Persuasion isn’t mind control, it’s a representation of an ability or talent your character has. Persuasion is essentially being able to convince someone to agree with you.

You have a number of people around the table who created, control, and for all intents and purposes ARE the people you want to persuade.

Therefore, a dice roll when persuading other PCs is completely unnecessary. Roleplay it out. You said you did, and no one agreed. In my opinion, that means you failed your persuasion check because no one was convinced.

“My character had skills and abilities that he used to affect the world. It’s what defined him. If I’d wanted to shoot my fellow player with my depleted-uranium-shooting elephant gun, would that have been over-ruled as well? How about if I’d wanted to run away from that same player?”

In the New World campain 2 players nearly fought eatch other but decided to role play it out instead, in the vampire AP that Ross posted is a great example of how there Lawfull Good Fighter handled the tension of dealing with vampires, he vary easly could have said, forget this party im attacking anyways it was allways his choice, no presuade check would have convinced him of siding with the rest of the party. I think in this AP or a later one the same fighter questions the Mage of some wrong doings, and allows the mage to make a bluff check with the fighters opposed check of Insight.

I can see both sides of this road and in the end its allways going to be the GM’s choice, if Aron feels betrayed by the GM’s call he knows next year not to join any games that Ross is playing. I have to agree with Deb that the way Aron makes it sound in his post, that he wanted his presuade to do more then just have the GM say his idea sounds good, but we will never know since it was played out diffrently.

To answer your question, I personally don’t see the point in building a character around social stats. I’ve never done such a thing. Wait — yes I have, once, when I played a ship’s counselor in a Trek game. But stats or no, she would have been a pretty crappy counselor if I, as a player, hadn’t had the social skills to play the role convincingly. The best char sheet in the world wouldn’t have enabled my counselor to be what she needed to be in that job if her player wasn’t suited to the task.

Again, my frame of reference is long-term pbems. In an ongoing campaign, your char’s social skills are what you the player make of them. If you have a GM who’s on top of things, any overly dominating (or stubborn) character who makes things unnecessarily difficult is going to get smacked down over and over until he or she learns to play well with others.

I guess in a single-session tabletop game, the quickest and easiest way to do that is to just say, “I’m not going to allow you to rob him of free will.”

Look on the bright side, Aron. He could have let you do it and then had your character burst spontaneously into flames. That’s always a fun way to get a point across, right? ;^)

The players meet a minotaur. I set up the encounter as a fight. The players decide to talk to the minotaur instead and go through great lengths to peacefully get past him. I could have easily forced the situation but I wanted to respect their actions. Later on, they make another deal with some monsters (vampires) and I could have exerted pressure on them to make them fight the monsters but this is what they wanted to do so so I simply ran the situation straight. The encounters did have consequences later on but they were aware of that so who am I to argue?

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.

And in that case I’d have no problem with it. But I think in that case Ross would’ve had no problem with it either. Clearly there was either more to it than just that, or Ross believed that there was more to it than just that. And just going by Aron’s extreme irritation that he wasn’t allowed to use it, I’m inclined to suspect that there was, indeed, more to it than just that. I could be wrong of course; I know nothing about the Burning Wheel system.

1. Sometimes people do…sorry for making it seem I was talking about you, was merely using an example.

2. I think there should be a gray. Yes nothing could have happened, (except additional roleplaying) or something would have changed, (the other guy would have gone along with) BUT! Nothing changes unless the other guy wants it to is were I’m coming from. =)

2. I stand by my statement: either the Persuasion roll would have changed nothing, or it would have changed too much. If the players’ roles had been reversed and Aron’s char was the one getting Persuaded, and the GM had allowed it, it would have either changed nothing or six months from now we’d still be hearing from Aron about how it shouldn’t have been allowed.

3. “The Barbarian and the Menstral” would be a completely different sort of story. I’ll stick with my minstrel, thanks. ;^)

Also, your original statement,

“I’m with Peyton on this one…and also I think your reasoning is flawed. From a gaming standpoint, I would take no pleasure in having my character hijacked by another player and forced to engage in a plan of action that I didn’t agree with. Why even stay in the game after you’ve stopped having a say in your own char’s destiny?
From a character standpoint, I disagree with the statement that you would die as heroes. In fact you would die a villain (since disregard for the rights and free will of others is pretty much the defining feature of villainy), and your fellow player would die a puppet.”
You start off assuming straight from the get go that Aron wanted to ‘Charm’ the person’s character when in actuality he felt that maybe his character would have done a better job then he had done. (Based on the Comment he left after your first comment)
And then in your second comment you continue with the belief that Aron is trying to spellcast other people to do his biding, when the whole time he just wanted to give his character a second chance.
And as for the attributes and skills I was talking about in my previous comment, I wasn’t talking about combat, (ie not talking about a barbarian and your menstral), instead I was trying to point out that sometimes people forget that their character has an Intelligence and/or Wisdom of 8 or 10. That again, is why I like to roll the dice. “Good job, Debra you waxed on poetically to the King about this and that, make a roll and make it high, because you forgot you’re roleplaying a commoner not a philosopher.

