Players manipulating players

So, I've already runned many games in RL RPG, and usually use the Storytelling system or similar system games, and one of my players always make Social-Based characters, with high "manipulation-stats" (persuasion, socialize, intimidation in storytelling; a lot of different skills in other systems...), so that he usually tries to talk with people before any action is taken. His character is pretty much a non-combatant, used to use his charisma and manipulation skills to get what he wants, and let the other players do the fight when need be. It may seem an odd character for many players and GMs who focus on combat, but it is really useful, as he can bribe and deceive better than any character would be able to... It's something useful for the group as a whole, but there's one thing though... His character IS the master of rhetoric. He is able to convince people of stuff with his words - especially dumb people or people without much willpower... So it makes sense that he would be able to convince other PCs to take one or another action... The problem is: how to do that? Should he be able to do that? His character sure IS able to do it, considering his ability and skills at manipulation - and that one or two PCs are mentally weak... but it screw the game when it's done. What's the fun if you say "we should kill him" and the other player just go against it and is able to convince you of doing what he wants - even if you, player, is still not convinced? So I'd like to ask if anyone has any tips on that... I don't want to make the party obey the manipulative-character always... but it would also be ridiculous if he is able to convince almost everyone of stuff, and can't convince a dumb warrior that trusts in him of something so simple as "no, let's take the left path instead of the right path..."

I would think that the other players characters would be so used to this characters manipulative ways they would be mostly immune to his charms via rolls. So instead of rolls have the players roleplay out the converstation, if the charismatic character makes a good arguments the other players then have to decide if thats a good enough argument to convice their character.

Unless the game system explicitly says otherwise, the target of the manipulation should decide the outcome, no roll, no mechanics of any kind. Like any PVP activity, if the game system doesn't explicitly support that kind of play with fair and balanced rules, then the result of the action should be determined by the target such that nothing is unilateral. If someone thinks it would be interesting for their character to be manipulated by the fellow PC, then they'll agree and play it out. If they don't, then they won't (and don't have to).

Well, forbidding them from using it in other players wouldn't be much realistic though, as I said before... Altough cursingbulldog idea is a good one... they know the character knows his ways with words, so they get more careful... I still don't think that would make them word-proof... probably a huge bonus to resistance though.

So tell me - are the vampires, werewolves, or wizards in your Storytelling system "realistic"? What I propose is a way to make PVP consensual and fun. If your players find PVP (and that's what manipulation is) fun using whatever house rules or game mechanics the system uses to resolve it, then keep on doing that. You already have their buy-in on that paradigm.

It's a role playing game, not a fantasy simulation. Games have rules, and while often unstated, I do believe one of the fundamental rules of RPG'ing, in general, is that one PC cannot force other PC's to do something against their will.

I'd say it works. To prevent meta gaming you can whisper the GM what you are doing. Bluff check to hide X gold you found saying you found less or a sleight of hand to pocket some item without the party noticing. I would be against forcing actual actions on other PC's. Even if you roll a natural 20 on your diplomacy with a +15 modifier you should not be able to convince a PC that kicking the dragon in the balls would be a good idea. On the other hand you can lie with bluff, "Nah man I checked no traps ahead for sure", or you can try to convince a character of something with diplomacy "If we kill this man only more trouble will come to us. Let him live". Still even if you can convince a PC you can't force him to take actions. To prevent PC infighting I generally only roll bluff/Diplomacy/Intimate checks when the party is not reaching a decision on how to proceed and the highest roller wins. Still best to roleplay this without any rolling otherwise its more rollplay. This ofc only applies if the PC's are willing to negotiate, no matter what you roll or try you can't convince a paladin to kill a innocent man because it's beneficial.

