How do you feel about player-on-player dice rolling?

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
The dice rolling, itself, isn't a big deal. The question is - what kind of conflict are the players resolving, and are we okay with having that kind of conflict between players at the table?
 

Len

Prodigal Member
What type of player-on-player dice rolling are you talking about?

If you mean one player taking advantage of their character's persuasion skill to control what other players' characters do, then no, we don't do that. If one player wants their character to persuade or deceive the others, it's done by role-playing.

In cases where one character has to fight against the others due to lycanthropy, domination, or the like, then yes, that player will roll dice against the others. We wouldn't normally accept a player's character attacking another because "that's what he would do" (except in exceptional circumstances).
 

ccs

39th lv DM
Anything that can be done to an NPC/monster can be done to a character.
Doesn't matter if the source is something under my (the DM) control or by another player.

If there's a problem it will be dealt with.
 
Last edited:
Anything that can be done to an NPC/monster can be done to a character.
Well yes, but then I have to ask: if a monster wins a persuasion/intimidation check against a PC, do you force the PC to behave in the way the monster wants? If it's a deception check, do you force the PC to believe? I don't. I just tell the player that the monster looks very convincing, but ultimately I let the player choose how to follow that. And so I would do the same on a PvP contest.
 

ccs

39th lv DM
Well yes, but then I have to ask: if a monster wins a persuasion/intimidation check against a PC, do you force the PC to behave in the way the monster wants? If it's a deception check, do you force the PC to believe? I don't. I just tell the player that the monster looks very convincing, but ultimately I let the player choose how to follow that. And so I would do the same on a PvP contest.
It's not on the scale of charm, mind control or dominate etc, but in short, if it's to dice rolls, yes.
Especially if you as a player expect to ever be able to use any of those skills vs NPCs/monsters.
Afterall, you'd expect me as the DM to in good faith play that guard etc that you'd just successfully persuaded/intimidated or whatever. Wouldn't you?
So why shouldn't I expect the same from the players?
The moment players break that in my game is the moment that they lose the ability to make those skill checks themselves for the rest of the campaign.

As far as PvP?
Other than requiring everyone to play the results of any die rolls made in good faith, I'm not involved. It's between the players to resolve. Unless there's a problem.
 
Afterall, you'd expect me as the DM to in good faith play that guard etc that you'd just successfully persuaded/intimidated or whatever. Wouldn't you?
No. It's more complicated. But in general, I expect nothing, I just play and see the results. The DM even decides whether I have to roll at all, then she decides how much I have to roll, then narrates the results... I do not even really know that I succeeded if I see the guard appear persuaded, as it could be a trick.

But maybe as a DM you roll in the open, and that is certainly going to create expectations on the players.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
It's not on the scale of charm, mind control or dominate etc, but in short, if it's to dice rolls, yes.
Especially if you as a player expect to ever be able to use any of those skills vs NPCs/monsters.
Afterall, you'd expect me as the DM to in good faith play that guard etc that you'd just successfully persuaded/intimidated or whatever. Wouldn't you?
So why shouldn't I expect the same from the players?
The moment players break that in my game is the moment that they lose the ability to make those skill checks themselves for the rest of the campaign.

As far as PvP?
Other than requiring everyone to play the results of any die rolls made in good faith, I'm not involved. It's between the players to resolve. Unless there's a problem.
Interesting. Normally, the only authority a player has is over their character's action declarations -- not success, obviously, but in what they attempt. You're placing restrictions on what they can attempt through NPC social skills (and perhaps other things), thereby reducing the only authority players have. Do you compensate by sharing authority in other areas?

This is also ignoring that you, as GM, have complete knowledge of the PC's abilities, have complete authority over NPC builds, have complete authority over setting, have complete authority over the current fuctional positioning, and have complete authority to declare NPC actions against the PCs. And you use this to control what the PCs do? Whatever for?
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
"How do you feel about player-on-player dice rolling?"

Whoa! I feel good, I knew that I would, now
I feel good, I knew that I would, now
So good, so good, when I roll against you

Whoa! I feel nice, like sugar and spice
I feel nice, like sugar and spice
So nice, so nice, when I roll against you

When I take up my arms
I know that I can't do no wrong
Against you I will take up arms
'Cuz your rolls can't do me no harm ....

Whoa! I feel good, I knew that I would, now
I feel good, I knew that I would
So good, so good, when I roll against you
So good, so good, when I roll against you
So good, so good, when I roll against you
 

GrahamWills

Adventurer
I assume you mean one player trying to control the actions of another player's character, using game mechanics to do so.

