Follow up to "How to react to this house rule"

[Boci]

So a while ago I made this thread about a new DM allowing persuasion to be used between PCs and requiering that the character persuaded do what was suggested to them: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?571842-How-to-react-to-this-house-rule

Just an update: We've played twice since then (busy schedules, what you gonna do?). I didn't mention anything during the first sessions afterwards, there wasn't a good time to bring it up, but shortly into last session, the party once again had a disagreement. Having just hit level 3, my warlock had chosen pact of chains and wanted to retreat middungeon run to get the components to cast Find Familiar. The rest of the party didn't, since the dungeon included an armed group who could use the time to better prepare. The DM initially said I would need to persuade each party member indevidual, but when I pointed out that he had previously allowed one persuasion check for multiple people he was going to allow me to try and roll. I then told him alot of groups don't allow the perusasion checks on party members, and he agreed that we would adopt that rule. My character reluctantly waited until the dungeon was over to summon her new familiar (leading to jokes such as "Once you've killed 3 redbrands you can get your psudodragon, but not before").

To address the side issue from the previous thread, the cleric seems fine with it all. We also aren't sharing loot equally, its grabbers keepers, since that's more realistic for a group of stranger who end up working together through circumstance rather than by a proper agreement. The cleric had been pretty unlucky on this, as can happen when your first instinct upon clearing a dungeon is to help the defencless and penniless prisoners, rather than making a beeline for that alchemy lab and grabbing everything valuable there. I asked the cleric OOC if they were okay with this, and they said it was fine.

Thank you everyone who tried to help and took the time to comment on the origional thread.

[Pex]

Persuasion on party members and treasure is grabber keepers instead of giving it to who can use it best/need it most/someone's behind in treasure/who wants roll off it's party treasure because we all participated.

Count me as happy I'm not in this group.

[Man_Over_Game]

As a DM, I'll occasionally allow players to conflict against one another, with my say-so.

But with it, I also should mention that I use Inspiration, a lot, for instances when players do something that is actually problematic towards the group's mission.

For example, the Barbarian sees his mortal enemy and gives up the group's position, Inspiration. The Wizard talks down to the group's benefactor, Inspiration.

In this example, I'd reward it in one of two ways:

Warlock vs. Cleric:

The Cleric obeys: Cleric gets the Inspiration to be used on anything
The Cleric wins the contest: The Cleric gets Inspiration to be used out of combat.
The Warlock wins the contest but the Cleric disobeys: The Warlock gets Inspiration to be used on anything.

This way, nobody gets punished, but obeying where the dice falls may lead to something working out in someone's favor.

[Hail Tempus]

Persuasion on party members and treasure is grabber keepers instead of giving it to who can use it best/need it most/someone's behind in treasure/who wants roll off it's party treasure because we all participated.

Count me as happy I'm not in this group. No kidding, this sounds like a high-drama toxic group.

[Pex]

As a DM, I'll occasionally allow players to conflict against one another, with my say-so.

But with it, I also should mention that I use Inspiration, a lot, for instances when players do something that is actually problematic towards the group's mission.

For example, the Barbarian sees his mortal enemy and gives up the group's position, Inspiration. The Wizard talks down to the group's benefactor, Inspiration.

In this example, I'd reward it in one of two ways:

Warlock vs. Cleric:

The Cleric obeys: Cleric gets the Inspiration to be used on anything
The Cleric wins the contest: The Cleric gets Inspiration to be used out of combat.
The Warlock wins the contest but the Cleric disobeys: The Warlock gets Inspiration to be used on anything.

This way, nobody gets punished, but obeying where the dice falls may lead to something working out in someone's favor.

That encourages players to disrupt the game. This is how "I'm just doing what my character would do" excuse for jerk behavior is learned.

Once in a blue moon a player overreacts by emotion of the moment being really into character, fine. It's an Honest True response of the player not thinking. There's fun in that. When it's a deliberate intent to make things go wrong, the game is ruined.

It almost happened in my last game. A friend of the DM joined in just for the one shot. He played the specter spirit of a cursed NPC killed last session traveling with us. We had to get the weapon that killed him to raise him and rescue his kidnapped son. We needed to get by Yuanti guards. The warlock disguised herself and with Actor feat was able to impersonate an important Yuanti we killed the previous session. My barbarian and the fighter were his muscle. The other party members pretended to be prisoner slaves. With roleplaying and some Persuasion rolls we got past the guards. Just as we were about to leave the specter player says "I'm bored so I make some noise to attract attention". Fortunately the DM didn't let the situation go south and we were able to leave without a fight or any suspicion, but I swear if a combat did break out blowing our cover I would have attacked the specter and I would have clearly said why I don't care if the player would have been upset. My "I'm just roleplaying" excuse would be I'm pretending to be the muscle of our Yuanti boss and attacking the intruder along with the guards.

[ImproperJustice]

Reading this, thinking about our group that functions as a formal company, with members signing on for tours of duty.
All treasure shared equally and magic items are distributed to those most in need, and returned to the “armory” when not in use.
Leaders are elected during downtime.
We have a Diplomacy Leader, Battle Commander, Quartermaster, and Arbiter of Disputes.

