Anyway, talk to the player and your DM. If it's spoiling the fun for other players, then it needs to stop. And do not take the "but that's how my character is" excuse, as that player has full control over how his character "is."
Otherwise, my characters have a personality trait where, when they see someone being bullied, they unleash daily powers upon the bully until he is dead. Then they burn the corpse. (Not a recommended solution, but it is temporarily satisfying)
Nom said it best: "Any situation where PC's are using social skills against each other will fit into one of two broad categories:
(1) The players are co-operatively having their characters compete in-game: In this case, the best solution is to use exactly the same resolution mechanics as you'd use for NPC opponents. If your group would normally primarily "talk" as the resolution mechanism, then the "talk" resolves the action. If you'd primarily "roll", then the "roll" resolves the action. Since the players aren't actually competing, only the PCs, the players are neutral to the outcome. Dice apply if they'd rather decide using mechanics, or not if they'd rather come to a mutual metagame agreement. The DM doesn't even need to get involved (unless the rest of the table is bored).
(2) The players are competing: at this point, the DM needs to intervene. Either the players get themselves back into category #1 pronto, or the DM tells the griefer/s to pull their heads in. D&D is not a competitive game, and the rules are not designed to proxy player-player competition (contrast with chess, Monopoly, D&D minis, or any other competitive game). "
One person strong arming the others does not work, I would talk to the player before telling him that he can't do this anymore. Since it is hurting the game.
'''This seems to violate the spirit of the Game to me. Thoughts? And yes I am the one who is usually 'picked' on this way. DM tends to go with it since the rules don't cover acting against a groupmate.
You are absolutely correct, using social skill checks like diplomacy, intimidate and bluff to control another players pc, violates the Spirit of the game. Social skill chekcs are not ment to be tools for one player to control the actions of another player's pc. They are a tool to provide a way to play and resolve pc/npc interaction. No player or Dm is bound to dice rolls in determining a Pcs or Npcs reaction to an attempt at bluff, diplomacy or intimidate. IMO, no player or Dm is bound to any social skill check result. Nobody knows how a pc will react or believe better than the player playing that pc.
I cannot find anything in the rules compendium at this time that prohibits the use of social skill checks by one player to control the actions of another player's PC, this may be diliborate. But there is nothing in the rules that gives a player permission to use such social skill checks to control another player's pc. I do believe a group players can play a game where dice rolls determine pc/ pc interaction, but such style of game play should be consentual and never forced. If you have not consented to that style of play, then using social skill checks to control your pc is bullying.
Your going to have to step up for yourself, and get the discussion going on what style of game does your group wants to play; a game that is cooperative or one that is confrontational with players taking control of other players Pc without consent, which, as you say, violates the spirit of the game.
Is there a section in the rulebooks I can point to to end this trend? DMs a rules lawyer, so while he goes with it now, if he sees its illegal he'll likely stop it.
No, but there's also no section in the rulebook where it says those things can be done, either. Next time your DM tries to force you to have your character do something because the high-Cha "diplomacized" or "bluffed" or "intimidated" you into doing it by rolling a skill check vs your defenses, ask them to show you the rule on how that works.
There isn't one, because players are inherently in control of their characters.
There was a case, that might have been brought up before where a cleric(PC)'s holy symbol was stolen by another PC. Said PC then tried to sell it back to him, rolling a 20 on a bluff check. The general concensus on that thread was that player decides whether or not to allow this or not. In this case the thief of the party was being an idiot. Not only in stealing the weapon of a fellow party member, but also in trying to sell it back to him, right after stealing it.
That's the point where you stop, look the player in the eye, and tell him to stop being stupid. And then the rest of the party holds him upside by his ankles over a crevasse and searches him for all their stuff, and if he doesn't apologise *and* never do it again they throw him into the crevasse and he stops being a PC. Because NOBODY'S character is going to put up with that from someone they're trusting their life to.
And if the DM isn't okay with that, walk away. Letting one player ruin the game because he's taking advantage of the unwillingness of the other players to be the one to "split the party" is dumb, and a DM who allows it is not worth playing with.
I don't know about you, but my free time is in short supply. I simply don't have enough free time to waste some of it playing bad games.
donkey player: I roll a 25 on bluff, hand over the gold
Other player: I roll a 25 on attack, whats your ac?
I'm kind of liking one solution given.
donkey player: I roll a 25 on bluff, hand over the gold
Other player: I roll a 25 on attack, whats your ac?
Chances are, the Celric would get a gigantic cercumstance modifier if the weapon was just barely stolen off of him, and then sold back to him immediately afterwards. Not only, does he he suddenly find his weapon is missing and his theif just happens to have an exact replica, but he suddenly felt the urge to sell it. That easily quailifies as a near impossible situation, and as such he would have gained at least 20+ on his cercumstance check, if outright fail for stealing something highly personal, trying to sell it back and the cerlic notices he doesn't have it anymore. Even if it wasn't a PC, I would have auto failed the check simply because of how unrealistic the situation is.