The simple answer, as it always is: "I like it if it makes the game more enjoyable for the players". Everything else is an elaboration of this central goal. Things to consider in deciding if it makes the game more enjoyable are:

Group Dynamics: I personally am quite happy for another player to make some sort of influence roll and then narrate my character for a bit. My regular gamers are not liable to abuse this and so I feel quite comfortable with it. At a Con game, I might be a lot more nervous. I also fall into the "straight old white male" demographic, so my real-world experience does not have a lot of bad experience of others controlling my fate. This is not true for many people, so as a GM I need to make really sure that players trust each other before allowing one player to control another's action. I'd be especially careful when the player-dynamics are imbalanced, so I'd be more likely to allow a kid to control an adult's character than vice-versa.

Consistency: If you establish a way of handling it (for example, making the controller ask the GM to make the character act -- so establishing the GM as a mediator) try and do it the same way all the time. But at the same time, don't allow a situation to be un-fun just to preserve consistency.

Duration: Long-term strong control is a terrible idea -- it removes a player from playing the game. One player might be OK with their character being completely "dominated" for a few rounds (in an F20 style game); another player might be Ok with a character having an ongoing mild form of control (e.g. adding an aspect "I want to do what Siouxsie wants done" to their character).

Overall, my suggestions would be:

[1] The first time this comes up, break play and discuss it as a group, paying particular attention to quieter players
[2] Make it clear that the controller's job is to make the game more fun for the other player -- it adds responsibility to them
[3] Mediate all controlling actions yourself, so you can step in smoothly and fix issues.
 

Ralif Redhammer

Adventurer
Generally, I tell my players that they are not allowed to roll dice against other PCs. No attacks, no persuasion or deception rolls, etc. If a PC wants to do something like throw another PC into a pile of garbage, I will ask the subject PC “do you let them do this?”

Yes, it breaks verisimilitude that they just can’t shove, throw a punch, or connive against another character, but too often, it’s just one player bullying or bulling over another player’s agency, and that sort of thing I just don't want at my table.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
My position is that this depends on the rules of the game system and whether there's a fair and fun method of resolving this.

In a game like D&D 5e, I would say there isn't, so my table rule is that if a player wants to act upon another player's character in a way that is a hindrance or is harmful, the player of the target character gets to decide the outcome.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
So, on the broader picture - php is not normally gonna fit within our table agreements, so the cases of PC-On-PC checks most often comes when someone wants to slip away or hide something.

For social skills applied to PCs, I use the NPC passive skill as a measuring stick. I then tailoranf flavor using the discussion using that.

So, I never tell a player "your character agree with him", instead the overall pitch is made to seem very compelling, mixed or a bad idea on the surface. The pc/player can then decide what they want to do. Just like my knowing thry like Swiss over cheddar and can make them a more tasty burger, my knowledge of the PC and player let's me similarly flavor the scene snd pitch to serve up the particulars.
 
I

Immortal Sun

Guest
So....

I generally forbid PvP. It just leaves the door open for jerks and tends to turn people sour and overall ruins the game. But this is also in the context of my table rules of asking people to make party-oriented characters.

As for skill checks against other characters, the player always rolls for themselves never rolls against another player. IE: If Bob wants his character to convince Joe's character to do something, Bob doesn't roll an attempt to convince. He rolls an attempt at how well his argument sounds. Joe then rolls to see how his character receives it. Joe is under no requirement to go along with Bob's idea even if he receives the argument quite well.

It would be silly if all you needed to do to get a good person to become a murder was make a good argument. Yeah sometimes that happens in real life, but it doesn't always happen. And there's no benefit I can see to making someone do something that is effectively against their will, nor giving players the equivalent of powerful magic via the Diplomacy skill.
 

Schmoe

Explorer
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 :D
 

Xaelvaen

Explorer
I have two answers, in that I play two types of Dungeons and Dragons.

The first is when I play with my 20+ year group of players. We played together on 'Doomsday' during the Y2K, so suffice it say, everything is handled in such a way as I feel like I barely have to DM anymore, except to build the world and let the players go. Sometimes they'll intentionally make characters with conflicts, that will occasionally come to blows with one another - and that's okay. I know and trust them, and typically it's each player rolling a skill check (not a combat check) and professional wrestling ensues. They'll describe their battle, using a single dice roll to determine the outcome, and have some awesome heart to heart that makes the game that much better.

Then there's the groups I run at the game store, where I play, more often than not, with new players. While it is rarely an issue to even discuss, sometimes player X will be envious of player Y for getting a good roll on loot distribution, or striking a deathblow, and player X will need to prove their superiority. While I -hate- putting big hard rules on what you can and can't do in a game such a Dungeons and Dragons, that's the only amicable solution I've found when I don't know with whom I'm dealing.

So... both.
 
Last edited:

Gradine

Archivist
Unless PC vs PC conflict is something that I'm explicitly hoping to explore in a given system/campaign, I strictly forbid it. It rarely comes up anyway, though.
 

Advertisement

Top