How do you manage player x player social conflict?

Let them discuss it ICly and make their own decisions.

I have a rule where the PCs can determine their own DC if another player wants to use a roll on them.
Remind them it's a co-operative game where the main point is having a good time and making awesome stories.

I like the idea, the only problem I see is players intentionally making it a ridiculously high DC. Though you might have counter-measures in place for this.

The issue with these is that someone might make a convincing character but they themselves couldn't sweet talk their own grandmother.

You don't ask people to be good of hitting things with a sword when their character is, why should someone who wants to play a master manipulator actually have to manipulate?

Ive always seen charisma or other diplomacy stats as being a stranger's receptiveness to you. If another PC knows them then charisma doesnt matter, the argument does.

That said, another solution would be for them to make a diplomacy (or whatever it is in your system) roll, and on a successful DC the DM feeds them a decent argument for the other player to chew over.

>You don't ask people to be good of hitting things with a sword when their character is
Most systems absolutely expect players to understand the combat mechanics and available options to maximize success. Combat isn't just saying, "I fight now," and then rolling a die. It's positioning and maneuvers and movement and range and equipment.

Why should the social aspect of a game be any different?

It needn't even be the DM, if they roll well, the player of the character they are trying to convince can tell them an argument that might / will work in this current situation.

Over time the manipulator will hopefully learn the buttons and dials that need to be tweaked when trying to convince each of the other characters.

I agree with you but
>most systems
Thats probably not true.

You'd really hope so. Sadly Ive seen myself using this technique for long campaigns just because an idiot tried to make a smart character.

>Thats probably not true.
Most systems that I've played, then. Still, I find it highly doubtful that the majority of combat systems out there require nothing from the player other than declaring who they are hitting at the moment.

I don't let NPCs roll to convince PCs and I don't let PCs do it either. Social skills are not brainwashing, and player agency is more important.

Maybe, but Id say that the vast majority of people play systems where "I attack" is how combat works.

But that loops back to the problem of having a player who, for the life of them, can not form a convincing argument, despite the fact that their character should be able to.

But using magic powers is perfectly fine?
I don't get this distinction. The players should understand the difference, and cleave to their character's mentality.
I generally allow for social rolls all around, with the caveat that it is not something to be abused. If a pc is trying to convince another pc of something foolish or detrimental, that is when I drop the hammer.
You are playing WoD, so I would allow for them out of rote as the social fu aspect of the game is implicit in it's design, especially when it comes to games like Vampire. I'd simply allow for a +1-4 bonus to their resolve if it is something that goes against the pc's personal ethics, and the manipulator now finds out they need 5+ successes out of a 4-8 d10 pool to get their way on top of being able to spend willpower for a +2 to their defense stat.

Sounds like they shouldnt be playing a game where improv and creativity are the order of the day.

It's been a while since I cracked the rulebook, but in DnD doesn't explicitly state social rolls/mental affecting spells from PCs have no effect on other PCs?

Also OP is a fag

Can you give any examples?

There are certainly systems that allow you to play a big, dumb brute who just marches in and swings til everything is dead, but that's hardly the only way to play a combat-focused character. You can play the guy who's focused on battlefield control and tactics or a hit and run skirmisher, for instance. A manipulator is far more in line with that kind of play than the aforementioned brute.

If a player wants to just roll a die and make people like him, he should play a performer. Roll well, your performance was good. People liked it. End of story. If you want to actively manipulate people and events you must put in greater effort, just like to be an effective controller on the battlefield requires you to understand the tactics available to you.

Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition.

Flanking, shoves, trips, grapples, etc would all seem to be various tactics that make your party much more effective in any given fight. Monks playing hit and run with their high movement rate, battlemasters controlling the field with maneuvers, rogues looking for advantage, even barbarians need to work to keep their rage going on occasion.

Obviously you can play the game while ignoring all of this, but you'll absolutely be worse off for it. The same goes for someone who wants to manipulate characters without ever actually trying to manipulate them.

You ought to read the thread before you post, faggot.

Anyone got suggestions for when two players, or maybe just the one, straight up refuses to their character get convinced of something, despite being confront with an argument that by all means should work?

>despite being confront with an argument that by all means should work?
If the argument works, they'd already be convinced.

The character, in the game, has been confront with something they should agree with...
The person playing the character says "No, my character still disagrees".

Then they've decided they dont agree. Move on and compromise. Are you on the spectrum or something? If they're being unreasonable stop playing with them then.

Pull the recalcitrant player aside and ask them what is up.
If the argument is that sound and something the pc would agree with, what are their reasons for breaking character?
I generally have little sympathy for such twattery.

Chaos esa ladda

>The character, in the game, has been confront with something they should agree with...
The player playing the character would have a firmer grasp on what that character would agree with, no?

Chaos is the ladder, indeed. He got defeated by best climber in Westeros.

With proper fights between characters you and your players sort it out by talking.

In a social conflict between characters you should always make your players wrestle to decide the victor. You're going to want to clear a space for the bouts because otherwise things are going to get broken.

Stonesnake?

I really should

OP is still a fag though

Double Doubles check.

