Player .vs player

[Lorimez]

Hi guys.

how would LMs deal when another player is trying to use insight to sense if a member of their fellowship is lying?

I've previously made the other player use riddle/persuade but can see flaws in this system. Any suggestions please?

Thanks

[Terisonen]

Personally, I would not allow ANY use of skill player vs player, or I must have the assentiment of both. They have to deal in discussion&role-playing one on one, with the other member of the group or face to face.

Nothing will ruin a playing session and even a campaign more quickly than allowing a player vs player skill contest to uncover the secret of an another player character.

[zedturtle]

Yeah, my first inclination is think about Shadow points and ask the players to resolve the scene in character. In other words, if they like the drama then they can keep the lie in place, but I'd be wanting to understand the players' goals. After all, it's not very conducive to Fellowship.

[Stormcrow]

I don't see why this wouldn't be handled as a simple opposed action.

As for not allowing player versus player, why not? The hobbit conspiracy spied on Frodo. Strider followed the hobbits into Bree without their knowledge. Sam headed off Frodo at Parth Galen. Members of fellowships are at odds sometimes, without being evil or misguided.

I wouldn't allow one player to force another player to make a certain decision, unless a Flaw is involved. Otherwise, opposed rolls are fine.

[Terisonen]

I don't see why this wouldn't be handled as a simple opposed action.

As for not allowing player versus player, why not? The hobbit conspiracy spied on Frodo. Strider followed the hobbits into Bree without their knowledge. Sam headed off Frodo at Parth Galen. Members of fellowships are at odds sometimes, without being evil or misguided.

I wouldn't allow one player to force another player to make a certain decision, unless a Flaw is involved. Otherwise, opposed rolls are fine.

RPG is not like a book. In book you have one author: in RPG they are many and must work together. That is...

[Glorelendil]

RPG is not like a book. In book you have one author: in RPG they are many and must work together. That is...

I agree with this. I would ask the players to work together to come up with a great narrative that they all like. The fact that two players (not characters) are working at cross-purposes is the issue here.

[Stormcrow]

RPG is not like a book. In book you have one author: in RPG they are many and must work together.

There is nothing inherent in the RPG form that requires players to make their characters work together. The earliest RPGs were full of player competition. You're less likely to want to be at odds in a setting like Middle-earth, but that doesn't prohibit the activity.

Neither is opposing a friend an act worthy of Shadow. You get Shadow points for experiencing anguish, being in an area tainted by the Shadow, committing despicable or dishonorable acts, or taking possession of a tainted item. You don't get Shadow points for keeping secrets from your friends or taking actions opposed to their wills.

[Kurt]

Hi All,

Regarding the question, I would do Insight vs Riddle.

I'm not really a player vs player person. Roleplaying games are inherently cooperative in nature. Not only in the sense that the players are supposed to be collaborating with each other, but the players are also collaborating with the LM to develop a great story. When a group stops doing that "the team" can become quite dysfunctional. It is completely unnecessary to roleplay the development of character relationships and trust - trust in the team needs to be implicit in much the same way that there is an understanding the characters all have a similar alignment or have a common set of values. The game does not work in the same way that a novel does where group friction adds to drama and excitement. More often than not this friction is a cause of frustration for the players in the game - it certainly is for me.

My gaming group started their adventures with TOR in Laketown, where the first task was to rescue a couple of missing dwarves. It began like this.

"You're all sitting in the local tavern and despite being a little dark and rowdy on occasions, the ale is good as is the service. You've been friends for years and you meet here once a month to catch up on what's happening in each of your lives, tell each other about local news, sing songs and drink until you can drink no more."

Incidentally, I have found that the same group of players worked much more smoothly in TOR than they did in D&D. We figured this was predominantly due to the assumption that all the characters have very similar values, they are all good natured and care enough about the world and those that live in it to do something about the looming shadow. The D&D characters had a variety of personalities and sometimes there was a clash which caused player friction.

Cheers,
Kurt

[Lorimez]

Thanks all for your ideas. I should explain the situation better as the group are a tight fellowship but . . .

One of the characters has been under the influence of the Nazgul and was seen by an npc about to do something heinous. That PC came out of the "shadow" effect and made his excuse and left. That PC is going down the route that the npc was lying as he wasn't there. (He was but he's maintaining he wasn't)He will get shadow for lying to the party but . . .

The PC needs to uphold his lie. The other Fellowship members are naturally now suspicious.

The question I'm faced with - if a PC has good Insight into body language etc, and the PC being accused is skilled in Persuade - should I let them have some kind of roll to determine if they can sense a lie or just let it roleplay out?

Thanks

[Terisonen]

It's up to your syle of DM-ing, and your group of player. Only you know the best way to handle this. In doubt, I will personally don't allow any skill confrontation between player, except when they are both ok with that.