PvP does not fly at my table. Nope on rolls against other players, nope on stealing from party members, nope on stabbing party members, etc. Too often it leads to bad feelings between people at the table. Plus, I've noticed that certain players tend to try and instigate PvP (whether social or physical), while others tend to be on the receiving end. That can get toxic fast. There's probably a group out there who enjoys a big PvP battle royale, but this is why I nip it in the bud at my table.
That said, players can disagree, characters can bicker and banter, characters can do silly things like the "slow" spell mentioned earlier (that was hilarious), as long as there are good feelings between the people at the table.
As DM, you not only run a game, you manage the social atmosphere. This is a great experience, and can really make you a leader. Good luck!
So no, skills like these should never be used in Player vs. Player situations. If you want to intimidate another player, role-play it out, if you want to persuade another player, role-play it out, if you want to make him believe your lies, make it a good lie. Insisting that a player believe a BS story or is forced to react positively towards another player just because he got out rolled to me is the polar opposite of role-playing.
Sorry - it is a bit of a trigger for me.
I think this is a major issue. I hear this all the time - role play it out - but no one expects a barbarian to roleplay out lifting a door. In ToA the doors weight 1/2 a tonne. You need a combined strength of 20 to open them. One beefy pc can lift it. I didn't send my player out the back to show me he could lift a car to prove his character could lift this fictional door. I don't send a player naked into an Ebola factory to prove his paladin is immune to disease. We do this all the time with the physical skills, but with the mental skills we ignore the stats and say that people should role play it.
I am smart by just about any metric, but I am not 20 intelligence smart. My character might be though. He also sees things that the DM may forget to describe. These things don't cease to exist but are often omitted by a DM because they seem unimportant, but a Sherlock Holmes type character with expertise in investigation/perception would. It is a double standard to insist the mental stats can only be role-played while allowing the physical stats to have a free pass - and it is against the fact that we are playing a game designed around escapism. I want to play a high charisma character so I can pretend to be that for a while even though my emotional intelligence is well below average (and charisma is probably average). This is no less valid than Steven Hawking playing a Barbarian with 20 strength. If anything I think that more stuff should be rolled. It is annoying to continually see a physical character with dump stats in Cha, Int and Wis coming up with 47 stage intricate battle plans and solving murder plots - because it is the player doing that, not the character. It is cheating as much as lying about what you roll.
I agree that with any roll you should try and describe about how you are going about it. As I said above intimidation could be physical or physiological. This will have different impacts on different people. Threatening an orphans/street urchins family probably won't have a lot of effect. But to just say don't roll and just role play it is, I think, objectively wrong.
Sorry - it is a bit of a trigger for me.
You don't need to apologize for having an opinion m8!
You are mixing up Apples and Oranges however.
There is a difference between "What you can do" and "What you must think". The arguments for character centricity in regards to skills representing your characters abilities are not being disputed here. A player with a high Charisma score or a High Intelligence Score, or a high Investigation skill does not impart anything about how the player "must think" in any given situation, it defines what he can do, what he is good at and that is what these ability scores and skills are for no different then knowing how much weight he can lift or how fast he can run.
We are talking about rolls that define how you must think and act in character and as a player as a result of the application of a skill check against you. That is a very different thing.
For example, a villain uses persuasion on you to get you to follow him into an ambush where you are attacked. By what you are describing if that villain is successful in his persuasion check, even if as a player you know its a trap, your DM instructs you that you MUST go because "your character doesn't think its a trap".
This is the premise that a oppose and players using such methods against each other is actually the most grievous versions of abusing the skill system in this way. In my opinion, this is an absolute no 100% of the time. There is no circumstance I would ever allow it at my table.
Sorry, I thought we were on the internet. Must have taken a wrong turn at the BBS. :) j/k.
Thanks for not taking it antagonistically - instead taking it in the spirit it was intended. To my mind your response seems to have stepped away from the issue I took umbrage with however. Paraphrased I interpreted your statement as "If two characters come into conflict then it should be sorted out using the players abilities." ie/ Character A wants to do something and Character B doesn't - then Player A has to convince Player B. The step that it goes from character to player is the issue I have and it generally seems to happen around the mental skills.