That’s not what Aron’s original post was about. He was postulating that, having failed to win the rest of the group over to his plan, he should have been allowed to attempt to “Persuade” another player to go along with it.

I stand by my original statement. If it was just a matter of the GM commenting to the other player, “He made a pretty convincing argument, do you want to change your mind?” then fine, I don’t see any harm in that. If the roll was intended to coerce the other player into HAVING to go along with him, then it would have been Most Uncool.

But I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about that.

Debra, if I may, I’m under the impression that you feel that you ARE the character when you are roleplaying. And while you are [I]technically[/I] correct, you are also wrong. The skill structure and attributes are in place because they say what your character can or cannot do. Meaning, if you are playing a character and you speak eloquently and then persuade someone, I the GM would make you roll your skill. Why? Because you as a person are NOT your character. You might have been able to convince someone of something, but your character may not be as eloquent as you are. Or maybe you weren’t able to convince someone, maybe your character could have? That is why I’m a big fan of rolling the die. Does it make it an automatic success or fail? NO. But it certainly helps give a clearer idea of what’s going on.

Example, let’s get back to Aron’s case. He made a good case for what he wanted his character to do, but another person said no. Ok roll! Aron roll’s high. I the GM would put some pressure on the person playing the other character…notice I said pressure, not I would make this guy react this way. Now it would be up to the player to take a second and maybe try and think what his character would do now that this other guy was pretty persuasive. The end result? The guy says, Yes, I agree that is a very good idea, blah, blah, blah. Or the guy says, After much contemplation, and see-sawing, I’ve decided that what’s best for me is to do this instead.

Now another example, what if Aron had rolled low? Well then we already know that the other guy said no, but know the person knows that Aron’s character, didn’t do such a good job a punching his point home. So he could just stick with his normal answer, or he could laugh at Aron’s character and accuse him of growing soft, because the Aron’s character he knows would never succumb to this idea of self-sacrifice.

But in either case, I think actual roleplaying was taken away from BOTH characters because of the judgment call of not rolling with the skill.

“RPGs are played with words”

RPGs are also played with dice… which you don’t allow into social situations. Also, everything you said missed my point. My point is that you are limiting people by real world abilities without looking at their character’s abilities, but only in social situations.

I’d also like to point out the reverse side of your argument. If I am SUPER charismatic as a person, then in your games every single character I build is going to be a killing machine and nothing more because I can role-play around his terrible social skills.

As for if this was an in-character argument, this IS the dice roll. My player said, “I’m going to try to convince you’re character of the validity of social mechanics using the following points…”, I then rolled my persuasion skill and, obviously, didn’t roll too well.

That said, I think I’m done here. I’ve presented my points in the most logical, rational, and civil manner I know how. I’ve exhausted my abilities. If you can’t see and understand my point by now, I have nowhere left to go with this discussion.

I’m not trying to convince you that I’m right and your wrong, I’m just trying to get you to understand how awesome social mechanics can be when used properly. I guess in your games my player didn’t articulate his points and in my games I rolled a natural one.

Or is your barbarian going to preform more based on dice rolls then player ability?”

RPGs are played with words, not axes. As with any game, the more skill you have the better you’re going to play. Someone who works hard to develop and hone their gaming skills (be it in combat strategy, verbal ability or espionage tactics) is going to be a better player than someone who relies on the dice to do their work for them. If I’m going to choose to play a barbarian, then I had better learn how to proficiently handle an axe…at least in print. Otherwise I’m going to get my head handed to me by the PC soldier whose player did take the time to master combat knowledge.

1. Aron isn’t nice. We don’t like him for his niceness.

2. It was an example, not a recommendation.

3. Pulling a knife probably would have been counterproductive in that particular situation, but if that’s where he wanted to take his character, he certainly had the option. It’s called free will.

“Scratch gaming with you, I don’t want to be NEAR you. haha”

It’s pretty mutual. Have you considered switching to decaf?

“Also, I can’t convince you of something in real life, but my character can in game. That’s my whole point. I’m still on thread.”

So…you’re saying that if your character and my character were having this same debate in-game, you would be able to roll Persuasion and convince my char of the rightness of your argument? If that’s what you’re saying, it sort of makes my point for me.