Just pretty much tell him to hand it back over, if he doesn't, render him unconcious, take the weapon back and leave him behind. There are smart ways of stealing from a PC, but that isn't one of them to steal a highly personal item and sell it back to the immediately afterwards. Any theif worth his salt would steal something much less valible (e.g. Not the reglion symbow) and sell it in a shop.
I'm kind of liking one solution given.
donkey player: I roll a 25 on bluff, hand over the gold
Other player: I roll a 25 on attack, whats your ac?
I can totally see how that would solve the problem without creating further conflict.
Your DM should intervene and explain what proper player conduct is.
Settles everything.
I'm kind of liking one solution given.
donkey player: I roll a 25 on bluff, hand over the gold
Other player: I roll a 25 on attack, whats your ac?
I can totally see how that would solve the problem without creating further conflict.
Your DM should intervene and explain what proper player conduct is.
I know it wouldn't do it without conflict, but if the dm hasn't intervened yet, then they may need a shocker of why pcs shouldn't roll anything agaisnt another pc.
I'm kind of liking one solution given.
donkey player: I roll a 25 on bluff, hand over the gold
Other player: I roll a 25 on attack, whats your ac?
I can totally see how that would solve the problem without creating further conflict.
Your DM should intervene and explain what proper player conduct is.
I know it wouldn't do it without conflict, but if the dm hasn't intervened yet, then they may need a shocker of why pcs shouldn't roll anything agaisnt another pc.
OR
you could solve an out-of-game/player issue with out-of-game ideas, instead of attacking another character just because their player is an idiot.
I'm kind of liking one solution given.
donkey player: I roll a 25 on bluff, hand over the gold
Other player: I roll a 25 on attack, whats your ac?
I can totally see how that would solve the problem without creating further conflict.
Your DM should intervene and explain what proper player conduct is.
I know it wouldn't do it without conflict, but if the dm hasn't intervened yet, then they may need a shocker of why pcs shouldn't roll anything agaisnt another pc.
OR
you could solve an out-of-game/player issue with out-of-game ideas, instead of attacking another character just because their player is an idiot.
Thats choice A. Mine is like..choice D, after choice b: I choose not to believe it no matter how convincing he seems because he can't control my character and choice c: Hey holy symbol? No I have one already, thanks (and let the pc who stole from another bleed to death).
Ultimately the lack of rolls vs eachother is the preferred result- but sometimes, it takes that shocker of a physical attack to show a DM exactly why.
If they won't listem to reason, doing what they're doing only justifies them doing it.
No because choice A is try to solve the problem rationally, and choice B is address the issue to the group, stopping the game if need be, while choice C is stop gaming with that group.
If they won't listem to reason, doing what they're doing only justifies them doing it.
Choice C is the last straw before desperation, and let the idiot player suffer for his choice.
But of note is I said I was 'enjoying' - players who try to bully with dice rolls annoy the **** out of me.
My advice? Have a field day with any of your powers that specify a benefit to allies. Remember: Your character chooses its allies, so someone who intimidated me wouldn't be considered an ally, they'd be considered a threat! This is one of the main reasons I love playing a leader especially in a party where the rogue thinks its ok to steal from the other players.
The seems like sound advice to me. I mean, it will definitely anger some, but I would totallly do that. Mr. Rules Lawyer DM couldn't say anything to it either (as long as the OP explained it in the way that you did).
[spoiler Rules Lawyering]
The "Intimidate" skill, as described in the Rules Compendium (ppg. 147-148), is definitely worded in such a way that Intimidate is to be used on monsters and, in certain circumstances, DM-controlled characters at the DM's discretion, monsters can't intimidate Adventurers, and, by implication, Adventurers are not intended to be the targets of Intimidation.
Which only makes sense, as in 4th Edition in particular, the PCs are super-heroic characters with the courage and will to stand up to situations and beings that would intimidate lesser beings, and it's really not fun to play a "hero" that is constantly being cowed and intimidated by bullying monsters and other characters. (That's not to say that the DM can't describe a suitably scary situation and the players can chose to have their characters react to the situation appropriately in-character, but it's not a mechanical effect.)
The "Bluff" and "Diplomacy" skill are not as specifically worded, unfortunately, and, as someone mentioned above, that might have been deliberate. "Diplomacy" does say that monsters may under unusual circumstances use "Diplomacy" against a PC, but does not provide any examples.
A DM might reasonably conclude from the "Intimidate" skill's wording, however, that skills like "Bluff", "Diplomacy", and "Intimidate" are not intended to strip control of a PC away from her player.