For your example of a villain vs player then sort of, yes. That is what roleplaying is. Separating player knowledge from character knowledge. Again I wouldn't say that they must do something but I would present it and expect them to roleplay the character. Taking the example further if Villain is a trusted person of Character A and but at the same time (geographically distant and no way to communicate between the two) Character B finds out that the villain is planning to sacrifice character A. Player A but is at the same table so has meta-knowledge. Then yes I expect Player A to go with them and ignore their meta-knowlege. I mean ... that is the game. However if Villian persuades Player A to do something that is completely against their character then I expect them to RP that out. Not necessarily do it but RP conflict confusion and maybe try to find a compromise etc. Overall I don't think we are disagreeing but I do think everyone here is applying a boundary condition that shouldn't be applied. People are assuming (it seems) that (as an example) a good persuasion roll means that the other character has to agree and just do what they are told. As I tried to explain above I believe this is a false boundary condition. That doesn't mean that a dice roll doesn't have a place however.
I find my examples usually tend to muddy the water rather than clear it but I will try and explain.
Lets say Player A wants a sword from Player B. They state: "Orlen wants Salazar to give him the magic sword we just found so that the fighter can use it". For the record Orlen is high charisma conman. Salazar is a druid. Roll persuasion - two options a) low, b)high A) Low roll. (Taking cues from how the Player A framed the request) DM description would be something along the lines of "Orlen makes a poorly thought out, possibly rude argument". [Orlen says something to the effect of "Just give me the bl**dy sword!" ] Salazar chooses how to respond. B) High roll (Godly roll of 40+!!). (Taking cues from how the Player A framed the request) DM description would be something along the lines of "Orlen makes a well thought out argument pointing out that the blade would be better off in the hands of the fighter, someone who can and will use it." Salazar chooses how to respond.
In both cases Salazar (or rather Player B) chooses how to respond. In no instance does a roll force a player to do anything. However the roll does do two things: It utilizes the characters abilities and it allows for more nuanced roll play. Salazar for example now knows why Orlen wants the sword and decides to use it as leverage (Fine, but the next item I can use is mine!) or maybe has a story as to why "No, I am going to practice with this and learn how to use it." or maybe "No, fighter is a poo face and I want to keep it from him." All of these responses would be fine for option A or B depending on what Player B decides (based on other factors).
What the dice does in this instance is give a randomized external factor. This is the external force, how does your character react. The thing people have issue with is the assumption that a high persuasion/intimidation etc roll means that anyone HAS to do anything. But as in all things - the dice is a tool, not a defining god. DM is god, dice just help keep things fresh.
I will agree that for groups to be comfortable with players using skills against each other, it typically does require a certain degree of genuine friendship among the players themselves, a certain degree of emotional maturity, an honest respect for each other as people, and a certain capacity for detachment from their characters. If those elements are lacking then it can definitely be problematic.
If the players have a hard time genuinely separating PC from Player then don’t allow it.
If two PCs can’t have a less than amicable interaction without the players being affected by it then don’t allow it.
If the group has those elements then there really should not be any problem.
If the PCs can potentially do things that the other PCs don’t like, but the Players themselves are laughing and having a good time, I don’t really see a problem with it.
If the Players are willing to periodically check in with each other to make sure no player feelings were hurt by any PC actions, I see no issue there either.
If the Player of the “offended PC” can honestly say that they are not offended by what transpired, I’m good with it.
Some stuff should absolutely never happen no matter how friendly the players are, or how well they can separate in-game from IRL.
If the players might be doing these things maliciously, then absolutely do not allow it.
And if any of the players are made personally uncomfortable then that’s a hard stop. That is absolutely across the line.
So, I guess the answer is, how do your Players feel about such things?
A) Low roll. (Taking cues from how the Player A framed the request) DM description would be something along the lines of "Orlen makes a poorly thought out, possibly rude argument". [Orlen says something to the effect of "Just give me the bl**dy sword!" ] Salazar chooses how to respond. B) High roll (Godly roll of 40+!!). (Taking cues from how the Player A framed the request) DM description would be something along the lines of "Orlen makes a well thought out argument pointing out that the blade would be better off in the hands of the fighter, someone who can and will use it." Salazar chooses how to respond.
