Can the DM allow player vs player checks. Thoughts and experiences wanted

[djreynolds]

Many who play the game will say, "I'm playing my character" So he/she kills or does whatever they want to, even to the detriment of the party. As in the thread, "Alignment and Annihilation", that stuff unfortunately happens, players do what they want and may ruin a game for others, with the defense being, "I'm chaotic neutral" or this is what my character does.

So if they are playing the PnP character, and not just being themselves, why can't I on a successful skill check persuade them my idea is better.

I know this could be abused, and possibly why its not really included, people asking other people to "off themselves" is an obvious example and good enough for me, if the answer is no.

But you can theoretically charm a party member?

Players are known to use sleight of hand on each other

Why can't I say, "make an arcane check, and then make a deception check to see if I can lie to my party member about what I really discovered."

Aside from booting a player, which may happen, if he/she is truly invested in their character than perhaps I can persuade the character that retreat is the best option, or not stealing or touching stuff.

[RickAllison]

The way I rule it is that they can make the check and it does have an effect. A successfully intimidated PC will feel a little terror, a persuaded PC feels the course of action is more reasonable. It is still up to the player to decide to act on those feelings, however.

[Shaofoo]

My rule is never do PvP, regardless if it is combat or checks players should never roll against one another.

I don't think that any roll can force a player to act against his character. A roll is supposed to be for something that has some measure of success, even with a maxed Diplomacy and a roll of 20 you won't convince someone who hates your guts because you will automatically fail even if you could get the best result.

The player can easily ignore any roll made to convince you because he can just declare that it doesn't affect him.

If a player is being disruptive then it is best resolved out of character, you should never use rolls to force the player to behave because that never works. If the player is too disruptive then the best course of action might be to remove him from the games, D&D is a social game and the social etiquette should still be applied and followed. If he is truly invested in the character then he will either behave or the character wasn't worth much to the party anyway. I don't play D&D to have to deal with socially stunted people who believes that their fun begins where mine ends.

And you could just lie, there is no need to roll Deception to lie unless you are wanting to roleplay that bit plus if you roll Deception then the players will know you are lying and will not necessarily obey the results, they might not know what you know but they know what you told them is BS so they'll act accordingly now.

[Regitnui]

Player vs Player checks? Yeah, sure. Have the fighter and paladin trying to arm-wrestle or shove each other across the floor.

As a method for reigning in disruptive players? No. That's better resolved away from the table.

[FaradayCage]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: No.

The entire point of RPGs is to play a role. It doesn't matter if a DM's NPC is beguiled; he has hundreds more. But the PCs only have themselves. Such checks should only be used as a simple way to end a disagreement and move the game forward if both parties agree to it beforehand.

Building on that: in-party tension is something that should really be agreed upon from the start. There are tons of rules and non-rules in D&D that naturally vary between groups. Do you dig holes to poop in? Is encumbrance a thing? Weather? Torches? Those 10 iron rations that last forever? Travelling/sleeping in heavy armor? Stabling your mounts?

If you consider all factors, D&D becomes a wasteland of trivialities.

Throwing into that mix a little bit of "I always keep a fake coin purse full of gold-plated coppers on the left side, which I don't fail to mention to the rogue in the party" can really slow things down and turn the game from collaboration into competition.

Players splitting up and taking sides is a potentially fun climax/turn in a campaign. But make sure it's all in good fun, and everyone knows the rules going into that situation.

[woodlandkammao]

I play a True neutral rogue in a party with a Paladin and a Lawful good Cleric. Whenever i try to pickpocket someone, they roll perception and turn me in if they spot it. I in return often leave illusions (Arcane Trickster) to fool them or even just prank them. Once I left a Silent Image of an orcish assassin above each of their beds while they slept. The Cleric blew the roof off.

So yeah, PvP skill checks are awesome. Unless of course you have players who take IC insults and stuff OOC. Then it can be a nightmare. My group, thankfully, don't.

Edit: I also had to roll deception on my motives for tailing someone once vs the party.

[djreynolds]

These are the responses I expected.

I just feel for the guy from Alignment and Annihilation thread, so players are really disruptive.

I agree totally, the NO PvP period.

And this could be abused.

[Calen]

As long as both/all players are having fun I have let/seen dm's let players do rolls vs each other. They were never damaging or detrimental simply role-play that needed a little roll-play to get some randomness.

Examples that come to mind.

Stealth to dump some itchy powder into the rangers bedroll.
Perception vs. Thievery to notice that rogue #1 stole rogue #2 hat. (and then blatantly put it on in front of him the next morning)
Perception to notice details about how the wizard is stealing power.
A variety of bluff vs insight rolls when players have asked. "Do I know this about player?"

[Shaofoo]

So yeah, PvP skill checks are awesome. Unless of course you have players who take IC insults and stuff OOC. Then it can be a nightmare. My group, thankfully, don't.


It is more than taking insults IC it is disrupting the fun of the player which has nothing to do with being IC or OOC. I play D&D as a cooperative game, if one of the players is playing against me then I will not have any fun because it isn't the kind of game that I signed up for and it isn't the kind of game that is advertised either.

I can take a joke like having illusion assassins or itching powder but if stuff gets stolen from me then that is when I go and talk to the thief OOC to not do that because at that point the person is being a direct antagonist to me.

[goto124]

Is PvP allowed or desirable?

Yes - go for it!
No - don't.

[Slipperychicken]

I just feel for the guy from Alignment and Annihilation thread, so players are really disruptive.

Players' disruptiveness is an OOC problem. You're not going to solve it by doing things in the game-world or by modifying rules.


Instead, you need to figure out what the root issue is, and talk to your player about it. If it seems clear that he's not going to get better, you might as well just kick him out.

[mgshamster]

In my games, my players will only attack each other if they agree upon it OOC, first. They must agree of any consequences, when they will stop, and how it will move the story. If they're angry with each other OOC, then we must resolve the issue as adults by talking it out, out of game.

But if they agree that their characters are mad at each other (and the players are not), and they want that in-story experience, then they can agree to have a PvP attack.

When it comes to skills, it's the same thing; they can only do skill contests with each other if they agree upon it OOC - and it has to be a reason which drives the story. They can't do it just to show superiority or anything juvenile like that. It must be story-driven.

For example, in one session my players were in a serious debate about what to do next in the game. They spent about 4-5 hours real time talking about it and rehashing the same arguments. It was a lot of fun, but at the end we still didn't have a consensus. So everyone agreed to resolve it with contested persuasion checks between two characters. The character who won would be the one who convinced the ther PCs to go along that path. The key point is that the players had to agree to back off their own plan if they lost and let the dice decide.

Other times contested skill checks between PC's has been much less dramatic, but still drove the story forward. Such as the time when a PC told an innocuous lie to another PC, and they did a deception vs insight check to see if the other believed the first. This type of situation can be dangerous - we try to mitigate it by making sure the players all know the truth and to just the characters who are being deceived - and the players have to agree to it. In our situation, the lie was about whether the two had met before (they had, and the first PC was trying to hide it), and in a few sessions the truth became revealed and the players had a fun time roleplaying the revelation and ensuing apologies.

The point is that contests between PCs much be handled maturely and with player consent on all sides, and it should be something that enhances the fun for everyone involved. If a contest or PvP is going to diminish the fun of anyone in the game, it should not be done.

[Belac93]

Well, in the groups I usually play in, characters can do pvp, just no stealing possessions or attacking the other characters. If they want to, say, throw something, or convince them of something, that's usually ok. So long as it doesn't have a negative lasting effect on the other PC.

[Starchild7309]

Our party has a drow that is convinced he is a good musician. In fact he has no skill in perform whatsoever. He also has horrible timing at breaking out his flute (this is all on purpose...he likes to try to play mood music). Last session we were sneaking up on a group of were rats and the player passed a note to the DM....The Dm then asked us for perception checks. I was the only one that rolled high enough to see the drow slip his flute from his bag and start to bring it to his lips. I was then given the opportunity to make a few checks to take the flute from him and in this case slip it off the dock we were on into the bay to forever be lost and save us all from alerting the enemy we were coming.

This sort of thing I enjoy PvP rolls. When it comes to the mental kinds of thing like persuasion we don't allow that at our table. We do allow deception as we pass notes to DMs and between players at times under the watchful eye of our DM, since characters like the drow mentioned above purposely make poor decision in a r/ping capacity.

I was recently inflicted with lycanthropy and unaware. When I changed the first time the DM sent the players out of the room and r/ped me waking up next to the corpse of the villager I had killed in the sewers. Knowing that the lawful good paladin and fighter in our group would have me arrested, even though I was not in control of myself, I came back to the inn later in the day and had to role a whole slew of deception checks to pass off the story that I met a young lady and spent the night with her (not completely a lie). Now the party OOG knew something else happened, but we police meta gaming strongly so it ended up as a shoulder shrugging incident of "Gee, that was weird."

[opticalshadow]

I would allow it, and I would expect my players to role play the results. this is no different that them skill checking or being skill checked by an NPC, the fact the check is coming from a different source should not matter.

If you disallow a pvp check for something like intimidation from a player, you might as well make them immune to intimidation, because that player decided his fighter just doesn't get scared, or that no matter what they enemy rolls on their persuasion check, the player just decided his character would never believe or be talked to. I find that a fairly unrealistic trait, in real life men have fear, they may decide (in dnd roleplay) that they will show no fear, but they still have it, and it still gives them pause to think about it.

[BurgerBeast]

If you disallow a pvp check for something like intimidation from a player, you might as well make them immune to intimidation, because that player decided his fighter just doesn't get scared, or that no matter what they enemy rolls on their persuasion check, the player just decided his character would never believe or be talked to. I find that a fairly unrealistic trait, in real life men have fear, they may decide (in dnd roleplay) that they will show no fear, but they still have it, and it still gives them pause to think about it.

I do let my players make their characters immune to (nonmagical) intimidation. Your character, your choice. As a DM, individual NPCs, depending on the circumstances, might also be immune to one or all of intimidation, persuasion, bribery, seduction, etc., too.

Angry GM has a good article that touches on this. I think his advice is that whatever a player decides his character will do, OOC the player must tell the other players everything. So while characters may be fooled IC, there is no secrecy or dishonesty between players. Even with this rule, I think this type of thing is generally d@#kheadedness, and wouldn't allow it. These types of problems are best handled through conversations before that campaign begins and DM intervention to ensure a party that can work together. After the fact, I think it's still on the DM to solve the problem. At the very least, you need to make it clear what constitutes d@#kishness and what does not.

[Christopher K.]

As a DM, I never let my players use rolls of social skills against one another. Everything they do or say to each other, I trust them to respond as much in-character as possible. If I feel that a player is decidedly acting upon out of character knowledge or reacting to a stimulus uncharacteristically, I'll ask that player to back up their reasoning, and I'll usually either get "whoops, sorry" or an explanation leaving everyone happy with the results.

One of my first adventures when I started DMing was an event where one of the party was kidnapped and impersonated by a changeling. Every player knew this was going on, and I expected them to separate their knowledge from their characters'. I gave the kidnapped player autonomy and whenever he "slipped" in roleplay, the others could make Insight checks opposed by his Bluff. The catch was that the players had to catch a slip, and then explain to me why their character would find something amiss.

The next time I ran a similar scenario, I decided to instead roleplay as the changeling in question, so I had more control over their actions, but there was admittedly a fun amount of novelty in having the players try to gauge what was wrong with a character's diction or mannerisms when the same player was doing the roleplaying.

I think the bottom line, really, is to decide as the DM whether PvP rolls are fair in your game or will take away from you and your players' experiences

[Hrugner]

They can, but it wouldn't be worth their time. The characters run their characters, the DM runs the world. The DM says when dice rolls come in to play. If the characters can't work something out, then the players decided not to work something out, that's not really a dice thing and solving it with dice isn't going to make the problem go away.

[Daishain]

The way I handle it, it depends on the nature of the check. Deception vs insight checks for instance work the same as when dealing with NPCs, simple opposed rolls, whoever gets higher wins.

Persuasion and intimidation are a little fuzzier. Generally speaking, if one player wishes to overtly change another's mind, I have them act out at least a portion of what their character would say, and make a roll. If the player speaks well, I might add or subtract a bonus. The "defending" player can then choose how their character reacts. In essence I let them set their own DC. This comes along with an understanding that while I'm not going to dictate how easily persuaded a particular player's character is on any particular topic, an honest appraisal is expected.

[Slipperychicken]

Persuasion and intimidation are a little fuzzier. Generally speaking, if one player wishes to overtly change another's mind, I have them act out at least a portion of what their character would say, and make a roll. If the player speaks well, I might add or subtract a bonus. The "defending" player can then choose how their character reacts. In essence I let them set their own DC. This comes along with an understanding that while I'm not going to dictate how easily persuaded a particular player's character is on any particular topic, an honest appraisal is expected.

I believe that social skill rolls are to be used for determining the reaction of a character when that's not certain. A PC's thoughts and reactions to other characters are already determined by the player, so in my view a die roll for that is superfluous.

[mer.c]

My players have ultimate authority over their characters' motives, values, characteristics, and reasoning. I wouldn't let a die roll force someone to play their character in a way they don't want. (Saves versus magical suggestions etc. are a different story.)

That said, I think PvP rolls can be a ton of fun. The Lawful Good PC rolling Perception to spot the Chaotic Neutral Rogue stealing (and the RPing that ensues) is great. Why rule that out?

Two sessions ago, our LG Halfling Cleric had a conversation with our CG Human Rogue. After the session, the Rogue's player told us OOC that her character was hurt by what the Cleric said. In the following session, the Cleric started to notice (in-character). So they struck up another conversation and I had them make some Insight vs. Deception contests. The Rogue RPed it brilliantly and rolled well, so in-character, the Cleric is now completely certain that the Rogue is just fine. That whole exchange was great, and everyone loved it. I don't see any problem with this.

As best as I can come up with broader rules, I'd say:

PvP rolls are totally OK when they're used to gate information from OOC to IC.
PvP rolls are totally OK when they're used with the blessings of the characters involved and the DM.
PvP rolls are not OK if they're used to make characters act in ways their PC is uncomfortable with.


That rules out a good Persuasion roll severing the PC/character connection, robbing the player of their agency. At the same time, we can still try to spot the PC who tried to pocket some loot while no one was looking, bluff other PCs, etc.

Besides, we make Insight checks to tell if an NPC is holding out on us, and we make Perception checks to notice an NPC who's trying to do something without drawing attention. Why should checks between PCs be insta-successes (or insta-failures)? I can see problems arising if there's animosity in the group, but that needs to be resolved OOC, not by throwing dice.

[Rhaegar]

A few things that came up in my game recently

A player wanted to persuade someone else to his way of thinking. No, you don't roll dice to persuade another player at the table, you have to actually persuade them with your words.

The druid was out scouting a keep as a cat, the other players did skill checks to play cards while they waited, to see who won. One character tried cheating and rolled slight of hand vs everyone's perception at the table.

One of my characters tried to mount a druid shapeshifted into a horse while he rode by, the druid did not want him on, so there were some dex and strength checks involved to get on and stay on the druid horse, vs the druid horse trying to buck him off. It was an all around hilarious sight in my mind for what I imagined happening.

As a general rule, I would not allow any social skill checks between players that can be resolved between them talking. However anything that could be physical or perception may be allowed as long as it's not to disruptive to the game.

[mgshamster]

A few things that came up in my game recently

A player wanted to persuade someone else to his way of thinking. No, you don't roll dice to persuade another player at the table, you have to actually persuade them with your words.

The druid was out scouting a keep as a cat, the other players did skill checks to play cards while they waited, to see who won. One character tried cheating and rolled slight of hand vs everyone's perception at the table.

As a general rule, I would not allow any social skill checks between players that can be resolved between them talking. However anything that could be physical or perception may be allowed as long as it's not to disruptive to the game.

What do you do when you have a player who is bad at presenting ideas, unable to effectively argue, or is simply very meek trying to get their ideas across another player who is excellent at persuading others and doesn't listen to outside ideas?

If the first player is playing a character who is charismatic and proficient in persuasion, then you've just effectively eliminated their character from being able to share ideas and convince others within their own party. I mean, I don't require my players who play strong characters to bench press 200 lbs before they make an attack roll - why require players to be charismatic if they want to play a charismatic character?

[RickAllison]

What do you do when you have a player who is bad at presenting ideas, unable to effectively argue, or is simply very meek trying to get their ideas across another player who is excellent at persuading others and doesn't listen to outside ideas?

If the first player is playing a character who is charismatic and proficient in persuasion, then you've just effectively eliminated their character from being able to share ideas and convince others within their own party. I mean, I don't require my players who play strong characters to bench press 200 lbs before they make an attack roll - why require players to be charismatic if they want to play a charismatic character?

As I stated earlier in the thread, my take on this is that one can make rolls that do influence how the other PC feels (Persuasion makes the idea seem more reasonable, Intimidation makes them scared of the repercussions), but it is ultimately up to the player to decide what that character does with the knowledge.

