Using a persuasion check on your own party?

[CyberThread]

What do folks think of letting a player do a persuasion check on their own party? He thinks they are clearly overmatched and wants to try and force folks to run, instead of potentially TPKing.


What do you folks think?

[hawklost]

I would say no. I don't think any social checks should ever be used against the party because you are forcing the parties decisions on them.

[Surrealistik]

Don't go there.

[Chaosvii7]

Since 3.5, player characters have been immune to the Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate checks of other player characters. Makes sense considering that if it were possible to use Diplomacy on an ally you could potentially turn them into fanatics and make their characters literally kill themselves for you. Even if the rules don't call it out, that's something that I would expect every table to run with in this edition.

[Demonic Spoon]

I think bluffing is generally OK - it doesn't dictate someone's reaction, just whether or not they believe something is factually true.

Others: definitely not for the reasons above

[Spore]

No. Don't do it. Trying this several times got a fellow player nearly kicked out. "You have to do what I said. I rolled Diplomacy 30."

[Zweisteine]

In this case, the standard response would be for the scared player to hide, not die, and collect the bodies if there's a near-TPK, I think.

He could also try switching in or out of character and arguing.


If it were the DM trying to save the party, the proper course of action, I believe, would be to do one of the following:

1. Give a description that very clearly gets it accross that they can't win.
2. Create something that prevents the monster from fighting the party, such as a sudden cave-in.
4. Fudge everything to let the players win. You also should fudge the treasure in this case.
4. Deus ex machina.
3. Allow a TPK

They are numbered such that 1 is most desirable and 4 is least, though this will vary a lot depending on your opinion and many other conditions, such as how much effort you and the players have put in to the PCs.

[Grinner]

Remember that this is a game, not a simulation. Consequently, exceptions often are, and should be, made in favor of player agency.

[Falka]

Those skills are supposed to be applied for NPC interaction, not PCs.

Also, highly encourages rollplaying.

[CyberThread]

Question is answered folks. Thank you.

[Eslin]

In 5e, don't do it.
It does make sense to do in games of 3.5 - the entire point of 3.5 is verisimilitude, everyone is built on the same chassis, and having the player's characters be mystically immune for no reason throws that off, so in 3.5 games I let my players use diplomacy/bluff/intimidate on each other.

But you're playing 5e, which favours simplicity and user friendliness, making it more hassle than its worth to allow that kind of thing.

[Shadow]

I think bluffing is generally OK - it doesn't dictate someone's reaction, just whether or not they believe something is factually true.

Others: definitely not for the reasons above

No bluff is needed. You tell a lie. Members of your party can choose to believe you or not.
An NPC is one thing. A party member is a different beast entirely.
Using any social skills on another member of the party is a slippery enough slope that the DM should just never let it happen.

[Eslin]

No bluff is needed. You tell a lie. Members of your party can choose to believe you or not.
An NPC is one thing. A party member is a different beast entirely.
Using any social skills on another member of the party is a slippery enough slope that the DM should just never let it happen.

It's not really a slippery slope, I've had games where I allow my characters to flat out use any skills they want on each other - the apostate took charm and deceive, why should that work any less well on other players than the renegade's heavy bolter does?

It's just 5e focuses on simplicity and clearly distinguishes between pc and npc, so allowing it doesn't really fit with the feel of most games.

[Corinath]

@Shadow: I'd only disagree with you slightly there. It's a very slippery slope, but I think the breaking line, from personal experience, is when you force an action on someone, as in the OPs question.

I was a part of a SWD20 campaign that lasted about two years, and in that time we rolled bluff vs sense motive checks against each other all the time. It was pretty fun. Your character can still choose to interpret their loss in any way shape or form, and that's where the real fun of the experience can be found.

Now, truth be told, I've never really gamed with a group other than close friends, so we were always out to have fun as rule #1.

*Player one finds rare jewelry in an office, returns to party*
"What'd you find in that office there?"
"Uhh... drugs. Lots of drugs."
*Fails bluff check against player*
"You didn't find any drugs in that office!"
"You're right! I didn't!"
"So what'd you find?"
"Uhh... Drugs."
"But you... ok I give up."
*Journey continues*

Player managed to conceal his findings by just refusing to talk about it. And we all eventually lost interest. LoL.

