Skills used by players on other players.

[Guest 6801328]

Not exactly. When the player states that this is something they have decided it is very unlikely their character will agree to, a DM can give them advantage, and give the face disadvantage. A DM can even stack a modifier for circumstances on top, if that feels justified, such as being convinced to kill his brother. In that case, it could also be made clear a risk of the character becoming lastingly hostile to the proposer, with some kind of ongoing mechanic to support that (taking the attitudes in the DMG as a guide perhaps).

Ok, so 4 different gradations, determined by the target player. Not so different from letting the player choose the DC. Which, in turn, is not so different from just letting the player roleplay it as he or she sees fit.

I do acknowledge this requires some trust, in the other people at the table, to participate in the fiction. If one does not trust the other players at the table...well, I'm not sure rules fix that.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Because there is a mind-meld between player and character and so that aspect of play is able to be resolved without needing dice. The player and the character both listen to the proposal and the player is able to determine their characters response. Imagination and response are one. So I would say this is true for all 3 mental based abilities: Wisdom, Intelligence and Charisma. Note this is only for PC vs PC contests.

No, there isnt. We only inhabit our characters for a very limited amount of time. That little 1 minute speech and persuasion roll? That was the cliff notes version of the argument, simply because we as players don't want to deliver (or hear) a multi hour oration. There's a huge level of separation in player and character. You aren't actually hearing a charisma 20 character speak with a +10 deception skill. The character is.

The game mechanics bridge that gap. It's honestly poor roleplaying to NOT go with the dice. I like the social consequences of FATE. Where you can still choose the metagame/cheat around what your character would otherwise believe, but you pay a price for doing so.

 

[Beowulf]

It's honestly poor roleplaying to NOT go with the dice.

So if an Insight roll were successful, and the player said, “You know what, my character wants to believe the lie because that would be in character for him. So maybe intellectually he knows something is off, but he’s going to go along with this wholeheartedly” you would call that bad role playing?

Maybe you are, but I’m guessing not. I suspect you were thinking of cases where ignoring the dice gives the character a mechanical advantage.

The only difference is our hunches/suspicions about the motivation of the player. I’m not convinced we should be policing that.

 

[Oofta]

No, there isnt. We only inhabit our characters for a very limited amount of time. That little 1 minute speech and persuasion roll? That was the cliff notes version of the argument, simply because we as players don't want to deliver (or hear) a multi hour oration. There's a huge level of separation in player and character. You aren't actually hearing a charisma 20 character speak with a +10 deception skill. The character is.

The game mechanics bridge that gap. It's honestly poor roleplaying to NOT go with the dice. I like the social consequences of FATE. Where you can still choose the metagame/cheat around what your character would otherwise believe, but you pay a price for doing so.

You seem to be assuming that the unpersuaded party is metagaming. If they are that's a separate issue, one that is going to be a bigger issue at some tables but not others.

I don't reduce PCs (or NPCs) to a set of numbers where decisions and. Thoughts could ever come down to a die roll unless the player decides to leave it up to chance.

To me, the essence of role-playing is putting myself in someone else's shoes and deciding what they would think in the moment. Dice don't have anything to do with it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I can see that my point was not clear enough. The example isn't about who would win. It is about characters that have relevant abilities that are different from the abilities of their players. I'm not completely gullible, but as a player I'm more gullible than a Rogue Inquisitive with high Wisdom, Ear for Deceit, and Expertise in Insight is. This points out that player-to-player does not represent or successfully stand in for character-to-character.

Again, this is a difference in degree not in kind -- every character has the ability to make an insight check. You've just added a bunch of enhancers to this and are trying to say it's a different example -- it's not.

Again this seems to miss the mark in a pretty profound way. We can probably agree that, absent players, characters don't do anything. Right? So I can put on one side living persons, who take on the role of players, and I can assign them with characters. Those players then decide what their assigned characters think, act and say. Two sides Players | Characters. Which side is character thinking, acting, saying occurring on?

Well, characters are the player avatar inside the fiction, and the things they do in the fiction are mediated through rules. Acts are a clear case. As a player I can decide that my character is going to walk away from the ogre, but if the ogre has my character grappled then the rules prevent it from carrying out my decision. Character thoughts are an interesting case, because it seems like there are features in the game that can override them, just as grappling reduced my characters speed to 0.

Persuasion isn't a constraint on action, though. If you "persuade" someone, they are not prevented from doing anything at all. It's a fictionally different situation. This is a difference of kind which you're trying to present as a difference of degree.