[Daishain]

I believe that social skill rolls are to be used for determining the reaction of a character when that's not certain. A PC's thoughts and reactions to other characters are already determined by the player, so in my view a die roll for that is superfluous.
The die roll in this case is intended to be an immediately understandable representation of how persuasive the argument in question is, whether they're acting like a golden tongued orator, or their attempt to intimidate someone gets spoiled by their animal companion enthusiastically licking their face.

I mean, I typically don't find the time to host hour long debates on various issues, nor can I expect a table full of geeks to all be smooth talkers. Leaving out skill and chance entirely also raises the issue of when a PC is more or less well spoken than their player. Since it is the character's skill that is primarily in question here, why not use a skill check?

[Slipperychicken]

The die roll in this case is intended to be an immediately understandable representation of how persuasive the argument in question is, whether they're acting like a golden tongued orator, or their attempt to intimidate someone gets spoiled by their animal companion enthusiastically licking their face.

I mean, I typically don't find the time to host hour long debates on various issues, nor can I expect a table full of geeks to all be smooth talkers. Leaving out skill and chance entirely also raises the issue of when a PC is more or less well spoken than their player. Since it is the character's skill that is primarily in question here, why not use a skill check?

I didn't explain that properly. I mean that I advocate rolls to influence NPCs because their reactions are not always certain, but PCs' reactions are more certain due to player control. A player usually doesn't need a roll to help him decide how his character feels about things. A number to tell you how well someone presented an argument to a PC is okay, but using that number to dictate the players' actions without input from the player is not okay.


There's also the matter of preserving players' agency over their characters thoughts and actions, at least to an extent which is reasonable. It's no fun for me to drive out to a game, only to spend the whole time saying I do what someone else tells me because the RNG said that person persuaded me. Because someone is going to bring up mind control sooner or later, I will put it out there that such powers should only be using sparingly on the PCs precisely to retain their agency and let them spend most of their time actually playing the game.

[Rhaegar]

The die roll in this case is intended to be an immediately understandable representation of how persuasive the argument in question is, whether they're acting like a golden tongued orator, or their attempt to intimidate someone gets spoiled by their animal companion enthusiastically licking their face.

I mean, I typically don't find the time to host hour long debates on various issues, nor can I expect a table full of geeks to all be smooth talkers. Leaving out skill and chance entirely also raises the issue of when a PC is more or less well spoken than their player. Since it is the character's skill that is primarily in question here, why not use a skill check?

While a dice check for trying to persuade a party mate to your way of thinking, if you roll well, you make good arguments. And even if I say the player was convinced, he can just say that while he was immediately convinced he changed his mind back 10 seconds later.

As a DM, at a table I can easily say what players see and hear, and what they physically accomplish, and there is not much the characters can argue with, but when it comes to telling players how their characters think and feel because that's what the dice say, it feels to much like playing their character for them, and just seems like it would lead to to many heated arguments.

This then leads to the dangerous precedent of dice telling players how they think and fee, and the decisions they make, this can then lead to having NPCs rolling persuasion against the players, and me telling them that the NPCs convinced you, you have to do this. If it's not a roll I would have an NPC use against a player, I'm not going to have players use it against other players.

[GlenSmash!]

As DM for my group, ability checks are only called for when I as the DM decide if the outcome of an approach is uncertain, but I also I discourage my players from saying something like "Can I roll...?"

The player states the approach, the DM decides if the outcome is successful, fails, or is uncertain. If uncertain, the DM calls for an ability check and sets the DC.

Example:

Player A: I try to convince the NPC that we should kill the prisoners.
DM: Roll a DC 15 Charisma (Persuasion) Check. If you're successful the NPC will stand aside and allow you to kill the prisoners. If you fail the NPC and his guards will defend the prisoners.
Player A rolls...

I let this apply between players as well, except now it is the player being acted upon who decides if the outcome is uncertain.

Example:

Player A: I try to convince Player B-the paladin that we should kill the prisoners.
DM: Player B, is player A successful?
Player B: No. I put myself between the Player A and the prisoners.

or (far more likely)

Player A: I try to convince Player C-the Rogue that we should kill the prisoners.
Player C: Yeah! Kill the Prisoners! Take their stuff!
DM: You kill the prisoners and take their filthy rags and manacles.

So far an ability check has never been used, though theoretically it could happen.

[mephnick]

if you roll well, you make good arguments.

That's not how social rolls really work and a lot of people misunderstand this. A persuasion roll doesn't necessarily show you how good of an argument you made, only what effect the argument had. You could make the best speech in the history of mankind and still not convince someone of your point. That's what the roll is for. We experience this every single day of our lives. People are stubborn. People are fearful. Logic doesn't always win out.

So, it doesn't matter if your player is a great speaker or not. It's like this:

"I want to convince the king to help us. Damn, rolled an 8."
"The king tells you he won't help a Dwarf and to be gone."

"I want to convince the king to help us."
*Player proceeds to make a flowery, charming and logical speech to you, outlining all points and countering all logical debates the NPC could possibly offer.
*rolls an 8
"You finish your amazing speech. The king grunts and tells you he won't help a dwarf and to be gone."

Both of those outcomes would have changed with a roll of the 20, regardless of what the player actually offered in person.

[Ruslan]

"I want to convince the king to help us. Damn, rolled an 8."
"The king tells you he won't help a Dwarf and to be gone."

"I want to convince the king to help us."
*Player proceeds to make a flowery, charming and logical speech to you, outlining all points and countering all logical debates the NPC could possibly offer.
*rolls an 8
"You finish your amazing speech. The king grunts and tells you he won't help a dwarf and to be gone."
"Roll again, you have Advantage because of your amazing speech"
"Oh, ok, rolled a 16."
"The king grunts and tells you that as much as he dislikes them earth-digging dwarves, he was touched by your plight. He will help you in condition that ... Fixed that for you.

[Arial Black]

I had the misfortune of being placed with a bunch of teenagers last Wednesday at AL, and they were behaving like schoolkids. One rogue had Expertise in Persuasion and a high Cha, and wanted to constantly make Persuasion checks to force the other PCs to do ridiculous stuff, prance around naked, give him their money, charge into combat weaponless, etc; all just by making Persuasion checks.

Fortunately, the DM said that those rolls are for NPCs; the players decide what their own PCs do.

Also, AL quite rightly bans acting against other players in PvP. Not just attacking, but also by casting unwelcome spells, stealing their stuff, or using any ability on them that is supposed to be used against enemies. Using Persuasion to control other PCs would fall under that category, even if Persuasion did function like mind control.

[mephnick]

Fixed that for you.

Yeah, no thanks. That goes back to granting in game advantages to players who are better at skills in real life. The opposite of how RPGs work.

[quinron]

Yeah, no thanks. That goes back to granting in game advantages to players who are better at skills in real life. The opposite of how RPGs work.

I'd argue that. Not that the player should be given advantage; that this counts as being "better at skills in real life." Giving a long, flowery speech in character doesn't mean you're good at roleplaying, it means you're good at acting; it has no bearing on how capable you are at occupying your character's headspace and making decisions that your character would make. That's what advantage should be granted for - the rogue who ends up broke all the time from buying rounds for the whole bar should get advantage on the Deception check to scam the rich patron they shared a bottle with, regardless of whether the player comes up with some dazzling lies at the table.

[mephnick]

Isn't that what I said? :smallconfused:

The player is good at acting (a real life skill) which has nothing to do with role-playing (making decisions for a character). Hence, giving a good actor advantage in the game is granting in game advantages to people with real life skills regardless of character skill.

[JoeJ]

Isn't that what I said? :smallconfused:

The player is good at acting (a real life skill) which has nothing to do with role-playing (making decisions for a character). Hence, giving a good actor advantage in the game is granting in game advantages to people with real life skills regardless of character skill.

I disagree that acting is not relevant to role playing. The essence of the actor's art is pretending to be someone that you're not. IOW playing a role.

[mephnick]

I'd say role-playing is integral to acting, but acting isn't necessarily relevant to role-playing.

[JoeJ]

I'd say role-playing is integral to acting, but acting isn't necessarily relevant to role-playing.

That seems contradictory. What would you say the difference is?

[mephnick]

Saying your character decides to go left is role-playing. Using flowery language and speaking in an accent and in character is acting. You don't need to do the latter to role-play, but must do the former to act.

In game, I consider "I try to convince the king. Gonna roll persuasion." just as valid role-playing as performing an oratory masterpiece in person.

Granting advantage to the second player because of acting ability runs counter to the point of the hobby, in my opinion.

I guess it's a narrow definition of the two terms, but I was speaking solely in reference to Table Top RPGS.

Edit: I'm pretty sure there's an Angry DM article about how stupid it is to reward acting in a game, but I can't find it and need to sleep.

[JoeJ]

Saying your character decides to go left is role-playing. Using flowery language and speaking in an accent and in character is acting. You don't need to do the latter to role-play, but must do the former to act.

In game, I consider "I try to convince the king. Gonna roll persuasion." just as valid role-playing as performing an oratory masterpiece in person.

Granting advantage to the second player because of acting ability runs counter to the point of the hobby, in my opinion.

I guess it's a narrow definition of the two terms, but I was speaking solely in reference to Table Top RPGS.

Saying your character decides to go left is not what I'd call role playing. That's no different than saying your pawn moves two squares forward. Saying simply that you're trying to convince the king is also not role playing IMO. At the very least you need to lay out your argument for why the king should do what you want him to do, as well as make it clear what approach you're using, whether that's flattery or threats or trying to buffalo him with a bunch of phony "facts." You can do this in character or out of character (descriptive approach vs. active approach, to use the language of the PHB), but in no way is that just saying that you're going to convince him and rolling the die.

From my POV, giving advantage to a player who makes a flowery speech, and does it well, is clearly advancing the point of the game. To me, the point of the game is for everyone to have fun. If the speech was entertaining, then the mission was accomplished. The people at the table were having fun. I have no problem with rewarding that.

[Regitnui]

"I'm going to persuade the king" *rolls* is purely mechanical description.

"I'm going to persuade the king with *evidence*" *rolls* is roleplaying, if barebones. It says the player is thinking in the world, not necessarily at the deep immersion level of making a speech to impress the DM, but at the level of someone actually engaging with the world. Think of it in terms of pokemon; the first is an IV trainer who breeds 2400 magikarps for the right numbers, and the second is the guy who catches what comes up and EV trains/move tutors that.

The flowery speech at my table would get inspiration or an action point, but not advantage. I'd encourage it the same way that I'd encourage the fighter to flip up a table in the bar fight.

[Zalabim]

All this is irrelevant because the dwarf should already have advantage from having a wingman Help with his argument, whatever that argument may be. The important piece missing from convince the king is that you should tell the DM what you're trying to get the NPC to do. You don't just roll charisma and now the king does whatever you want. The DC depends on the request.

I recommend handling PVP skill use just like any skill use against a PC by the DM. Most opposed rolls work normally and any modifiers and DCs for social interaction have to be set by the player controlling the character. Some requests can be impossible and some tactics will never work. It's up to the defending player whether an argument works whether or not its backed up by a die roll.

[Daishain]

While a dice check for trying to persuade a party mate to your way of thinking, if you roll well, you make good arguments. And even if I say the player was convinced, he can just say that while he was immediately convinced he changed his mind back 10 seconds later.

As a DM, at a table I can easily say what players see and hear, and what they physically accomplish, and there is not much the characters can argue with, but when it comes to telling players how their characters think and feel because that's what the dice say, it feels to much like playing their character for them, and just seems like it would lead to to many heated arguments.

This then leads to the dangerous precedent of dice telling players how they think and fee, and the decisions they make, this can then lead to having NPCs rolling persuasion against the players, and me telling them that the NPCs convinced you, you have to do this. If it's not a roll I would have an NPC use against a player, I'm not going to have players use it against other players.

I didn't explain that properly. I mean that I advocate rolls to influence NPCs because their reactions are not always certain, but PCs' reactions are more certain due to player control. A player usually doesn't need a roll to help him decide how his character feels about things. A number to tell you how well someone presented an argument to a PC is okay, but using that number to dictate the players' actions without input from the player is not okay.


There's also the matter of preserving players' agency over their characters thoughts and actions, at least to an extent which is reasonable. It's no fun for me to drive out to a game, only to spend the whole time saying I do what someone else tells me because the RNG said that person persuaded me. Because someone is going to bring up mind control sooner or later, I will put it out there that such powers should only be using sparingly on the PCs precisely to retain their agency and let them spend most of their time actually playing the game.

While a dice check for trying to persuade a party mate to your way of thinking, if you roll well, you make good arguments. And even if I say the player was convinced, he can just say that while he was immediately convinced he changed his mind back 10 seconds later.

As a DM, at a table I can easily say what players see and hear, and what they physically accomplish, and there is not much the characters can argue with, but when it comes to telling players how their characters think and feel because that's what the dice say, it feels to much like playing their character for them, and just seems like it would lead to to many heated arguments.

This then leads to the dangerous precedent of dice telling players how they think and fee, and the decisions they make, this can then lead to having NPCs rolling persuasion against the players, and me telling them that the NPCs convinced you, you have to do this. If it's not a roll I would have an NPC use against a player, I'm not going to have players use it against other players.
Perhaps you two missed what I meant. Let me put it another way.

If player A wants to influence character B's decisions, I have them make a roll representing his argument. Say they end up rolling a 22. This ends the influence that skills and dice have on the interaction.

I then turn to player B and say "'character A' is making a passionate argument in favor of this course of action, how does 'character B' react" Player B is entirely in control of their character's thoughts and feelings. I dictate nothing as far as that goes. Player B can state that their character is determined and will not be swayed, that their character has been convinced, or anything in between. The only influence I exert on B's decision is a simple understanding that I expect a measure of honesty when it comes to such self appraisals.

[Serket]

Discuss appropriate PvP levels before starting game.
Suggestion, use this:
https://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-same-page-tool/


players do what they want and may ruin a game for others, with the defense being, "I'm chaotic neutral" or this is what my character does.

That raises a question of "so why are these other people hanging around with you?". If a game is going to be about a small team of people working together, the players need to construct a team that will work together.
(note that a game, even using this system, does not have to be about a small team working together)

[Ruslan]

Yeah, no thanks. That goes back to granting in game advantages to players who are better at skills in real life. The opposite of how RPGs work.
The 5E DMG specifically advises the DM to grant advantage if the PCs have a good plan, and a disadvantage if the PCs have a bad plan. So, in summary, unless you intend to argue that D&D 5E is not an RPG, this is exactly how RPGs work, and you're wrong.


I considerSo this is all your personal perspective, not a universal law of "how RPGs are". Got it.



The flowery speech at my table would get inspiration or an action point, but not advantage.What's the difference? Why are we splitting hairs here? Inspiration can be spent to gain advantage, so in effect you are giving an advantage. Oh, wait, you're giving something strictly better than Advantage, since Inspiration may be used to gain an advantage either now or later, depending on what's more advantageous (pun intended)


Saying your character decides to go left is not what I'd call role playing. That's no different than saying your pawn moves two squares forward.
This is an excellent analogy, please don't mind if I steal it...

[JoeJ]

This is an excellent analogy, please don't mind if I steal it...

Be my guest. Although technically you can't steal it now that I've given permission.:smalltongue:

[mer.c]

The 5E DMG specifically advises the DM to grant advantage if the PCs have a good plan, and a disadvantage if the PCs have a bad plan. So, in summary, unless you intend to argue that D&D 5E is not an RPG, this is exactly how RPGs work, and you're wrong.

This is getting pretty off-topic, but to spin off of this…

People here are conflating "Acting Skills"/"Giving Flowery Speeches" with having good plans/roleplaying. If a DM wants to give advantage for good acting skills flowery speeches, that's their prerogative, but that's not what the rules encourage. 5e instructs DMs to give advantage on checks if the player roleplays well. That's not necessarily the same thing as rattling off an impressive speech.

Good roleplaying: Having a good plan, making a good case, presenting evidence, bringing up vested interests, heading off rebuttals

Flowery speech: Acting/improvisational skills, talking pretty

The 5e rules state players get advantage from the former (as they should IMO, for a bunch of reasons). It says nothing about the latter. Conflating those things just confuses people and puts players at advantage or disadvantage for skills unrelated to roleplaying. It's great when my players show off their acting chops, but they don't get any in-game advantage from it. They get advantage from role playing.

[LibraryOgre]

"Monster of the Week", on the Apocalypse World Engine, had an interesting mechanic for player v. player social skills. If you succeed and they do what you ask, they get bonus experience (Monster of the Week characters level up after only 5 XP, so a bonus XP is big). If you FAIL and they DON'T do what you ask, they get experience.

It could be a very abusable system, of course.... players sitting around ordering each other to do things, getting experience for it... but it provides an incentive for them to follow what their characters would do by the numbers.

[Ruslan]

People here are conflating "Acting Skills"/"Giving Flowery Speeches" with having good plans/roleplaying.I'm not conflating anything. My plan is to convince the king with a good speech. I am now executing my plan. I am not confused about anything at all, but you seem to be.