[/spoiler]
I think that the lack of specific wording in the description of "Bluff" and "Diplomacy" skills should not be construed as a loop-hole in the fact that it is the player who controls his/her own character within the limitations of the rules, and not other PCs or NPCs, and that a DM "say yes"/"rule of cool" ruling should never let one PC look awesome at the expense of another.
"Intimidate", "Bluff", and "Diplomacy" are NOT mind-control skills.
I would suggest instead that they are basically assumed to work by encouraging a character to do what he/she naturally wants to do anyway (submit unheroically to tyrants, or hear/see/think only what they want to believe, for example.) This is perfect for determining randomly how the less-than-heroic NPCs and monsters, as props in the game world that exist to be manipulated by the PCs and other characters, will act. But, in contrast, for the PC the player determines what her own character naturally wants to believe, not the DM or party.
The DM failed in a couple of ways in this particular case, in part by letting one player cow him into allowing her character to controlling another player's character without consulting the target (spotlight-hogging on steroids), and in part by not sorting out before the game begins what the table policy (social contract) will be on PC-vs.-PC attacks, thefts, and other aggression will be (some groups thrive on PvP antics such as theft, murder, sexual situations, and so on, while others will prefer instead to avoid them, but whatever the case everyone should be on the same page on what the players' and DM's limits will be on what is acceptable for the game before the game starts.)
There might be another side of this, too: the possibility that one player's character is choosing to do the opposite of what the group wants to do no matter what, causing a breakdown in group solidarity, and a complications to the DM's best efforts to run the game. If the Original Poster (OP) is a disruptive influence on the game simply by refusing to cooperate with the party and the DM, the DM might be allowing the use of PvP social Skills as a shortcut for moving the game along in a productive direction. It's the wrong solution, but, while out-of-game discussion is going on, the OP might want to consider bringing up the discussion of this possibility, if it can help to resolve whatever real problem prompted what seems to have resulted in this half-baked "solution" of allowing PvP skill use. I'd say that, in all likelihood, it's just one player wanting to see what he can get away with by trying to control another character, but bringing up the question of "is my character so troublesome that you guys have to take my control of her away" may be the best way to start the group down the path of troubleshooting the real problem at work here.
Please, do keep us updated on how this works out. I hope that you, your DM, and your group can all work this out contructively - good luck
There was a case, that might have been brought up before where a cleric(PC)'s holy symbol was stolen by another PC. Said PC then tried to sell it back to him, rolling a 20 on a bluff check. The general concensus on that thread was that player decides whether or not to allow this or not. In this case the thief of the party was being an idiot. Not only in stealing the weapon of a fellow party member, but also in trying to sell it back to him, right after stealing it.
One person strong arming the others does not work, I would talk to the player before telling him that he can't do this anymore. Since it is hurting the game.
If I were playing the cleric, I buy it back. I'd then start charging him for heals and see how he likes it.
Wow, that's just ****. I'm going to just assume that you have a bad DM. I am very interested in seeing what comes of this; keep us posted, yeah?
Overall, no player has control over another PC by using skills, no matter what. As a DM, I'd never that happen because it's just out of order.
The only use of skills that against other players that are allowed are such things as:-
Bluff- to lie convincingly to another player vs his\her passive Insight. However if the lieing PC constantly lies and it's becoming increasingly obvious then I'd let the other PC use active Insight vs the active Bluff or give bonuses to the passive insight as the PC becomes more and more aware of the lies of this PC.
Even then, it's a players call to act on the lie...e.g "That guy over there killed him wife and is planning to ambush the party, we have to kill him now while we can?" Bluff check successful would mean the player would respond to his allies words in the manner he feels appropriate, such as walk over to the indicated attacker and question him "I have been informed that you are planning me and my collegues harm, is this true?" The man soils himself and pleads innocents and is convincing so the player goes to the lieing PC "it seems your informant is less than accurate but we'll investigate the murder and be on our guard in case."
The example would indicate the PC is either mad or lieing as his lies are constantly proved untrue.
If they bluffer says something and beats the person's passive insight I just tell them "As far as you know he is telling the truth." Or if he doesn't beat it I'll say something like "He's full of it."
Of course even if the bluffer beats the passive insight that doesn't mean the other PC has to believe what they said. I would probably handle diplomacy and intimidate in the same fashion. It all depends on the situation that arises. There definitely wouldn't be any "control" of the other characters.
I agree that these skills cannot be used to control the actions and reactions of those players.
As a charismatic character, I believe you should be able to have some ability to influence other PC's on some level. But influence is extremely different than control. Using these skills can help influence a particular encounter to your interests, it does not guarantee (or even suggest) that it will actually work out in your favour.
