Persuade rolls from one player to another

[HotSnow50]

If my players are arguing as to what the best course of action would be, say, when planning to interact with a certain NPC that is known to dislike Dwarves, if they cannot decide between two courses of action, should I allow a player to make a "Persuade" check against the other player and vice versa? I guess I could intuit how this would go down, either just have both of them roll their "Persuade" skill and take the highest roll, or maybe just take the highest base "Heart" score if they are different and go off of that.

Would this be the correct course of action? Or maybe I have missed something tailor-made for player-to-player tasks?

[Morgoth]

I would just have them sort it out themselves. Take a vote between them if need be. I try not to have players roll against other players if it can be helped.

[HotSnow50]

I would just have them sort it out themselves. Take a vote between them if need be. I try not to have players roll against other players if it can be helped.

Alrighty, that's fair. I was fairly hesitant to step and start trying to introduce off-the-cuff hooks or suggestions as I have read over and over that the game functions best when the players run the majority of the narration.

Thanks again for the response!

[damiller]

Alternatively you could suggest they use the persuasion skills - if they are open to it.

As far as I am concerned if a player agrees to allow their character to possibly be persuaded then it is okay. Then there can be no complaint that "player control" has been lost, since they agreed to the possibility that their character would be persuaded.

Now they probably won't agree to it, but at least you have given them the option/suggestion.

Additionally, if the "discussion" grounds the game to a halt I might tell them that they have to either figure it out in the next X minutes, or roll to persuade each other, highest roll wins.

d

[Rocmistro]

I would *suggest* it, with the expectation that they might very well shoot the idea down.

[Arthadan]

I'd hadle rolls to give a general impression such "you think your friend has made a very good point", but as long as the player can give a reasonable reason he can ignore the roll. As I see things, players must have the final word about their characters actions every time (unless under a bout of madness, that is ), not be bounded by rules.

[mirkwoodfalcon]

Pardon the slight deviation from the original question, but what are your opinions on insight rolls between players?
Example: One player was lying to an NPC to get information they wanted. Another player, standing at a distance, wanted to roll insight to see if they could detect that the other player was lying and then act upon it.

[Majestic]

I think you'll get about as many different answers as there are GMs on stuff like a PC using Persuade and Insight on another PC.

Personally, I usually allow it, but then I often only give an impression ("you feel like he's likely hiding something", or the like).

[Indur Dawndeath]

Opposed skill tests, that forces players to act againt their will, is IMO a bad thing, but a stand still where players start to argue is even worse.
I would solve this by springing an encounter as they argue or hand out shadow points if I feel that there is hostility between players.
So force them to decide. Never roll the dice and say:"The orc has now persuaded you to accept his offer of gold, so you will let him go..." I know you said PvP but it is the same idea.

Cheers

[HotSnow50]

Opposed skill tests, that forces players to act againt their will, is IMO a bad thing, but a stand still where players start to argue is even worse.
I would solve this by springing an encounter as they argue or hand out shadow points if I feel that there is hostility between players.
So force them to decide. Never roll the dice and say:"The orc has now persuaded you to accept his offer of gold, so you will let him go..." I know you said PvP but it is the same idea.

Cheers

I follow the reasoning for why it is to be avoided if possible, I am just noting that, in the situation I found myself in, it was UNAVOIDABLE. I know that the rule set allows for when a character's hope equals or drops below their shadow points and they become Miserable, they might go nutso if they hit a "Sauron" on their feat roll... While I can see this as a positive thing in some terms (erases all shadow points [save for the perm. one now added]) there are also some glaring points that can be seen as negative by some characters such as developing a set of flaws. This is something that the game imposes in that characters are BOUND by the rules and must accept that shadow points may be permanently added to their characters even if are FORCED to travel through blighted lands and get ruddy luck on some rolls. If the game might very well force a player to accept that they will lose control of their character (and potentially even lose their beloved character to the shadow forever) I would think that the game should ALSO force the players to handle impasses not through the providence of the loremaster but instead by checking whether each character possesses the necessary traits or skills within themselves to persuade the other player of their actions.

Appart from the going thought here, and I make this point respectively, I don't see the harm in allowing the players to settle their differences by seeing what their characters do to handle the interaction