Not trying to pick on you here but this is exactly the sort of thing that many DM's do that imposes their will on player agency and its the direct result of using mechanics in a confrontation between players in a way you would not do it with an NPC.
What your doing here is, based on a players roll, you have determined what a character controlled by another player says. This is claiming an agency and control over a player character you really should have no access to. What a character says, what a character thinks... These are the domains of the player, that player is running that character, its his role. To put words in his mouth, to define to them what they think or outline an action you decide they take, this to me is an overstep of the DM's control over the game and its not something you would ordinarily do in a role-playing situation with an NPC.
An interaction like that in which a persuasion check is rolled with an NPC involved would likely go in one of two ways.
3rd person Player: I want to convince the this henchmen to hand over that sword to me. or 1st person Player: "Hey come on, give me the sword, our fighter will make far better use of it".
DM: Make a persuasion check, with the result either leading to the henchmen refusing or agreeing.
There is a big difference here, your not taking command of the players character in the situation. He role-played it however he liked, and he doesn't need to be (as a player) convincing, you allow the check to determine how convincing the character is based on his skill and persuasion check result. But no agency was taken from the player.
In a PvP situation, you can't have the same interaction because the PC is controlled by a player, they have agency over that character unlike an NPC and the end result is that you either steal agency from the player and use the roll result by controlling the scene (aka taking over the PC as if he was an NPC), or you simply don't roll and let the players work out between them in character what happens.
In your example you took control of the actions of the persuader, so you reversed it, but its not different then taking control over the player being persuaded in the situation and deciding his response. In that situation the character doing the persuading would have every right to the tell the GM "Hell no I don't say that" and ... he would be right in doing so. Its not your place as a DM to decide what a players character says or does.
The routine for a GM in a normal situation is to ask what a player says and does, then roll skills to find out how things fare. But this cannot be done in a PvP situation, because how things fare when both characters involved are PC's is not something a DM can impose his will on without the players having every right to complain about the outcome.
I mean as a player if the DM ever says "Your character says this and that", even if I agree he might say that I would complain, the DM doesn't get to speak on my characters behalf, not unless their is some magic or something involved in which I lose control of the character for some reason.
See? I told you my examples often cause more issues.
I actually do agree with you about putting words (and actions) into a characters mouth. Not necessarily as hard line as you have taken because it is out job as DMs to interpret the world, but I agree in principle.
I do not, however, agree that in any situation I have seen suggested here that a dice roll takes away player agency unless the player or DM allows it to happen. And they shouldn't. I still maintain that a dice roll can be used to add interest and nuance to a situation. I also maintain that character success or failure shouldn't be dictated by player ability.
Thank you for the discussion. I appreciate the interaction.
I think this goes back to the basics of what an ability check is for! And thinking it through, I've talked myself into the conclusion that I don't think intra-player social ability checks are ever appropriate in a PVP setting, though they could be used for fun RP if both players are up for it.
A player should not be treating "ability checks" as buttons they can push to do things. The DM should call for an ability check when the player says their character does something, and that something has a chance of success and a chance of failure which depends on the character's skill.
So, for example, if the player says "I tell the guard that he has to let us pass or else we'll kill him. Just look at us, we just slaughtered a forestful of orcs, the guard should see we mean business." The DM might decide this would obviously be successful, and say "yep, the guard just saw you slaughter all the orcs, your threats terrify him and he's just gonna let you pass." Or they might say "The guard looks at you and says 'No, I'm an elite queen's guard and we never give in to threats!' as he rings an alarm bell." Or, if the threat has both a chance of success and a chance of failure, the DM might tell the player to roll Intimidation, and set a DC and give advantage or disadvantage based on the situation, narrating the results based on the roll.
In the case of a PC trying to do this to another player, though, there's a complication - the player is supposed to be the authority on their own character. So, suppose Player 1 says "OK, so my character tells PC#2 to give me the magic item, or else I'll turn him into a toad." It seems inappropriate for the DM to say how PC#2 reacts to this - Player 2 should be the one deciding whether their character gives in, starts a fight, or just ignores the threat. No different than any other social interaction between the PCs. Without an explicit mind-control spell, nobody else should be telling a player what their character is required to do! So it seems to me that the only person who is in a position to decide whether the "intimidation" is obviously successful with no roll needed, obviously a failure with no roll needed, or whether it's intermediate and needs a roll would be the player whose character is being intimidated.