That's not necessarily the same thing as rattling off an impressive speech.But in this case, it is. Because it was my plan to give an impressive speech, and I implemented it. Hope some of that confusion has cleared now.

[RickAllison]

I'm not conflating anything. My plan is to convince the king with a good speech. I am now executing my plan. I am not confused about anything at all, but you seem to be.
But in this case, it is. Because it was my plan to give an impressive speech, and I implemented it. Hope some of that confusion has cleared now.

I think the discrepancy here is over the nature of why they are giving the advantage/inspiration. The pro-advantage crowd consider him going out and actually detailing the speech, presenting his arguments, and roleplaying it all gives him advantage, while the anti-advantage crowd is stating that he shouldn't be rewarded because he can give a speech IRL better.

What it appears to me is that the solution is that the person who is not good at giving speeches is also able to get the advantage for presenting the same points. A comparison might be drawn between MLK Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, which both gave excellent arguments and was exceptionally well-given, and a speech by a theoretical ally of his that presented the exact same arguments, but more blandly. One was an IRL better speech, but the speech in gameplay terms would be the same for both, as the skillful delivery is up to the Charisma of the PC.

[JoeJ]

What it appears to me is that the solution is that the person who is not good at giving speeches is also able to get the advantage for presenting the same points. A comparison might be drawn between MLK Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, which both gave excellent arguments and was exceptionally well-given, and a speech by a theoretical ally of his that presented the exact same arguments, but more blandly. One was an IRL better speech, but the speech in gameplay terms would be the same for both, as the skillful delivery is up to the Charisma of the PC.

I do think it's telling that the people who argue a player shouldn't get a bonus for good acting don't tend to make the same argument about a player who is good at tactics or has the system mastery to optimize their character.

[Joe the Rat]

"Monster of the Week", on the Apocalypse World Engine, had an interesting mechanic for player v. player social skills. If you succeed and they do what you ask, they get bonus experience (Monster of the Week characters level up after only 5 XP, so a bonus XP is big). If you FAIL and they DON'T do what you ask, they get experience.

It could be a very abusable system, of course.... players sitting around ordering each other to do things, getting experience for it... but it provides an incentive for them to follow what their characters would do by the numbers.Using the GM Intrusion / Compel model you could hand out Inspiration instead. To be clear, it's the one being persuaded that gets it (or possibly give to someone else). Mr. Social is just an enabler.

Then you have everyone fast-talking everyone else into stupid things until everyone in the party has Advantage.

[RickAllison]

I do think it's telling that the people who argue a player shouldn't get a bonus for good acting don't tend to make the same argument about a player who is good at tactics or has the system mastery to optimize their character.

That is a... related issue. I know that in my nWoD campaign, my Storyteller tends to cockatrice-block much of my planning because he realized after the first few sessions that my military-style planning would disarm many of his challenges.

[mer.c]

I'm not conflating anything. My plan is to convince the king with a good speech. I am now executing my plan. I am not confused about anything at all, but you seem to be.

I wasn't arguing with you or saying you were conflating those things. I was just spinning off your comment: starting with what you said and going further.

It sounds like we take the same approach that the rules outline: reward good roleplay with advantage. My point of contention was with other posters who lump the building of their case (roleplay) together with delivering that case in a way that sounds nice (acting). If my players put together a good case, I let them roll with advantage. I don't ask them to act it out for me convincingly – that's what the skill check is for. :smallsmile:

[JoeJ]

If you're going to have PvP social skills, it would probably be most satisfying to run it as a contest, so both players are rolling dice (and maybe spending Inspiration if they have it). Insight would be a good default skill for the "defender," although circumstances may make something else more relevant. If everybody is having fun, you might even draw things out by making it a multi-round competition, with a different point required for each round. The first player to get 3 victories wins the argument.

This obviously requires player buy-in to work. The players have to agree that their characters can sometimes get talked into doing things that are against their better judgment, which works better in some kinds of campaigns than in others.

[djreynolds]

"Monster of the Week", on the Apocalypse World Engine, had an interesting mechanic for player v. player social skills. If you succeed and they do what you ask, they get bonus experience (Monster of the Week characters level up after only 5 XP, so a bonus XP is big). If you FAIL and they DON'T do what you ask, they get experience.

It could be a very abusable system, of course.... players sitting around ordering each other to do things, getting experience for it... but it provides an incentive for them to follow what their characters would do by the numbers.

That is very cool suggestion, thank you.

I know that sometimes, your faction say Harpers, will put you specifically on a secret mission on top of your parties. Now a person may keep quite about it, or trust his buddies with a secret. But what if my character wants to know the secret mission and you won't say? It does come up.

[quinron]

Isn't that what I said? :smallconfused:

Yeah, sorry; I’m not sure what I meant by that. I agree with you 100%. I think I was going to say something different, but still with the same gist, but I changed it without changing my cheeky preface.

Speaking as a semi-professional stage actor who likes acting in-game, it can easily get out of hand. Unless everyone enjoys acting things out, it quickly turns into a long, boring amateur improv open mic night that they're being forced to sit through. A trip to the blacksmith to buy new gear doesn't have to include you talking at length with the blacksmith; just ask the GM if they have what you want in stock, get the price, and move on to the next thing. Giving out advantage for acting just incentivizes self-indulgent players to come up with an excuse to grab the mic and slow down the game every time their character opens their mouth. I know - I personally stopped playing and started running games because this way, I don't have to elbow my way into a scene just to get a chance to play my character; I'm already in every scene, playing almost every character.

And definitely don’t let your players get too descriptive in combat. If they're maneuvering a certain way to try to get the upper hand, sure - for example, last session I ran, the rogue and ranger pulled a cool little duck-and-roll routine with their back-to-back turns while stuck in a 5-foot-wide corridor, allowing them both to get in melee range against an enemy in front of them; I wouldn't have allowed that if they hadn't described their movement that way. But around the third time someone describes at length and in detail the exact manner in which they stab the goblin *rolls attack; turns out they missed again and their blathering was just a waste of time*, things become less A Game of Thrones and more The Eye of Argon.


"Monster of the Week", on the Apocalypse World Engine, had an interesting mechanic for player v. player social skills. If you succeed and they do what you ask, they get bonus experience (Monster of the Week characters level up after only 5 XP, so a bonus XP is big). If you FAIL and they DON'T do what you ask, they get experience.

It could be a very abusable system, of course.... players sitting around ordering each other to do things, getting experience for it... but it provides an incentive for them to follow what their characters would do by the numbers.

Cribbing off 5e's tendency to replace bonus XP rewards with advantage and springboarding off this article from the Angry GM (http://theangrygm.com/take-the-suck-out-of-inspiration/): Player A rolls Persuasion/Deception against Player B's insight. If Player A wins, Player B has to go along with what Player A says but also gets Inspiration. If Player B wins, they can choose to ignore Player A's attempt to persuade/deceive them, or they can go along with it and get Inspiration. Basically the same idea, just modified to fit 5e's design philosophy (or at least what I understand of its design philosophy; I'm probably wrong).

[BurgerBeast]

I disagree that acting is not relevant to role playing. The essence of the actor's art is pretending to be someone that you're not. IOW playing a role.

Strictly speaking this isn't correct, so you're right that it doesn't make sense. But the point he's driving at is correct: Acting and Role=playing are not the same thing.

An actor can play a character without making a single in-character decision. The actor makes a lot of decisions about how to portray the character, but this is not the same thing as influencing the story by entering Hamlet's mind and doing what you think he'd do. The actor doesn't get to re-write the story, or change the story because, in his opinion, Hamlet "wouldn't do that." An actor pretends to be a character. He doesn't role-play the character.

You can bring up improv, which is a type of acting that allows for role-playing, or particular cases of non-improv acting where an actor discusses things with the director and makes changes to scenes or scripts, but that follows my point. An actor doesn't have to do those things. When an actor does do those things, he is going beyond what it takes to be an actor. He is assuming the role of director or writer.

Acting is performing a role (convincing people that you are a character). Not playing a role (getting to make decisions as a character).


To me, the point of the game is for everyone to have fun. If the speech was entertaining, then the mission was accomplished.

This is an oft repeated, yet terrible argument. If you say the point of the game is to have fun, then you miss the point entirely. The simplest way to explain this is: when you invited people over, did you invite them to "come over and have fun" or to "come over and play D&D"? Because there's a difference. Someone could throw the table on it's side and break out a disco ball, beers, and strippers, and at the end of the night everyone might have had a lot of fun. But I think it's clear that they didn't accomplish the point of D&D. On the other side of it, sometimes you get together to play D&D and it's not fun. That doesn't mean you failed to play D&D. D&D provides long term rewards, not short term rewards. In this one sense, its similar to sports. You probably play a sport because it's fun. But if you play a game, and it's not fun, you haven't missed the point of the sport. You've just had a bad game. The bad games are part of the experience, and they actually serve to make the good games even more rewarding.


I do think it's telling that the people who argue a player shouldn't get a bonus for good acting don't tend to make the same argument about a player who is good at tactics or has the system mastery to optimize their character.

That's because you're missing the point. Being good a tactics means making good decisions. It does;t mean good execution. If you think a character should get a bonus because his player can give speeches, then you should give a character attack bonus because his player is a trained swordsman. But that sounds stupid right? Just because a player can wield a sword doesn't mean the character can, right? Exactly. And just because a player can give a speech doesn't mean a character can. But a player can decide that his character would try (or not try), in any case.


The 5E DMG specifically advises the DM to grant advantage if the PCs have a good plan, and a disadvantage if the PCs have a bad plan. So, in summary, unless you intend to argue that D&D 5E is not an RPG, this is exactly how RPGs work, and you're wrong.

You completely misrepresented what was said and what the DMG says. Having a good plan is not the same as having more skill at describing plans


This is an excellent analogy, please don't mind if I steal it...

In fact, it's a terrible analogy. A pawn doesn't have a brain, so it's mind can't be imitated. There is no role to play. A character facing a decision has a mind to consult in doing so. You might argue that it's a trivial decision, but that's not necessarily the case (another reason why it's a terrible analogy). If you don't agree that it's a bad analogy, then here's what you can do: next time you plan to play D&D, don't. Play a game of chess, but you don;t get to play either side. The GM gets to play both sides, except for one pawn. Then, whenever the GM decides to move that pawn, you can decide what it is you want to do.


I'm not conflating anything. My plan is to convince the king with a good speech. I am now executing my plan. I am not confused about anything at all, but you seem to be.
But in this case, it is. Because it was my plan to give an impressive speech, and I implemented it. Hope some of that confusion has cleared now.

I'm sorry Ruslan, but it's you who is confused. You are conflating something: dialectic and rhetoric (which is exactly what you were accused of conflating). This argument was laid to rest over 2000 years ago by the character of Socrates in the Gorgias.


But in this case, it is. Because it was my plan to give an impressive speech, and I implemented it. Hope some of that confusion has cleared now.

Again, you're wrong. Your plan was not to give an impressive speech. Your plan involved whatever it was that you hoped the impressive speech would accomplish. Sometimes you execute a perfect speech and the person doesn't care. It doesn't mean you failed to be impressive. It means the person you tried to impress didn't change their behaviour. I'd accuse you of purposely misrepresenting the arguments of others, but based on your posts, I don't think you're doing it on purpose.

[quinron]

For an example of the difference between giving a speech and building a good plan: episode one of Better Call Saul opens with Jimmy McGill (a public defender) giving a thoughtful, well-crafted speech on behalf of his clients, saying that they're all honors students who just got a bit reckless, as everyone has at some point; the jury look to be completely on board with it, ready to give leniency. The prosecutor, without saying a word, hauls over a television and puts on a tape of the defendants in flagrante delicto, acting like hooligans and gleefully going about their crime. There is no longer any possibility of leniency.

The first example is acting. There's nothing to back it up, there's no evidence to support the claims; this is what the social skills represent a vacuum. They're just you using your own personal charm/menace to influence someone. In order to be inclusive - which is the point of a group RPG like D&D - someone simply saying, "I'll try to persuade the king" is considered to be presenting just as charismatic a front in-universe as someone who gives a speech at the table.

The second example is a good plan. There's hard evidence, easily expressed to the people who need to be convinced, that the person presenting it is correct about it. This is gravy on top of your Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation; this merits advantage. It's you combining your own personal charisma with some element that could, conceivably, sway the person you're trying to sway all on its own, even if you weren't there.

If you make a long-winded, nature-of-good-and-evil speech to the king about how you've decided that his chancellor is trying to have him killed, but you don't show any evidence, you're just trying to overwhelm the king with your own charisma, no matter how convincingly you may speak. But if you just say, "I'm going to try to persuade the king that the chancellor wants him dead; I'll show him the note from the Assassin's Guild about killing the king that I found in his room," then yeah, you'll get advantage; that's some pretty solid evidence. Hell, you might not even need to roll for that Persuasion.

[JoeJ]

Strictly speaking this isn't correct, so you're right that it doesn't make sense. But the point he's driving at is correct: Acting and Role=playing are not the same thing.

An actor can play a character without making a single in-character decision. The actor makes a lot of decisions about how to portray the character, but this is not the same thing as influencing the story by entering Hamlet's mind and doing what you think he'd do. The actor doesn't get to re-write the story, or change the story because, in his opinion, Hamlet "wouldn't do that." An actor pretends to be a character. He doesn't role-play the character.

Your definition of role play is far too narrow. As the PHB says, "Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it's you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." (p. 185) Note that how the character talks is specifically listed.


Acting is performing a role (convincing people that you are a character). Not playing a role (getting to make decisions as a character).

The two concepts are not separated that way. They are two aspects of the same phenomenon.


This is an oft repeated, yet terrible argument. If you say the point of the game is to have fun, then you miss the point entirely. The simplest way to explain this is: when you invited people over, did you invite them to "come over and have fun" or to "come over and play D&D"? Because there's a difference. Someone could throw the table on it's side and break out a disco ball, beers, and strippers, and at the end of the night everyone might have had a lot of fun. But I think it's clear that they didn't accomplish the point of D&D. On the other side of it, sometimes you get together to play D&D and it's not fun. That doesn't mean you failed to play D&D. D&D provides long term rewards, not short term rewards. In this one sense, its similar to sports. You probably play a sport because it's fun. But if you play a game, and it's not fun, you haven't missed the point of the sport. You've just had a bad game. The bad games are part of the experience, and they actually serve to make the good games even more rewarding.

No, if we had a bad game, then we did indeed miss the point. Playing the game is a means to an end. If it's not accomplishing that end, it's time to put it aside and try something else.


That's because you're missing the point. Being good a tactics means making good decisions. It does;t mean good execution. If you think a character should get a bonus because his player can give speeches, then you should give a character attack bonus because his player is a trained swordsman. But that sounds stupid right? Just because a player can wield a sword doesn't mean the character can, right? Exactly. And just because a player can give a speech doesn't mean a character can. But a player can decide that his character would try (or not try), in any case.

If I'm going to allow the player to use their skill at tactics to determine what their character does in combat, then I'm also going to allow the player to use their skill at oratory to determine how their character speaks. The two situations are completely parallel; the player is making decisions for the character, using their real life skills. The DMG specifically says (p. 244)that you can handle social interaction either as a free-form roleplaying exercise (purely player skill) or by rolling ability checks (character skill), but that most games use a mixture of both.

Your objection about the player being a skilled swordsman is inapt; the player doesn't make any decisions about which parry to use, when to thrust or attempt a stopcut, what grip to use, etc. If I was playing a game where the player was expected to make those decisions, then player knowledge would certainly give a bonus.

[BurgerBeast]

Your definition of role play is far too narrow. As the PHB says, "Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it's you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." (p. 185) Note that how the character talks is specifically listed.

Your emphasis is in the wrong place: "it's you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks."

Determining how does not imply doing. Determining how is a tactical decision. Doing it is execution.


The two concepts are not separated that way. They are two aspects of the same phenomenon.

Yes, they are. You can imagine an actor who acts without role-playing, and you can imagine a role-player who never acts. The thing about acting is, you can act in a predetermined story. If the story is predetermined, then there's no possibility for role-play.

If someone simply describes what they want their character to do all the time, and never acts it out, they are role-playing and not acting. They are distinct ideas, but sometimes they overlap.


No, if we had a bad game, then we did indeed miss the point. Playing the game is a means to an end. If it's not accomplishing that end, it's time to put it aside and try something else.

Except as I said, if everyone put the game aside after having a single bad session, they'd fail to realize that they might have a fun session if they just tried it another time. So basically, you're ignoring the fact that the amount of fun cannot be reliably predicted. On top of this, "fun" is a gross oversimplification. D&D provides things that other activities do not, and those things are the reasons that people expect D&D to provide them with a particular type of experience when compared to other things. So I might like to play soccer, watch basketball, hike, and play D&D. And it would be true to say that all of them are fun, but it would also be a gross oversimplification.


If I'm going to allow the player to use their skill at tactics to determine what their character does in combat, then I'm also going to allow the player to use their skill at oratory to determine how their character speaks. The two situations are completely parallel; the player is making decisions for the character, using their real life skills.

They are not parallel at all. Tactics apply to combat and speaking. Execution applies to combat and speaking.