[Shadow]

It's not really a slippery slope, I've had games where I allow my characters to flat out use any skills they want on each other - the apostate took charm and deceive, why should that work any less well on other players than the renegade's heavy bolter does?

@Shadow: I'd only disagree with you slightly there. It's a very slippery slope, but I think the breaking line, from personal experience, is when you force an action on someone, as in the OPs question.

Agree completely. As to your anecdotal example, why was a bluff check needed? He rolled the check, the other player won the contest, and the result was exactly the same as if the check had never been rolled.
So like I aid, no check needed.

Eslin, allowing social roles between party members is indeed a slippery slope.
It can be most simply described as forcing an action on someone, as Cor pointed out, and therein lies the problem. When you allow social checks on other party members, you essentially recieve the ability to act for that player for that situation. If you let a player do this, and he finds that he enjoys it (or simply finds that it works), what's to stop him from continuing to do so? After all, you allowed it before.... so why shouldn't he just roll a die every time he wants to get his way at the table?
That's basically the definition of slippery slope.

Interactions between NPCs should/could be both role played and roll played.
Interactions between party members should only be role played.

[Eslin]

Agree completely. As to your anecdotal example, why was a bluff check needed? He rolled the check, the other player won the contest, and the result was exactly the same as if the check had never been rolled.
So like I aid, no check needed.

Eslin, allowing social roles between party members is indeed a slippery slope.
It can be most simply described as forcing an action on someone, as Cor pointed out, and therein lies the problem. When you allow social checks on other party members, you essentially recieve the ability to act for that player for that situation. If you let a player do this, and he finds that he enjoys it (or simply finds that it works), what's to stop him from continuing to do so? After all, you allowed it before.... so why shouldn't he just roll a die every time he wants to get his way at the table?
That's basically the definition of slippery slope.

Interactions between NPCs should/could be both role played and roll played.
Interactions between party members should only be role played.

Except that needlessly empowers martial and caster characters compared to skillmonkeys. A caster could dominate, charm or suggest to get another party member to do what he wants while a martial character can get his way through combat - your way disempowers skill based characters.

[Turalisj]

What do folks think of letting a player do a persuasion check on their own party? He thinks they are clearly overmatched and wants to try and force folks to run, instead of potentially TPKing.


What do you folks think?

No diplomancing your allies.

[Shadow]

Except that needlessly empowers martial and caster characters compared to skillmonkeys. A caster could dominate, charm or suggest to get another party member to do what he wants while a martial character can get his way through combat - your way disempowers skill based characters.

Intraparty conflicts should also be avoided at all costs, so this shouldn't be an issue.
If your party members disagree about something enough to come to virtual blows over it, then your party members are disruptive to the game.
When your players are disruptive to the game, that's obviously a bad thing.

[unwise]

I actually encourage the use of rolling social skills for intra-party interactions. If the thief wants to claim he did not steal something, he can make a bluff check, the result is the DM telling the players how convincing he is. That is it though, the roll tells you how believable, inspiring, threatening or seductive the PC was being. It is up to the other PCs to determine how they roleplay their reactions to it.

Without a roll indicating how persuasive the PC was, then you are just relying on how persuasive the player themselves is and out of game knowledge. I never say a PC has to do X or cannot do Y because of another PCs roll, however I can describe the scene to them well and hope that they are good enough roleplayers to concede that their PC is not an iron fortress on a lonely island unassailable by anybody's persuasiveness and influence.

[Eslin]

Intraparty conflicts should also be avoided at all costs, so this shouldn't be an issue.
If your party members disagree about something enough to come to virtual blows over it, then your party members are disruptive to the game.
When your players are disruptive to the game, that's obviously a bad thing.

That's... so far away from the truth I'm having trouble finding the words. People fight, that's not disruptive to the game, that's part of it. How they deal with it is based on the character's temperament, but there are plenty of situations that can cause intra-party conflict. Words are just as much weapons in that kind of situation as spells or swords are, and denying a player part of their character is unfair to them.

I am aware that that isn't appropriate in some games - its likelihood increases the more simulationist the game is and the less moral the party members are. In a party of lawful good 4e characters, for instance, the worst I would expect from differences of opinion are constructive arguments. Likewise, in a party of black crusade characters arguing over which one of them should receive the terminator armour they just looted, I would fully expect them to solve it via deceit, intimidation, bribery, assassination and murder.