“If you’re playing a barbarian, and you’re unable to lift a great axe in a deadly manner, you risk losing the fight.”

Or is your barbarian going to preform more based on dice rolls then player ability?

If you’re playing a lawyer, and you’re unable to present the facts of the case in a coherent manner, you risk losing the case. That’s just how it is. Good thing it’s just a game, and real lawyers have to go to school and stuff.

Scratch gaming with you, I don’t want to be NEAR you. haha

Also, I can’t convince you of something in real life, but my character can in game. That’s my whole point. I’m still on thread.

I am fine with a character pulling a knife on another character to force them to do something, if that’s where the knife-puller wishes to take the situation. I’m also fine with a character attempting to talk another character into doing something. What I’m not fine with is, having failed to convince said character, the first char gets to roll dice to change the outcome of the conversation.

“To push Iskoot’s point further, since I’m on board with everything he just said, taking your rational and applying it to another scenario if you can’t kick in a locked door in real life then I shouldn’t let you roll dice to do it in character. I don’t care what you roll, since you can’t do it in person you can’t do it in character. Do you see how absurd that is?”

Uh…yeah. I’m not really seeing how it applies to anything I’ve said, though. I can’t kill people with my brain in real life, but I’ve done it in-game. You have wandered off the thread, dude.

I maintain that it’s my choice, though. If one of my chars found himself in a courtroom situation, as a judge or a member of the jury, I would base his decision on the facts presented to the case at hand, not on the lawyers’ ability (or lack thereof) to spin legalese. Frankly, I wish more real-life judges and juries would do the same.

To push Iskoot’s point further, since I’m on board with everything he just said, taking your rational and applying it to another scenario if you can’t kick in a locked door in real life then I shouldn’t let you roll dice to do it in character. I don’t care what you roll, since you can’t do it in person you can’t do it in character. Do you see how absurd that is?

And to me this is a problem, because you have to take into consideration, that the character that a person is playing could be better at persuading you then the person himself. And if you aren’t going to heed the fact that his character might of done a better job, and therefore deserves a second consideration, (because of the die roll), then you yourself are limiting that person’s player.

We have to take an overall view of characters and the people playing them. Based on what you said and what Rob said, if he was playing a lawyer and didn’t do a good enough job of convincing you of something lawyerish, you aren’t gonna take into consideration his roll, because “…a dice roll is not going to change my mind” Doesn’t sound right to me.

I think now we’re talking about the difference between what happens to a character and how that character chooses to respond. Characters SHOULD be raked over the coals, that’s how they get to show what they’re made of. In crisis situations a character’s personality, values, courage and wisdom are brought to light, and his path is shaped by all of those factors.

An example: If a PC has been sold into slavery, then during game play we get to see how he reacts to his captors, how he endures the bondage and how unquenchable his spirit is despite his chains. That’s awesome material in the hands of a good player.

If a second PC has also been sold into slavery, and has a plan for escape that seems unworkable or otherwise undesirable to the first PC, and the first player doesn’t want to go along with it, he shouldn’t have to just because someone made their Persuasion roll.

If the second PC then pulls out a shiv and puts it to the first PC’s throat and says, “Join me or I’ll bleed you right now,” that’s viable in-game persuasion, and awesome material in the hands of a good player. That course of action respects the autonomy of both players: they make choices and deal with the consequences.

“Don’t tell me you don’t see a difference in a Player presenting an argument and a dice roll that says a Character presents an argument.”

I absolutely do see a difference. But if a player can’t convince me of the merits of his idea by explaining it to me in detail, a dice roll is not going to change my mind.

This is shaping up to be a pretty interesting discussion, do you want to take it to the forum board?

Let’s say Aron was allowed to roll and he rolled and 18 and with his skill modifier he got a darn good score. Well now the ball would be in the Player’s court to re-examine his thought. You know, maybe the guy as a player was on the fence about agreeing with Aron, but decided to go with the group. But with the roll, he decides you know what? My character actually would go along with Aron’s train of thought. But then again, just as easily as the person did the first time, he could of played it out in character, saying something along the lines of His character wavers with indecision, but in the end decides to do something else.

That is what I don’t think some people are getting, is that even with a successful persuasion check, it doesn’t 100% guarantee that someone is going to do something…it’s just words! Peer pressure = Persuasion…did you do EVERYTHING that you got peer pressured to do? I doubt it, because in the end you decided NO. And that is Aron got taken away from him…the chance to turn up the heat on someone, to make his point a little more valid. But in the end, the decision still would have been with the character, not with Aron and not with his dice roll.

