Recently, I was DMing a session and two characters were arguing which should be the best approach for the next course of action. Since they did not end up in a solution after discussing, I suggested that the one who was trying to convince the other player, should make a Persuasion check against him. It was an improvised decision, so I am not quite sure how often I should be asking that, or if it was a good decision.
Therefore, I would like to hear from you: how do you all handle these kinds of social conflicts between players? Should we use ability checks or let them decide for themselves, even if it ends up in a PvP battle?
I am a fresh DM (ran 3-4 session yet) so tips and suggestions would be appreciated.
There's nothing wrong with doing opposed checks to decide a dispute if there just isn't one in sight. For the most part I'd just stay back and let the players work it out. Provided it was all in character. If this was OOC chatter, I'd nip that in the bud.
Also as the DM you can influence the outcome in other ways. I don't know what the argument was about but a couple weeks ago I had to deal with a player who pretty much wanted to avoid any battle, or at least any battle where they got hit. They kept trying to run away. The party was not happy about that. One player said if you try to run again I'm going to shoot you in the knee. The player ran, party member shot him and got a crit. So arrow to the knee. All of a sudden he became the easy target for the monsters to hit. (DM decision to have the prone get mobbed now) He almost died. The party finished off the rest of the monsters but then wouldn't heal him (He was wizard) and made him walk around with a limp for a while.
Sorry if I got off into a tangent there. The point was sometimes it can get into PvP, it's not ideal, but can make for an interesting game. However, as the DM you can nudge it. What's going on while they are arguing? Did someone or something over hear that shouldn't have. Is there a way, staying within the game, that you can force a resolution without a roll off?
* opposed checks is do-able, I've done it only once in the last year and a half, specifically because as others have pointed out RP and decision making for a course of action ought to be a decision left to the players. The one time I did it, I premised it with making the suggestion but asking for both players consent, no harm no foul because both accepted the chances (and the minor disagreement wasn't overly important in the first place)
* going back and forth can't just suck up too much of game time, things need to move forward somehow; monsters, beasts, nasty things, floods, fires, etc. that create a different sudden emergency, and the players will magically come to a much quicker compromise or resolution
I wouldn’t use a check for such interactions between players/characters. Rather create a pressure that is going to force them to make a decision. Maybe the bad guy comes around the the corner, maybe they are heard arguing. In any case, something external happens to advance the situation. Tension dice work well for this.
If this is an actual dispute between players, having it resolved by character traits is likely to be more annoying than helpful. On the other hand, if the players are RPing a dispute between characters, the social skills of the characters are legitimately relevant.
If the dispute is during an encounter then they just act on their turn or take a ready action. Then the other player does whatever they do. Each round give the players one sentence to argue. If it is not during an encounter, then have a Brief discussion and vote on it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I would actually never ask for it, but if the players ask for it and both are fine with letting the dice rule - then I'll allow it. In my experience player versus player is best when it's played out, but if they both want to use dice to solve the situation, that works. Forcing it on them seldom do.
I would actually never ask for it, but if the players ask for it and both are fine with letting the dice rule - then I'll allow it. In my experience player versus player is best when it's played out, but if they both want to use dice to solve the situation, that works. Forcing it on them seldom do.
Not to be contrary, but I just want to point out that players do not get to ask the DM to roll for something. They should describe what they're doing and the DM decides if they get to roll/if a roll is nessecary. It seems like a small distinction, but it cuts back on players pulling stuff like "I roll to seduce the dragon...*nat 20*... Haha I win!" Not something you want to encourage.
But the rest of what Godrick I agree with; relying on a roll is a fine solution to the problem, as long as the players are ok with letting the dice decide and nobody feels cheated.
I would actually never ask for it, but if the players ask for it and both are fine with letting the dice rule - then I'll allow it. In my experience player versus player is best when it's played out, but if they both want to use dice to solve the situation, that works. Forcing it on them seldom do.
Not to be contrary, but I just want to point out that players do not get to ask the DM to roll for something. They should describe what they're doing and the DM decides if they get to roll/if a roll is nessecary. It seems like a small distinction, but it cuts back on players pulling stuff like "I roll to seduce the dragon...*nat 20*... Haha I win!" Not something you want to encourage.
I agree 100%. This is the only "situation" where I find that it's OK that players ask for a roll. And I don't allow players to say "I would like to roll persuasion to try to convince the other player". It's usually the other way around where one player says: "can't you roll persuasion, and if you succeed I'll 'go' for it".
Not to change the subject but as others have stated: If a player rolls anything before I ask, its invalid automatically. Sorry that nat 20 is gone.
So back to the question at hand. What to do when players can't agree? Here is what I've had much success with:
Session 0. Introduce everyone to each other and more importantly to myself (if they don't already know me). I then lay out some basic rules that I need everyone to follow. (Non-negotiable) As to not get off topic (again), one of them is "If players cant agree, the party votes. In the unlikely event there is a tie, I (the DM) will be the tie breaker and we move on to keep the game moving."