I don't think it's ever a good idea to let players just call ability check but definitely not vs other players.
In general, it's a good idea to have players say what they want to try to do and have the DM call for a check. For example:
PC "I crack my knuckles and grab hilt of my sword and say "easy way or hard way"" with maybe even a "to attempt to intimidate" thrown in DM "roll intimidation"
VS
PC "intimidation " (rolls a d20).
If it was me I would: -Allow 1 PC to try to intimidate another but not allow them to roll anything and allow the other PC to respond any way they like. -Allow a PC to roll intimidation but just tell the other PC "He is very intimidating, how do you respond". Without ever taking any agency from the player being intimidated.
My DM says the same thing to us on the table. We, the players, say what we want to do and let the DM calls for a check. This is a skill check guild that my DM send to us.
I only had one PvP skill check experience and it is because the DM called for it.
One of the players was absent for a section and he usually filled the guide role during Adventuring. No one else wanted to fill that role because everyone thought they could contribute more to the team by filling the other role. So, my DM called for a Persuasion check from everyone and one of the people is "persuaded" to fill the role.
DnD is a RPG controlled by dice. Skill checks are there for a reason. As long as each player plays it's role and accepts the outcome of the dice, there can be no arguments between players. Dice are true neutral. The DM has the final word.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Semper in faecibus sumus, solum profundum variat" playing since 1986
DnD is a RPG controlled by dice. Skill checks are there for a reason. As long as each player plays it's role and accepts the outcome of the dice, there can be no arguments between players. Dice are true neutral. The DM has the final word.
D&D is a game controlled by players. Monopoly, Trouble, Sorry, and (ironically) Life are games controlled by dice.
If a PC has a Ch of 6 I still wouldn't let him or her be pushed around by another PC. No roll would even happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I actually do agree with you about putting words (and actions) into a characters mouth. Not necessarily as hard line as you have taken because it is out job as DMs to interpret the world, but I agree in principle.
I do not, however, agree that in any situation I have seen suggested here that a dice roll takes away player agency unless the player or DM allows it to happen. And they shouldn't. I still maintain that a dice roll can be used to add interest and nuance to a situation. I also maintain that character success or failure shouldn't be dictated by player ability.
I don't think you and I, and I would imagine most DM's are all that different. Using dice to interpret the world around the players is generally speaking the main purpose of the dice in an RPG, aka, using them to define events that transpire and resolving conflicts (fail and success states).
But again, its not what you are describing. You aren't describing a situation in which you are using the dice to help define the narrative or resolving conflict, you are using the dice to compensate for player mistakes, your essentially trying to "fix" any actions or words the player makes at the table under the vice that "their character" wouldn't make those mistakes. This concept is referred to as character centricity, essentially meaning that there is a presumption that the player is not the character and that the character in the world even though he is controlled by a player, would not take certain actions, say certain things or make certain errors because they are smarter, wiser and more charismatic then the player.
I think this one part I do disagree with and I understand that this may make me a bit more unique in the conversation. The thing is that I do believe very firmly that a characters chance of success or failure does rely heavily on the player and it should, D&D is first and foremost a game of skill. I believe D&D should be a player centric game, when a players character succeeds in the game it should be because of smart player decisions, clever player tactics, wise use of character resources by the player, well role-played situations by the player. To me the character sheet is just the resource, it is the physicality of the character and its impact and relevance to the game is pretty minimal. If a player comes up with a clever plan, I don't make them roll an intelligence check to see if they really came up with a smart plan and I'm not going to save a character from danger if a player comes up with a really stupid plan by letting him make an intelligence check to see if his character knows better. Success or failure of the plan is up to the players, they are running the characters, not the other way around. P
Yes its true the characters may be wise or highly intelligent or charismatic while the players might not be, but to me these benefits on the character sheet are their as resource for the players, but not a replacement for the players. I never use the words "Your character wouldn't do that" or "wouldn't say that" at my table, as far as I'm concerned the players run the characters, what they decide, wise, intelligent or charismatic (or not) is on them. I don't use their characters abilities and skills to course correct their actions.