Tactics are choices about approach. Execution is about how well you perform.

Tactical combat choice: get to high ground and attempt to flank my opponent instead of attempting to disarm his axe.
Tactical speaking choice: use the fact that he knows his daughter is a prisoner to intimidate the nobleman instead of persuading him with land and title.

Combat execution: depends on combat training.
Speaking execution: depends on speaking training.

If you want to let players intrude on tactics, then that's a good thing - it's the point of a role-playing game.

If you want to let players intrude on execution - then be consistent. If skilled actors get to replace character skill with player skill, then skilled combatants should be able to replace character skill with player skill. And skilled jumpers get to jump, too, by the way, if we're being fair.


The DMG specifically says (p. 244)that you can handle social interaction either as a free-form roleplaying exercise (purely player skill) or by rolling ability checks (character skill), but that most games use a mixture of both.

This leads to a much more involved discussion, so I'll try to nutshell it: I can accept everything in that passage of text and still hold my view. Likewise, you can accept everything in that passage and still hold yours. So it's not going to decide this.


Your objection about the player being a skilled swordsman is inapt ; the player doesn't make any decisions about which parry to use, when to thrust or attempt a stopcut, what grip to use, etc. If I was playing a game where the player was expected to make those decisions, then player knowledge would certainly give a bonus.

In the first place, this points to your misconceptions again, because all of those examples are tactical examples, not examples of execution.

In this second place, this falls in line with my point. I don't expect my players to be trained in combat nor speaking. Because they never have to execute. If they want to act it out, they can, but that's not the same as being required to do it. But this is irrelevant to our disagreement.

Our disagreement is not about expecting players to have certain skills. Our disagreement is about allowing players with particular abilities to get in-game benefits from their choice to personally execute their characters' tasks. Giving a speech is not a tactical choice (what the speech is about is a tactical choice), it's an execution of skill. If you say to a player, during combat, "it's your turn," and instead of telling you what he wants to do, he demonstrates a top quality sword-thrust, are you going to give him a bonus to his attack roll? I hope not. That would be unfair to the people who can't do it.

The only other thing that I think is worth pointing out is: suppose I am a highly skilled actor, and very good at persuading. Why bother pumping charisma or the persuade skill? I'll just act-out all of my persuasions and I'll be functionally equivalent to my not-so-skiled friend who put 14 into charisma and invested in the skill. Now you might argue that you wouldn't let it be this extreme, but it doesn't matter, you're still letting someone outshine another based on player skill. But, if another friend is an olympic wrestler, he can't just go with a wizard, with 8 strength, and resort to real wrestling to match the 14 strength fighter in a grapple.

[JoeJ]

Yes, they are. You can imagine an actor who acts without role-playing, and you can imagine a role-player who never acts. The thing about acting is, you can act in a predetermined story. If the story is predetermined, then there's no possibility for role-play.

No, I actually can't imagine that. I don't agree with your definition of roleplay; it's too narrow.


Except as I said, if everyone put the game aside after having a single bad session, they'd fail to realize that they might have a fun session if they just tried it another time. So basically, you're ignoring the fact that the amount of fun cannot be reliably predicted. On top of this, "fun" is a gross oversimplification. D&D provides things that other activities do not, and those things are the reasons that people expect D&D to provide them with a particular type of experience when compared to other things. So I might like to play soccer, watch basketball, hike, and play D&D. And it would be true to say that all of them are fun, but it would also be a gross oversimplification.

That's a non-sequitur. The fact that we failed to accomplish our goal tonight does not mean that we can't succeed on another night.


They are not parallel at all. Tactics apply to combat and speaking. Execution applies to combat and speaking.

They are parallel. Combat tactics applies to deciding what the character is doing. Oratory applies to what the character is saying. Both are using player skill to make decisions in character. Deciding what words to use is the tactical approach.


Our disagreement is not about expecting players to have certain skills. Our disagreement is about allowing players with particular abilities to get in-game benefits from their choice to personally execute their characters' tasks. Giving a speech is not a tactical choice (what the speech is about is a tactical choice), it's an execution of skill. If you say to a player, during combat, "it's your turn," and instead of telling you what he wants to do, he demonstrates a top quality sword-thrust, are you going to give him a bonus to his attack roll? I hope not. That would be unfair to the people who can't do it.

Giving a speech isn't only a tactical choice, but deciding to use one word rather than another is no different than deciding to cast one spell rather than another, or to move left instead of right. It's very much a tactical choice, and absolutely an example of role playing.


The only other thing that I think is worth pointing out is: suppose I am a highly skilled actor, and very good at persuading. Why bother pumping charisma or the persuade skill? I'll just act-out all of my persuasions and I'll be functionally equivalent to my not-so-skiled friend who put 14 into charisma and invested in the skill.

Your spirited defense of tactical skills proves that you have no problem with one player outshining another based on skill, as long as it's a skill you like. What if one player has invested a lot of time into developing system mastery, such that they can build a highly optimized character? Should I require players to randomly roll for race and class and feats, just so that everybody is equal? I'm guessing you'd say no.

The bottom line is that if I'm going to allow a player to benefit from their skill in maneuvering around the battlefield, which I am, then I'll also allow a player to benefit from their skill in maneuvering through social interactions. But in both areas, if you don't have the ability scores and proficiency then you're not going to be able to fully capitalize on your skill when the time comes to roll the dice.

[quinron]

The bottom line is that if I'm going to allow a player to benefit from their skill in maneuvering around the battlefield, which I am, then I'll also allow a player to benefit from their skill in maneuvering through social interactions. But in both areas, if you don't have the ability scores and proficiency then you're not going to be able to fully capitalize on your skill when the time comes to roll the dice.

The difference is in inclusiveness. A player who's new to the game - or, really, a veteran who just plays this way - might not be uncomfortable with acting out what exactly what their character's saying, and, to counter your argument about "how your character talks" being in the book as part of roleplaying, the book also says you should treat players who prefer to just describe their character's actions as equals to players who prefer to act in-character. If that player sees that everyone else is being rewarded for acting at the table and they aren't, they're going to think that's the correct way to play the game, and if they remain uncomfortable with it, they may choose to stop playing D&D entirely.

As has been stated, optimization is its own reward. Someone who's coming to the table for the first time generally needs that advantage more, in order to make their sub-optimal character good at what they want to do, while optimizers know how to make their characters good without needing advantage - and are usually building their characters to be able to get it whenever they want it anyway.

As for tactics, if the players had the wit to plan a clever ambush, or maneuver around the terrain to get both cover and high ground, then yes, you'll grant them advantage - but you won't grant it to them because they give a long-winded description of their preparations or movements. You'll grant it when they implement that plan and hide in the trees or move up onto an escarpment, just as you should grant advantage on social rolls for implementing a particular clue or piece of evidence, or on knowledge rolls for implementing the research they've been doing on this topic.

The problem with roleplay advantage and inspiration, at its core, is that it just shifts the focus from 3.5's standard of gaming the rules for bonuses to gaming the DM for bonuses: you figure out how the DM likes people to play at his table, and then you play that way to get advantage. And this just leads DMs to become exclusive and prescriptive and determine that there's a "right way" to play the game, one that's entirely based on player sycophantry.

[infinitum3d]

If I remember correctly there was a Dragon article years ago where Gary said something to the effect of Players have free will and the dice should never force a PC to do something their player doesn't want.

Now, that being said, PCs are often under attack by monsters and NPCs. That's the whole shtick of Mind Flayers. They take control of your PC.

So the way I play it is just the way the rules say it would go against a monster. Each player makes their attack rolls and saves just as if a monster was attacking them.

Then I don't invite the instigator back ever again.

[JoeJ]

The difference is in inclusiveness. A player who's new to the game - or, really, a veteran who just plays this way - might not be uncomfortable with acting out what exactly what their character's saying, and, to counter your argument about "how your character talks" being in the book as part of roleplaying, the book also says you should treat players who prefer to just describe their character's actions as equals to players who prefer to act in-character. If that player sees that everyone else is being rewarded for acting at the table and they aren't, they're going to think that's the correct way to play the game, and if they remain uncomfortable with it, they may choose to stop playing D&D entirely.

Straw man. Nowhere did I say this is the only way to play, or the only way to gain advantage.


As has been stated, optimization is its own reward. Someone who's coming to the table for the first time generally needs that advantage more, in order to make their sub-optimal character good at what they want to do, while optimizers know how to make their characters good without needing advantage - and are usually building their characters to be able to get it whenever they want it anyway.

Which is why I should ban players from building their own characters and give everybody a pre-gen, with all their level advancement determined in advance as well, right? After all, I don't want to be unfair to players who aren't as skilled.


As for tactics, if the players had the wit to plan a clever ambush, or maneuver around the terrain to get both cover and high ground, then yes, you'll grant them advantage - but you won't grant it to them because they give a long-winded description of their preparations or movements. You'll grant it when they implement that plan and hide in the trees or move up onto an escarpment, just as you should grant advantage on social rolls for implementing a particular clue or piece of evidence, or on knowledge rolls for implementing the research they've been doing on this topic.

Wow, that sounds exactly like giving advantage because they knew exactly what to say. They had the wit to set out the argument that would be most convincing for the specific audience. They correctly discerned what motivates the person they're talking to and directed their efforts accordingly.


The problem with roleplay advantage and inspiration, at its core, is that it just shifts the focus from 3.5's standard of gaming the rules for bonuses to gaming the DM for bonuses: you figure out how the DM likes people to play at his table, and then you play that way to get advantage. And this just leads DMs to become exclusive and prescriptive and determine that there's a "right way" to play the game, one that's entirely based on player sycophantry.

Rather, it shifts the focus from 3.5's standard of gaming the rules to interacting with the setting. Which, to me, is one of the biggest advantages 5e has over 3.5.

[quinron]

Straw man. Nowhere did I say this is the only way to play, or the only way to gain advantage.

I didn't mean to claim you did say that. My countering your argument wasn't meant to be a "shutdown" rebuttal; I apologize that I worded it that way. I'm not saying you argued that was the only way, I just hadn't seen you bring up the alternative - or, far more likely, didn't notice when you did.

I didn't intend to make you out a straw man, more to present a problem that we can become unaware of due to our habits playing the game. I've lost players who were good roleplayers - in that they would make in-character decisions based on their characters' thought processes - because they were the only ones at the table who didn't like acting out their characters' scenes, and I didn't realize I was giving more attention and preference to players who did.


Which is why I should ban players from building their own characters and give everybody a pre-gen, with all their level advancement determined in advance as well, right? After all, I don't want to be unfair to players who aren't as skilled.

Well, now you're straw manning.:smallwink:

But honestly, if you've got a veteran system master playing alongside a complete newbie, I'd say yes, at least to pregens. If it's someone's first game, I'd argue that it's more important that they feel like they're an equal contributor to the group than that an optimizer gets to feel powerful. As they level up, the optimizer can help the newbie optimize their character; it's a collaborative game, after all, collaboration should happen at the mechanical level as well as during play.

Of course, in most groups, you're going to have variable levels of system mastery, but encouraging collaboration solves this problem too. The more knowledgable optimizers can point the less knowledgable in the direction of better abilties/feats/what have you, and everyone's system mastery will get closer to the same level. Those who make suboptimal decisions will be aware that they're trading effectiveness for quirks/flavor/whatever, and they'll have to live with that.


Wow, that sounds exactly like giving advantage because they knew exactly what to say. They had the wit to set out the argument that would be most convincing for the specific audience. They correctly discerned what motivates the person they're talking to and directed their efforts accordingly.

I completely agree with you here; knowing exactly what to say should give advantage. I'm just contending that someone's choice to act out their character's long-winded speech at the table shouldn't grant them advantage/inspiration for "roleplaying" when one player simply saying, "I give a long-winded speech," doesn't get it; presenting information that makes their case easier should be what grants advantage, whether they present that information as part of the speech they give at the table or say, "I give a speech, and I bring up the information we found."

Again, completely in agreement with what you're saying here. I think I perceived you as defending something you weren't defending. Sorry about that.:smallredface:


Rather, it shifts the focus from 3.5's standard of gaming the rules to interacting with the setting. Which, to me, is one of the biggest advantages 5e has over 3.5.

This is one of my favorite things about this edition as well, but again, I think we've all had that player who's constantly grubbing for any kind of advantage they can get, regardless of whether they deserve it; it's a hotly debated term, but I don't think there's any argument that the word "munchkin" applies here. The difference is, looking at the math - which munchkins tend to do instead of playing their character - advantage is worth roughly an average +4 to the roll, twice as much as 3.5's +2 circumstance bonus.

I had a player who'd go as far as trying to weasel advantage out of simply acting out a scene rather than describing what she said - and I gave it to her, because I was happy she was playing the way I wanted everyone to play. I didn't think of myself as being wrong at the time, but I was trying to use positive reinforcement to force my ideal play style onto people who didn't want to play that specific way. And I may be the only person who's unconsciously done that, but I don't think I am.

[JoeJ]

I completely agree with you here; knowing exactly what to say should give advantage. I'm just contending that someone's choice to act out their character's long-winded speech at the table shouldn't grant them advantage/inspiration for "roleplaying" when one player simply saying, "I give a long-winded speech," doesn't get it; presenting information that makes their case easier should be what grants advantage, whether they present that information as part of the speech they give at the table or say, "I give a speech, and I bring up the information we found."

I think we agree more than we disagree here. I just wouldn't characterize acting out social interaction as only "a long-winded speech." I mean, it might only be that, but it could also be something that hits both the logical and emotional points to make a convincing argument. Or to thoroughly obfuscate some inconvenient fact, if that's what the player is trying for.

I don't have a problem with encouraging people to do things outside their comfort zone, but I don't require that they do so in order to gain a game benefit. If you want to paraphrase what your character is saying instead of speaking it verbatim, that's fine, and that's what the NPC's reaction will be based on. Where I draw the line is players who think they can succeed just because they roll high, without telling me what it is their character said.

[Ruslan]

This is one of my favorite things about this edition as well, but again, I think we've all had that player who's constantly grubbing for any kind of advantage they can get, regardless of whether they deserve it; it's a hotly debated term, but I don't think there's any argument that the word "munchkin" applies here. The difference is, looking at the math - which munchkins tend to do instead of playing their character - advantage is worth roughly an average +4 to the roll, twice as much as 3.5's +2 circumstance bonus.

I had a player who'd go as far as trying to weasel advantage out of simply acting out a scene rather than describing what she said - and I gave it to her, because I was happy she was playing the way I wanted everyone to play. I didn't think of myself as being wrong at the time, but I was trying to use positive reinforcement to force my ideal play style onto people who didn't want to play that specific way. And I may be the only person who's unconsciously done that, but I don't think I am.You weren't wrong. What you're describing is not a bug, but a feature. In 5E, at least.

"DM grants Inspiration for behaving in a certain way" is a 5E paradigm directly tying player behavior to in-game advantages. This is what 5E is all about - encouraging certain player behaviors. And you took advantage of that feature. Good for you, and no need to feel bad about it.

[quinron]

You weren't wrong. What you're describing is not a bug, but a feature. In 5E, at least.

"DM grants Inspiration for behaving in a certain way" is a 5E paradigm directly tying player behavior to in-game advantages. This is what 5E is all about - encouraging certain player behaviors. And you took advantage of that feature. Good for you, and no need to feel bad about it.

What was wrong about my behavior was that I was trying to condition my players toward a certain style of play, when their style of play was perfectly fine. I was rewarding one player for speaking in the first person, using a character voice, etc.; but because they were speaking in the third person and describing their interactions rather than playing them out in front of me, I wasn't rewarding the other players for choosing to make decisions that they, as players, might not make, but that the characters they were playing would.

I was implying to them that there's a "right" way to play, one that will get you rewards, and the reason they weren't getting rewards was that they were playing the "wrong" way. And that's simply not the case.

[Ruslan]

I was implying to them that there's a "right" way to play, one that will get you rewards, and the reason they weren't getting rewards was that they were playing the "wrong" way. And that's simply not the case.Once again, this is exactly the case, and this is a feature of 5E.

This is what 5E does. It gives the DM a tool to nudge the players into playing in a certain way. Take a look at the DMG, and their suggestions for giving out Inspiration. For example, if the DM wants to run a horror game, he can grant Inspiration to players who have their characters act as if they're in a horror movie. Or, if he wants a heroic swashbuckling game, he can grant inspiration to players who act in a totally different way.

So, yes, the DM totally has the right to define that playing in a certain way is rewarded mechanically slightly, and playing in another way is not. The DMG absolutely gives the DM the right to define the 'right way to play', as you call it, (I just call it "how he wants his game to be played"), and it also gives the DM the tools to nudge players toward it.

[BurgerBeast]

No, I actually can't imagine that. I don't agree with your definition of roleplay; it's too narrow.

Except it's possibly broader than yours. My definition's pretty simple: assume the role of another sentient being and make decisions for that being (this is the "role" part), and do so in a context in which those decisions have effects on a story (this is the "play" part). What's your definition?