[Shadow]

I was refering to intraparty conflict via the use of spells and combat, because that's what you claimed.
And THAT should be avoided at all costs.
Intraparty conflict in and of itself is fine. Intraparty conflict in the way that you described it is bad for the game.

[Corinath]

Agree completely. As to your anecdotal example, why was a bluff check needed? He rolled the check, the other player won the contest, and the result was exactly the same as if the check had never been rolled.
So like I aid, no check needed.


What's the point of playing the game? LoL. It just gave him a creative obstacle to work around. He could have been boring and said he found treasure. But, he just chose another path, and the players knew something was up.

I could have compelled him via any number of force powers or abilities (star wars, remember, and I played a Jedi Consular), or done the equivalent of Divination magic, as was my character's disposition. Instead, I just let it slide. Had he won the bluff, I would have meta-gamed if I had done anything other than gone along with it.

:)

[Eslin]

I was refering to intraparty conflict via the use of spells and combat, because that's what you claimed.
And THAT should be avoided at all costs.
Intraparty conflict in and of itself is fine. Intraparty conflict in the way that you described it is bad for the game.

I strongly disagree. These games tend to involve a lot of people solving problems with violence, intraparty conflict being solved the same way makes sense in some contexts. It doesn't have to always be to the death, I've had two swordsmen duel until one hit 0 simply because they wanted to see which one was stronger, but I've had a halfling rogue who felt threatened cut the dwarven crusader's beard off in his sleep, convince him the human dread necromancer did it and watch the crusader proceed to murder said necromancer.
I can't see why I would want to prohibit such things - as long as the action is possible, the dm's response should never be 'no you can't do that'. If I wanted a world constrained by arbitrary limits in behaviour, I'd play a video game. And even there, games such as minecraft and elder scrolls with no such limits are popular for a reason.

[Shadow]

There's a difference between "you shouldn't do that" and "you can't do that."
I tell my players that they shouldn't. I don't stop them once it starts.
I do, however, brand them as a murderer and put them on the run from the authorities. There was only one time that one party member killed another in one of my games. He was executed by the lawkeepers shortly thereafter.
He never did it again, even when intraparty conflicts arose.

[BW022]

The entire premise of the game is that a player determines what his character want to do, tells the DM what she is trying to do, and the DM determines what the character actually does.

You can't tell players what they believe, feel, think, and ultimately do.

If a player asks another player to make a persuasion, deception, or insight roll and wants to role play believing or not believing that... fine. Otherwise, its it up to the player to say what his character things, believes, etc. and the actions they attempt.

No one wants to play a game of chess, scrabble, or risk where someone else just tells you what to do all the time. Likewise, no one wants to play a game of D&D where someone else is effectively playing your character.

[Eslin]

The entire premise of the game is that a player determines what his character want to do, tells the DM what she is trying to do, and the DM determines what the character actually does.

You can't tell players what they believe, feel, think, and ultimately do.

If a player asks another player to make a persuasion, deception, or insight roll and wants to role play believing or not believing that... fine. Otherwise, its it up to the player to say what his character things, believes, etc. and the actions they attempt.

No one wants to play a game of chess, scrabble, or risk where someone else just tells you what to do all the time. Likewise, no one wants to play a game of D&D where someone else is effectively playing your character.

Then what, do you make your pcs immune to mind-affecting spells as well?
The GM already explains what the character perceives, and perception is reality. The fundamental problem with the assumptions here is that diplomacy is mind control - I've read the 5e text on persuasion, and it doesn't give you the ability to flat out make someone do something. However, if an incredibly characteristic character rolls a 20 on persuasion to convince the barbarian to stop fighting now and retreat to win glory another day, I'd have the barbarian retreat. I'd penalise the check the more chaotic, illogical or bloodthirsty the barbarian was, but I'd allow it just as I'd allow a grapple check to grab the barbarian and run.

It's the same thing as the player saying his character wouldn't run away when hit with the terrified condition because his character is brave - too bad, sometimes your character thinks differently than you do.