Yes this means less experienced players are going to suffer, they are more likely to get into unfavorable situations and potentially even die and that is ok. D&D is a game of skill, you get better at it the more you play.
DnD can be played in many ways and I will fight for your right to play it as you like. You have given an almost text book definition of metagaming though and that is not something that I enjoy.
To me D&D is not about a situation to win, but a story to be told. Exploring the story of the characters. Encounters are not to be won but a way to explore the reactions of the characters themselves. This will mean sometimes making sub-optimal choices and builds etc.
I don't like metegaming, min-maxing etc. I have played in groups like that and it is a short term thrill to me. I do support your right to play the game that way with like minded people but to present that method of play as the only way that D&D or 5e should be played is an egregious misrepresentation.
What your doing here is, based on a players roll, you have determined what a character controlled by another player says.
That's not how I read it. The dice roll doesn't determine what the character says - just how well they say it.
Compare it to fighting. The dice roll doesn't control what a character does (swing a sword) - it controls how effectively they swing it.
If player one says, "My character makes a good argument that they get the sword" and rolls high, it is correct to tell player two that character one made a good argument. Because, after all, they did. Player two then gets to decide what character two does in response.
It helps to remember that social skills are not mind-control. They never control what a character in the game is thinking or feeling - all they do is control behaviour.
That's not how I read it. The dice roll doesn't determine what the character says - just how well they say it.
When the DM says "I know you tried to say X, but instead you said Y because you rolled badly", that's a problem. It's much better to just ask the player to explain how what the character said was better/worse than the way the player said it.
What your doing here is, based on a players roll, you have determined what a character controlled by another player says.
That's not how I read it. The dice roll doesn't determine what the character says - just how well they say it.
Compare it to fighting. The dice roll doesn't control what a character does (swing a sword) - it controls how effectively they swing it.
If player one says, "My character makes a good argument that they get the sword" and rolls high, it is correct to tell player two that character one made a good argument. Because, after all, they did. Player two then gets to decide what character two does in response.
It helps to remember that social skills are not mind-control. They never control what a character in the game is thinking or feeling - all they do is control behaviour.
That's not how I read it. The dice roll doesn't determine what the character says - just how well they say it.
When the DM says "I know you tried to say X, but instead you said Y because you rolled badly", that's a problem. It's much better to just ask the player to explain how what the character said was better/worse than the way the player said it.
Yes, in my example I went one step too far. At the table I would have phrased it differently but I was trying to be succinct for the internet. That attempt at shorthand doesn't invalidate the heart of the discussion however, or even the heart of the example, in my opinion.
I still maintain that the character stats and dice rolls have a place in resolving the situation. I wouldn't say that the dice "control behaviour" - just that they help enhance variability and may lead to thinking about a situation in a different light.
That's not how I read it. The dice roll doesn't determine what the character says - just how well they say it.
When the DM says "I know you tried to say X, but instead you said Y because you rolled badly", that's a problem. It's much better to just ask the player to explain how what the character said was better/worse than the way the player said it.
Agreed, because I think you've missed my point.
The DM should be saying, "You tried a persuasive approach. However you failed to be persuasive this time (because of a low roll)."
As always, take it back to the basic loop of a roleplaying game: Describe Scene; State Goal and Approach; Determine Sucess/Failure; Narrate Outcome and Consequences.
Neither PCs nor NPCs should be able to use social interaction rolls against PCs. That's basically it.
You cannot be told what you as a player think. You can be Charmed, or magically afflicted and required to think things against your will. But your reaction is your reaction, period.
Ability checks like Deception, Persuasion and Intimidation are there to assist players who are not particularly skilled at acting or the RP side of things, and because you can't roleplay being an 8 foot tall minotaur by speaking, or being covered in gore (well, you could but that's also not ideal). In an ideal world, they wouldn't need to exist at all. As a DM, if a human PC says "I try to convince the giant that I am a dragon," they don't get to roll Deception. You already know that the DC is ten billion. The same logic should be applied to PCs if they want to try to deceive.