I seem to include decisions such as "go left" which you exclude, and so far I haven't excluded much of what you've included. I've said that bonuses shouldn't be gained based on execution, but on decisions. That doesn't mean I think execution isn't, nor can't, be a part of role-playing.

You've said, for example, that acting and role-playing are two aspects of the same phenomenon. What phenomenon? And again, how do you define role-playing?


That's a non-sequitur. The fact that we failed to accomplish our goal tonight does not mean that we can't succeed on another night.

You said: "If it's not accomplishing that end, it's time to put it aside and try something else." Once you putt aside, the other night doesn't happen. In any case, you only failed in your goal if your goal was to have fun. If your goal was to play D&D, you succeeded.


They are parallel. Combat tactics applies to deciding what the character is doing. Oratory applies to what the character is saying. Both are using player skill to make decisions in character. Deciding what words to use is the tactical approach.

I can't figure out if you're just being dishonest in order to win this argument.

Deciding what words to use is a tactical approach, that's true. The act of actually saying the words is not - it's execution.

Deciding where to move and whether to attack or cast a spell are also tactical choices. Making the attack or casting the spell is not - it's execution.

This is crystal clear.


Giving a speech isn't only a tactical choice, but deciding to use one word rather than another is no different than deciding to cast one spell rather than another, or to move left instead of right. It's very much a tactical choice, and absolutely an example of role playing.

Giving a speech isn't a tactical choice at all, it's an act. In order to give a speech, you have to have already made the (tactical) decision to make it.

But at least this reveals more of your point. You've simply introduced another layer of complexity. You can go one level further and talk about word choice, but you can go to that level with attacks, too. Word choice could be seen as analogous to stroke choice or location choice when swinging a sword. These are choices that happen after the tactical decision has already been made, and they come down to experience and training - which is yet again the reason why character skills should be relevant and player skill should not.

A player might make poor word choices and blow the speech. This should not be made into a reason for why his character should suffer a penalty to the character's persuasion roll. It goes against the principle of fairness.


Your spirited defense of tactical skills proves that you have no problem with one player outshining another based on skill, as long as it's a skill you like.

I never once defended tactical skills (and I'm not even sure that the phrasing is logically coherent). I pointed out that the entire point of role-playing is the ability to choose your tactics. Execution is meant to be based on your character's ability, however.


What if one player has invested a lot of time into developing system mastery, such that they can build a highly optimized character?

Building a character is still a series of choices. The difference here is that the outcomes are not random, i.e. the outcomes are certain. But this person who has such system mastery might still make poorer decisions during actual game-play, too. Player differences are supposed to come into play in the context of decision making but not in the context of skill execution - this has always been my point, and inconsistent in this case.


Should I require players to randomly roll for race and class and feats, just so that everybody is equal? I'm guessing you'd say no.

Of course. This is a complete misunderstanding of my point. This eliminates choice completely. My stance has always been that tactical choices are the point of role playing.



The bottom line is that if I'm going to allow a player to benefit from their skill in maneuvering around the battlefield, which I am...

No, you're not, unless you play D&D on a battlefield and the players live-act the movements. Your players move plastic figures on a board or describe their movements, which is just a means of communicating a tactical decision.

I would never punish a player for poor choices in moving a miniature either. None of the old "Oops! you stepped out of a threatened square so now it's time for an opportunity attack! Ha! Sucker!" either because guess what, that player's Level 6 fighter is probably experienced enough to pick the more obvious path that avoids opportunity attacks.


...then I'll also allow a player to benefit from their skill in maneuvering through social interactions.

See above. You never allowed the skilled combatant to gain benefits from actual execution, but you do allow the skilled speaker to gain advantage. Likewise, you wouldn't want to punish someone for making poor word choices or losing his train of thought mid-speech, when his character has 18 Int, 18 Cha, and training in diplomacy.


But in both areas, if you don't have the ability scores and proficiency then you're not going to be able to fully capitalize on your skill when the time comes to roll the dice.

You capitalize to exactly the extent that your character can. That's all. You get bonuses or penalties for tactical choices about how to use your abilities. You get no bonuses or penalties for your ability as a player to execute the same skill your character is attempting to execute.

If a trained tracker plays at my table, his character doesn't get advantage on all tracking checks because he's a tracker in real life. When a trained orator plays at my table, his character doesn't get advantage on all speaking checks because he's an orator in real life. This is why character creation rules are balanced, so that you can't break the game by being a real-life renaissance man. Being a real-life renaissance man would make you a great player by virtue of the ability to make clever tactical choices, but it won't let you override your character's natural abilities.

[edit: I should point out that I have no problem with the type of play you describe, generally. The problem only arises, in my opinion, when you start to give out mechanical bonuses because players demonstrate that they have particularly well-developed skills.]

[JoeJ]

I can't figure out if you're just being dishonest in order to win this argument.

We're done.

[BurgerBeast]

We're done.

Lol. Nice cop-out. We should've been done a long time ago.

[BurgerBeast]

Once again, this is exactly the case, and this is a feature of 5E.

This is what 5E does. It gives the DM a tool to nudge the players into playing in a certain way. Take a look at the DMG, and their suggestions for giving out Inspiration. For example, if the DM wants to run a horror game, he can grant Inspiration to players who have their characters act as if they're in a horror movie. Or, if he wants a heroic swashbuckling game, he can grant inspiration to players who act in a totally different way.

So, yes, the DM totally has the right to define that playing in a certain way is rewarded mechanically slightly, and playing in another way is not. The DMG absolutely gives the DM the right to define the 'right way to play', as you call it, (I just call it "how he wants his game to be played"), and it also gives the DM the tools to nudge players toward it.

But then you run into the problem of how far do you take this? If a DM decides that he wants to give out inspiration for the funniest jokes during play, or the people who brings the most food to the game, and since the DMG says the DM can give out inspiration for pretty much whatever he wants, does that mean that the DMG endorses this kind of play, or that this kind of play is correct? (I know that these are rhetorical questions and their scope is exaggerated, but you can choose to take them a little less far, but still beyond the threshold of what is reasonable).

The inspiration mechanic is almost an after-thought to the game, and unfortunately it's become a licence for people who want the definition of D&D to be "whatever I want it to be." I'm sorry, but if you take it to a certain point, it's just not D&D any more. You can still do it, and you can still have fun doing it, but it's not D&D.

This isn't me saying: Only I know what is and isn't D&D. This is me saying: there has to be an objective definition of what D&D is. It can be vague and have room for disagreement, but it can just be "whatever you say it is."

[mgshamster]

Lol. Nice cop-out. We should've been done a long time ago.

It's not a cop out. JoeJ was being honest in trying to describe his opinions. Just like you were.

You took him at bad faith without reason or previous examples of bad faith given. I can see both your points, but you made a mistake in calling dishonesty with that post.

I recommend owning up to it and apologizing if you want to continue with any good faith discussions with him.

[djreynolds]

Like most people, we all got jobs and kids and school and life. But not everyone plays D&D for the same reasons.

I like a good old dungeon crawl or well made adventure. But some people like to "dwell" in the world. So I let others in the game do as they please, so long as they it doesn't ruin the game for me.

Yes I'm selfish, we all are really. Now I do not want to ruin your game, but I don't want you ruining mine.

Some are role players, they like to select a character and see how life would be for this guy, etc. That's cool.

Some players ruin games, because some people are just jerks.

And some player types do not get along with other player types.

Now obviously, I'm not nice myself, hence playing a sour dwarf usually, which I'm told fits me perfectly.

I understand the inherent danger of allowing player vs player checks, because some people, the jerks would make negative uses of it.

So my question, after my long-winded BraveHeart Speech is, in a perfect world with a good gaming group of gals and guys, could PC vs PC social checks be allowed to solve the issue when the real players disagree?

[Ruslan]

But then you run into the problem of how far do you take this?
It's a social game. I'm confident in my ability to interact with real people in a real social setting and figure it out somehow. I can't answer this question in a forum format.


This isn't me saying: Only I know what is and isn't D&D. This is me saying: there has to be an objective definition of what D&D is. It can be vague and have room for disagreement, but it can just be "whatever you say it is."I'm pretty sure that at my table, D&D is exactly what I say it is. Under the caveat that I want to keep my players playing with me, of course, I want to keep them happy, and won't do anything to antagonize them.

So I guess the definition of D&D, to me, is "what I say it is, adjusted for the personalities of my players". Hope that clears my position.


The inspiration mechanic is almost an after-thought to the game, and unfortunately it's become a licence for people who want the definition of D&D to be "whatever I want it to be." I'm sorry, but if you take it to a certain point, it's just not D&D any more. You can still do it, and you can still have fun doing it, but it's not D&D.I'm pretty sure that when people attempt a pretense at objectivity with "it's not D&D", what they really mean is the highly subjective "I won't enjoy the way you play D&D." Which is okay, not everyone has to enjoy playing with everyone. They just don't have to go on a this-is-not-D&D-anymore tangent. Especially when earlier in the same post they admitted they don't even know the definition of D&D to begin with.

[Xetheral]

A player might make poor word choices and blow the speech. This should not be made into a reason for why his character should suffer a penalty to the character's persuasion roll. It goes against the principle of fairness.

I would indeed assign a (small) penalty, and wouldn't consider it unfair. Player skill cannot be entirely removed from the game, nor would I want it to be. I agree that the comparison to making tactical choices in combat isn't perfect, but wouldn't expect it to be considering social activities and combat are modelled under different levels of abstraction though different mechanics. I like the comparison despite its limitations.

(Actually, on second thought, I wouldn't penalize poor word choice, but I would give a bonus for good word choice, which mechanically works out somewhat similarly, but costs less DM capital at the table.)

[JoeJ]

So my question, after my long-winded BraveHeart Speech is, in a perfect world with a good gaming group of gals and guys, could PC vs PC social checks be allowed to solve the issue when the real players disagree?

If it's an issue between players, nothing that is done in the game is going to solve it. They're going to have to deal with the actual problem, whatever it is.

PvP social checks can be used to work out disagreements between characters, though. All that's required is for the players to agree to let the dice influence when their character is persuaded. In D&D this isn't commonly done, but there's no real reason it couldn't be. There are some other games (Dying Earth RPG comes to mind) where PvP social interaction is an important part of playing the game.

[djreynolds]

If it's an issue between players, nothing that is done in the game is going to solve it. They're going to have to deal with the actual problem, whatever it is.

PvP social checks can be used to work out disagreements between characters, though. All that's required is for the players to agree to let the dice influence when their character is persuaded. In D&D this isn't commonly done, but there's no real reason it couldn't be. There are some other games (Dying Earth RPG comes to mind) where PvP social interaction is an important part of playing the game.

It could be cool.

For example, we are in the Death House, fighting for our lives and two characters, not one, are trying to first talk with Wights and then antagonize them. And our DM is like well role and it uses your action. The whole time I'm getting my butt whooped.

Now if this is their character being played, fine. But then I should be able to persuade them to fight. But the reality is, it is the player.

Another example, we are in a room, and I say do not just touching anything just yet, and they go ahead and spring a trap and injure other players. Their excuse is, I'm a kleptomaniac, etc.

But if this was for real, and the situations really this dangerous, life and death, people would be much smarter.

I have no problem with character investment, but then I should be able to persuade a character, if not the player, about being cautious.

Let the dice decide when in doubt.

[quinron]

It could be cool.

For example, we are in the Death House, fighting for our lives and two characters, not one, are trying to first talk with Wights and then antagonize them. And our DM is like well role and it uses your action. The whole time I'm getting my butt whooped.

Now if this is their character being played, fine. But then I should be able to persuade them to fight. But the reality is, it is the player.

Another example, we are in a room, and I say do not just touching anything just yet, and they go ahead and spring a trap and injure other players. Their excuse is, I'm a kleptomaniac, etc.

Yeah, this seems like it's more a player problem than a character problem. They sound like the kind of player who likes to say, "I'm just roleplaying my character," anytime it gives them an excuse to be a selfish ass, but as soon as it would impede their character in any way, they completely change tack and start playing it safe.

Although the issue may look like it's those characters not listening to your dwarf, it's actually those players at the table not listening to you as a player. They don't want to include you in the decisions, they don't want you to be part of the team; if that's the case, then like JoeJ said, it's best to deal with this outside the game. Now, benefit of the doubt, they may not realize they're giving you grief by doing this; I'd recommend you just tell them that the way they're acting in-game makes you feel like you don't have a say in things. If they are aware that they're stepping on your toes, and they don't care, well... If you can't fix that, you may want to start looking for another group.

[HoarsHalberd]

I would indeed assign a (small) penalty, and wouldn't consider it unfair. Player skill cannot be entirely removed from the game, nor would I want it to be. I agree that the comparison to making tactical choices in combat isn't perfect, but wouldn't expect it to be considering social activities and combat are modelled under different levels of abstraction though different mechanics. I like the comparison despite its limitations.

(Actually, on second thought, I wouldn't penalize poor word choice, but I would give a bonus for good word choice, which mechanically works out somewhat similarly, but costs less DM capital at the table.)

I would decide case by case whether it warranted a small penalty based upon the character. I don't penalise the guy playing the 6'10 18 strength Goliath because he couldn't pick up a bar table and smash it into someone. Likewise I don't penalise the guy playing an 18 cha 13 wis bard for not having the debate technique of a professional lawyer. Now if the player uses poor word choice that makes sense for the character, then I would penalise him. (If for example he blundered and unknowingly announced that they have worked with an enemy of the intended target.)

[BurgerBeast]

It's not a cop out. JoeJ was being honest in trying to describe his opinions. Just like you were.

You took him at bad faith without reason or previous examples of bad faith given. I can see both your points, but you made a mistake in calling dishonesty with that post.

Except I didn't outright accuse him of being dishonest. I questioned his honesty, with more than enough reason. If I were in his shoes I would expect him to do exactly the same thing. And if it were done to me, I wouldn't use it an excuse to bail on a conversation. I would view it as a challenge to state my views more clearly. Big boy pants. Not go to cry to mommy at the first sign that you think you weren't treated with dignity or respect.

Throughout posed challenges to his definition of “acting” and “roleplaying,” and I worked within the context of his examples. I gave definitions for both acting and role-playing and examples to justify my definitions.

He did neither. He simply said vague and nebulous things that amount to “I don’t think that’s right” and his only definition was “they’re aspects of the name phenomenon” – a phenomenon which was never named. He completely ignored or misrepresented the distinction between decisions to act a certin way and actually acting that way.

There were only two options: either he is too stupid to follow, or he’s not following on purpose. I think the second option is more generous by virtue of giving the benefit of the doubt. Even so, I didn’t accuse, I questioned, and I’m the a@#hole here?

[Also, you don't have an any way of knowing if he's being honest or not, by the way. And I'm in the same boat. This is why I gave him the benefit of the doubt and didn't accuse, simply raised the question.]


I recommend owning up to it and apologizing if you want to continue with any good faith discussions with him.

I apologize when I wrong people. I don't apologize when someone repeatedly misrepresents my argument, to the point I have to ask if they are being honest, and then uses it as an escape hatch and a chance to try to vilify me. I play with big boys, not babies.

[edit: there's still the truth of the matter, which is something I'm interested in, and it seems a shame to let it go because someone couldn't handle the conversation and cooked up a B.S. accusation about being offended by a comment which wasn't offensive]

[Regitnui]

There were only two options: either he is too stupid to follow, or he’s not following on purpose. I think the second option is more generous by virtue of giving the benefit of the doubt. Even so, I didn’t accuse, I questioned, and I’m the a@#hole here?


False dichotomy and ad hominem.

[BurgerBeast]

False dichotomy and ad hominem.

Not a false dichotomy with the repeated evidence. If it had been once or twice, sure, but upon repeated expression of the same idea and repeated misrepresentation by him, it's not a false dichotomy anymore.

Once he has demonstrated misunderstanding, there are two choices: it was on purpose or by accident (which is a true dichotomy). And admittedly, I don't know which it is... which is why I didn't conclude that he is stupid...

...which is why it is not ad hominem. If I wished to attack him I would call him stupid or accuse him of being dishonest. Instead I expressed my concern that it's difficult to discern whether he is, in fact, being dishonest or not. That's all I did.

For anyone to take the phrase "I'm not sure if you're bring honest" and replace it "You are a liar" is dishonest at best, and wrong at worst. You could just easily replace it with "Can you show me evidence so I can believe you?" which would be more correct.

[Regitnui]

Third possibility; he understood precisely what you were saying, realized you were as likely to listen to him as I am to a old, unattractive sports commentator and decided to leave the argument before it got poisonous. Therefore false dichotomy.

Paraphrased: "you're either trolling or stupid to not get what I'm saying" and "he ran away like a coward". Both are direct insults of the character of your opponent as opposed to his argument and therefore ad hominem.

[HoarsHalberd]

Paraphrased: "you're either trolling or stupid to not get what I'm saying" and "he ran away like a coward". Both are direct insults of the character of your opponent as opposed to his argument and therefore ad hominem.

