I am a horrible monster because I didn't let a player control another PC

[clockworkjoe]

Ah, this one is an interesting problem that's come up several times for me.

What I tend to do is to offer the player who has been "convinced" a reward/penalty depending on whether they go along with it. I tend to run FATE or Storyteller most often, so this reward/penalty comes in the form of FATE points or Willpower. Going along with a solid, logical argument is easier than fighting it, so they gain willpower/FATE. Fighting it is mentally exhausting, and often leaves someone doubting themselves, so it costs willpower/FATE.

I find it's a great middle-road option. The target feels a strong incentive to go along with what they've been told, while not being forced into any action. It lets the persuader feel like they've done something, even if the person disagrees.

Not sure what a good equivalent would be in Wild Talents? Maybe some temporary bonus dice that can be used on any roll in the near future or something? Or some Willpower? Don't they have something similar in WT?

Thoughts on this idea?

I've thought of this and might use it sometimes but this was a con game (so exp/rewards won't matter) with strangers, near the end of a session. Plus, as mentioned before it was a life or death decision.  I let them roleplay it out but it comes down to:

1. Let a PC dictate someone else's decision with a skill check
2. Let the PC make a social skill check but have it be meaningless (I think just saying 'oh well he is persuasive' is a bit of a cop out)
3. Let the players control their own PC.

[robotkarateman]

You contradict yourself here.

I fail to see how. Using persuasion successfully does not mean mind control.

[Setherick]

You contradict yourself here.

I fail to see how. Using persuasion successfully does not mean mind control.

If you're using a skill to get someone to do something that they've already claimed they will not do, it's tantamount to mind control.

[robotkarateman]

If you're using a skill to get someone to do something that they've already claimed they will not do, it's tantamount to mind control.

You should re-read my first post. I never said a successful roll would "get someone to do something". In fact, I stated the opposite.

[Setherick]

If you're using a skill to get someone to do something that they've already claimed they will not do, it's tantamount to mind control.

You should re-read my first post. I never said a successful roll would "get someone to do something". In fact, I stated the opposite.

Ah, I must have had misread it. I was at a noisy cafe earlier doing work and replied from there.

[ArtfulShrapnel]

Ah, this one is an interesting problem that's come up several times for me.

What I tend to do is to offer the player who has been "convinced" a reward/penalty depending on whether they go along with it. I tend to run FATE or Storyteller most often, so this reward/penalty comes in the form of FATE points or Willpower. Going along with a solid, logical argument is easier than fighting it, so they gain willpower/FATE. Fighting it is mentally exhausting, and often leaves someone doubting themselves, so it costs willpower/FATE.

I've thought of this and might use it sometimes but this was a con game (so exp/rewards won't matter) with strangers, near the end of a session. Plus, as mentioned before it was a life or death decision.  I let them roleplay it out but it comes down to:

1. Let a PC dictate someone else's decision with a skill check
2. Let the PC make a social skill check but have it be meaningless (I think just saying 'oh well he is persuasive' is a bit of a cop out)
3. Let the players control their own PC.

Indeed, it really does boil down to those 3. What sucks is that they all have a problem from one perspective or another. The person with the high social skill hates option 3, the person being controlled hates option 1, and nobody really likes option 2 because it's a cop out. (as you so well put it)

My reasoning behind the point thing is that it amounts to the "best in my opinion" option (let people control their characters) while using a little bit of psychology to make everyone happy.

The aggressor gets to feel as though they exerted some control, even if it did not produce the desired outcome. The removal of a "point" (or willpower or whatever) still registers in the aggressor's mind as a loss to the defender. That loss means that the aggressor has won by an equal degree, because the defender was punished for disagreeing with them. If the defender took the points and went along, then the aggressor is going to be happy because they got their way.

Either way, the defender feels they have been given a choice, with costs and benefits that they got to weigh.  If they stay their course, they get a tangible marker of the difficulty of wrestling with a difficult decision, while still maintaining their own story and control of their character. The loss is there, but it is acceptable from their perspective or they would not have taken it. If they take the payoff and change their minds, they feel they have been rewarded for their good roleplaying, even if they would have fought the compulsion ordinarily.

The GM is happy because nobody is pitching a fit and posting unpleasant ranty journals.

At least this is how it's played out with my groups. The interesting part I've found is that bribing people with willpower, bonus dice, or similar... it still works, even if they won't ever come into play! Even in the final moments of a game, when all the important rolls have been made, people still covet those bonus points. It's that weird human psychology thing acting up again I think.

[Abub]

Basically I would have the player role just to see if the target player should consider the persuasiveness of the character.  But NO that would not equate to control... just like a role playing hint for the target player.

[malyss]

End of the day, I agree with Ross' call.

Role-playing, as it was originally intended, is not competitive between players. Role-playing is supposed to be cooperative, for the collective enjoyment of all, players and GM alike.

That said, I have had people I game with give their characters really high bluff/sense skills to prevent their characters from believing, or making other characters believe, what their character is saying. The player may know, but their character shouldn't, and therefore they should not take action on information they don't rightly have. You can't always stop it, but it is easier to remind them that they are acting on information the PC doesn't have.

Some players will always use fire on a troll, regardless of whether their character has ever even heard of one or not. It would be a stretch to call those players "good role-players."

[ArtfulShrapnel]

End of the day, I agree with Ross' call.

