Skills used by players on other players.

[clearstream]

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.

So far as I can tell, you're committed to conflating player with character. I'm not. For me, characters have abilities that players don't have, so that in many cases player to player interactions can't decide the outcome of character to character interactions.

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.

It's common in debates relating to exogenous rules that one side or other "goes nuclear": speaking to how strongly people feel about the terms of play itself. It might also relate to being unable to agree on a framework for understanding, which can be frustrating for all sides. I'm happy to leave off this discussion here.

 

[clearstream]

I think that is in the rules. The big rules, that is, the ones that underpin almost all RPGs, the ones that rulebooks are often really bad at explaining (D&D, I'm looking at you).

Namely:

How To Run an RPG

0. GM describes the scene.
1. Players state their goal and approach.
2. GM and players determines the result of the attempted actions.
2a. If the result is uncertain, use dice or some other randomiser.
3. GM and players narrate the outcome (results, costs and consequences).


In the case above, it went something like this.

1. Player A states their goal (get character B to help defend the town) and their approach (reasonable discussion and diplomacy).
2. Player B determines the result of the action, since they control character B.
2a. Player B might call for a CHA check from player A, but it is their call, not player A's.
3. Player B narrates the results (character B either helps or doesn't), costs (probably nothing more than a little time) and consequences (perhaps character B is a bit resentful of character A).

There are several modes that RPGs are run in. The above summarises one of them. There are others that are also traditional, where at 2a that call is made by the DM in their role as neutral arbiter, not either player.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I just don't allow any offensive actions between party members, including convincing and casting charm spells and whatsoever.
I also don't tell my players what they should do. They can try to do whatever they want.

If my party can't decide which plan to follow, I allow them to all roll persuasion to see which plan to go for (because my second unwritten rule is no splitting up).

So in the situation at hand, I'd say you can tell the player that the other PC sounds convincing, but it's still the player's decision if he listens to it or not.

 

[clearstream]

Yeah, but it's still not player agency. It's just the GM being a dick. Even if you disagree.

FWIW, player agency isn't just "thought" it's also action.

Loss of Player Agency:
"I will try to stealth."
"No, you wouldn't do that, you would do something else."

I like your examples, especially the first one that I've quoted. Some other ways to narrate it -

Loss of Player Agency?
"My character Dross will try to Stealth"

"Dross is in the middle of a brightly lit room, so can't take the Hide action at present." (Loss of agency?)
"Dross is under a Dominate Person spell right now, so can't try to do that!" (Loss of agency!)
"Dross is under the Sorcerer's Charm Person right now; looking hurt that Dross might be abandoning him, the Sorcerer succeeds on his Persuasion check to beg Dross not to go sneaking off!"
"McFace earlier persuaded Dross that the best way to approach this job is stay out in the open where everyone can see him, is Dross still going ahead?"

Where I stand is that I have no issue with game mechanics inserting themselves between player and character with respect to character thoughts, acts, and speech. And I believe that the majority of our community has no issue either, because they attest that they are okay with magical compulsion from spells. Rather, I believe it's the ambiguity and open-ended nature of Persuasion that indicates it can't be used like Dominate Person. Chances, costs and risks are ad lib. It's not clear what precedents are being set or how repeatable it should be. The problem isn't that game mechanics mediate what a character thinks, does or says. Because there are game mechanics that do exactly that. The problem is that skills are not the right mechanic for doing that in a clear-cut or strongly-leveraged way.

 

[GameOgre]

I just don't allow any offensive actions between party members, including convincing and casting charm spells and whatsoever.
I also don't tell my players what they should do. They can try to do whatever they want.

Those sentences do not work together. I understand what you are trying to say and its great that you do what works for you. However, I just don't allow followed by They can do whatever they want, doesn't work.

A lot of people would see that as VERY limiting.

Don't get me wrong, I understand and honestly wouldn't mind playing that way, but it is what it is.

 

[clearstream]

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".

I was thinking here of the Degrees of Failure option in the DMG, where a fail by 5 can result in disaster. The example they give is being thrown in a dungeon by a Queen, for a failed Charisma (Persuasion) check. If skills can be applied between characters, then a DM who uses Degrees of Failure could add a drawback.

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.

I agree with that, and would further draw attention to cases where for just about everyone, it's okay to lose control over their character. Such as compulsion spells. The objection can't be rooted in believing it's not possible for game mechanics to intervene between player decisions and character thoughts, actions and speech. For instance, I think most groups would play that if a character used Dominate Person on another character, and that other character failed their save, then the player of the first character gets to decide what the second character does.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

This, here, is you as DM deciding fir the players which persuasion requests are binding.

1. Persuading a barbarian to help villagers is binding -- the barbarian has to "take this into account" in thier next action declarations.

Vs

2. Persuading the barbarian to kill his brother is ignorable.

What's the game rule here? What's the adjudication guideline? At least the "player decides always" is consistant.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So far as I can tell, you're committed to conflating player with character. I'm not. For me, characters have abilities that players don't have, so that in many cases player to player interactions can't decide the outcome of character to character interactions.