Well no, being insulting is not committing an ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem is where you attempt to discredit an argument by personal attacks upon it's proponents. Someone can be as vile, degrading and dehumanising as they like and not be committing an ad hominem fallacy if they attack the argument and then use their attacks on the persons argument to suggest failures of the person. But by attacking the argument through implied failures of the person making it is what constitutes ad hominem.

"X has the backing of all available data, as shown by -example Y, probably a statistic- therefore those who honestly, truly believe X isn't true, must be idiots." - Isn't technically an ad hominem.

"My "learned" opponent is lecturing us on "X" but here we see that his qualification comes from a sub-par university that any idiot can get into, why should we even bother listening to him? Answer: We shouldn't." Is an ad hominem.

[Regitnui]

Well no, being insulting is not committing an ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem is where you attempt to discredit an argument by personal attacks upon it's proponents. Someone can be as vile, degrading and dehumanising as they like and not be committing an ad hominem fallacy if they attack the argument and then use their attacks on the persons argument to suggest failures of the person. But by attacking the argument through implied failures of the person making it is what constitutes ad hominem.

"X has the backing of all available data, as shown by -example Y, probably a statistic- therefore those who honestly, truly believe X isn't true, must be idiots." - Isn't technically an ad hominem.

"My "learned" opponent is lecturing us on "X" but here we see that his qualification comes from a sub-par university that any idiot can get into, why should we even bother listening to him? Answer: We shouldn't." Is an ad hominem.

Huh. I had the definition a bit wider than that; "attacking the person's character to discredit their argument". I will concede that my definition may not be correct though. However, insulting the opposition is still poor debating and really doesn't make your argument more correct.

[BurgerBeast]

Third possibility; he understood precisely what you were saying, realized you were as likely to listen to him as I am to a old, unattractive sports commentator and decided to leave the argument before it got poisonous. Therefore false dichotomy.

And this is why honesty comes in. If he understood precisely what I said, then he could have responded in a way that showed it, or asked questions about the parts that were unclear. He did not. On top of that he responded in ways which showed that he either ignored or did not understand my claims.

This is why the third conclusion (that he understood but...) you propose is not a logical one, and it remains a dichotomy.

"realized you were as likely to listen to him as I am to a old, unattractive sports commentator and decided to leave the argument before it got poisonous." - this is the type of dismissive attitude that makes things poisonous, and makes the debate dishonest. And this is what he did that led me to accuse him of copping out. This is where you prove me right and give up the moral high ground. Not that I really care, I just want to continue the conversation with anyone who can coherently represent JoeJ's stance, since he has decided to abandon it.

[edit: and just to be clear, you are saying you listen to sports commentators for reasons other than how well they communicate what happened in the sport? Further you're saying that you bias your evaluation of sports commentators on age and appearance?]


Paraphrased: "you're either trolling or stupid to not get what I'm saying" and "he ran away like a coward". Both are direct insults of the character of your opponent as opposed to his argument and therefore ad hominem.

Which is why I avoided saying them at all. When the evidence points to either trolling or stupidity, instead of insulting my opponents, I give them the benefit of the doubt and give them an opportunity to present evidence. You and he did not like the way in which I did it, claimed offence, and are now trying to use it to call me the a@#hole. I'm defending my actions.

[BurgerBeast]

Huh. I had the definition a bit wider than that; "attacking the person's character to discredit their argument". I will concede that my definition may not be correct though. However, insulting the opposition is still poor debating and really doesn't make your argument more correct.

Even if you use this definition, I never attacked his character, and certainly not to discredit his argument.

My aim has always been to hear a coherent representation of his argument and where it differs from mine. Saying "I'm not sure if you're being honest" is not an attack on a person's character.

No insult. Therefore, no example of poor debating. Therefore, no claim that it improved my argument. I'm actually interested in hearing his argument explained on a deeper level, to see if it reveals that one of us mistaken. Not so the winner can claim victory, but so I might learn something (in either case), and maybe even change my mind.

[HoarsHalberd]

Huh. I had the definition a bit wider than that; "attacking the person's character to discredit their argument". I will concede that my definition may not be correct though. However, insulting the opposition is still poor debating and really doesn't make your argument more correct.

Oh absolutely, it is the height of bad manners and people should always do their best to resist it and never resort to it in formal debates or when your opposition has brokered no insult to you and doesn't have an inflammatory view point. (When someone is arguing for certain toxic political or ideological stances it can be hard not to.)

But yeah, abou ad hominem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Wiki explains it better than I did.

[BurgerBeast]

Can anyone spell it out for me?

Why is "I'm not sure if you're being honest" an insult?

Is "I'm not sure if your being honest" or "I'm not sure if you're being dishonest" equivalent to "I think you are being dishonest."

I wouldn't think I was insulted by any of them.

[mgshamster]

Can anyone spell it out for me?

Why is "I'm not sure if you're being honest" an insult?

Is "I'm not sure if your being honest" or "I'm not sure if you're being dishonest" equivalent to "I think you are being dishonest."

I wouldn't think I was insulted by any of them.

So here you are, explaining your ideas and thoughts on a forum, which takes time to figure out. And someone comes along, unable to understand your point of view. That person doesn't assume the issue is wth communication - either their own ability to understand or the other's ability to explain, but instead they question the other person's integrity. They question your integrity.

Would you really want to spend your time continuing to discuss your ideas with that person - someone who doesn't even try to understand but instead questions your moral character? Why would you, when there are better people to spend your time with? Why would you, when there are people who don't jump to the assumption of character flaws when they fail to understand.

This is the situation you put JoeJ in. You can decide it's not insulting all you like, but multiple people on this thread do believe it is insulting, and whether something is insulting is almost entirely based on community opinion. You may continue to be insulting, blissfully unaware that you are doing so, and after some time you may find yourself unable to discuss anything as more and more people refuse to talk with you.

But here we are, telling you that it is insulting; several other people are making the same claim with you being the only one on the side that it is not insulting. I'd recommend you reevaluate what is and is not insulting - or at the very least refrain from questioning anyone's moral character, integrity, or honesty while debating in an online forum.

The next time you think someone is being disingenuous - try not to assume that they actually are. Maybe they're just unable to communicate effectively, or maybe you're just having difficulty understanding their point. Ask for clarification. Try to restate their argument in your own words to see if you properly understand and ask them if this is what they're trying to say. Once you're sure you understand and they agree that you understand, then you can state your rebuttals with your own arguments, evidence, and citations.

This is what it means to debate in good faith. Questioning the moral character of others is debating in bad faith.

What I'm assuming is that you did not debate in bad faith intentionally, but rather you made a judgment error. It's ok; that happens sometimes. We all make mistakes. How we proceed from here is to swallow our pride and admit we made an error. Apologize for insulting the person you were conversing with, especially since you unintentionally insulted them. And then continue with the conversation. What we don't do is insist that what we said wasn't insulting - it just makes us look like insensitive jerks and it makes it more likely that the person we're conversing with will refuse to talk to us anymore.

[Aldarin]

Can anyone spell it out for me?

Why is "I'm not sure if you're being honest" an insult?

Is "I'm not sure if your being honest" or "I'm not sure if you're being dishonest" equivalent to "I think you are being dishonest."

I wouldn't think I was insulted by any of them.

By saying that you question their honesty, you are directly questioning their character and innate respect for all human beings that everyone should have. You show quite clearly that you did not respect them, and as such offended the individual in question. Their reaction, I'd say, was quite validated by the situation. It's kind of like an authority figure saying, 'I'm not sure you were violating this restriction, but I'm going to say you did so you'll own up.' Wouldn't you believe that they were in error? It's quite clear to me that you are, in fact, calling them dishonest, and that is a generally unacceptable social action.

[BurgerBeast]

So here you are, explaining your ideas and thoughts on a forum, which takes time to figure out. And someone comes along, unable to understand your point of view. That person doesn't assume the issue is wth communication - either their own ability to understand or the other's ability to explain, but instead they question the other person's integrity. They question your integrity.

Except that in this specific case, I did understand his point of view, and went to an effort to show that I did. I just disagreed with it. And I didn't assume an issue with communication. There was evidence for a issue in communication. As I have said before and I will say again, I could have questioned his intelligence, but I didn't, I did the only other thing - I questioned his honesty in this particular case. If I had said "are you serious?" Would that be an insult? Because it wasn't like I came out questioned his honesty instantly. There was a significant back and forth in which he repeatedly displayed a complete lack of awareness of what I was saying.


Would you really want to spend your time continuing to discuss your ideas with that person - someone who doesn't even try to understand but instead questions your moral character?

Again, this is not the situation he was in. I was questioning his honesty specifically because I was trying to understand. Also, "moral character" is a bit of a stretch. I don't consider people who dodge the truth to win arguments on internet forums to be immoral. We're talking about behaviour, not character.


Why would you, when there are better people to spend your time with? Why would you, when there are people who don't jump to the assumption of character flaws when they fail to understand.

He can participate or not participate as he sees fit. I don't care. It's the accusation that I insulted him that is ridiculous. It was a fair question. It was not an assumption.


This is the situation you put JoeJ in.

You can't be serious. I didn't write his posts for him.


You can decide it's not insulting all you like, but multiple people on this thread do believe it is insulting, and whether something is insulting is almost entirely based on community opinion.

No, it isn't, and I think you know that. If say something terribly disgusting to a group of 20 people, and they all decide they don't care, that doesn't mean it wasn't mean it was not insulting. It means they were insulted but they don't care. The converse is also true.

The community doesn't get to decide that the word "hello" is insulting and condemn me for saying hello. Not in the sensible world.


You may continue to be insulting, blissfully unaware that you are doing so, and after some time you may find yourself unable to discuss anything as more and more people refuse to talk with you.

Well, you'd be quite content know that this is precisely how I eliminate immature people from my life. People who care about the truth and don;t make excuses to cry and run away are the people who I tend to spend my time with. I don't have time for people who can't be responsible for their own actions. If I say something stupid and someone says to me "are you being serious right now?" I look back at what I said to figure out if it was stupid or not. Period.


But here we are, telling you that it is insulting; several other people are making the same claim with you being the only one on the side that it is not insulting.

The truth isn;t determined by consensus. See above.


I'd recommend you reevaluate what is and is not insulting - or at the very least refrain from questioning anyone's moral character, integrity, or honesty while debating in an online forum.

I'd recommend you read more carefully. There is no connection between asking someone if they are being serious and "attacking moral character or integrity." That's your problem. And you tell me I jump to conclusions?

Believe me, I've spent a lot of time on the subject. I do know the difference.


The next time you think someone is being disingenuous - try not to assume that they actually are.

That's exactly what I did. More than once.


Maybe they're just unable to communicate effectively, or maybe you're just having difficulty understanding their point. Ask for clarification.

That's what I did. This was a significant back-and-forth. Not one comment and then an attack. You keep painting a different picture.


Try to restate their argument in your own words to see if you properly understand and ask them if this is what they're trying to say.

This is what was going on. I was speaking spelling it out in his context and pointing out the inconsistencies, and he was just flat out denying them, or appealing to definitions he refused to define, or being intentionally vague.


Once you're sure you understand and they agree that you understand, then you can state your rebuttals with your own arguments, evidence, and citations.

Maybe we were reading different forums.


This is what it means to debate in good faith. Questioning the moral character of others is debating in bad faith.

What I'm assuming is that you did not debate in bad faith intentionally, but rather you made a judgment error. It's ok; that happens sometimes. We all make mistakes. How we proceed from here is to swallow our pride and admit we made an error.

I am not prideful and I have no problem admitting mistakes. There was none here. There was oversensitivity.


Apologize for insulting the person you were conversing with, especially since you unintentionally insulted them.

You keep saying this but it's not true. Asking someone if they ar being honest is not an insult. Not especially to their character or their morality. You can say it is all you like. you're allowed to be wrong.


And then continue with the conversation. What we don't do is insist that what we said wasn't insulting - it just makes us look like insensitive jerks and it makes it more likely that the person we're conversing with will refuse to talk to us anymore.

I'm perfectly happy to not talk to him anymore, and an apology doesn't help people like him anyway, not least because I'm not going to couch my language for the insensitive. But apologizing for something that ins;t wrong just re-inforces the misconception that it's wrong. It's why people can come on internet forums and act indignant about a simple question as if their moral standing has been challenged. Big boy pants, please.

[BurgerBeast]

By saying that you question their honesty, you are directly questioning their character and innate respect for all human beings that everyone should have.

Thank you for making my point so clear. No, I'm sorry. When I say "I'm not sure if you're being honest" that is not the same as saying "you have no character" or "you have no innate respect for all human beings." I'm sorry pal, but that does not follow.


You show quite clearly that you did not respect them, and as such offended the individual in question. Their reaction, I'd say, was quite validated by the situation.

He didn't need to feel insulted to validate his actions. He can act however he wants. But there was no lack of respect, at all. See above.


It's kind of like an authority figure saying, 'I'm not sure you were violating this restriction, but I'm going to say you did so you'll own up.'

No, it's not, because:

(1) we're equals. None of us in an authority.
(2) I didn't add in the actual accusation. So: 'I'm not sure you were violating this restriction, but I'm going to say you did so you'll own up.' See the difference? The part the actual accusation is not a part of what really happened.


Wouldn't you believe that they were in error? It's quite clear to me that you are, in fact, calling them dishonest, and that is a generally unacceptable social action.

Then you are clearly something that isn't there, as you've explicitly stated here, and implicitly shown through the dialogue above. That's your problem. You're adding in the part that you're accusing me of. The whole dialogue is still here to read.

[bid]

I don't consider people who dodge the truth to win arguments on internet forums to be immoral. We're talking about behaviour, not character.
That explains a lot.



People who care about the truth and don;t make excuses to cry and run away are the people who I tend to spend my time with. I don't have time for people who can't be responsible for their own actions. If I say something stupid and someone says to me "are you being serious right now?" I look back at what I said to figure out if it was stupid or not. Period.
Are you being serious right now?

Being responsible means 'fessing up when you misunderstand someone. Saying your interpretation trumps their meaning is childish arrogance.

The apology is yours to make.

[BurgerBeast]

That explains a lot.

This is your usual MO. You throw out the cheap, easy, attempt to marginalize. You might think it's witty. It's easy and we're all capable of it.


Are you being serious right now?

Yep.


Being responsible means 'fessing up when you misunderstand someone.

Yep. And I always do it. I never did and never will get to the bottom of whether or not I misunderstood JoeJ.


Saying your interpretation trumps their meaning is childish arrogance.

Yes, it is. And it's not what I did. I gave reasons for my definition and asked for him to give a definition. He never did.


The apology is yours to make.

I don't apologize when I haven't offended.

Also, I really don't think you should be trying to help their cause. You are a true example of what they are accusing me of, and it is evident in more-or-less every post you make.

[Regitnui]

Burger, it's not what is said, but what is heard. We don't have the ability to see your face, body language, or intention as you type. All we have are your words. Ending an argument with the written sentiment of "my opponent was either deliberately misunderstanding me (trolling) or accidentally misunderstood (not as intelligent as me)" is not a positive conclusion. It's partly the reason edition wars get so toxic; eventually one or more people come along with the same attitude you had/have, and they tear the thread into pieces convinced that they're right and their opponent is antagonizing them or stupid.

[djreynolds]

But the question still stands. Something as simple as players disagreeing on what spell should be cast, perhaps my fighter wants the wizard to cast this, could I persuade him? Perhaps the wizard wants the rein in the fighter from being too aggressive.

How do you tell a raging barbarian to relax?

Perhaps the rogue is tired of the fighter opening up doors without him checking them first, actually happens a lot, because the fighter actually mistrusts the rogue, perhaps deservedly so? Could the rogue persuade him or deceive him this is no longer necessary. Or the fighter intimidate him that they do it together?

It seems like innocent role playing and could be abused

The AL does hand out secret missions on top of the adventure.

[Regitnui]

Ideally, the players can work with each other. I mean, the player of the barbarian shouldn't start attacking his allies just because he's still raging when the battle ends. The answer to me is "Yes, if the situation makes in necessary". A roll doesn't take away the player's ability to control their character.

[Zalabim]

Except that in this specific case, I did understand his point of view, and went to an effort to show that I did. I just disagreed with it. And I didn't assume an issue with communication. There was evidence for a issue in communication. As I have said before and I will say again, I could have questioned his intelligence, but I didn't, I did the only other thing - I questioned his honesty in this particular case. If I had said "are you serious?" Would that be an insult? Because it wasn't like I came out questioned his honesty instantly. There was a significant back and forth in which he repeatedly displayed a complete lack of awareness of what I was saying.



Again, this is not the situation he was in. I was questioning his honesty specifically because I was trying to understand. Also, "moral character" is a bit of a stretch. I don't consider people who dodge the truth to win arguments on internet forums to be immoral. We're talking about behaviour, not character.



He can participate or not participate as he sees fit. I don't care. It's the accusation that I insulted him that is ridiculous. It was a fair question. It was not an assumption.



You can't be serious. I didn't write his posts for him.



No, it isn't, and I think you know that. If say something terribly disgusting to a group of 20 people, and they all decide they don't care, that doesn't mean it wasn't mean it was not insulting. It means they were insulted but they don't care. The converse is also true.