Role-playing, as it was originally intended, is not competitive between players. Role-playing is supposed to be cooperative, for the collective enjoyment of all, players and GM alike.

That said, I have had people I game with give their characters really high bluff/sense skills to prevent their characters from believing, or making other characters believe, what their character is saying. The player may know, but their character shouldn't, and therefore they should not take action on information they don't rightly have. You can't always stop it, but it is easier to remind them that they are acting on information the PC doesn't have.

Some players will always use fire on a troll, regardless of whether their character has ever even heard of one or not. It would be a stretch to call those players "good role-players."

Agreed. If it came down to a call one way or the other, it's not a competition. If someone insists that another player must suffer so they can "win", then I will rule against them.

Oh the metagamers. I still don't know how to handle this one. When the person lights the troll on fire... it's not like it's a BAD idea, or an idea the character couldn't have come up with randomly. But everyone there knows it's because trolls are weak against fire. So what's a DM to do? Tell them "no"? Ask them to change their minds?

I usually settle for giving them a disapproving look and letting it go.

On the super obvious ones, things that are counter-intuitive or very obscure, I'll call their bluff and ask them to make a knowledge/idea/outhink roll to use that tactic, otherwise they need to play it as their character would.

[clockworkjoe]

I do let PCs lie to one another with bluff type skills and I have prevented players from acting on out of character knowledge because of successful bluff checks.  So PCs can use certain social skills against each other - just not the outright diplomacy 'do what I say' type skills.

[Wooberman]

I do let PCs lie to one another with bluff type skills and I have prevented players from acting on out of character knowledge because of successful bluff checks.  So PCs can use certain social skills against each other - just not the outright diplomacy 'do what I say' type skills.

Thats what "Charm person" and "Dominate Person" is for!

I'm with you Ross, PC's are not like the plebian populus of a game world and are not subject to the same restrictions/vulnerabilities. Personally I let my players use Bluff and sense motive/Insight/Bullshit Detector etc but thats the limit.

[Boyos]

I fully understand why ross did it, like he said it was just a con game and we all know from listing to the new world campain you'll let your players do what ever they want. So I fully side with ross on this, it was the right way to handel it, I was just offering a diffrent prespective for the future.

[Kroack]

The guy's review was pretty favorable in reality, but yeah. If you roleplay your argument, like he did, and after you roleplay it you have to use some dice mechanic to persuade other pcs then your opinion or solution is not good enough anyways.

Also he totally contradicts himself by saying he felt like his own free will was crushed when he wanted to do the same thing to another player.   

[clockworkjoe]

The discussion on that blog is still ongoing - even got rob from bearswarm talking about it.

I posted this there

I have the entire game recorded so I guess I will have to post it so you guys can decide for yourselves.

Personally, I believe that RPGs are best when players can make interesting choices in a story. For me that means that I try to minimize any outside influences. I don’t want players making decisions because of some meta-game reason. I hate the idea that someone might make a major decision because “oh well, I want to do X but I know I should do Y because the GM really wants me to do Y.” I want players to make a decision because they feel that’s the choice their character would make. So to even exert some pressure on a player because of a persuasion skill roll would be outside my bounds as a GM. I try to respect the PCs agency in games.

[Avoozel]

This question is really telling about the type of GM who is running the game.   Should a player's character be able to over-ride other player's choices by using a "social" skill in-character?   Should a player's character's social skills inform other players as to the level of persuasiveness or an argument?

I would say No and No, to each of these questions.   

To the first question: I am in the camp that believes that, short of supernatural intervention, a the character's player is in control of that character's choices.   It's bad enough getting players to go along with scenarios that involve them getting captured or losing any sort of physical control over their character's destiny.   Say the party captures a baddie and the everyone in the party says that the prisoner should be tortured except for my character.   As a player, I would probably flip out if I was in a game, playing pacifist-type who was protecting a prisoner and another player rolled a persuade skill and the GM had my character go along with, or even happily step aside from the situation.   This is because it is important to me that my character to be presented in the story as I intend.   Which leads me to my next question!

So, if a player makes their social skill roll and gets a high result, but the player is essentially saying "Go, hit thing with rock! Make it smash!" can the GM turn to the players and say "So-and-So makes a good argument to make smash with rocks."   The opposite of this is if a player makes an argument that would make Daniel Webster weep somberly, and then completely fluffs his roll, does the GM turn to the players and say "So-and-So sounds like a jerk and you hate his face for what he just said." (After all, a lot of games impose negative reactions on badly failed reaction/influence rolls.)   Neither of these scenarios really would sit well with me.   There's also the argument that a highly persuasive character on paper, with a dunce player, (just like a highly intelligent character, or a lawyer with high law skills) is supposed to have a character with the ability to make highly persuasive arguments.   Well, this is true, the character's skills allow them to have a great effect in the context of the game, on the NPCs.   This way a lot of abstraction can be had to keep things flowing.   I, personally, do not want to sit down and have a GM role-play out a character persuading 40 people, in real time, with another player.   Have you watched a town hall on CNN?   I shudder thinking about it.   So, yes, the dunce player, with the highly intelligent, persuasive super-lawyer can make amazing arguments and defenses as described by the GM and as they effect the NPCs and story accordingly... NOT the other players' characters (unless a player decides to change their character's mind.)

So says me.

And, who thinks the next episode of BearSwarm is going to cover social skills affecting players? Hands?