D&D General "I roll Persuasion."

[Bill Zebub]

This has got me thinking about a parallel: PvP. Certainly inter-party strife is realistic. Certainly it exists in the legends and fiction that inspire the game. Certainly it adds...let's call it "depth and complexity"...to RPGs.

And yet...I think 1982 was the last time I wanted PvP in my D&D.

So I've adopted the trick I learned from @iserith, which is that when a player attacks another player you don't roll dice. Instead, the target of the attack narrates the result. Which is really pretty much identical to what I'm saying should happen when a social skill "is used" (that makes my skin crawl when talking about 5e) on a PC.

And it's because I put non-magical mental manipulation of PCs in the exact same bucket as PvP. The "not really something I want part of my D&D experience bucket."

But a lot of people think PvP, even if only unilaterally desired, is a great part of the game. Just like a lot of people (apparently) think more powerful non-magical mental manipulation would be a great part of the game.

Since I'm not one of them, I should probably bow out of the thread now.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But, usually, you can't play a succubus that uses seduction to cause a PC to betray their king but this is a real thing that happens all the time in both fiction and reality.

OMFG that explains so much.

Oh, wait, I was leaving.

 

[Reynard]

OMFG that explains so much.

Oh, wait, I was leaving.

You are being clever, but I was being serious: seduction as a tool to manipulate people is real. Blackmail is real. People suffering addictions and debt are real. These things are pervasive in our "adventure fiction" which D&D broadly aims to emulate, but because some players are engaging primarily in power fantasy, they abjectly refuse to let their Mary Sue have any flaws or suffer any defeats. Those kinds of players create boring games.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You are being clever, but I was being serious: seduction as a tool to manipulate people is real. Blackmail is real. People suffering addictions and debt are real. These things are pervasive in our "adventure fiction" which D&D broadly aims to emulate, but because some players are engaging primarily in power fantasy, they abjectly refuse to let their Mary Sue have any flaws or suffer any defeats. Those kinds of players create boring games.

I guess I'm still here.

If what you are saying is true...and I agree that for some large percentage of the audience it is...wouldn't those people not enjoy a game that forced their characters to have such flaws? Wouldn't it be better to find people who share your values with whom to play?

As an aside, the first and only time I've used @iserith's pvp rule was with a group of high school students. The disruptive one (you know who I mean) attacked their companions because "that's what my character would do." The others got to narrate the results, and although they made sure they won the fight they also narrated getting hit, and even rolled damage.

I was impressed.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I can't remember the last time a succubus turned me against the highest representative of a sovereign state, but I guess I'll take your word for it.

I am pretty sure my fiancé would be very up set if a pretty demon turned me against the president

 

[Reynard]

I guess I'm still here.

If what you are saying is true...and I agree that for some large percentage of the audience it is...wouldn't those people not enjoy a game that forced their characters to have such flaws? Wouldn't it be better to find people who share your values with whom to play?

Sure. I don't think that means we can't discuss it as a viable option here, though.

As an aside, the first and only time I've used @iserith's pvp rule was with a group of high school students. The disruptive one (you know who I mean) attacked their companions because "that's what my character would do." The others got to narrate the results, and although they made sure they won the fight they also narrated getting hit, and even rolled damage.

I was impressed.

I really like that idea. In fact, it has potentially broad positive applications overall 9though not necessarily "D&D" applications): when something bad happens to your character, YOU get to decide what that looks like and even what it means mechanically. I'd play that game.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This has got me thinking about a parallel: PvP. Certainly inter-party strife is realistic. Certainly it exists in the legends and fiction that inspire the game. Certainly it adds...let's call it "depth and complexity"...to RPGs.

And yet...I think 1982 was the last time I wanted PvP in my D&D.

I wasn't playing in 82 but by 2002 I was done with it.

not that I have gotten to avoid it as Player or DM over the last 20 years but I can say in the last 4 years I have not had it. (came really close in our high level game though)

when a player attacks another player you don't roll dice. Instead, the target of the attack narrates the result.

where I do not mind this... I'm not sure it would make me like it anymore... having said that I would be afraid it would turn into the cowboy and natives that I was playing in 82 instead of D&D "I shot you" "No you missed"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You are being clever, but I was being serious: seduction as a tool to manipulate people is real. Blackmail is real. People suffering addictions and debt are real. These things are pervasive in our "adventure fiction" which D&D broadly aims to emulate, but because some players are engaging primarily in power fantasy, they abjectly refuse to let their Mary Sue have any flaws or suffer any defeats. Those kinds of players create boring games.

with the D&D movie being a 'heist' film and it being called honnor among theives I will be VERY sad if it has black mail, seduction, grifting and con jobs when the rules don't support such things without magic

 

[Bill Zebub]

where I do not mind this... I'm not sure it would make me like it anymore... having said that I would be afraid it would turn into the cowboy and natives that I was playing in 82 instead of D&D "I shot you" "No you missed"

The point isn't to make it enjoyable, it's to make non-consensual pvp pointless. Instead of the DM saying, "Billy doesn't want to play PvP so no you can't attack him" it's "Ok, Billy, what happens?" "He misses me. Can we get back to the game now?"

But, as in my experience, the person being attacked doesn't have to shut it down that completely.

That's been my experience with roleplaying, too. I can 100% imagine one of us DMing a con-man, and others in our group leaning into that and allowing themselves to be suckered, their character forever delighted with their "magic rock" they got at a bargain basement price, or whatever.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The point isn't to make it enjoyable, it's to make non-consensual pvp pointless. Instead of the DM saying, "Billy doesn't want to play PvP so no you can't attack him" it's "Ok, Billy, what happens?" "He misses me. Can we get back to the game now?"

yeah I kind of see where that is going... it just seems to me to be an extra step... like the "Ok, Billy, what happens?" "He misses me. Can we get back to the game now?" seems like a waste when "knock it off we said no PVP" does the same thing