The community doesn't get to decide that the word "hello" is insulting and condemn me for saying hello. Not in the sensible world.



Well, you'd be quite content know that this is precisely how I eliminate immature people from my life. People who care about the truth and don;t make excuses to cry and run away are the people who I tend to spend my time with. I don't have time for people who can't be responsible for their own actions. If I say something stupid and someone says to me "are you being serious right now?" I look back at what I said to figure out if it was stupid or not. Period.



The truth isn;t determined by consensus. See above.



I'd recommend you read more carefully. There is no connection between asking someone if they are being serious and "attacking moral character or integrity." That's your problem. And you tell me I jump to conclusions?

Believe me, I've spent a lot of time on the subject. I do know the difference.



That's exactly what I did. More than once.



That's what I did. This was a significant back-and-forth. Not one comment and then an attack. You keep painting a different picture.



This is what was going on. I was speaking spelling it out in his context and pointing out the inconsistencies, and he was just flat out denying them, or appealing to definitions he refused to define, or being intentionally vague.



Maybe we were reading different forums.



I am not prideful and I have no problem admitting mistakes. There was none here. There was oversensitivity.



You keep saying this but it's not true. Asking someone if they ar being honest is not an insult. Not especially to their character or their morality. You can say it is all you like. you're allowed to be wrong.



I'm perfectly happy to not talk to him anymore, and an apology doesn't help people like him anyway, not least because I'm not going to couch my language for the insensitive. But apologizing for something that ins;t wrong just re-inforces the misconception that it's wrong. It's why people can come on internet forums and act indignant about a simple question as if their moral standing has been challenged. Big boy pants, please.

Are you serious?



I don't apologize when I haven't offended.

But you did offend. That should be obvious. You apparently did not mean to offend. Yet you haven't apologized. Because the only alternative is that the offended party misunderstood you and that can only mean they're too stupid to understand you. It's a false dichotomy because there's other options. Maybe you weren't as clear as you thought. Even if you're certain you were perfectly clear this time (and you aren't always perfectly clear), it's polite to confirm proper understanding before confirming the poster's sincerity.

"...misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent."

[mgshamster]

Are you serious?



But you did offend. That should be obvious. You apparently did not mean to offend. Yet you haven't apologized. Because the only alternative is that the offended party misunderstood you and that can only mean they're too stupid to understand you. It's a false dichotomy because there's other options. Maybe you weren't as clear as you thought. Even if you're certain you were perfectly clear this time (and you aren't always perfectly clear), it's polite to confirm proper understanding before confirming the poster's sincerity.

"...misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent."

He's fully recognized that he had offended the other party. His response was "they need to put on their big boy pants."

[bid]

You throw out the cheap, easy, attempt to marginalize.
You marginalize yourself by claiming dodging the truth is moral and not toxic behavior.

- "I'm sorry, I thought you meant THAT"
- "I'm sorry I misspoke, I meant THAT"
Saying those makes you no more wrong than saying "I'm sorry it rained yesterday". Sometimes different POV result in different answers, you have to find what they see that you didn't before reaching a conclusion. I can't count the number of things I learned by correcting my POV.

[quinron]

Ideally, the players can work with each other. I mean, the player of the barbarian shouldn't start attacking his allies just because he's still raging when the battle ends. The answer to me is "Yes, if the situation makes in necessary". A roll doesn't take away the player's ability to control their character.

Yeah, as you've said, djreynolds, the book doesn't touch on these a lot; the design philosophy seems to have been that PCs should be able to just reason with each other, and while someone may choose to go a little too far sometimes because it serves their character, the others pointing out that they're causing problems for the group as a whole should be enough to convince them to reign it in.

If someone is habitually disregarding your input in such a way that they're causing in-team problems and upsetting you, the issue isn't that the character is being irresponsible, it's that the player doesn't want to cooperate with the team. Just as they're forcing their play style on the group by being uncooperative, you'd be forcing yours on them if you were able to roll to change their behavior. While I'd definitely say "teamwork" is a better approach than "screw you, I do what I want," being in the right doesn't mean someone won't get upset when you step on their toes. It's an out-of-game problem; don't try to solve it in-game.

[BurgerBeast]

Burger, it's not what is said, but what is heard.

Well, this is the crux of the entire disagreement. If you are going to judge someone for what they write on an online forum, it goes the other way around: It is not what is heard/read/interpreted, it's what is written/said.

The only way that you can say that what is heard is what matters is if the person being spoken to gets to decide if and when he or she is offended. No, that's not how it works, and I gave my reasons for saying so above. If I say hello, and the person who I am speaking to takes offence, that is not my fault.


We don't have the ability to see your face, body language, or intention as you type. All we have are your words.

Exactly. And I take responsibility for my own words. And if they are offensive, I apologize for them.


Ending an argument with the written sentiment of "my opponent was either deliberately misunderstanding me (trolling) or accidentally misunderstood (not as intelligent as me)" is not a positive conclusion.

Exactly. We agree. Where we don't agree is on whether this is what I did.

First, I did not end the argument this way. I started my rebuttal of one point in this way: "I can't figure out if you're being dishonest order to win an argument."

Repeat: "I can't figure out if you're being dishonest order to win an argument."

I then went on to partake in the dialogue.


It's partly the reason edition wars get so toxic; eventually one or more people come along with the same attitude you had/have, and they tear the thread into pieces convinced that they're right and their opponent is antagonizing them or stupid.

Again, I was not convinced, nor did I claim to be. I was trying to figure it out.


But you did offend. That should be obvious. You apparently did not mean to offend. Yet you haven't apologized.

No, I did not. What is obvious is that JoeJ claimed offence. I say he was wrong to do so.


He's fully recognized that he had offended the other party. His response was "they need to put on their big boy pants."

No, I did not recognize that I offended the other party at all. Please don't speak for me. I acknowledge that JoeJ claimed offence, and I thin he was wrong.


You marginalize yourself by claiming dodging the truth is moral and not toxic behavior.

Never did I make this claim. And never did I dodge the truth.


- "I'm sorry, I thought you meant THAT"
- "I'm sorry I misspoke, I meant THAT"
Saying those makes you no more wrong than saying "I'm sorry it rained yesterday".

You're not even using the same form of the word "sorry" in these examples.


Sometimes different POV result in different answers, you have to find what they see that you didn't before reaching a conclusion.

Thanks for the tip, champ. I'm still doing just that. Now you can try it, too.


I can't count the number of things I learned by correcting my POV.

Good for you. I must say I'm not surprised. I hope that continues.

[mgshamster]

Dude, you're just digging yourself into a deeper hole.

[bid]

Good for you. I must say I'm not surprised. I hope that continues.
What's surprising is you didn't amend your POV, not by one iota. Didn't you learn anything from this discussion?
Why are you still digging down?

[BurgerBeast]

Dude, you're just digging yourself into a deeper hole.

I said a few things in that post. You can address them if you like. I'll walk all the way back to the top of this hole. What ever happened to entertaining another person's POV?


What's surprising is you didn't amend your POV, not by one iota.

I never claimed to amend my POV. I claimed to have tried to see it from the other POV, but we haven't gotten to the bottom of describing it yet, so I can't. I've been trying to see the opposite point of view since I first engaged, but we derailed (from the derail). I haven;t seen the other POV yet, because we're still trying to break down how and if JoeJ's vague application of the term skill to performing a skill and speaking has any merit. Surely you're not advocating that I change my point based on a lack of evidence? I need to understand the POV before I can consider it.


Didn't you learn anything from this discussion?

It's not my first rodeo. I've learned a few things, but certainly not what it is you're hoping I'll learn. I've had similar discussions many times in my life, and you'd be surprised how many people end up agreeing with me in the end.


Why are you still digging down?

I'll dig down as far as I must if it means I might bring someone up (myself included) on the correct side of things. I take learning very seriously. In most contexts. But the topic of what it means to be offensive is pretty close to the most important conversation in contemporary North American society.

[BurgerBeast]

But the question still stands. Something as simple as players disagreeing on what spell should be cast, perhaps my fighter wants the wizard to cast this, could I persuade him?

No. In my opinion this is not in the realm of possibility. The player of the wizard decides what his player does, with the exception of spells that have specific effects. But that then classifies as PVP and at that point I'm stopping the action to have a discussion, and possibly throwing the offender out of the group.


Perhaps the wizard wants the rein in the fighter from being too aggressive.

No, for the same reasons. The fighter's player decides.


How do you tell a raging barbarian to relax?

You can try however you like. It's up the barbarian's player to decide how he responds.


Perhaps the rogue is tired of the fighter opening up doors without him checking them first, actually happens a lot, because the fighter actually mistrusts the rogue, perhaps deservedly so?

You appear to be pointing to a problem of player trust, here. The best solution I have for this problem is that players and DMs must, without exception, declare exactly what their characters do to the whole table. This way, players are aware of everything the other characters are doing, but characters are not necessarily. Because if the rogue is actually sneaking treasure without telling the party, then the rogue's player is guilty of being a d@#k.


Could the rogue persuade him or deceive him this is no longer necessary. Or the fighter intimidate him that they do it together?

No. No.


It seems like innocent role playing and could be abused

Yep. Which is why it shouldn't be allowed. Who wants to sit down to play D&D and find that half the time they don't even get to control their own PC because the other players keep forcing his actions?

[Regitnui]

A party working together all the time is frankly unrealistic. The PCs are different people with different views. The problem arises when the intraparty conflict trumps the plot conflict and therefore derails the campaign into squabbling.


But the topic of what it means to be offensive is pretty close to the most important conversation in contemporary North American society.

So believe me when I say that it's not the speaker who decides if what they're saying is offensive or not. The entire reason that the western world needs to have that dialogue is because the unintentional bigotry a lot of people were raised with; gays are weird, drugs are all bad, non-whites and women are lesser; has started to be called out as toxic to an inclusive society. If the dominant WHASP leaders got to decide what was offensive, there wouldn't be any of the cries for change we see today. A homphobe doesn't think being anti-LGBT is offensive. Why would they?

[DiceDiceBaby]

Well, my DM doesn't allow checks versus players. Last session, however, we did have an amusing PvP "training exercise" in which we basically fought each other 3v3 in honorable combat to "hone our skills" while being dropped to 0 HP simply resulting in a K.O.

This was loads of fun, and I recommend it for newer players who want to try out their abilities and understand them better without risking killing themselves over monsters. Ability checks, however? No dice.

[Regitnui]

Well, my DM doesn't allow checks versus players. Last session, however, we did have an amusing PvP "training exercise" in which we basically fought each other 3v3 in honorable combat to "hone our skills" while being dropped to 0 HP simply resulting in a K.O.

This was loads of fun, and I recommend it for newer players who want to try out their abilities and understand them better without risking killing themselves over monsters. Ability checks, however? No dice.

I have a gladiatorial arena in my starting town, and I actually recommend that the players take a 'tutorial level' combat in there, especially if they're new to D&D or 5e. It's also run by a LG minotaur, so no messing about.

[Talya]

PvP rolls are not OK if they're used to make characters act in ways their PC the player is uncomfortable with.

It doesn't matter if the PC is uncomfortable. Death and injury make the PCs uncomfortable, too. Roleplaying an uncomfortable PC can be fun.

However, if the player, themselves is also uncomfortable, then that can be an issue. Sometimes it's quite enjoyable imagining how your player would react to being charmed or otherwise ensorcelled, or even successfully intimidated or seduced. You know your character won't be too fond of the situation, but that doesn't mean you as a player can't enjoy it.

[SliceandDiceKid]

"The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group, cooperative experience."

-Gary Gygax

[BurgerBeast]

So believe me when I say that it's not the speaker who decides if what they're saying is offensive or not.

Forgive me for saying that I don't believe people because they tell me to. ;) [edit: but in any case I agree with this. I never meant to imply that the speaker gets to choose, and I think my answers, below, will show that]


The entire reason that the western world needs to have that dialogue is because the unintentional bigotry a lot of people were raised with; gays are weird, drugs are all bad, non-whites and women are lesser; has started to be called out as toxic to an inclusive society.

Well, that's not the entire reason. But I can go with it for the sake of this discussion. I still disagree. The reason it's not okay to perpetuate the idea that "gays are weird" is not because it hurts gay people's feelings. [edit: well, that was a mistake. Let me fix it: the reason it's not okay to perpetuate the idea that "gays are weird" is not because gays claim offence. It's because the idea is offensive. Incidentally, the hurt feelings, and moreover the fact that they're justified, are an important part of that. So I was wrong, there.]

The reason it is wrong to perpetuate the idea that "gay people are weird" is because there is no logical basis for such a claim, since there is no connection between being gay and being weird, so it's plainly wrong. It's wrong generally to promote things that are not true, and even more wrong when the ideas you are promoting can be shown to have real links to behaviours which are oppressive.

But more to the point. If you are correct, and if gays have the right to claim offence or lack of offence when a bigot opens his mouth, then what do you say if tomorrow, gay people decide that they don't feel hurt by anymore? Do you then concede that the same behaviours that were offensive yesterday are no longer offensive today? I should hope not. I know I don't.


If the dominant WHASP leaders got to decide what was offensive, there wouldn't be any of the cries for change we see today. A homphobe doesn't think being anti-LGBT is offensive. Why would they?

I think you're missing my point somewhat. When I say that the "victim" doesn't get to decide what is offensive, I am not saying that the "offender" gets to decide either. I am saying that a given behaviour can be objectively determined to be offensive or inoffensive, and neither the offender nor the victim has a right to decide. It simply is or it isn't. In other words, I think it can be objectively determined.

So, for example, we all know of people who don't mind being referred to crassly. Maybe a person doesn't mind it, but that doesn't mean it's not offensive. Likewise, sometimes people claim it is offensive to be called a "Jew" (and sometimes it is), but often it really just isn't, despite the victim's claim of offence.

This all applies to the offender, as well. You don't get to decide, by virtue of being the speaker/actor in a given instance, if what you said or did is offensive. It has to be objectively determined.

[BurgerBeast]

"The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group, cooperative experience."

-Gary Gygax

Even Gygax had the ability to be wrong. In this case, he was.

Otherwise... building a house? Roleplaying! Playing soccer? Roleplaying! Searching for a missing person? Roleplaying!... and the list goes on...

The essence of a Roleplaying Game can be found in the facts that is a Game, and that it involves role-playing. I realize that doesn't sound revolutionary. But if it's not a game, it can't be a role-playing game. There are lots of group, cooperative experiences that are not games, so that really can't be the essence of an RPG.

Exactly what role-playing is is apparently the topic of controversy, but this is less because we disagree about what RPGs actually are, and more because people arbitrarily assign weight or status to particular classifications of things.

Tell a golfer that you don't think golf is a sport, and he might get angry. The fact is, you can love golf and think that it's not a sport. Being classified as a sport does not, to my mind, give the activity that is golf any more or less value. Oddly, people seem to think it does, or at least they behave as if it does. (For the record, I do think golf is a sport, just in case anyone reads this and thinks I said it isn't.)

[Misterwhisper]

TO drift back onto the actual topic.

I was not aware that people actually played in games where people did NOT allows skill roles against party members.

This is a role playing game, you are not playing yourself, you are playing a character with their own personality and backgrounds and I would really hope that people have more of a stretch in role playing than to play someone with their own personality.

Some examples from play at the table I have been at:

Player A is playing an Assassin Rogue, criminal background, Hired Killer type.

However, he happens to have a name that is easily made fun of: His character's name is Morfun Thandil.

Player B is playing a rather jerky Bard and notices that straight away and gives him a rather funny but insulting nickname: "You are More Fun Than Dill? ... SWEET PICKLE!" and for the next 3 games player B refers to player A in character as Sweet Pickle, including introducing him to various NPCs as such.

Player A mentions IN CHARACTER that his character does not appreciate being called Sweet Pickle.
Also Player A OUT OF CHARACTER does not appreciate it either.

Now you come to an issue, which one of these things happens:

A: You are in a game where there is no PVP at all and no skill rolls can be made so Player B just goes: "Nope, I think it is funny and there is nothing you can do about it because we do not have PVP or skill checks so either put up with being called Sweet Pickle for the rest of the campaign or punk out and reroll or quit."

B: You are in a game with no PVP but their are skill rolls: Player A rolls Persuasion/Intimidate to convince Player B to stop calling him that, it would be contested, whoever wins the roll wins the argument. OR and that is a big or considering the rules are so vague, Player A wins the Intimidate/Persuasion but player B just does it anyway because there are no actual game mechanics for winning a role, only strong suggestions.

C: There is PVP allowed and Skill rolls: Player A tells Player B IN CHARACTER, "I do not think you quite understood me when I asked you to stop calling me Sweet Pickle, what I meant was, I am an assassin, and if you call me sweet pickle again, one of the nights you are not going to wake up again." now player B simply has a choice, continue being a jerk in character and probably pay for it at some point down the road or drop it.