All this has nothing to do with changing what the player decides. The player can continue to decide whatever they wish. What it has to do with is how those decisions are translated or implemented into the fiction. Player decisions can then come in the form "given the rules allow it, my in game avatar (character) will". It's interesting the acceptance of "magic" as the "clear exception". In terms of the games metaphysical framework, "magic" isn't really an exception at all. Persuasion could be given a "magic" designation and that wouldn't fix the issues people have with it being used on characters. It seems to me more important to look at the tightly-defined effects, limited durations, and other checks and costs of spells, in understanding how Persuasion could be made to work in a fair and more acceptable way character-to-character.

Sorry, we're not going to be able to have a discussion where the persuasion skill is magical compulsion.

Secondly, if the player can continue to decide to do whatever they want, then what's the point of the discussion about persuasion? It has no impact. Unless you're really saying, as I think you are, that the freedom to decide what you want to do is constrained by having to agree with the persuader. So, in the OP case, the barbarian HAS to help the villagers, because that's what the persuasion says, but he's free to pick how he wants to help the villagers. Were I in that game, and forced to make that choice, then I'd choose that removing the burden of life is the best way to assist*. Further, I wouldn't say this out loud until I started killing so as to prevent the other characters from calling for insight rolls to tell if I were lying or what my true intentions are. I can game that system just as well, and you've open the door that I should, in fact, act in ways to subvert the ability to control my character.

*actually, I'd leave, because no gaming is better than bad gaming.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure thing. characters live in the world. Therefore it is my responsibility to give the characters the information they would notice simply existing.

If I told one character "You see what look like words in some language engraved on the sealed arch" and another character "you see the sentence 'Speak Friend and Enter' in dwarven runes around the sealed arch", I am having the characters do something - experience the world - without the player having to explicitly tell me they are doing so because it's already an assumption.

By the same thing, if a player intentionally had his character lie in such a way to present it as true to the listeners, then they are using deception (charisma) even if they don't call out using the skill by name.

No, they are lying. Not everything is a skill use. In fact, nothing is. Skills are things that are used with ability checks to resolve uncertainty. Until the DM determines uncertainty and calls for a check, there's no skill use at all.

And, again, it's not the DM's job to narrate the PCs. That's, in fact, the one thing that isn't the DM's job. So, yes, you have the duty to narrate the scene, but not to narrate the player actions. If you have a player that likes to lie to other players and doesn't narrate appropriately for your table, that's a player problem, not a game problem. Discuss it at the table. Using game mechanics to correct social contract violations is not a good thing.

I'm not sure how you think any of that applies to what I've been saying.

On the other hand, players do build their characters to be better or worse at things, and taking away the player's intentions on if their character is skilled at reading people (or knowing arcana, or spotting traps, or whatever) it taking away player agency.

No, it doesn't, any more than it takes away the agency of other characters to not do the same to them. It's an area where the players maintain absolute agency -- only they can say what their character thinks about anything. Saying that another player cannot remove that agency means that the agency is lost is a very strange argument.

And, players are still able to read NPCs. Again, if you really like PVP action in your games, I'd suggest a different game that does that better, or importing different mechanics. Otherwise the specialization functions of D&D will always lead to unbalanced PVP. Further, if you honestly treat persuasion as a binary where it's just as likely to convince your friend to loan you a gp and convincing someone intent on harming you to stop, then there's a serious issue there.

For telling if another character is honest, no, I wouldn't allow rolling insight against them. That's between players and not my place as DM to say what you think about what. If an NPC is involved, I get a say if an declaration involves the NPC.

 

[ClaytonCross]

An interesting thing here on player agency. If you take the power of a characters stats choices or you make a player do what the other player wants … your stealing player agency either way.

- As a Face who was proficient with persuasion I have had my GM make my character auto-fail all social arguments because I was not persuasive enough as a player... completely ignoring my characters stats... So I asked him, when the fighter makes a strength check, you don't make him lift so see how strong he is first, when a Druid makes and animal check you don't make him give your dog his pills first, so why is it that you make the face argue as a player to convince an NPC and why do you make the rogue player describe in step by step narration how to investigate or preserve enemies as a scout but then just roll for disarming traps? Why not make the player actually pick the lock? It's highly inconsistent and it devalues curtain player skills because the skills don't matter at your table the player have to do it in reality to count.

Skill checks are skill checks and should 100% of the time require a role (that actually matters with a preset DC, not just for show with an auto fail) or the GM is meta gaming a crime of which GMs hold players accountable.

- On the other hand, Players should be able to play their own characters. IF the face asks the Barbarian to give him all his gold for no reason and roles persuasion with expertise vs a -8 wisdom without incite.... he can basically control the other players character this is not PVP, as in PVP both players maintain control of their characters with the rules. No this is handing one players character to another player and making the player without a character watch as the character they invested in is doing something they would never do given player agency. It is different to over ride the mind of a player then to out power them physically or mind control them with a spell as a player still owns the character when they own the will even if the body does not follow their will. In general mind control abilities are the hardest on players regardless but they should be left to player interpretation.

