Persuade rolls from one player to another

[Glorelendil]

I agree with everything you are saying above, I just don't think that any of it applies to "don't spread the word that there's treasure here because people do stupid things when they think there's treasure laying around for the taking."

In fact, maybe the opposite: perhaps you should get shadow points for revealing it.

[Corvo]

I agree with everything you are saying above, I just don't think that any of it applies to "don't spread the word that there's treasure here because people do stupid things when they think there's treasure laying around for the taking."

In fact, maybe the opposite: perhaps you should get shadow points for revealing it.

Ouch, you are a though costumer!

The discussions about shadow points & co. remind us that there are a lot of different interpretation and philosophies about these matters. I'm glad me and my players got a similar vision, lest it would very difficult to play TOR, a game that call you on taking a moral stance about a world that is inherently imperfect.

For the sake of conversation, let's try another angle: the fellowship returned to the village at the Stairs of Girion. They were asked about their adventure, and they carefully omitted the parts about the treasures. They were consciously hiding the truth from these people. And, as payment for their rescue, they demanded the dwarves no money, but to swear silence about the treasure.
In the rulebook, page 224, about Misdeeds, we read: "Lying purposefully, subtly manipulate the will of others: 2 shadow points". There I settled for one, 'cause they were making it for altruistic reasons.

A second way to look at it: you write "(...) people do stupid things when they think there's treasure laying around for the taking."
Stupid things: isn't that pretty paternalistic? Again, who are you* to treat them like idiots in need of guidance?
You choose to hide the truth. You choose what is good for them. You made sure they cannot make an informed choice.
You aren't their chosen leader, but you behaved like that -without their knowledge nor consent-

Third and last point: maybe I wouldn't have assigned a Shadow point to a Slayer, but they are Wardens, and their Shadow Weakness is the Lure of Power. For the sake of the people they are defending, they took the power (the choice) in their own hands. They lied. So they created a tiny opening for the Shadow. Because doing so you just admitted there are good reasons to lie. To do what you know to be wrong.

Well, these are just some ideas

*just to be clear, it's a retoric "you"

[Glorelendil]

I just don't see it.

If I know my neighbor left his house unlocked, do I get Shadow points for not telling the homeless people who hang around my coffee shop about it? Am I being paternalistic and making decisions for them?

[Corvo]

I just don't see it.

If I know my neighbor left his house unlocked, do I get Shadow points for not telling the homeless people who hang around my coffee shop about it? Am I being paternalistic and making decisions for them?

I think this is a pretty unfair comparison: taking treasure from monsters is a fairly legitimate enterprise in the world of the Hobbit
Secondly: we are speaking about lying to people about their legitimate enterprises.
Thirdly: next winter, the gold from that legitimate enterprise can make a life or death difference for these people.

Taking your analogy: you know your neighbor left his house unlocked. You met him, have a chat, and omit that fact from him. Because... because you think he don't really need that huge plasma tv: he's overweight and he should do some jogging instead. Do you take some Shadow points?

[Glorelendil]

Telling strangers where there's treasure to be found is not a societally expected behavior.

As for it feeding them next winter, wouldn't telling them about the treasure, for that reason, be exactly the sort of paternalism you were talking about? And if not...if giving them the most useful advice you can think of is what you should be doing...then if you think the corruption risk outweighs the benefit then you should not tell them.

I could see your point if they had been paid to scout out treasure locations and then came back and lied. But as it is it's no different than Gandalf telling Frodo to keep the ring a secret. Shadow points for Gandalf? It's a kind of lying after all.

[Corvo]

As for it feeding them next winter, wouldn't telling them about the treasure, for that reason, be exactly the sort of paternalism you were talking about? And if not...if giving them the most useful advice you can think of is what you should be doing...then if you think the corruption risk outweighs the benefit then you should not tell them.

Telling the truth without is paternalism?

Back in topic... Clearly I failed my Persuade roll

[damiller]

Opposed skill tests, that forces players to act against their will, is IMO a bad thing, but a stand still where players start to argue is even worse.

I realize that the thread has drifted away from this, on the surface, but since the thread is about this by title I wanted to address this again.

I would never require players to make persuasiony type rolls against each other, unless they agreed that it would be possible (ala a "persuasiony" roll) to persuade their character. If they can't agree to that then they have to stop arguing about the issue, draw their swords, or part ways, or whatever way is appropriate to the situation, but the arguing is over.

This never negates player "free will" or choice, they either choose to stop arguing, put some dice behind their arguments, or use the sword to get their way. Its still a choice, and every social combat system I have ever seen requires this agreement, it never forces players to roll dice against a persuasion/intimidation/etc against their will (or their characters).

d

[Angelalex242]

Well...sometimes, characters are highly charismatic...but their players are NOT. And the other people sitting at the table with you more react to the player's charisma then the character's.

I might have the charisma of Aragorn on paper, but if I pissed you off at work 3 days ago, you might well tell me to go jump, no matter how reasoned my arguments are.

That is why there is some wisdom in letting people roll social skills. It reminds the players that one guy took a lot of social skills, and paid for them with perfectly good advancement points, and deserves some consideration for it.

[HotSnow50]

Who are you to choose for them? Their elected leader? Their father?
They aren't kids

They're Wardens... They ward off dangers and ESPECIALLY the Shadow... What you are doing with that argument is making any "warding" action shadow-point worthy unless it's specifically requested by whomever benefits from not having to face said danger themselves.

"Ah ah ah! Shadow point for that, Warden... You prevented other adventures from experiencing the character building and development that only long-term enslavement can give you when you stopped the Orcs from taking over that town!!!"

[HotSnow50]

Well...sometimes, characters are highly charismatic...but their players are NOT. And the other people sitting at the table with you more react to the player's charisma then the character's.

I might have the charisma of Aragorn on paper, but if I pissed you off at work 3 days ago, you might well tell me to go jump, no matter how reasoned my arguments are.

That is why there is some wisdom in letting people roll social skills. It reminds the players that one guy took a lot of social skills, and paid for them with perfectly good advancement points, and deserves some consideration for it.

This is PRECISELY the reason why I urge players to roll persuade as it's not John and Tom arguing what to do, it's Bjarni and Florgan Flatbarrow of the Shire... etc.