White said: I'd say it works. To prevent meta gaming you can whisper the GM what you are doing. Bluff check to hide X gold you found saying you found less or a sleight of hand to pocket some item without the party noticing. I would be against forcing actual actions on other PC's. Even if you roll a natural 20 on your diplomacy with a +15 modifier you should not be able to convince a PC that kicking the dragon in the balls would be a good idea. On the other hand you can lie with bluff, "Nah man I checked no traps ahead for sure", or you can try to convince a character of something with diplomacy "If we kill this man only more trouble will come to us. Let him live". Still even if you can convince a PC you can't force him to take actions. Do you know of any specific rules in the game of D&D that say a Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate check convinces another PC of anything? To prevent PC infighting I generally only roll bluff/Diplomacy/Intimate checks when the party is not reaching a decision on how to proceed and the highest roller wins. Still best to roleplay this without any rolling otherwise its more rollplay. As an aside, what your players are doing here is called "blocking" (from improvisational acting) and they're doing it as a form of failure mitigation no doubt. Groups that know what blocking is and know how to avoid it don't have this issue and don't need to resort to rolls. But of course if you guys like the rolls and agree to that approach, go for it. This ofc only applies if the PC's are willing to negotiate, no matter what you roll or try you can't convince a paladin to kill a innocent man because it's beneficial. Sure you can - by convincing the player that this could be an interesting turn of events at which point he can retroactively motivate his character through in-game fictional reasons to do exactly that. This is known as the Author stance.

If the GM told me "You believe him" to a lie, obvious or white, even if he aced a dozen times, had 20 successes, +50 to his bluff check, spent Fate points on two stunts, an aspect, and rolled ++++, whatever, I would immediately quit the game on the spot without a word. Rule zero and rules of the game be damned, I don't allow people to tell me what my character thinks, does, or believes. That's my job. As was said earlier in the thread by Larry, controlling another PCs thoughts and actions goes against the fundamental rules of roleplaying.

With my group I usually allow bluff to be "you believe that this person believes what they are telling you" (in essence), so no overwriting a PCs actual belief or anything and given past history with another characters' antics they can definitely still think he or she is lying, but yes I definitely do allow it. It depends hugely on the group, though... Some people just won't accept that their character isn't perfect in everything (naturally) and would never fall for any lie ever... but honestly, those aren't the ones I would want in my campaign (just a preference! really!) as infallible PCs are really boring to me as a GM. It would mean they can never fall in love/never get seduced, never have a pickpocket pilfer their stuff, never have someone sneak up on them and they would be able to look through all lies. *shrugs* Not saying every PC needs to have 101 weaknesses, but the OP clearly stated that some of them are weaker-minded or 'dumb' and really a simple thing like 'I have a bad feeling about that path, can we take the other one first? It even looks brighter, and I think I heard someone talk about it in the last village tavern when you guys were already in bed..." Unless they have serious reasons to doubt him - he always plays pranks f.e. or lets them walk into traps for shits and giggles... though then the question would be why do they keep him if its something more serious like the later? - why wouldn't they try the one path first? On the other hand, if a PC is really, really convinced and pissed off at an NPC and wants to kill them off, then arguments usually won't help all that much. As always, it depends on the character of the character. Of course it would be best if things were roleplayed out, with solid arguments. I would talk to your players about this OP and if they don't think they can rp their characters' weaknesses maybe talk about using GMrolls. If, however, they don't WANT to rp their characters' weaknesses, then this is simply the wrong group (or groupmembers) for this kind of play and you need to adjust accordingly. Seriously, just talk to the players and get their vote :)

You have to be careful in saying it "doesn't work on PCs". Namely because if he is functioning inside the rules, then they should work and be consistent. If player A is a manipulator, player B is a dumb beat stick, and player C is a leader of many; then saying player B and C can affect the party and not player A is unfair. If player A's ability can convince the dumb beat stick character that he shouldn't murder him because of an offense, then it should stop that character even if the player wants to ignore his pleas. Switching around the situation it would be ridiculous to tell player B that his character's sword can't cleave character A in half because player A doesn't want his character to be dead. With all that said though, before the start of the game laying ground rules and expectations is key to avoiding these situations. I usually state that players won't engage in direct PVP activities and that their characters should be compatible enough to work together and through difficult situations. And then relegate all party conflict to roleplay resolutions. But that is my style and something I make clear from the start.

I often, for the sake of satiating group bloodlust, run "Protected Arenas" in which(4e) no dailies are allowed, and no AP's allowed. Typically it is tied to a story-generated/ing event and has net rewards for all and sort of works as an outlet for "well he took my loot!" etc. Overall, as has been said, make it clear if it is allowed or not. And if it is not and the players continue to pressure it in, there are "consequences". Afterall, I have yet to see a Karma-less system.

