Skills used by players on other players.

[iserith]

So here is a question for you guys who disagree with my view.

If you were DMing a game that allowed interparty conflict and one character built a pure combat oriented character and the other built a social character and the combat character got it into his head to attack the social one and the social one was trying to persuade him not to kill him.

How would you DM this? You would let the combat character use all of his abilities on the social one and disallow the social one from using his to defend himself?

The social character's player would determine the outcome of the combat character's attacks and the combat character's player would determine the outcome of the social character's arguments, deceptions, or intimidation.

This allows for intraparty conflict that is resolved the same for both players and avoids the problem of players being annoyed at non-consensual pvp.

 

[FrogReaver]

So here is a question for you guys who disagree with my view.

If you were DMing a game that allowed interparty conflict and one character built a pure combat oriented character and the other built a social character and the combat character got it into his head to attack the social one and the social one was trying to persuade him not to kill him.

How would you DM this? You would let the combat character use all of his abilities on the social one and disallow the social one from using his to defend himself?

1. When an NPC is already swinging their weapon at a PC how often do you let the PC talk them out of the fight mid combat?
2. Do you have NPC's that plead for their life roll a persuasion check and force all the PC's to honor it if it's successful? If not why not?

My answer to 1) Rarely if ever. Once attacks are being made the time for talk is normally over. 2) I have them plead with no persuasion roll. I give the PC's freedom to decide themselves what to do because I don't like making it seem like the PC's are being forced to do something they don't want to do.

No one is saying the social character cannot use his abilities. We are saying that his abilities don't actually work the way you are having them work. As I have pointed out:
1. They work on the PC the same way they would on the NPC.
2. Sometimes the outcome will be certain and no check needed
3. Sometimes the outcome will be uncertain and a check required
4. The DM normally determines if the outcome is certain or uncertain in most situations.
5. The only situation that decision rests on the player is if that certainty/uncertainty question is one that is centered on the PC's thoughts and potential actions.
6. Unlike most other skills, persuasion is one where the uncertainty/certainty can only be determined by the player forming the PC's decisions.

 

[GameOgre]

1. When an NPC is already swinging their weapon at a PC how often do you let the PC talk them out of the fight mid combat?
2. Do you have NPC's that plead for their life roll a persuasion check and force all the PC's to honor it if it's successful? If not why not?

My answer to 1) Rarely if ever. Once attacks are being made the time for talk is normally over. 2) I have them plead with no persuasion roll. I give the PC's freedom to decide themselves what to do because I don't like making it seem like the PC's are being forced to do something they don't want to do.

No one is saying the social character cannot use his abilities. We are saying that his abilities don't actually work the way you are having them work. As I have pointed out:
1. They work on the PC the same way they would on the NPC.
2. Sometimes the outcome will be certain and no check needed
3. Sometimes the outcome will be uncertain and a check required
4. The DM normally determines if the outcome is certain or uncertain in most situations.
5. The only situation that decision rests on the player is if that certainty/uncertainty question is one that is centered on the PC's thoughts and potential actions.
6. Unlike most other skills, persuasion is one where the uncertainty/certainty can only be determined by the player forming the PC's decisions.

Nobody but you said combat was already taking place.

No this is before combat. The combat oriented pc is stalking toward a social pc. THAT IS when it would be appropriate for the social pc to try and talk himself out of a jam.

 

[GameOgre]

Nobody but you said combat was already taking place.

No this is before combat. The combat oriented pc is stalking toward a social pc. THAT IS when it would be appropriate for the social pc to try and talk himself out of a jam.

and I notice you 100% avoided saying how you would rule it. My take on what you are saying is that you would let the combat pc slaughter the social one while not letting the social one use his abilities before the combat actually started.

I guess that's awesome if your a combat oriented pc. In such a case my guess is this wouldn't even come up again as no one would make social pc's.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nobody but you said combat was already taking place.

No this is before combat. The combat oriented pc is stalking toward a social pc. THAT IS when it would be appropriate for the social pc to try and talk himself out of a jam.

I'll comment on that situation then. Please comment on the rest of my post.

 

[FrogReaver]

and I notice you 100% avoided saying how you would rule it. My take on what you are saying is that you would let the combat pc slaughter the social one while not letting the social one use his abilities before the combat actually started.

I guess that's awesome if your a combat oriented pc. In such a case my guess is this wouldn't even come up again as no one would make social pc's.

I answered your question the best way I could without you having specified the exact parameters of the situation you were trying to get at better than what you did.

 

[GameOgre]

I'll comment on that situation then. Please comment on the rest of my post.

I have had pc's roll to resist a npc trying to talk them out of battle. I don't think it has even happened once battle has started.

 

[FrogReaver]

I have had pc's roll to resist a npc trying to talk them out of battle. I don't think it has even happened once battle has started.

That wasn't the rest of my post.

 

[5ekyu]

There's a big difference between a physical challenge - whether that's arm wrestling or detecting someone in the dark - and a social challenge. The former can be decided with a die roll, the latter can be influenced by a die roll.

As far as "virtually" amounting to a DC, no. There might be if there were significant trickery/lies/deceit. In my scenario I might be convinced to kill the boyfriend if I believed I or someone else was in imminent danger of being killed and the only way to stop them wast to kill them. Even then I'd probably have to see the boyfriend pointing a loaded gun and I might shoot first. But ... that would require far, far more than a simple conversation.

I don't reduce PCs or NPCs to a simple set of numbers controlled by die rolls.

I think this thread is a great example of something I see on this and other message boards. It seems like you don't really want feedback, you want affirmation. In this case you simply aren't going to get that from me, no matter how much you post. I've thought about this over the years (this isn't the first time it's come up) and I fundamentally disagree with what you're saying. What you see as a roleplaying opportunity is something I see as antithetical to roleplaying. You want to reduce a characters thoughts, decisions and reactions to a simple contest, one which the high charisma player will most likely win the vast majority of time. My characters are far more than their numbers and their decisions and actions (or attempted actions) shouldn't be controlled by numbers alone unless there is magic involved.

So I agree with the barbarian's player, if I were him and you insisted on running the game this way I would find a different game.

Yeah, it's not like this is new.

 

[Ovinomancer]

and I notice you 100% avoided saying how you would rule it. My take on what you are saying is that you would let the combat pc slaughter the social one while not letting the social one use his abilities before the combat actually started.

I guess that's awesome if your a combat oriented pc. In such a case my guess is this wouldn't even come up again as no one would make social pc's.

Can the social PC build a web of favors and alliances that result in tge authorities (thieves guikd, king, nage's cabal, whatever) take action to arrest, imprison, and execute the barbarian?

Phrasing the problem where the conflict is in one PC baliwick and not the other only looks uneven until you reverse the situation. Should the barbarian be able to use his superior combat skills against the entirety if thr king's elite guards alongsude his court mage? Sure, and it'll be as effective as the social PC defending themselves against tge3 barbarian alone.