A social check should be about compromise not controlling other players characters. Lets say, your Face wants all the Barbarian's gold, he asks he gets a skill check, he wins, however the barbarian doesn't want to give his gold away... he does however want to get the face more gold so instead of giving the Face his gold he steals it from another PC in the party (with a successful strength skill check ripping it off their side and handing it over)… so the face gets his gold but the barbarian loses his and the player who lost the gold didn't lose it to a social skill check taking away player agency but a physical skill. This then causes the Face to have to justify himself since the 3rd player is like "what they hell!", The barbarian "he needs this more than you.", and the Face now has disadvantage on social checks vs the 3rd party member who saw this happen and blames him. Then you look at your players and say I will not stop the PVP this will lead to if you start engaging each other that can be fun too but when you start killing each other and get attacked a man down on the next encounter don't blame me for being under powered as a group … Also, if I have a player that's always starting PVP problems instead of a rare one off, I would pull them aside as tell them look, your hurting other players fun... once in a while it fine, but If I feel like your hurting the overall play of the group I am going to have to either kick you from the group or create divine intervention when you start causing problems and nether of us want that so please keep your character in check so I don't have to.

 

[Guest 6801328]

An interesting thing here on player agency. If you take the power of a characters stats choices or you make a player do what the other player wants … your stealing player agency either way.

As I said on the previous page, in that first case (negating the power of the player's choices when making his character) it's kind of mean, but it's not actually affecting player agency. Player agency is a matter of controlling what your character thinks and what actions he takes, not how successful he is at those actions.

- As a Face who was proficient with persuasion I have had my GM make my character auto-fail all social arguments because I was not persuasive enough as a player... completely ignoring my characters stats... So I asked him, when the fighter makes a strength check, you don't make him lift so see how strong he is first, when a Druid makes and animal check you don't make him give your dog his pills first, so why is it that you make the face argue as a player to convince an NPC and why do you make the rogue player describe in step by step narration how to investigate or preserve enemies as a scout but then just roll for disarming traps? Why not make the player actually pick the lock? It's highly inconsistent and it devalues curtain player skills because the skills don't matter at your table the player have to do it in reality to count.

Yeah, I agree. It's why I never require my players to actually come up with persuasive arguments, let alone voice act them, if they don't want to. And if they try, I don't try to judge the quality and have that result in modifiers. Because that would be ME being persuaded, not the NPC. And I don't want to have to roleplay all my NPCs because I would let my own biases get in the way. So I use dice to tell me what the NPCs do.

Still, none of that has anything to do with player agency.

Skill checks are skill checks and should 100% of the time require a role (that actually matters with a preset DC, not just for show with an auto fail) or the GM is meta gaming a crime of which GMs hold players accountable.

By definition a skill check requires a roll. That's what it is.

But a player saying "I'm going to try to persuade the NPC" or "I'm going to try to swim the river" or "I will try to identify that herb" are not making skill checks. They are declaring actions. The DM might, if he/she thinks the outcome is uncertain, ask for a skill check.

Likewise, if a player says, "I want to persuade the (player character) Barbarian to hand over all his gold" the correct response from the DM is, "Go ahead." In this case no dice are needed because the Barbarian's player can decide for himself what is persuasive and what isn't.

Now, that player might decide the outcome is uncertain and say, "Gimme a roll." But that's totally up to him/her. No, that's not in the rules, but the player is free to use whatever criteria they want. The might flip a coin for themselves. Or use a Magic 8 ball. Or just simply decide, "There's no way my character would be persuaded of that without magic being used."

But to have somebody else say, "The Face is going to roll and you have to abide by the results" would be akin to telling the DM, "I'm going to make a Persuasion roll and if I succeed the King has to open his treasury for me. Don't worry, I'll give myself a high DC." Nuh-uh.

 

[Ovinomancer]

An interesting thing here on player agency. If you take the power of a characters stats choices or you make a player do what the other player wants … your stealing player agency either way.

- As a Face who was proficient with persuasion I have had my GM make my character auto-fail all social arguments because I was not persuasive enough as a player... completely ignoring my characters stats... So I asked him, when the fighter makes a strength check, you don't make him lift so see how strong he is first, when a Druid makes and animal check you don't make him give your dog his pills first, so why is it that you make the face argue as a player to convince an NPC and why do you make the rogue player describe in step by step narration how to investigate or preserve enemies as a scout but then just roll for disarming traps? Why not make the player actually pick the lock? It's highly inconsistent and it devalues curtain player skills because the skills don't matter at your table the player have to do it in reality to count.