I always ask the players in such situations. It has to be fun for them, and if the player of the charismatic PC isn't a total ass, he won't do anything to try and lessen the fun for the other players anyway.

To me it is a form of PVP. Players decide what happens to the PC, if it comes from a player. DM does not tell players what to think or believe, or do, but there are effects from the game like fear, bleeding from weapons, etc. If the Dragon generates fear the PC does not have to bolt and quake but should realize this thing is monstrous. If the PC then decides to stand and fight and gets eaten, of course it returns that the PC Should have run, when his character was afraid. Not DM being punitive, roll it out, but some things with fear effects will have those effects and not playing that out is not being honest to the character unless the game has tags like iron will, courage of lions, fearless and what not. Man on the street from modern day in combat sees six guys being blown to bits entering a minefield, he's typically gonna go flat until an authority or EOD comes up to get him, unless under fire, or pressed then might just panic and charge out. so it can go a lot of watys via author stance as HHJ says. No easy solutions, some players can go there, some want to have total control of the character no weaknesses. I like the challenge of a character with flaws, weaknesses, addictions, etc. even if it's detrimental. But it's not for everyone. Requires lots of communication up front, how will these issues be handled in game. A lot of DMs don't even address it, and it causes a problem later when there are different perceptions by DM and players regarding these issues. Good discussions.

James J. said: To me it is a form of PVP. Players decide what happens to the PC, if it comes from a player. DM does not tell players what to think or believe, or do, but there are effects from the game like fear, bleeding from weapons, etc. If the Dragon generates fear the PC does not have to bolt and quake but should realize this thing is monstrous. If the PC then decides to stand and fight and gets eaten, of course it returns that the PC Should have run, when his character was afraid. Not DM being punitive, roll it out, but some things with fear effects will have those effects and not playing that out is not being honest to the character unless the game has tags like iron will, courage of lions, fearless and what not. How is not running away from a fight "not being honest to the character"? Facing your fears and triumphing is a very common trope in fiction, so I don't see how that's "not being honest to the character" I think if you want you have a fear effect with mechanical consequences, it's better to have a mechanical effect in that creature's stat block than to expect PCs to take a certain action (run away) because that's what the DM thinks is good roleplaying. So, if I want a creature to have fear and a mechanical effect for it, I might introduce a property such as "until the creature is bloodied PCs have a -2 to attack rolls against it" or maybe an encounter power attack - "+X vs Will, on a hit, the target can not target the creature (save ends)."

Regarding the original topic, I think RAW for 4e is that Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate doesn't work on PCs, although I can't find the citation right now. Still, I think that's good practice - PCs shouldn't be able to force other PCs to do things, and DMs shouldn't empower jerk players who like to manipulate and grief other players. I use a houserule that "if you want to PVP, instead of rolling, the victim decided the outcome" and at the start of my games we talk out how our characters know each other with the ground rule that even if we don't see eye to eye on everything, we know each other well enough to adventure together.

I suggested that rule "victim decides" but the gm said it wont be needed.

With a posteriori reasoning you can undo just about anything. From there you can "block" anything someone says by taking the default position they are a bullshit artist. WoD and other systems make these skills more like magic than analagous to a smooth talker.

How is not running away from a fight "not being honest to the character"? Facing your fears and triumphing is a very common trope in fiction, so I don't see how that's "not being honest to the character" Not saying running away is good roleplaying, it's situational. I've played many games where a player when spying a dragon decides, I will stand and fight. Then the player get hit by a claw claw bite attack, and goes to -11 Hit points, all mechanically sound, then bitches: "This is bullshit, why have a dragon if we can't kill it?" Except if the PC has rolled it out that he was wounded, dragon died, then it was somehow "an exciting and dramatic encounter.." Similarly A lone PC in an alley, and a bunch of thugs at the end of the alley DM: "They look pretty rough, a few are big and hulking, they are all smoking pipes and talking in low tones." Player: "I unsheathe my blade, and dare them to try me." DM: What do you say, exactly?" Player: "Come, you louts, Have at me, if you be man enough!" DM: "GO home you drunk!" Player: "How dare they insult me!" I charge, swinging! They try and he kills one where two run him through. And the claim is that there was no way to win, assuming fighting them was a DM goal. when in reality it's a player self-fulfilling prophecy to EVEN ENGAGE THEM.. Yet if the luck had gone a different way, The PC says what a badass he is for standing up to thugs, that he provoked. A player in a party is along a road, where some enemy are passing. his hatred of them spurs him to attack despite protests from other players, who try to hide. In the ensunig battle three party members are killed and the player who jumped up blames the DM for "putting enemy in my face", knowing "I HAVE to attack them because of my history!" Horror games often have mechanics for this, and Its yes a choice, but some characters who do not have the appropriate kind of tags or whatever setup in the PC act like they are the haerd core bastard who did three tours in Nam when facing a serial killer when the guy as a pc is written to be a mild mannered pastry chef. Yeah, I get it, there's no predicitng who is gonna do what when , but it's just this kind of thing where if the player 's character who when faced with something horrific, and horrible, decides, i attack with a gun, i move to kill it in a D&D style and gets killed then blames the DM for broken scenario.