Don't allow players to say "I want to make a Deception roll to convince the baker I'll pay him later." The player roleplays saying that to the baker, and if you think it's appropriate, you allow them to make a roll based on a DC that you personally have decided. If they say that, ask them to RP it and then set the DC. It's that simple.
If a player wants to use a non-physical ability check against another player, and you really really want to diminish the RP by allowing it, then allow the targeted player to set the DC themselves. If they want to make the DC ten billion, then that's up to them.
If a player wants to use a non-physical ability check against another player, and you really really want to diminish the RP by allowing it, then allow the targeted player to set the DC themselves. If they want to make the DC ten billion, then that's up to them.
Now THAT's a novel and interesting idea, as an option, to give the players. Still requires good-faith consent from two (or all?) players in my opinion, but does give some sort of agency back to the table and a method to bring resolution. I'd still likely want to get everyone's buy-in first for civility reasons, and if there's interest from the group, to encourage that a receiving PC set a "reasonable" (even if still very hard is okay by me) DC with respect to the situation.
There is a lot of discussion of a player's agency--and on the whole I agree fully!--but I can also point to several instances over the years where I'm just as curious to see what occurs to my character outside of my own influence. If I'm up to the surprise and wouldn't mind the result either way and feel comfortable RP'ing either result, this isn't a bad idea at all.
If a player wants to use a non-physical ability check against another player, and you really really want to diminish the RP by allowing it, then allow the targeted player to set the DC themselves. If they want to make the DC ten billion, then that's up to them.
I just figure that player interacting with player isn't the DMs job in the first place. If the player thinks that someone else's persuasion check (or any other check) should matter, they can play the role of DM for their own character and call for a roll.
100% my advice is to let the players choose the outcome, but they also have to be reasonable. For example if someone rolled a 15 insight to see if I was lying, maybe the person could notice I'm doing my nervous habit. Stuff like that is what I allow my players to do and they love the little bit of narrative control. This only works (At least from what I've found) if your party is close and they really respect and love the roleplay of D&D. I honestly just let them choose what others see for intimidation and such, and even if I roll for enemies, I'll ask what the enemy sees in my players. This doesn't work for everyone and this is just my experience so I apologize if this isn't helpful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
PvP does not fly at my table. Nope on rolls against other players, nope on stealing from party members, nope on stabbing party members, etc. Too often it leads to bad feelings between people at the table. Plus, I've noticed that certain players tend to try and instigate PvP (whether social or physical), while others tend to be on the receiving end. That can get toxic fast. There's probably a group out there who enjoys a big PvP battle royale, but this is why I nip it in the bud at my table.
That said, players can disagree, characters can bicker and banter, characters can do silly things like the "slow" spell mentioned earlier (that was hilarious), as long as there are good feelings between the people at the table.
As DM, you not only run a game, you manage the social atmosphere. This is a great experience, and can really make you a leader. Good luck!
Sorry, I thought we were on the internet. Must have taken a wrong turn at the BBS. :) j/k.
Thanks for not taking it antagonistically - instead taking it in the spirit it was intended. To my mind your response seems to have stepped away from the issue I took umbrage with however.
Paraphrased I interpreted your statement as "If two characters come into conflict then it should be sorted out using the players abilities." ie/ Character A wants to do something and Character B doesn't - then Player A has to convince Player B. The step that it goes from character to player is the issue I have and it generally seems to happen around the mental skills.
For your example of a villain vs player then sort of, yes. That is what roleplaying is. Separating player knowledge from character knowledge. Again I wouldn't say that they must do something but I would present it and expect them to roleplay the character. Taking the example further if Villain is a trusted person of Character A and but at the same time (geographically distant and no way to communicate between the two) Character B finds out that the villain is planning to sacrifice character A. Player A but is at the same table so has meta-knowledge. Then yes I expect Player A to go with them and ignore their meta-knowlege. I mean ... that is the game. However if Villian persuades Player A to do something that is completely against their character then I expect them to RP that out. Not necessarily do it but RP conflict confusion and maybe try to find a compromise etc.