D: There is PVP and skill rolls: Player A and B talk OUT OF CHARACTER and player A mentions that his character is getting pissed about the nickname to the point that it is about to become a physical issue in character if he keeps it up, so now Player B can decide OUT OF CHARACTER whether he wants to keep being a jerk.

E: Worst Case Scenario: Same as option A but someone gets pulled across a table and things get settled in the real world with 2 pissed off players.


EXAMPLE 2:

Player A is playing a Paladin and is very upright, just, good, and noble, meanwhile most of the rest of the party is just greedy.

The group is assigned a mission to guard the tomb of the HIGH PRIEST that founded the town years ago, that was also upright, just, good, and noble, and also happens to be the same faith as the Paladin, and the tombs of the priest's 4 fallen honor guard.

During the night the party is attacked by undead being controlled by something trying to rob the graves.

The fight is won but the top is broken on one of the crypts and when the party looks inside they see that each of the 4 fallen guards were buried with their magical weapons and armor.

The other members of the party who are pretty much CG where the G stands for Greedy see magic loot in a grave and the Paladin sees his party about to become desecrators of his church's holy heroes and also graverobbers.

So now what:

A. No Skills or PVP: most of the party just became grave robbing desecrators and the Paladin has to sit there and take it because he can not interfere, due to no skill rolls or PVP and you are almost never going to talk a group into ignoring 8 - 10 magic items.

B. No skills or PVP: The Paladin turns them all in to the church for grave robbing and dececrating a holy site and then has to reroll because his character would leave the group.

C: Same as B but the other players have to reroll because they just became criminals or evil or both

D: SKills yes but PVP no, The Paladin being very charismatic in character, with the skills and stats to back it up, convinces the group with some good skill rolls that it is not a great plan to ROB THE GRAVE OF THE HOLY HIGH PRIEST AND IS HONOR GUARD.

E: Same as D but even though skills were rolled and the Paladin won they rob it anyway because skill rolls are just a strong suggestion not a rule.

F: PVP and SKILLS: Paladin points out that he will not allow the group to ROB THE GRAVE OF THE HIGH PRIEST OF HIS CHURCH and skills are rolled and that is that

G: Same as F but the group either does not rob the tombs or they kill the Paladin and do it anyway.


Both of those examples happened at our table and what ended up happening are in the choices.

[SliceandDiceKid]

I just know that when people sit down and start squabbles in character, they usually don't get along as well out of character afterwards. No one is perfect at role-playing and it can be difficult to separate in game hostility from player interactions. You can role play your characters without undermining other people roleplaying theirs.

It's not worth losing players over in my opinion, and mostly, it isn't worth the player's or DM's time.

[BurgerBeast]

TO drift back onto the actual topic.

I was not aware that people actually played in games where people did NOT allows skill roles against party members.

This is a role playing game, you are not playing yourself, you are playing a character with their own personality and backgrounds and I would really hope that people have more of a stretch in role playing than to play someone with their own personality.

I think you're missing the point here. You can still play a character and make decisions for that character that are different than the ones you yourself would make. So if I don't think something is a big deal, I can role-play my character as if he thinks the same thing is a big deal. This isn't what is being contested. What is being contested is: can another player, by virtue of rolling the dice, force me to role-play my character in a way that I don't think my character would act?


Some examples from play at the table I have been at:

Player A is playing an Assassin Rogue, criminal background, Hired Killer type.

However, he happens to have a name that is easily made fun of: His character's name is Morfun Thandil.

Player B is playing a rather jerky Bard and notices that straight away and gives him a rather funny but insulting nickname: "You are More Fun Than Dill? ... SWEET PICKLE!" and for the next 3 games player B refers to player A in character as Sweet Pickle, including introducing him to various NPCs as such.

Player A mentions IN CHARACTER that his character does not appreciate being called Sweet Pickle.
Also Player A OUT OF CHARACTER does not appreciate it either.

There is an out of character issue here, between players. Simple: the Bard stops or the DM throws him out. Some other people might resolve it differently, and that's probably fine.


A: [no PVP, no skill rolls] Player B just goes: "Nope, I think it is funny and there is nothing you can do about it because we do not have PVP or skill checks so either put up with being called Sweet Pickle for the rest of the campaign or punk out and reroll or quit."

And then the rest of this group tells Player B that he's a d@#k and he can f@#k off. Have a nice life.


B: [no PVP, skill rolls] Player A rolls Persuasion/Intimidate to convince Player B to stop calling him that, it would be contested, whoever wins the roll wins the argument.

And now you have guaranteed that one of your players continues to play unhappily. Not acceptable. There's a social contract that goes along with the game. If you aren't willing to cooperate, you can f@#k off.


C: [PVP, Skill rolls] Player A tells Player B IN CHARACTER, "I do not think you quite understood me when I asked you to stop calling me Sweet Pickle, what I meant was, I am an assassin, and if you call me sweet pickle again, one of the nights you are not going to wake up again." now player B simply has a choice, continue being a jerk in character and probably pay for it at some point down the road or drop it.

This is fine if the gamers are mature enough to handle it, but if Player B continues, and Player A assassinates him, you've derailed the whole campaign for a bulls@#t reason. Lame.


D: [PVP, skill rolls] Player A and B talk OUT OF CHARACTER and player A mentions that his character is getting pissed about the nickname to the point that it is about to become a physical issue in character if he keeps it up, so now Player B can decide OUT OF CHARACTER whether he wants to keep being a jerk.

An angry character is not the problem. The problem is the angry player. Player A should not be saying that it's a problem that his character is angry. It's a problem that he is angry. Otherwise, the rest is fine. The two players can decide how it plays out, in character. But this is a problem that should never have happened because the players should have built party that can function together.


E: Worst Case Scenario: Same as option A but someone gets pulled across a table and things get settled in the real world with 2 pissed off players.

DM has lost control. Throw both players, or the offending party (Player B) out of the group.


EXAMPLE 2:

Player A is playing a Paladin and is very upright, just, good, and noble, meanwhile most of the rest of the party is just greedy.

Again, have a meeting to make the party before the campaign starts. Foresee this blatantly foreseeable problem. Nip it in the bud. Ask the plain to re-roll.


The group is assigned a mission to guard the tomb of the HIGH PRIEST that founded the town years ago, that was also upright, just, good, and noble, and also happens to be the same faith as the Paladin, and the tombs of the priest's 4 fallen honor guard.

The DM should foresee a problem here.


During the night the party is attacked by undead being controlled by something trying to rob the graves.

The fight is won but the top is broken on one of the crypts and when the party looks inside they see that each of the 4 fallen guards were buried with their magical weapons and armor.

The other members of the party who are pretty much CG where the G stands for Greedy see magic loot in a grave and the Paladin sees his party about to become desecrators of his church's holy heroes and also grave robbers.

The scenarios then fit essentially the same pattern. Why create this situation? Someone ends up unhappy. They only end up more unhappy if a contested roll goes against them and they are forced to play their character in a way that they don't want to.

[Regitnui]

Both of those examples, handled maturely, add to the game. The latter especially, since it's entirely in-game and in-character for there to be a conflict there. I know I would set that situation up to see how my players resolve it, without prejudicing them one way or the other. Honestly, though, a grave-robbing might be worth a blip on the alignment meter if they just steal the stuff without thinking. Also, I'd likely reward them with better stuff or a much more useful boon like getting healing and rest at any temple of that god in the country/world.

[Arial Black]

One character can certainly attack another with weapons or spells, even if both are PCs. Whether this is a good idea or not is a separate issue, and this thread is not about that.

Last week at my AL table a guy had created a 1st level rogue who had +7 Persuasion (Cha 16, Expertise). He wanted to use skill checks to force the other PCs to give him all of their money, strip naked, engage in humiliating and dangerous behavior, just for gits and shiggles. He believed that a successful Persuasion check was better than mind control and set out to abuse it. He also believed that players don't get to choose what their own character does.

Fortunately, the DM put him right.

[Regitnui]

Last week at my AL table a guy had created a 1st level rogue who had +7 Persuasion (Cha 16, Expertise). He wanted to use skill checks to force the other PCs to give him all of their money, strip naked, engage in humiliating and dangerous behavior, just for gits and shiggles. He believed that a successful Persuasion check was better than mind control and set out to abuse it. He also believed that players don't get to choose what their own character does.

Fortunately, the DM put him right.

Now that's the sort of behaviour that should be nullified. You might persuade the party to let you handle the money, but the other two are bad ideas that you can't convince someone to do IRL no matter how persuasive you are.

[Dr. Cliché]

I'd allow PvP checks for the purposes of stuff like stealth/sleight of hand vs. perception. So, if someone wants to sneak off then that'll be their stealth check vs the perception of anyone around who might notice them leave.

I'll also allow PvP checks for the purposes of combat, should it ever come for that.

Really, the only thing I will never allow PvP checks for is personality/dialogue stuff. Like, you can't make a persuasion check to convince someone of something. If you want to do that then you have to do it by speaking to them in character. Hence, I don't allow players to roll bluff, diplomacy, persuasion, sense motive or anything like that.

[djreynolds]

Obviously people take advantage of stuff. Some stuff you guys and gals are correct, it is the person and not the character.

But if you are truly invested in your character, would allow the chance to possibly be persuaded?

I mean isn't this what we are doing now. People are trying to persuade each other their view is correct. And I value everyone's opinion. I'm just asking if this could be a solution to a problem if players disagree, simply roll the dice.

[JoeJ]

Obviously people take advantage of stuff. Some stuff you guys and gals are correct, it is the person and not the character.

But if you are truly invested in your character, would allow the chance to possibly be persuaded?

I mean isn't this what we are doing now. People are trying to persuade each other their view is correct. And I value everyone's opinion. I'm just asking if this could be a solution to a problem if players disagree, simply roll the dice.

There's a difference between persuaded because of a good argument and being persuaded because you lost a die roll.

Allowing PvP social interaction is fine, and it can even be a lot of fun, but it requires the players to be willing to give up some control over their characters. In some games, such as the Dying Earth RPG, this is simply expected. In D&D, however, it's not the way most games are played. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it does mean that you should discuss it with your table before doing it, because it's possible that not everybody will want to let their character's actions be even partially determined by a die roll.

[BurgerBeast]

Both of those examples, handled maturely, add to the game... Also, I'd likely reward them with better stuff or a much more useful boon like getting healing and rest at any temple of that god in the country/world.

This comes down to combination of personal taste and the specifics of your group, but it's not to my taste. If making the "good" choice leads to material rewards, then there's no real temptation to be evil.


One character can certainly attack another with weapons or spells, even if both are PCs. Whether this is a good idea or not is a separate issue, and this thread is not about that.

This isn't necessarily as cut and dried as you might think. If a PC in my campaign decides to attack another, and absent any particular agreements beforehand, I'd stop the action right there. I'd decide for myself if I wanted to allow it first, then I'd ask the PCs involved, and then rest of the group. I'd have no problem stopping it before it started. There's just huge potential to ruin everyone's fun.


I'd allow PvP checks for the purposes of stuff like stealth/sleight of hand vs. perception. So, if someone wants to sneak off then that'll be their stealth check vs the perception of anyone around who might notice them leave.

I think that these situations are best handled where every player at the table is made completely aware of what is happening. They can then decide how to handle it in and out of character between sessions. For example: "Bobby Thiefyhands hands over the bag of gems, slyly pocketing three of them before anyone notices. They're worth about 450 gp, total."


But if you are truly invested in your character, would allow the chance to possibly be persuaded?

I mean isn't this what we are doing now. People are trying to persuade each other their view is correct. And I value everyone's opinion. I'm just asking if this could be a solution to a problem if players disagree, simply roll the dice.

Bingo. But in the end it has to be your (the player of the particular character's) choice.

[BurgerBeast]

There's a difference between persuaded because of a good argument and being persuaded because you lost a die roll.

Allowing PvP social interaction is fine, and it can even be a lot of fun, but it requires the players to be willing to give up some control over their characters. In some games, such as the Dying Earth RPG, this is simply expected. In D&D, however, it's not the way most games are played. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it does mean that you should discuss it with your table before doing it, because it's possible that not everybody will want to let their character's actions be even partially determined by a die roll.

For the most part this reasoning makes perfect sense. Yet, for the me, the problem becomes one of consistency. I played a session recently where the PCs were confronted by a druid and his forest-flavoured henchmen. The PCs had prior knowledge that there were two sects of druids in the forest, one good and one evil. As the druid suggested a course of action, the party broke into a side-conversation over "whether they should trust him."

To me, having the autonomy to make this choice is crucial to the role-playing experience. If I had called for everyone to roll a sense motive versus the druid's persuasion (or if I had rolled behind the screen), and then said: "Alex, you trust him, Betty, you think he's being manipulative, and Carol, you also think he's trustworthy"... to my taste that somewhat robs them of the ability to make decisions for themselves. The story essentially just happens to them, and they act it out. In my view, it is integral to the role-playing experience that players have the opportunity to make choices that have real consequences.

If I won't "take over the minds" of the PCs in a situation like that, then I see no reason to let other PCs take over the minds of PCs, either.

[djreynolds]

There's a difference between persuaded because of a good argument and being persuaded because you lost a die roll.

Allowing PvP social interaction is fine, and it can even be a lot of fun, but it requires the players to be willing to give up some control over their characters. In some games, such as the Dying Earth RPG, this is simply expected. In D&D, however, it's not the way most games are played. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it does mean that you should discuss it with your table before doing it, because it's possible that not everybody will want to let their character's actions be even partially determined by a die roll.


For the most part this reasoning makes perfect sense. Yet, for the me, the problem becomes one of consistency. I played a session recently where the PCs were confronted by a druid and his forest-flavoured henchmen. The PCs had prior knowledge that there were two sects of druids in the forest, one good and one evil. As the druid suggested a course of action, the party broke into a side-conversation over "whether they should trust him."

To me, having the autonomy to make this choice is crucial to the role-playing experience. If I had called for everyone to roll a sense motive versus the druid's persuasion (or if I had rolled behind the screen), and then said: "Alex, you trust him, Betty, you think he's being manipulative, and Carol, you also think he's trustworthy"... to my taste that somewhat robs them of the ability to make decisions for themselves. The story essentially just happens to them, and they act it out. In my view, it is integral to the role-playing experience that players have the opportunity to make choices that have real consequences.

If I won't "take over the minds" of the PCs in a situation like that, then I see no reason to let other PCs take over the minds of PCs, either.

It could be interesting to allow the character to sort play themselves though.

I think it is great for someone playing sorcerer or barbarian to be play headstrong, and perhaps the fighter or paladin are more reserved. And when these personalities clash, which is the fun part of the game, it adds another element.

"hey Joe the paladin, we are going against your advice and are going to attack" says Sue the sorcerer.

"Well Sue at least let me try to persuade you this is the wrong tactic" says Joe.

And they roll, and Sue wins and the party attacks head on. It doesn't happen every time a decision is made, but PCs are stuck could they not roll to resolve this.

This way it isn't one real person vs one real person's opinion, but you are acting through your character, and all his strengths and flaws and not yours as the person.

I see BurgerBeast's position about autonomy and how vital it is to the game. But we choose races and classes and alignments that may not all get along, which is fun. But imagine having to do something really perilous in real life, you may have a moment of pause, and it takes something more to get you to act. It could be a lie that you are going to be all right and you are going to make it out alive.

[Regitnui]

This comes down to combination of personal taste and the specifics of your group, but it's not to my taste. If making the "good" choice leads to material rewards, then there's no real temptation to be evil.

Well, you don't tell them about the alternate reward, of course. The point of putting your players in that situation is that they're tempted. They steal the relics, they don't get the reward of goodwill across the country. In fact, they never know about the possibility of the second reward, just because they didn't qualify. Essentially, the DM says "The tomb cracked open and you see the relics of the saints inside." The players then decide whether or not on their won to steal them. If they leave the relics alone and the questgiver knows it, they get the alternate reward.

A good DM never puts all her cards in front of the players, even out of session.

[Knaight]

There are games which are actually designed to have social conflicts in which the PCs can suffer losses and it can meaningfully affect them. With one of those games, if you're down with inter party conflict to begin with, I say go for it. With D&D, not so much. It just isn't designed for it, and the rules framework just isn't there.

[djreynolds]

There are games which are actually designed to have social conflicts in which the PCs can suffer losses and it can meaningfully affect them. With one of those games, if you're down with inter party conflict to begin with, I say go for it. With D&D, not so much. It just isn't designed for it, and the rules framework just isn't there.

There was another thread, I think it was "Alignment and Annihilation" and the poor OP has players doing as they please. And its tough because half the game is cooperation and/or compromise. And aside from quitting the game or booting someone, this seemed like a possible solution. Players could do rock, paper, scissors. But this seemed an interesting alternative.

[Dr. Cliché]

I think that these situations are best handled where every player at the table is made completely aware of what is happening. They can then decide how to handle it in and out of character between sessions. For example: "Bobby Thiefyhands hands over the bag of gems, slyly pocketing three of them before anyone notices. They're worth about 450 gp, total."

I disagree. The whole point is that (for better or worse) one player is doing stuff behind the others' backs. They shouldn't automatically know what he's doing because it encourages metagaming.