The comment that it is “either essentially useless or unacceptably intrusive” is an extremist view. If you’re playing with people who can factor in multiple variables, assess a situation, compromise, and enjoy the game then its neither. The fact that a character presents a solid argument should effect the other character’s in some way but that should still be left up to the players. If a player refuses to let it effect him, let it be that player’s choice. If a player decides that’s the argument that wins him over, let him decide that too.

Also, I think that since the simple use of Persuasion can incite other interesting situations would be enough reason to do it. Don’t tell me you don’t see a difference in a Player presenting an argument and a dice roll that says a Character presents an argument.

Yes, I do roll Persuasion against my Players as NPCs. I never strip their free will from them, I use it to accent how well that NPC presents his case. I see nothing wrong with doing a little in-character role-playing and then saying, “And for perspective he’s made his case and got a 23 on a Diplomacy check. He presented a damn good argument.”

See, I’m not a lawyer. I can’t argue legal law. If I can’t roll social skills against other characters (PCs or NPCs) then I’ll never be able to successfully play a lawyer character. I can not formulate a defense as well as my character, so why not let my character formulate it with the abstract representation of mechanics?

For the record, since it is the internet and intent and tone is commonly lost, I am trying my best to not be a dick here. I’m honestly attempting to engage in a debate about the issue. Read everything in a friendly discussion tone.

Aron cares, mightily, in every instance, when it’s his character’s free will that’s being tampered with. Trust me on this.

Regarding the FtC game, if the only thing Aron wanted was to have the GM state aloud to the player in question, “[Aron's character] makes a very compelling argument,” then sure. I see no reason why the GM shouldn’t make that statement, because most likely it wouldn’t have changed anything. The player was not interested in Aron’s plan, and being told that the char had made a compelling argument wouldn’t have made him like it any better, any more than (to use Aron’s own examples) punching him in the nose or shooting him would have won him to the cause. People like to make their own choices, that’s just a fact of life.

If the Persuasion roll WOULD have compelled the character in some way, despite the player’s wishes, then you’re back to the usurping of free will issue, and the GM made the right call.

The Persuasion skill seems either essentially useless or unacceptably intrusive, depending on how effective it is. Why bother with it at all?

We went to a Strip Club. There were strippers there that were VERY VERY persuasive and made FANTASTIC arguments on why I should give them $30 for a private dance. Sure, its not a hard sell to a guy. But trust me, they gave me GREAT reasons. I’m talking, in a D20 sense) multiple nat 20s on Diplomacy checks. MULTIPLE. Regardless, I didn’t want to drop $30 just to get a better view. I already had a fine view. My mind was set. There was nothing, not even during the $1 dance section, that could compel me to shell out more cash.

The biggest problems I have with the counter-arguments is that Persuasion checks SHOULDN’T rob free will, they should inform role-playing. I also don’t like the idea that fun vanishes if your character’s free will IS violated. As mentioned earlier, who cares? None of this is real. Lets have fun with it!

Also, the argument that Con situations are different then Longterms games… You’re right, you’ll never see these people again. You only have one session to play. If you’re free will is robbed from you, you only have a couple hours to deal with it and not an extended period of weeks or months. SO HAVE FUN WITH IT.

No matter how you try to justify it to me, I know for certain that at least ONE player at the table had their fun robbed from them. One player who, from how I understand it, wasn’t trying to FORCE anyone to do anything but was just looking for a simple mechanical advantage to back up his point.

Dammit.

Ultimately the other characters might not be motivated by the most compelling argument. Maybe they’re unreasonable people, or have hidden motives. Either way, I don’t think a non-supernatural / magic / high-tech type of persuasion should force a player to make their character do something they don’t want to — unless it’s a split second sort of thing: “Hey, look up there.” or “Hold this for a second” – which isn’t an semi-involuntary reactive thing and not something they consider before doing.

I totally understand where you’re coming from, Ross, I just disagree with you. I don’t see Persuasion as mind control as you and Deb do. I see it as an edge in social combat. I think it could have been a lot of fun to role those Persuasion dice and, depending on the degree of my success, have the GM argue on my behalf (or against me if the dice are bad).

Player still would have been in control of his character, but he’d have felt the pressure of Persuasion. Result might have remained the same, but it would have added even more drama to the end game.

Regardless, I had a lot of fun in your game. Thanks for having me at your table and thanks for commenting on the blog.

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.

I don’t believe in letting players control other PCs with just social skills. Persuading players should require roleplaying. If they have a supernatural ability that lets them charm or control people – fine. But to say “Okay he made his persuasion check against you. You have to agree to his plan.” is a bad idea.

I mean, the flip side is – do you let NPCs make social checks against players? Can any NPC with decent persausion or diplomacy tell the PCs what to do?