There's a difference between "you shouldn't do that" and "you can't do that."
I tell my players that they shouldn't. I don't stop them once it starts.
I do, however, brand them as a murderer and put them on the run from the authorities. There was only one time that one party member killed another in one of my games. He was executed by the lawkeepers shortly thereafter.
He never did it again, even when intraparty conflicts arose.

Which is entirely appropriate in that situation. If a party member kills another in reach of the law and it's not demonstrably self defense, having the authorities track them down and execute them makes perfect sense.

It just doesn't seem to happen that often, considering how often roleplayers tend to be outside of civilisation. Often it falls the party members, which is why such conflicts tend to happen when the parties are either evil or deeply divided - few players or characters are willing to start a fight if they'll get dog piled by 5 other people if they do.

[pwykersotz]

Only if both players want to. Otherwise, no.

[Shadow]

Often it falls the party members, which is why such conflicts tend to happen when the parties are either evil or deeply divided - few players or characters are willing to start a fight if they'll get dog piled by 5 other people if they do.

Not a problem in my games. Neutral at worst, no evil allowed when I'm behind the screen. And neutral is not a license to cry "that's what my character would do" when it impacts gameplay.
The players have plenty of freedom, but I don't abide disruptions to my games.

[Eslin]

Not a problem in my games. Neutral at worst, no evil allowed when I'm behind the screen. And neutral is not a license to cry "that's what my character would do" when it impacts gameplay.
The players have plenty of freedom, but I don't abide disruptions to my games.

I have no alignment restrictions on players, they just have to create characters that have logical reasons to co-operate and try to accomplish the goals of the campaign or initial quest hook.

Neutral evil can work just as well as neutral good in a quest to, say, save the world, both characters have just as much reason to try to complete their goals.
But the whole point of this kind of thing is to tell a story, and if that story results on conflict, that's just added entertainment. Plus the fights are usually really interesting.

[Shadow]

The problem that I often see with evil characters at our table (when someone else is DM) is that we, as players, really get into our characters. We all have goals and stories that we play to. But when someone plays evil they seems to focus more on thier goals rather than the campaign goals, and the entire game gets sidetracked because of it, which is why I disallow it.

We rotate DMs/games every few months so that no one gets burned out, and vote which game we continue next when someone starts burning (six gamers, four of which DM). Two of our group allow evil, and their games almost never get enough votes specifically because of the sidetracking issue. They are the only two that ever play evil, and they are the only two who ever vote for each others games more than once or twice. So basically myself and the other guy just take turns.

[Eslin]

The problem that I often see with evil characters at our table (when someone else is DM) is that we, as players, really get into our characters. We all have goals and stories that we play to. But when someone plays evil they seems to focus more on thier goals rather than the campaign goals, and the entire game gets sidetracked because of it, which is why I disallow it.

We rotate DMs/games every few months so that no one gets burned out, and vote which game we continue next when someone starts burning (six gamers, four of which DM). Two of our group allow evil, and their games almost never get enough votes specifically because of the sidetracking issue. So basically myself and the other guy just take turns.

Well, lucky you. I'm a forever DM, I have literally never played D&D. On the plus side, it means I have a lot of practise handling player conflict =P
I even use conflict as a form of catharsis for myself - if players have been particularly troublesome, I run a game of Black Crusade and watch them kill each other, then use the surviving character as a villain for the next 40k game we do.

[Townopolis]

The fundamental problem with the assumptions here is that diplomacy is mind control - I've read the 5e text on persuasion, and it doesn't give you the ability to flat out make someone do something. However, if an incredibly characteristic character rolls a 20 on persuasion to convince the barbarian to stop fighting now and retreat to win glory another day, I'd have the barbarian retreat. I'd penalise the check the more chaotic, illogical or bloodthirsty the barbarian was, but I'd allow it
Emphasis mine. How is the bolded situation not diplomacy = mind control? It's literally someone rolling persuasion in order to dictate another character's actions. The only difference I can find between this and mind control magic (as it exists in D&D) is that one involves dictating actions by declaring that your character has changed another character's mind, while the other explicitly only dictates actions and leaves the victim's thoughts alone.

[Chaosvii7]

I think bluffing is generally OK - it doesn't dictate someone's reaction, just whether or not they believe something is factually true.

Others: definitely not for the reasons above

Well you're not entitled to share everything with everybody, but you don't roll a bluff check for that. You can just not tell people details about your character that you're not interested in sharing.