Overall I don't think we are disagreeing but I do think everyone here is applying a boundary condition that shouldn't be applied. People are assuming (it seems) that (as an example) a good persuasion roll means that the other character has to agree and just do what they are told. As I tried to explain above I believe this is a false boundary condition. That doesn't mean that a dice roll doesn't have a place however.
I find my examples usually tend to muddy the water rather than clear it but I will try and explain.
Lets say Player A wants a sword from Player B. They state: "Orlen wants Salazar to give him the magic sword we just found so that the fighter can use it".
For the record Orlen is high charisma conman. Salazar is a druid.
Roll persuasion - two options a) low, b)high
A) Low roll. (Taking cues from how the Player A framed the request) DM description would be something along the lines of "Orlen makes a poorly thought out, possibly rude argument". [Orlen says something to the effect of "Just give me the bl**dy sword!" ] Salazar chooses how to respond.
B) High roll (Godly roll of 40+!!). (Taking cues from how the Player A framed the request) DM description would be something along the lines of "Orlen makes a well thought out argument pointing out that the blade would be better off in the hands of the fighter, someone who can and will use it." Salazar chooses how to respond.
In both cases Salazar (or rather Player B) chooses how to respond. In no instance does a roll force a player to do anything. However the roll does do two things: It utilizes the characters abilities and it allows for more nuanced roll play. Salazar for example now knows why Orlen wants the sword and decides to use it as leverage (Fine, but the next item I can use is mine!) or maybe has a story as to why "No, I am going to practice with this and learn how to use it." or maybe "No, fighter is a poo face and I want to keep it from him."
All of these responses would be fine for option A or B depending on what Player B decides (based on other factors).
What the dice does in this instance is give a randomized external factor. This is the external force, how does your character react. The thing people have issue with is the assumption that a high persuasion/intimidation etc roll means that anyone HAS to do anything. But as in all things - the dice is a tool, not a defining god. DM is god, dice just help keep things fresh.
I will agree that for groups to be comfortable with players using skills against each other, it typically does require a certain degree of genuine friendship among the players themselves, a certain degree of emotional maturity, an honest respect for each other as people, and a certain capacity for detachment from their characters. If those elements are lacking then it can definitely be problematic.
If the group has those elements then there really should not be any problem.
Some stuff should absolutely never happen no matter how friendly the players are, or how well they can separate in-game from IRL.
So, I guess the answer is, how do your Players feel about such things?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
See? I told you my examples often cause more issues.
I actually do agree with you about putting words (and actions) into a characters mouth. Not necessarily as hard line as you have taken because it is out job as DMs to interpret the world, but I agree in principle.
I do not, however, agree that in any situation I have seen suggested here that a dice roll takes away player agency unless the player or DM allows it to happen. And they shouldn't. I still maintain that a dice roll can be used to add interest and nuance to a situation. I also maintain that character success or failure shouldn't be dictated by player ability.
Thank you for the discussion. I appreciate the interaction.
My DM says the same thing to us on the table. We, the players, say what we want to do and let the DM calls for a check. This is a skill check guild that my DM send to us.
I only had one PvP skill check experience and it is because the DM called for it.
One of the players was absent for a section and he usually filled the guide role during Adventuring. No one else wanted to fill that role because everyone thought they could contribute more to the team by filling the other role. So, my DM called for a Persuasion check from everyone and one of the people is "persuaded" to fill the role.
DnD is a RPG controlled by dice. Skill checks are there for a reason. As long as each player plays it's role and accepts the outcome of the dice, there can be no arguments between players. Dice are true neutral. The DM has the final word.
playing since 1986
Persuasion and Intimidation by one PC against another never works. Period. I didn’t even have to read the other thirty comments to know that.
D&D is a game controlled by players. Monopoly, Trouble, Sorry, and (ironically) Life are games controlled by dice.
If a PC has a Ch of 6 I still wouldn't let him or her be pushed around by another PC. No roll would even happen.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
DnD can be played in many ways and I will fight for your right to play it as you like. You have given an almost text book definition of metagaming though and that is not something that I enjoy.
To me D&D is not about a situation to win, but a story to be told. Exploring the story of the characters. Encounters are not to be won but a way to explore the reactions of the characters themselves. This will mean sometimes making sub-optimal choices and builds etc.
