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

[clockworkjoe]

http://ideologyofmadness.spookyouthouse.com//archives/11649

I ran an Age of Masks game at Fear the Con 3 last weekend. A player tries to persuade another PC of a certain plan and tries to use the persuasion skill to do so - not a supernatural ability just regular old diplomacy. I said no because I think that players have agency over their own PC - you can't force another PC to do something without an actual supernatural power. This guy thinks otherwise.

DISCUSS

[Setherick]

I hate, HATE, these people.

[Mckma]

I don't think a player should be able to force another player to do something, not necessarily even with a supernatural effect (somewhat goes against the spirit of the game).  Reading what he said, I think it was a little bit of an overreaction, but he brings up a somewhat valid point in a very reasonable way (glad to see he wasn't really angry and railing about people ruining everything).  That said, I think in an ideal system players should be able to use skills like this on each other in the right setting.  I think it might be kind of fun to have two characters arguing over a plan of action and the third, and indecisive person, siding with whoever did a better job of persuading.

Anyway, ultimately, I think it just comes down to the nature of roleplaying.  Sometimes you'll get to call the shots and do something you think is awesome in a game, and other times you'll have to sit back a bit and help someone else with their plan.

So yeah, I don't know if that made a lot of sense, but ultimately the way I would go with it is only allowing such checks on players if the player is okay with it, and maybe they should be okay with it oftentimes...


On a completely unrelated note, I now apparently know what Ross looks like.  Not that different than I had imagined.  Don't know what to think about that...

[clockworkjoe]

That is a lousy photo of me. This is better

[Mckma]

That is a lousy photo of me. This is better

Ah, I see.  You had your person mask on in the first one at the con huh?

[Valegor]

I'm kind of torn.  I typically like to let players roll for anything, but I also would not want to ever let one player control another.  All the players can really control is their character and to take that away takes away takes away what they have to contribute.  I understand where Aron is coming from, but allowing that roll is a VERY risking thing.  I would not second guess a GM who made either call.  I would second guess a GM who did allow the roll and didn't allow the other player a chance to roll a defense or counter persuasion roll.

I would also be pissed if I were a player and someone else rolled to make my decision for me and my character ended up doing something I felt was out of character for them.    

[IDaMan008]

I'm usually willing to rule the opposite way--that the players have the right to roll for such things--but only in certain situations. For instance, if one player is using a magical effect to manipulate another person's actions or feelings, I'll usually allow them to roll for it, and have the intended victim make a counter-roll or Will check (or whatever kind of save seems necessary) in order to resist. I'll leave it up to the dice to decide who has their way. But in cases of mundane persuasion, I would agree with Ross's call: it's the player's decision to make whether or not his or her character was persuaded by another player's argument.

That said, I could also see an argument for allowing the persuade roll. After all, the character's stats represent skills and attributes that the player might not necessarily share. If someone with lousy communications skills was playing a smooth-talking schmoozer, the dice might better represent the character's persuasive ability than the player could through roleplaying. However. I do think that players who succeed in social rolls like that should be able to back it up with good roleplaying; I'd never let a player get away with simply saying, "I talk him into it" without providing at least a moderately persuasive argument.

[ShotgunSurgeon]

Seeing as how I always follow the demands of charismatic individuals, I don't see the reasoning behind your ruling. Choo... Choo... Let's all get on the train... It's time to ride the GM Railroad... next stop is "Don't Mess with Other PC Autonomy By Making Poorly Justified Skill Rolls."

Seriously though, I'm sure you made the right call for the table. That being said, it might have been cool to let Aron make the roll and RP his argument out. While a success would not mean the other PCs become compliant zombies, the other characters could have recognized the merits of his argument (or not) based on the roll... then decide how and if that impacts their own decisions. That being said, anyone that challenges Ross is an automatic douche. We must prepare for Jihad.

Super seriously though... after seeing the pics, no video casts.

[Tadanori Oyama]

I go case by case based on which choice is gonna let the game flow easier. If a player is being an ass and somebody wants to make them "behave" using an incharacter ability, I say hell yes. If a player with high social skills wants to used them on other PCs in other to effectivally control the characters (ie play the entire party) than that's a no.

I really don't have a hard and fast rule about this sort of thing. On the other hand, if I'm a player than I'd fight tooth and nail to maintain control over my character's mind.

[clockworkjoe]

I did let them roleplay their arguments so the player tried to actually persuade the other players but again - saying 'welp PC1 made his skill check by a lot so you agree to blow yourself up.' would ruin the game for the other players.

[Order66]

That is a lousy photo of me. This is better

exactly how i pictured you

[Maze]

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."

[Order66]

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

[Sean-o-tron]

Gee, it sure is Peyton around here.

Also, that is some bad-ass makeup work.

[Charlie72]

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!)