It’s a personal rule of mine, regardless of what game I’m running.

Part of the problem was that the group seemed to feel that everyone needed to make the same choice. I knew from listening to previous actual plays that it was far more interesting to have characters make different choices at the end. I think using persuasion on another player is a very fine line to walk. It makes sense in some cases, but is dangerous in others.

I would have liked for Aron’s character to make the choice of having to destroy the machine and then just moved to do so.

If however he was going to roll persuasion I would have likely let him go for it, but had everyone else roll their persuasion in return. In a debate that is the likely outcome. I experienced the Burning Wheel debate mechanic at FTC3 and have a strong appreciation for it now.

In a pbem or other long-term campaign, I agree that that could be a lot of fun. When AAD was active there were times when I wondered if Aron, the evil bastard genius that he is, would ever do something like that — turn Casey into a ghoul or something equally abhorrent to her need for free will — and part of me thought that would be a hoot and a half to play out. BUT, that’s a long-term campaign. A single F2F game is a completely different animal, imo. It’s not about character development or personal dramas, it’s about choices and results. A challenge to overcome, ideally as a group. An opportunity to use your gaming skills.

Anyway, it was the GM’s call to make, and I think Peyton made the right one. Obviously ymmv.

“But I never went that route, ever, because that’s not what a successful game is about.”

Ohhh man, I never want to play with you. Seriously, if I was in a game with a powerful psionic who decided they would start to mind fuck the other players into doing what they wanted that would be AWESOME.

Of course, I’m making a pretty huge assumption here. That no one is being a dick about things. You’re mind fucking the party because its fun and interesting, not because you’re a cock who’s just trying to get their way.

Also, I agree with you that we’re not REALLY saving the world… just like my character isn’t a REAL person. I can have a blast playing a character who’s been robbed of their free will, especially if I’m aware of whats going on. Trying to overcome your abilities, finding loopholes in what you’re trying to force me to do, dealing with other players to help me avoid getting mind fucked. It seems like that would prevent a new challenge to my character that, while my character would hate every single minute of it, would be a fantastic situation to explore.

There have been many times during game play when I KNEW the best way to achieve an in-game goal. Aron himself will tell you that strategy and problem-solving are my gaming strengths (sometimes at the expense of tact and/or conformity), and he could probably also tell you that if I had been playing in the above-mentioned game I would have been right there with him for the “going out as heroes” ending.

But a group gaming situation is not an “end justifies the means” scenario. Everyone’s there to have fun; you’re not REALLY saving the world. And if you’re there at FtB to play, it’s probably the sort of thing that you feel pretty passionate about.

Was it plausible for him to be able to “persuade” another character to go along with his plan? Sure. In Austin After Dark, I played a fairly powerful psionic, and it would have been just as plausible for me to try and bend other characters to her will in instances where I could SEE that there was a better course of action than what the group was choosing to go with. But I never went that route, ever, because that’s not what a successful game is about. If every single player doesn’t feel like his or her input is as valid as anyone else’s, morale will sour and the game will founder. I’ve seen it happen.

Aron, you know I love you man, but I’m still with Peyton on this one.

Or Aron could have rolled TERRIBLY and the entire situation would have turned against him. Aron was willing to take the risk of failure but Ross wasn’t willing to take the risk of success.

The comment that really gets under my skin is Debora saying “Your char presented his plan to the other characters, who declined to go along with it.”

Not true at all. Aron presented his plan and when he wanted to use his character’s ability to back up his ideas he was shot down. Who hasn’t sat down at the table and though, “I know this is the best course of action but I can’t think of any way to convince the party to go along with me…” That is when PC use of persuasion skills come into play. “Listen guys, I have this plan but I am, as a player, unable to come up with a Saint Cispin’s Day Speech to sell it to you…”

Thinking that a Persuasion check against a player FORCES them to do things idiotic. It should help inform the player of how well another character can argue their point.

Stop thinking that when dice come out that Role-Playing has to stop. Roll the dice then factor that into your character’s decisions.

And while fundamentally it makes sense for one player to persuade another of something and have that skill enforce a shift in paradigm, it’s just a dick thing to do. It falls within the intra-party conflict realm, where you want to do it infrequently and make sure you do it well because if you don’t, everything falls to shit.

Second, had I rolled successful Persuasion dice, the GM acting as the PC’s could have argued on my behalf (or against me had I failed). What was done instead was hobble my character.

From a character standpoint, I disagree with the statement that you would die as heroes. In fact you would die a villain (since disregard for the rights and free will of others is pretty much the defining feature of villainy), and your fellow player would die a puppet.