Often times the real trick is to not let issues become an argument. Player 1 wants to do A. While Player 2 wants to do B. The moment you see neither wants to change their mind call for a vote. No more debating, just vote and continue the game. If you do this quickly enough and often enough, it will start to feel very natural as the game will keep a good pace and never get into heated back and forths.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello, everyone!
Recently, I was DMing a session and two characters were arguing which should be the best approach for the next course of action. Since they did not end up in a solution after discussing, I suggested that the one who was trying to convince the other player, should make a Persuasion check against him. It was an improvised decision, so I am not quite sure how often I should be asking that, or if it was a good decision.
Therefore, I would like to hear from you: how do you all handle these kinds of social conflicts between players? Should we use ability checks or let them decide for themselves, even if it ends up in a PvP battle?
I am a fresh DM (ran 3-4 session yet) so tips and suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
There's nothing wrong with doing opposed checks to decide a dispute if there just isn't one in sight. For the most part I'd just stay back and let the players work it out. Provided it was all in character. If this was OOC chatter, I'd nip that in the bud.
Also as the DM you can influence the outcome in other ways. I don't know what the argument was about but a couple weeks ago I had to deal with a player who pretty much wanted to avoid any battle, or at least any battle where they got hit. They kept trying to run away. The party was not happy about that. One player said if you try to run again I'm going to shoot you in the knee. The player ran, party member shot him and got a crit. So arrow to the knee. All of a sudden he became the easy target for the monsters to hit. (DM decision to have the prone get mobbed now) He almost died. The party finished off the rest of the monsters but then wouldn't heal him (He was wizard) and made him walk around with a limp for a while.
Sorry if I got off into a tangent there. The point was sometimes it can get into PvP, it's not ideal, but can make for an interesting game. However, as the DM you can nudge it. What's going on while they are arguing? Did someone or something over hear that shouldn't have. Is there a way, staying within the game, that you can force a resolution without a roll off?
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
A couple of quick thoughts:
* opposed checks is do-able, I've done it only once in the last year and a half, specifically because as others have pointed out RP and decision making for a course of action ought to be a decision left to the players. The one time I did it, I premised it with making the suggestion but asking for both players consent, no harm no foul because both accepted the chances (and the minor disagreement wasn't overly important in the first place)
* going back and forth can't just suck up too much of game time, things need to move forward somehow; monsters, beasts, nasty things, floods, fires, etc. that create a different sudden emergency, and the players will magically come to a much quicker compromise or resolution
Boldly go
I wouldn’t use a check for such interactions between players/characters. Rather create a pressure that is going to force them to make a decision. Maybe the bad guy comes around the the corner, maybe they are heard arguing. In any case, something external happens to advance the situation. Tension dice work well for this.
If this is an actual dispute between players, having it resolved by character traits is likely to be more annoying than helpful. On the other hand, if the players are RPing a dispute between characters, the social skills of the characters are legitimately relevant.
If the dispute is during an encounter then they just act on their turn or take a ready action. Then the other player does whatever they do. Each round give the players one sentence to argue. If it is not during an encounter, then have a Brief discussion and vote on it.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I would actually never ask for it, but if the players ask for it and both are fine with letting the dice rule - then I'll allow it. In my experience player versus player is best when it's played out, but if they both want to use dice to solve the situation, that works. Forcing it on them seldom do.
Ludo ergo sum!
Not to be contrary, but I just want to point out that players do not get to ask the DM to roll for something. They should describe what they're doing and the DM decides if they get to roll/if a roll is nessecary. It seems like a small distinction, but it cuts back on players pulling stuff like "I roll to seduce the dragon...*nat 20*... Haha I win!" Not something you want to encourage.
But the rest of what Godrick I agree with; relying on a roll is a fine solution to the problem, as long as the players are ok with letting the dice decide and nobody feels cheated.
I agree 100%. This is the only "situation" where I find that it's OK that players ask for a roll. And I don't allow players to say "I would like to roll persuasion to try to convince the other player". It's usually the other way around where one player says: "can't you roll persuasion, and if you succeed I'll 'go' for it".
Ludo ergo sum!
Not to change the subject but as others have stated: If a player rolls anything before I ask, its invalid automatically. Sorry that nat 20 is gone.
So back to the question at hand. What to do when players can't agree? Here is what I've had much success with:
Session 0. Introduce everyone to each other and more importantly to myself (if they don't already know me). I then lay out some basic rules that I need everyone to follow. (Non-negotiable) As to not get off topic (again), one of them is "If players cant agree, the party votes. In the unlikely event there is a tie, I (the DM) will be the tie breaker and we move on to keep the game moving."
Often times the real trick is to not let issues become an argument. Player 1 wants to do A. While Player 2 wants to do B. The moment you see neither wants to change their mind call for a vote. No more debating, just vote and continue the game. If you do this quickly enough and often enough, it will start to feel very natural as the game will keep a good pace and never get into heated back and forths.