game would be the face.

That’s why only extenuating circumstances (like enchantments) get to take agency away from players.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Thyrwyn's post suggests another way of expressing the fallacy of using Persuasion on fellow PCs: even for those who allow this, clearly there must be a limit for how far it can be taken. You couldn't persuade a PC (or an NPC, for that matter) to jump into lava.

So what is the limit? Who gets to decide where the limit is beyond which a character cannot be persuaded by normal means?

If the answer is "The DM" then you've just totally taken away player agency. You've basically said, "You get to decide what your character does within the bounds that I determine."

If the answer is "The Player" then you have to accept it when the player shrugs off "successful" Persuasion rolls for what other people think are reasonable things.

And some vague answer about how you can only tell on a case-by-case basis doesn't count. Clearly in the case being discussed in this thread it was not obvious to everybody involved which side of the line they were on.

 

[Blue]

My response to these sorts of questions is "Only you can say what your character thinks."

Instead of playing word games, answer the actual question. I tried to phrase it in such such a way that those who "don't let players call for rolls" would accept it, and now you're dodging the question with fancy wordplay. This does not add to the conversation.

Character B is attempting to figure out if "A" is lying. Regardless if "A" is a PC or NPC. There happens to be a useful skill called Insight to help tell this and there's another skill called Bluff to tell the lie in a believable way.

I fully believe you are capable of putting together some sort of use of these skills and a potential lie that can answer the question instead of dodging ti with a snarky answer that blocks the conversation from happening.

The way this plays out at our table is that the character tells a lie, both players know it since presumably nobody's really in the dark about this as we're all there at the table,

If a player was unsure or in the dark if another player was having their character lie, would you require the player be informed, or does this play out in-game at the character level? However you envision that occuring.

Saying that all players automatically recognize all lies may be a true at your table but isn't particularly useful in the realm of "all tables" for furthering the discussion. Especially AL games where people may not be there week to week or may join a game already in progress, where factions give out secret missions, etc.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

...I tried to phrase it in such such a way that those who "don't let players call for rolls" would accept it...

...There happens to be a useful skill called Insight to help tell this and there's another skill called Bluff to tell the lie in a believable way...

Methinks you are bringing pre-5e style to your stance.

5e might just work best when the DM calls for the rolls, not the players. It's right there in the "How to Play" section of the PHB. YMMV of course.

Either way, there is no "Bluff" skill in 5e. Yeah, you probably meant "Deception", but it is telling that play style does vary by the editions that we've internalized.