Benefits include a group fund for medical treatment, ressurections, transportation and lodging.
We also have a great vengeance plan, should you unduly assassinated while on the job.

Very different gaming style.
We are mostly Grognards with a few young players.
I wonder what the dynamics of this group are?

[Malifice]

If you play with adults then they should be simply expected to roleplay the effects of a high Persuasion check on them.

Otherwise they're **** players.

Grabbers keepers is a terrible rule and it should be avoided. Massive potential for conflict.

[8wGremlin]

Wow. That seems really bad.

You could show them the error of their ways.
Get a level in Rogue take expertise in Persuasion. Hex them targeting wisdom.
Then persuade them that they should give you all the treasure. You can then dole out the items as you see fit.

[Mad_Saulot]

Allowing persuasion to remove player agency is insane and I would never allow it, in the case of npc's using pursuassion or intimidate we roleplay it through descriptive narration, but even then there are limits to how much a DM can alter a players mind short of enchantment magic. If I were playing in such a game I'd make sure I had maxed saves against influence and have maxed persuasion and intimidation myself so that my player at least couldnt be easily influenced, but more than likely id avoid joining such a group.

Player agency is too important to mess with.

[Boci]

Very different gaming style.
We are mostly Grognards with a few young players.
I wonder what the dynamics of this group are?

Right now we're just a group of strangers who ended up together by chance rather than formal agreement. We don't even share the same motivations. Me and the barbarian want to destroy a criminal gang due to each of us having history with them, the cleric wants to reclaim a holy shrine/temple of his deity, whilst the ranger is looking for allies to take out a dragon. We just happened to find ourselves in a troublesome area and are sticking together because its dangerous to go alone.

As the adventure progresses I imagine the alliance will become more solid, and we will eventually start splitting loot equally. Likely this will become a tradition when we get our first big haul of treasure, up until we've been finding bits and bobs that the finder can bag for themselves.


Wow. That seems really bad.

You could show them the error of their ways.
Get a level in Rogue take expertise in Persuasion. Hex them targeting wisdom.
Then persuade them that they should give you all the treasure. You can then dole out the items as you see fit.



Allowing persuasion to remove player agency is insane and I would never allow it, in the case of npc's using pursuassion or intimidate we roleplay it through descriptive narration, but even then there are limits to how much a DM can alter a players mind short of enchantment magic. If I were playing in such a game I'd make sure I had maxed saves against influence and have maxed persuasion and intimidation myself so that my player at least couldnt be easily influenced, but more than likely id avoid joining such a group.

Player agency is too important to mess with.

We're not using that anymore. The DM ruled so the first time it came up, but the second time, when I mentioned how most groups do it, he agreed it should be left up to the player to decide how their character responds to the argument, rather than requiring them to agree with the higher persuasion result.


Grabbers keepers is a terrible rule and it should be avoided. Massive potential for conflict.

As a general rule sure, but it seems to be working well for us.

[BobZan]

Everytime I play, when the group meets for adventure I'm the one who says: "Hey, since we're together for the mission, we should share everything we end up finding"

Hate Grabbers Keepers.

[NRSASD]

@Improper Justice: Yep, that's how I do it too. We have a code; so when it gets violated for in-character reasons, this leads to merciless quips of "They're more just guidelines anyways".

@Boci: So long as you're having fun, that sounds fine to me! I personally would never use persuasion on a PC, for the same reason I would never have an NPC use persuasion on a PC; it takes away the player's agency.

Regarding the Grabbers Keepers rule, it's fine if everyone agrees to it ahead of time. Just be warned that if you aren't careful, your party members might start booby-trapping their gear to explode pickpockets. Like mine did.

[KorvinStarmast]

I personally would never use persuasion on a PC, for the same reason I would never have an NPC use persuasion on a PC; it takes away the player's agency. Good point. I like to remind our group that ability checks are not magical spells. They are a supplement to role playing and moving the adventure forward and trying to do cool stuff.

That said, if the players agree to a contest (opposed ability check) then they need to abide by the agreed terms of the contest. That's covered in the rules.

[Hail Tempus]

If you play with adults then they should be simply expected to roleplay the effects of a high Persuasion check on them.

Otherwise they're **** players.

Grabbers keepers is a terrible rule and it should be avoided. Massive potential for conflict. I disagree strongly. Other players don't get to tell me how my character will act.

Players are supposed to resolve decisions among themselves. Giving high Charisma PCs the ability to override player agency will inevitably create a toxic environment at the table.

[Laserlight]

Grabbers Keepers, eh? Do you find people stop fighting to go open a chest while the enemy is still attacking? That's what we got when we did things that way, back in the early days.

Fortunately gold is a lot less important in 5e than in some earlier editions, and most of the players at our table don't really care about it. Generally, if someone goes off on his own (ie the rogue during downtime), what he gets is his. Otherwise it goes into the group treasury and I maintain that as a document in our group Facebook files (at this moment we have 1741gp, 60sp, and 5 gems at 500gp each, not counting the cleric's emergency diamonds).