Also, formula for DC in 5e:

10 + proficiency bonus + (wisdom or charisma)

That way you get a solid 13-16

A successfull roll would not impose behavior but a penalty. The target PC'd retain their agency. They can choose to agree with the Convincer, act in a opposite way with penalties propotional to the roll results (because the clever arguments makes him doubtful), or choose a third way.
Everybody's happy.
Obviously a PC'd start be annoyed by constant manipulation by a peer.

When I try to convince a NPC I always explain why I am saying, what I am saying and what I hope it might make the other Person think.

This helps me to sort Out, what I want to say and helps my GM understand, what Im trying to do.

Similarly I could imagine, that if a player roles really high for convincing the other Charakter, that both involved players could Talk about the Motivation of the convinced char and ways to convince hin together

I like how GURPS does it.

Basically, social skills rolled against PCs are not mind control; however, their margin of success versus the PCs Will can result in penalties to actions which contradict the goal of the social manipulation.

Examples:
A cop PC pulls over a hot blonde for speeding. She rolls sex appeal to try to convince him to drop the ticket.
Well, the player isn't letting that fly; he's a good cop and he's not one to be bribed. He still issues the ticket after losing the contest by 3.
However, her sex appeal does leave him distracted. He might need to roll at -3 to issue/file the ticket correctly (or else later she gets off scot free), or suffer that penalty to see through any lies she tells him while she's standing there (pheremones can be a powerful thing), etc.

Basically it results in situational penalties according to GM judgement, but still ultimately leaves control in the hands of the player.

If there PC officer had Lecherous as an actual disadvantage though, that would be a different story...

>This

Page 10

You get that problem with people playing super smart characters. Or super wise characters, in some systems.

>"We're practically gods!"
>Level 17 Druid w/ 22 WIS jumps off a cliff and dies

If that didn't happen she'd be the only character that has never died in the party

It surprises me how many people have apparently used social skills in PvP situations.

I have always defaulted to "they just don't work on PC's". In all systems. The exception might be an NPC deceiving a PC, and that is always described as "you don't sense any deception"--not "your character believes everything he says". The player can still choose to disbelieve the lie if it doesn't add up.

It's always worked fine.

I find this troubling, because it implies the character must now roll for something that he wouldn't have before.

>The player playing the character would have a firmer grasp on what that character would agree with, no?
Why would this be true, necessarily? Just because a player plays a character doesn't mean that they own them, does it?

I've wondered that myself a lot. Specifically about Chronicles of Darkness after reading a few of the books recently. I've also wondered about mind control, since it seems to be a common power. Specifically with vampires and mages. Is your character just wrested from you, or do you follow instructions? And what about when an NPC beats you out in social maneuvers when you yourself don't buy it at all, and think your character wouldn't either? Is it just your ST saying "All your Doors are open, you have been swayed to his way of thinking." and now your character firmly believes in the Daksha who just persuaded him, who are super racists who want to eradicate lesser beings? It actually isn't implausible either, as Daksha are known for being... persuasive.

>Combat isn't just saying, "I fight now," and then rolling a die
it literally is

Don't

You're just going to create the bad kind of conflict at the table. If you as a GM can't mediate an argument between players then you need to cut the situation off at the head, scene change, and move on. Figure it out.

Now if a player actively invites it that's a different story. Some players think it's fun to roll an insight check when they clearly know they're being lied to and then roll with it if they fail, but that's still the player's choice.

It's same as bluntly saying "The NPC got a nat 20 on his Persuasion check, now you gotta do what he says", that sounds really dumb, right? Your job is create player choice in these kinds of things, and letting players force other players when they don't openly invite it is asking for trouble.

For the same reasons player vs player combat usually ends up as a shit show and people being mad.

Leave the rolls to be used against imaginary npcs

Legally, it does. Even if they did not create the character (and thus count as the original author), their interpretation and playing of the character is a transformative work and therefore their own copyright. And since most players make their own characters and have implied license to play them as they want from both the game owner and the GM, their ownership is pretty clear. As soon as you put a creative idea out there, it legally belongs to you until proven otherwise in a real court.

Came here to post this

And that's counterbalanced by the implied license the GM and other players have to influence and affect your character via the systems, mechanics, and hobby-standard conventions that you implied an agreement to by playing the game in the first place.
Legalese is dumb sometimes.

Even if someone rolls social against a PC, I let the player be the ultimate determinator of their own actions, unless there is an effect which specifically states the target must obey commands.

Player agency is something I try not to fuck with. As a compensation characters can pull off more ridiculous social stunts with NPCs than other GMs might tolerate.

That's exactly what I'm arguing. I was disputing the notion that combat somehow requires less input from a player than the social parts of the game.

There are no mechanics for determining the beliefs and motivations of player characters. Those things exist entirely within the minds of the players.

>I find this troubling, because it implies the character must now roll for something that he wouldn't have before.
It was a shoddy example on my part as generally it would apply to things that you would already roll for some reason anyway, but you got the core idea I'm guessing.

I make player characters trying to convince other player characters act it out rather than roll dice. I can't imagine it'd be very fun to lose control of your character.
If you let them roll it out, a high charisma character would be able to control the whole party's actions because his arguments are reasonable and he rolls high enough. And that doesn't sound like fun for anyone nor does it sound conducive to cooperative storytelling.