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

[Sean-o-tron]

BEE TEE DUB
GIVE US A VIDCAST YOU HANDSOME FUCK

[Boyos]

Order66 we need a picture of you now.

Anyway, here's a solution, let him roll it. Then have him roleplay it and the other player can decide whether or not he's persuaded. The same could be applied to bluffing, because sometimes players can use meta-knowledge to take decision their character would never take.

So Ross, next time to you see him, punch him in the mouth and tell him "It's Payton with an A, asshole."

no i am done with this thing known as rppr i am not taking 2 hours out of my day to listen to people play D&D

regards

And there was much rejoicing. (Yaay!)

Ahh ignore it and it will go away is working don't quote it.

I can see where the player is comming from, he should have been able to make the roll. As the dm you convay to the other players that he is convincing but you still have free will to do what you want. You get the same result  and both sides are happy. But if he demanded afterwards that everyone agree to his idea and they now did what he wanted then that would be wrong.

[ShotgunSurgeon]

Hmmm... I took another look at the article. I think one of my major bones is actually the feedback from his con-buddy James. His explanation implies that the ruling was a way to roadblock less responsible players that would abuse persuasion tests. There also is the implication that Aron is an exception that was inadvertently caught by the rule.

My response to that would be: What was the intent (i.e. end goal) of the roll? Based on the article, the intent was to win a player over to his side. I'm not sure how this differs from a less responsible player simply commanding PCs through persuasion checks.

The comparison of a persuasion action to other character actions (shooting a gun, running away, etc.) also seems a bit misguided. The major issue in play is the violation of a player being able to control the choices of his character... It doesn't look like Ross was saying "Your character can't attempt to persuade the other characters" but "You can't use a persuasion test to determine whether other players follow you." Seems fair to me.

As an aside, I like the FunnyBooks podcast. It's not RPPR, but it's pretty good compared to some of the other comic podcasts out there.

[ristarr]

I wonder how his character would feel if an NPC made a persuade roll to convince him to do something?  Especially a suicide mission.

[robotkarateman]

First, I disagree with his assumption that a successful persuasion roll would "win them over to his side." That's not persuasion, that's mind control. Persuasion doesn't work that way.

However, I would've let him make the roll with a negative because he's already stated his case and been rejected, now he's fighting an uphill battle. If he was successful in the followup, then I, as GM, would state to the party, "Well, he does have a point", and let them debate it from there.

But he wouldn't have "won them over" simply because he made a persuasion roll, which is what it sounds like he wanted to do.

[Tadanori Oyama]

But he wouldn't have "won them over" simply because he made a persuasion roll, which is what it sounds like he wanted to do.

I like that approach. There's also the matter of scale, which just dawned on me. In this game he was trying to convince the other guys to die as heroes by destorying the machine. Heroic sure but still suicide.

Even most mind control power have the little note at the end that you can't use them to make suicidal commands.

[Setherick]

First, I disagree with his assumption that a successful persuasion roll would "win them over to his side." That's not persuasion, that's mind control. Persuasion doesn't work that way.

However, I would've let him make the roll with a negative because he's already stated his case and been rejected, now he's fighting an uphill battle. If he was successful in the followup, then I, as GM, would state to the party, "Well, he does have a point", and let them debate it from there.

But he wouldn't have "won them over" simply because he made a persuasion roll, which is what it sounds like he wanted to do.

You contradict yourself here. Either you cannot mind control another player or you should be allowed to use your skills on another player.

I'm a fierce defender of player rights at the table because nothing ruins a game faster than letting players use non-combat skills on other players. It also takes out must of the dynamism of a game because the player with the highest non-com skills will always dominate a game.

(Also, if you're not a good negotiator in person, you can't use your imaginary skills to compensate for your lack of real ones.)

[Tadanori Oyama]

(Also, if you're not a good negotiator in person, you can't use your imaginary skills to compensate for your lack of real ones.)

I perfer to think of it as "If you don't have a good position to negotiate from than you can't compensate with your skills."

[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 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?

[Boyos]

Maybe get like 2 circumstances dice if they do what the presuader suggested they do. I could see that working, if you dont do it you dont get the circumstances dice. If the player fails his presuade check then if somone sides with him they get a Neg 1 circumstances dice.

[Setherick]

(Also, if you're not a good negotiator in person, you can't use your imaginary skills to compensate for your lack of real ones.)

I perfer to think of it as "If you don't have a good position to negotiate from than you can't compensate with your skills."

I've convinced other players to go along with some crazy shit in the past without a good position to negotiate from.  

[ArtfulShrapnel]

Maybe get like 2 circumstances dice if they do what the presuader suggested they do. I could see that working, if you dont do it you dont get the circumstances dice. If the player fails his presuade check then if somone sides with him they get a Neg 1 circumstances dice.

If they fail their persuade, I just say nothing happens. Shouldn't penalize someone for having the same opinion as someone with a cruddy roll.

Perhaps the number of circumstance die up for grabs is equal to the width of their argument roll?

[Tadanori Oyama]

(Also, if you're not a good negotiator in person, you can't use your imaginary skills to compensate for your lack of real ones.)

I perfer to think of it as "If you don't have a good position to negotiate from than you can't compensate with your skills."

I've convinced other players to go along with some crazy shit in the past without a good position to negotiate from.  

I'm sure you have. I don't think you had to roll for it, you just turned on that old wise teacher charisma. Like Yoda.

[Setherick]

(Also, if you're not a good negotiator in person, you can't use your imaginary skills to compensate for your lack of real ones.)

I perfer to think of it as "If you don't have a good position to negotiate from than you can't compensate with your skills."

I've convinced other players to go along with some crazy shit in the past without a good position to negotiate from.  

I'm sure you have. I don't think you had to roll for it, you just turned on that old wise teacher charisma. Like Yoda.

Teacher of rhetoric, football coach, improv actor, trained public speaker...I have some interesting bonuses to my natural persuade.

Most recently, though, I've become absolutely convinced you can persuade anyone (with a Western mindset at least) to do anything by using fear and resentment. Perhaps resentment, even more than fear, is the best form of persuasion.

"See that guy with the cookie? See how much he enjoys that cookie? How does it make you feel that you don't have that cookie? What would you be willing to do to get that cookie? Would you be willing to slay that Terrasque for that cookie? He really, really likes that cookie and you don't have one to enjoy."

[Boyos]

Maybe get like 2 circumstances dice if they do what the presuader suggested they do. I could see that working, if you dont do it you dont get the circumstances dice. If the player fails his presuade check then if somone sides with him they get a Neg 1 circumstances dice.

If they fail their persuade, I just say nothing happens. Shouldn't penalize someone for having the same opinion as someone with a cruddy roll.

Perhaps the number of circumstance die up for grabs is equal to the width of their argument roll?

Fair enough.