Skill checks are skill checks and should 100% of the time require a role (that actually matters with a preset DC, not just for show with an auto fail) or the GM is meta gaming a crime of which GMs hold players accountable.

- On the other hand, Players should be able to play their own characters. IF the face asks the Barbarian to give him all his gold for no reason and roles persuasion with expertise vs a -8 wisdom without incite.... he can basically control the other players character this is not PVP, as in PVP both players maintain control of their characters with the rules. No this is handing one players character to another player and making the player without a character watch as the character they invested in is doing something they would never do given player agency. It is different to over ride the mind of a player then to out power them physically or mind control them with a spell as a player still owns the character when they own the will even if the body does not follow their will. In general mind control abilities are the hardest on players regardless but they should be left to player interpretation.

A social check should be about compromise not controlling other players characters. Lets say, your Face wants all the Barbarian's gold, he asks he gets a skill check, he wins, however the barbarian doesn't want to give his gold away... he does however want to get the face more gold so instead of giving the Face his gold he steals it from another PC in the party (with a successful strength skill check ripping it off their side and handing it over)… so the face gets his gold but the barbarian loses his and the player who lost the gold didn't lose it to a social skill check taking away player agency but a physical skill. This then causes the Face to have to justify himself since the 3rd player is like "what they hell!", The barbarian "he needs this more than you.", and the Face now has disadvantage on social checks vs the 3rd party member who saw this happen and blames him. Then you look at your players and say I will not stop the PVP this will lead to if you start engaging each other that can be fun too but when you start killing each other and get attacked a man down on the next encounter don't blame me for being under powered as a group … Also, if I have a player that's always starting PVP problems instead of a rare one off, I would pull them aside as tell them look, your hurting other players fun... once in a while it fine, but If I feel like your hurting the overall play of the group I am going to have to either kick you from the group or create divine intervention when you start causing problems and nether of us want that so please keep your character in check so I don't have to.

To your bold, no, absolutely not. Your GM was indeed doing it wrong, but that doesn't mean that any asked for use of a skill requires a roll. Again, if you ask the king to give you his kingdom, do you get to roll for that and win? Nope, some things don't happen. This is why I follow [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s method of insisting on an approach and goal. Using that I determine if the outcome is automatically successful, impossible, or uncertain. If uncertain, I use the goal and approach to set DCs, using 10-15 as the baseline that requires good reason to exceed. But, I, as DM, only have authority over the entire game that's not the what the PCs think and want. So, when anything impinges on that, it's the player of that PC that gets to determine if a thing is successful, impossible, or uncertain, not me.

That said, your DM was doing it wrong. Your ability to act should not, in any way, impact how effective your character is. I have players that act almost all the time, and some that mostly use third person declarations. They all get the same chances at the table.

 

[GameOgre]

Not exactly. When the player states that this is something they have decided it is very unlikely their character will agree to, a DM can give them advantage, and give the face disadvantage. A DM can even stack a modifier for circumstances on top, if that feels justified, such as being convinced to kill his brother. In that case, it could also be made clear a risk of the character becoming lastingly hostile to the proposer, with some kind of ongoing mechanic to support that (taking the attitudes in the DMG as a guide perhaps).

All of this is hogwash. The side in favor of skill verse skill for persuasion isn't in favor of persuasion being if you lose you have to go along with anything. Only that you were persuaded. It's not a doesn't work at all or you are a slave to whatever plan or idea was trying to be gotten across. Only that you are persuaded to help. It's up to the player than is role playing that character to decide what help would be given. If you won a persuasion roll trying to talk me into killing my brother I might just knock you out and turn you into the cops Telling them"This guy seems like he really needs help that I can't give him. Please get him some friggin help".

So yeah drastically trying to alter what someone is willing to do isn't going to work. It's not magic. It's not turning the character into something he isn't. It IS a nudge towards helping and sometimes it can mean a huge change if that's something the player character wants to do. If it's not.....well at least the persuading character is typically viewed in the best light. The best light for a murdering psychopath is still pretty dang dark however.

That does seem to be one of the factors holding back the No Skills verse other pc's crowd. The idea that they somehow lose control over there character. They don't....they just need to take the persuasion into account. Also the pc doing the persuading should take that into account but that takes some minor thinking....I mean you are not going to convince a LG Paladin look the other way and let you steal no matter how good you roll, you MIGHT however convince him that that guy you know who is crooked and a thief stole from the church so the Paladin goes off to deal with him leaving you free of his gaze.......just be careful when he gets back and wants to have a word with you.