You've completely missed the point I was naking abd mistaken it fir a confkation of player and character. I assure you I don't conflate -- player skill at acting has zero impact on my adjudication.

Instead, the point I was making is that all characters have the same ability to try to persuade another. This is "in kind." Some characters are better at it than others. This is "degree." When an argument is made about the ability in general, ie an in kind argument, then responding about how you handle a larger difference in ability is an argument about a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. Or, more simply, just a bigger bonus on an ability instead of a different ability.

Here, the ability is to persuade. The argument was that players determine if theur PCs are persuaded, not the dice. Your question about having a better chance of success using dice to persuade doesn't affect tge argument. Hence, it's a difference in degree, not in kind.

It's common in debates relating to exogenous rules that one side or other "goes nuclear": speaking to how strongly people feel about the terms of play itself. It might also relate to being unable to agree on a framework for understanding, which can be frustrating for all sides. I'm happy to leave off this discussion here.

Yes, I react strongly to being told what my character does in 5e. I play other games where this is better, although even there it's more fictional blocking rather than changing my character's thinking for me, and I get a say in the failure outcome when stakes are set. Thise mechanics do not exist in 5e, so, yeah, I get what the rules allow only me -- the ability to determine what my PC thinks.

It's very difficult to see how wanting to use dice to control (or limit) another PC's actions (by either a PC or NPC) isn't a bad table situation. It's endemic of a flawed social contract and speaks to dominance rather than cooperation. Sure, on the OP the players have different immediate objectives, but how much time was spent looking for compromise before the player that had largest dice advantage asked for a roll to force PC cooperation? Why didn't the barbarian get a roll? Where they not disagreeing? Yet, it was the bard's player who asked for and forced the roll and expected the player to comply with his demands. This is a broken social contract, not a mechanics issue. The problem here sits around the table, not on it.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Those sentences do not work together. I understand what you are trying to say and its great that you do what works for you. However, I just don't allow followed by They can do whatever they want, doesn't work.

A lot of people would see that as VERY limiting.

Don't get me wrong, I understand and honestly wouldn't mind playing that way, but it is what it is.

It's only two simple unwritten rules, that wouldn't even need to be said because it's simply common courtesy. But at the latest you clarify this in Session 0. It's nothing that should come up while playing.

I don't think anyone would see this as very limiting to be honest. Except trolls and really egoistic people I guess. But I don't want to play with those anyway.

 

[GameOgre]

You've completely missed the point I was naking abd mistaken it fir a confkation of player and character. I assure you I don't conflate -- player skill at acting has zero impact on my adjudication.

Instead, the point I was making is that all characters have the same ability to try to persuade another. This is "in kind." Some characters are better at it than others. This is "degree." When an argument is made about the ability in general, ie an in kind argument, then responding about how you handle a larger difference in ability is an argument about a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. Or, more simply, just a bigger bonus on an ability instead of a different ability.

Here, the ability is to persuade. The argument was that players determine if theur PCs are persuaded, not the dice. Your question about having a better chance of success using dice to persuade doesn't affect tge argument. Hence, it's a difference in degree, not in kind.


Yes, I react strongly to being told what my character does in 5e. I play other games where this is better, although even there it's more fictional blocking rather than changing my character's thinking for me, and I get a say in the failure outcome when stakes are set. Thise mechanics do not exist in 5e, so, yeah, I get what the rules allow only me -- the ability to determine what my PC thinks.

It's very difficult to see how wanting to use dice to control (or limit) another PC's actions (by either a PC or NPC) isn't a bad table situation. It's endemic of a flawed social contract and speaks to dominance rather than cooperation. Sure, on the OP the players have different immediate objectives, but how much time was spent looking for compromise before the player that had largest dice advantage asked for a roll to force PC cooperation? Why didn't the barbarian get a roll? Where they not disagreeing? Yet, it was the bard's player who asked for and forced the roll and expected the player to comply with his demands. This is a broken social contract, not a mechanics issue. The problem here sits around the table, not on it.

Please explain how someone who is shy and quite at the game table ( a new player perhaps) who is playing a Highly Charismatic Bard skilled at persuasion is on equal footing when the INT 6 wis 8 Barbarian half orc played by a long time rpg veteran who is also a skilled used car salesman?

Use the Characters stats and skills or use the players. Those are the only two choices here. Those that choose to use the players...fine. Whatever floats your boat. I just do not like that at all.

I make the PC use his skills and stat mods most of the time in game even when normally I can see a reason not to.

For instance the used care salesman playing that barbarian might make a highly skilled speech that should win over any resistance to his cause because...he is a used care salesman and knows what to say but I have him roll and use the barbs scores because although he gave that speech what his character said was along the lines of "You $%$%'s better tow da line an elp me or else".

Not all players are created equal and that includes role playing.