In our current party, everyone knew each other from the start, but we also did it that way in our SKT party which was a bunch of psychos and misfits who happened to run into each other along the way and stayed together for no plausible reason at all.


.

[OverLordOcelot]

That said, if the players agree to a contest (opposed ability check) then they need to abide by the agreed terms of the contest. That's covered in the rules.

What would even be the opposing ability here? Persuasion doesn't normally have one, and I can't see what's sensible there. And what are the terms of the contest? I would expect, the greedy player to suggest something like "If I win I get all of the loot, if you win we distribute it equally," when a more even split would be 'If you win you get all of the loot, if I win the party other than you splits this loot, and we take anything we want from what you're carrying". People who want to pull this kind of thing will usually balk if they have to actually risk something instead of getting 'heads I win big, tails we split evenly'.

I don't see any motive for the person who didn't optimize for persuasion to accept the contest in the first place, and I really suspect that if it became an even contest with matching outcomes the persuasion-optimizer would stay well away from agreeing too.

[OverLordOcelot]

If you play with adults then they should be simply expected to roleplay the effects of a high Persuasion check on them.

"Boy you are really good at talking, and I can't refute your arguments on the fly, but I'm not so stupid that I'm just going to give you all of the loot." is the effect of rolling non-terribly on a persuasion check to get someone to do something they're not going to be persuaded to do in the first place. Social skills just aren't magical mind control powers. If you're a salesman and come to my door, you might convince me to talk to you or to buy something from you, but you're not going to convince me to hand you my car keys.

[Boci]

@Boci: So long as you're having fun, that sounds fine to me! I personally would never use persuasion on a PC, for the same reason I would never have an NPC use persuasion on a PC; it takes away the player's agency.

That's been dropped. The DM ruled it would work the first time, but the second time it was about to happen, adopted the "no persuasion on PCs" rule when I mentioned it to them.


Regarding the Grabbers Keepers rule, it's fine if everyone agrees to it ahead of time. Just be warned that if you aren't careful, your party members might start booby-trapping their gear to explode pickpockets. Like mine did.

Grabbers keepers and pickpocketing a party member are two very different things.


Grabbers Keepers, eh? Do you find people stop fighting to go open a chest while the enemy is still attacking? That's what we got when we did things that way, back in the early days.

No, we're not stupid about it. As long as enemies are alieve we focus on killing/subdueing them, and even once they are defeated, its not a mad rush to the treasure chests, just, a question of priorities and luck. The cleric went to save the prisoners, whilst my character went for the alchemy lab. In another encounter, my character stayed at the doorway, not particularly wanting to enter, as the enemies had been members of the criminal gang who had previously wanted to do horrible things to her, and so the barbarian got to scoop up the valuables on the table.


What would even be the opposing ability here? Persuasion doesn't normally have one, and I can't see what's sensible there. And what are the terms of the contest? I would expect, the greedy player to suggest something like "If I win I get all of the loot, if you win we distribute it equally," when a more even split would be 'If you win you get all of the loot, if I win the party other than you splits this loot, and we take anything we want from what you're carrying". People who want to pull this kind of thing will usually balk if they have to actually risk something instead of getting 'heads I win big, tails we split evenly'.

That's not how it happened in the game so far. The disagreement was over marching order (my uninjured, but poorly armoured young teenager vs. the injured, but better armoured adult cleric of Helm), and then over whether or not we should retreat to town so my character could summon a familiar.

[Ganymede]

DMs are only supposed to call for checks when the outcome of an action is in doubt (in other words, when the DM decides an action is neither guaranteed to succeed or fail). When it comes to how a PC reacts to diplomacy, sabre rattling, etc., the outcome is never in doubt: whatever the PC decides to do is the outcome.

If we get into the world of letting PCs influence other PCs with high Persuade checks, we're also in the world of the DM deciding that such attempts automatically succeed (given the circumstances) and unilaterally deciding how PCs behave.

What positive outcome could this possibly serve?


I disagree strongly. Other players don't get to tell me how my character will act.

Players are supposed to resolve decisions among themselves. Giving high Charisma PCs the ability to override player agency will inevitably create a toxic environment at the table.

While I agree with this in a general sense, I do support the noting of the DM insisting on a coin flip when the party cannot decide on a course of action together and consensus is integral to moving the game along.

[Boci]

DMs are only supposed to call for checks when the outcome of an action is in doubt (in other words, when the DM decides an action is neither guaranteed to succeed or fail). When it comes to how a PC reacts to diplomacy, sabre rattling, etc., the outcome is never in doubt: whatever the PC decides to do is the outcome.

If we get into the world of letting PCs influence other PCs with high Persuade checks, we're also in the world of the DM deciding that such attempts automatically succeed (given the circumstances) and unilaterally deciding how PCs behave.

What positive outcome could this possibly serve?

The DM has changed their mind to not allow persuasion checks to work on PCs, as I mentioned in the OP, so I'm not too sure how relevant such questions are to this thread, since the matter is sorted for our group.