The best roleplayers, who choose to play a dumb character, would actually enjoy being manipulated. I used to play a Dwarven Rouge with a Halfling 'Sidekick' and the sidekick decided that my character was the greatest thing ever, even though i did nothing but berate him, and mock him, and lie to him. I would lie to him about money, the DM would ask for a sense motive roll, and he would refuse to roll, saying " I Choose to beleive my buddy!". That being said, no roll should ever over-ride player actions unless that roll is for a magical or psionic power. However a good roleplayer will take what the liar said into consideration. Someone who plays a charismatic character simply needs to use his own personal charisma to get his way. An observation about the blaming PC' who has to attack them. I always pull bad-assess asside and let them know that attackign immediately upon provokation isn't remotely realistic, even for a belligerent character. Most hostile encounters are threats, true violence is actually much rarer in the real world. Anyone as pathologically violent as they pretend they are in D&D would be dead in days. Another observation, Any world as per-capita violent as a D@D world would be a smoking wasteland with in a few years, we ignore this fact because we want to have a cool game with lot's of awesome fights on the backdrop of a compelling story .............. so the guy who tries to play captain bad-ass who never backs down is going to get stomped, as he should. That person doesn't actually exist in most cases, and the ones who do are usually crime lords.

Well said. Yeah, I agree a lot of real world is intimidation, because not many that aren't stoned, drunk or crazy want to get into a fight that is gonna end up with serious injuries. I hardly see a lot of GMs play that way, most just go for the sword, and let the chips fly. I like pulp and wild west, lots of fistfights, not a whole lot of gunplay unless PCs want to die.

Can I ask if another player attacked the manipulative player with a Sword, would the player be allowed to just override the damage saying his character is impervious to damage?

Ndreare said: Can I ask if another player attacked the manipulative player with a Sword, would the player be allowed to just override the damage saying his character is impervious to damage? In the way we handle it, no, because that would likely be contradicting established fiction. However, the "manipulative player" in your example could just declare that "another player" misses with the attack. No mechanics would apply.

Headhunter Jones said: Ndreare said: Can I ask if another player attacked the manipulative player with a Sword, would the player be allowed to just override the damage saying his character is impervious to damage? In the way we handle it, no, because that would likely be contradicting established fiction. However, the "manipulative player" in your example could just declare that "another player" misses with the attack. No mechanics would apply. If this is the case and the immunity is reciprocal then all is fare. If the immunity is selective based on the character type, I would call it out ifi were playing.

For me it depends on the system. I know diplomacy can't work on PC's in D&D or Pathfinder. In another system it would depend on the character's personality and what they would normally do. Some people can't be convinced of some things no matter how well you speak.

Actually I think in most rule systems the mechanics are skewed so that diplomacy and other influencing mechanics affect npcs not the pcs for the assumption is the player will know how to react when an npc tries to influence them be it a diplomat or a dragon or anything inbewteen.

Correct, Metroknight, and actually the same goes for all mechanics in the game including attack rolls. Most games are designed for PCs to test their attacks and skills against DCs provided by the system or against monster stats, not against PC stats. There are exceptions, but games like D&D and Pathfinder are not designed for PVP. It's weird to me that it's so common. I think it has to do with people viewing it as a simulation of tasks rather than conflicts (and in my experience a general lack of freedom and compelling tension provided by the GM such that players turn on one another's characters to find it).