I don't like metegaming, min-maxing etc. I have played in groups like that and it is a short term thrill to me. I do support your right to play the game that way with like minded people but to present that method of play as the only way that D&D or 5e should be played is an egregious misrepresentation.
That's not how I read it. The dice roll doesn't determine what the character says - just how well they say it.
Compare it to fighting. The dice roll doesn't control what a character does (swing a sword) - it controls how effectively they swing it.
If player one says, "My character makes a good argument that they get the sword" and rolls high, it is correct to tell player two that character one made a good argument. Because, after all, they did. Player two then gets to decide what character two does in response.
It helps to remember that social skills are not mind-control. They never control what a character in the game is thinking or feeling - all they do is control behaviour.
When the DM says "I know you tried to say X, but instead you said Y because you rolled badly", that's a problem. It's much better to just ask the player to explain how what the character said was better/worse than the way the player said it.
Yes, in my example I went one step too far. At the table I would have phrased it differently but I was trying to be succinct for the internet. That attempt at shorthand doesn't invalidate the heart of the discussion however, or even the heart of the example, in my opinion.
I still maintain that the character stats and dice rolls have a place in resolving the situation. I wouldn't say that the dice "control behaviour" - just that they help enhance variability and may lead to thinking about a situation in a different light.
Agreed, because I think you've missed my point.
The DM should be saying, "You tried a persuasive approach. However you failed to be persuasive this time (because of a low roll)."
As always, take it back to the basic loop of a roleplaying game: Describe Scene; State Goal and Approach; Determine Sucess/Failure; Narrate Outcome and Consequences.
Neither PCs nor NPCs should be able to use social interaction rolls against PCs. That's basically it.
You cannot be told what you as a player think. You can be Charmed, or magically afflicted and required to think things against your will. But your reaction is your reaction, period.
Ability checks like Deception, Persuasion and Intimidation are there to assist players who are not particularly skilled at acting or the RP side of things, and because you can't roleplay being an 8 foot tall minotaur by speaking, or being covered in gore (well, you could but that's also not ideal). In an ideal world, they wouldn't need to exist at all. As a DM, if a human PC says "I try to convince the giant that I am a dragon," they don't get to roll Deception. You already know that the DC is ten billion. The same logic should be applied to PCs if they want to try to deceive.
Don't allow players to say "I want to make a Deception roll to convince the baker I'll pay him later." The player roleplays saying that to the baker, and if you think it's appropriate, you allow them to make a roll based on a DC that you personally have decided. If they say that, ask them to RP it and then set the DC. It's that simple.
If a player wants to use a non-physical ability check against another player, and you really really want to diminish the RP by allowing it, then allow the targeted player to set the DC themselves. If they want to make the DC ten billion, then that's up to them.
Now THAT's a novel and interesting idea, as an option, to give the players. Still requires good-faith consent from two (or all?) players in my opinion, but does give some sort of agency back to the table and a method to bring resolution. I'd still likely want to get everyone's buy-in first for civility reasons, and if there's interest from the group, to encourage that a receiving PC set a "reasonable" (even if still very hard is okay by me) DC with respect to the situation.
There is a lot of discussion of a player's agency--and on the whole I agree fully!--but I can also point to several instances over the years where I'm just as curious to see what occurs to my character outside of my own influence. If I'm up to the surprise and wouldn't mind the result either way and feel comfortable RP'ing either result, this isn't a bad idea at all.
Boldly go
I just figure that player interacting with player isn't the DMs job in the first place. If the player thinks that someone else's persuasion check (or any other check) should matter, they can play the role of DM for their own character and call for a roll.
100% my advice is to let the players choose the outcome, but they also have to be reasonable. For example if someone rolled a 15 insight to see if I was lying, maybe the person could notice I'm doing my nervous habit. Stuff like that is what I allow my players to do and they love the little bit of narrative control. This only works (At least from what I've found) if your party is close and they really respect and love the roleplay of D&D. I honestly just let them choose what others see for intimidation and such, and even if I roll for enemies, I'll ask what the enemy sees in my players. This doesn't work for everyone and this is just my experience so I apologize if this isn't helpful.