Example of Bluff:
The Thief steals the Cleric's Holy Symbol and tries to sell it back to the Cleric.
Thief: I have this Holy Symbol you'd just love.
Cleric: Wait.. that Symbol looks identical to the one I have! It even has my name on it!
Thief: (Bluff) This is a unique holy symbol, which takes on the form of the symbol you cherish most! To make it more personal, more powerful!
Cleric: (Bluff Success, outcome 1) Wow, that's impressive! A symbol which can change forms, even to look like my own? I'll take it!
Cleric: (Bluff success, outcome 2) Wow, that's impressive! A symbol which can change forms, even to look like my own? But I don't need it, mine has sentimental value, and even though this one looks like mine, it wouldn't be the same.
While the Thief's bluff was successful, its up to the Cleric to decide whether or not he wants to buy it. That said, once the Cleric realizes that his Symbol is gone, that Thief better hope that the Cleric isn't also a War Priest. As you can see, being able to use these skills can have intruiging roleplay effects on the game if used correctly. These skills also offer long term roleplay effects as well, such as what happens when the Cleric realizes he's been had.
Here are the 3 Speech skills, and how I use them/allow them to be used on other players.
Bluff: Can make a character believe something that is not true. Cannot be used to manipulate a player into doing something they otherwise would not.
Diplomacy: Can help another player understand your perspective. Cannot be used to change a player's attitude toward you or cause them to follow you.
Intimidate: Can make another player believe that you mean business if they don't listen to you. Cannot be used to bestow a Fear effect on another player, or to scare a player into taking an action they otherwise would not.
Also, using these skills against a fellow player works similarly to using a spell against a fellow player. If they are aware of what is being attempted, there can be some VERY serious repercussions for the player making the attempt.
Diplomacy: Can help another player understand your perspective. Cannot be used to change a player's attitude toward you or cause them to follow you.
Intimidate: Can make another player believe that you mean business if they don't listen to you. Cannot be used to bestow a Fear effect on another player, or to scare a player into taking an action they otherwise would not.
This is the first time I've seen where a skill check has a real-world effect. What do you do, pump them full of psychotropic drugs if they roll a 1 on an Insight check?
In all seriousness, all that you've described these things affecting is pure RP fluff: "Ok, he means buisness... but normally I don't listen to him, so we'll just keep on with that, only this time, I'm not listening to him in a somewhat frightened fasion." I just don't see the point in creating rules to dictate fluff.
As such, bullying each other is INEXCUSABLE. We all should share some sense of cameraderie with each other, on at least some level. And behaving in a manner consistent with the people who have harassed any of us is a violation of that. As gamers, we need to stick together, and stick with other "geeks", too. IMO, there's no excuse for a gamer bullying an anime fan, either, just to make an example.
And for the OP:
The people who have told you that the rules do NOT support this bully's actions are correct. The DM needs to gain control of this guy. No amount of Bluff, Intimidate, or Diplomacy can suddenly MAKE your character change his mind. Especially if he's talking your group into doing somethign against your character's particular ideals/personality.
The examples people gave with the cleric and the thief is a prime one. Even with a high Bluff check, there are other factors to consider. For example, the Cleric recognizing his own property.
Another example, there was a big discussion about a year back about a rogue in the party who went Stealth, sneaked over and Coup de Grace'd the party's wizard (who was below zero and unconscious at the time). What he, and a lot of other people forgot was that attacking anythign breaks Stealth. So even if he used CDG on the wizard, and immediately went back to concealment and went to Stealth, EVERYONE who had line of sight to the wizard automatically saw him do it.
A player who wants to act against other players needs to be dealt with. if he wants to control everyone in the party to do things his way. Suggest he go play a one-player video game. Since he clearly is incapable of cooperation and compromise. If, on the other hand, he is willing to work as a TEAM, then he is welcome to continue to play. But it's not "his way or the highway".
I just don't see the point...
You don't have to see it, you're not in any of our games. Play how you like, we'll play how we like. Thanks for the trolling though ;)
Typically the only skill that is usually used between my players is bluff.
If they bluffer says something and beats the person's passive insight I just tell them "As far as you know he is telling the truth."
Not that much. More like "As far as you can tell, he believes what he's saying."
Of course even if the bluffer beats the passive insight that doesn't mean the other PC has to believe what they said.
If the bluffer isn't actually bluffing, but instead is suffering from hallucinations plus impaired judgment and firmly believes you have turned into a floating eye, your failure to catch him lying does not obligate you to also believe you have turned into a floating eye.
I would probably handle diplomacy and intimidate in the same fashion. It all depends on the situation that arises. There definitely wouldn't be any "control" of the other characters.
There's an important item at the top of the character sheet. In the current Character Builder output, it's actually at the top of each of the first three pages. It's labeled "Player Name".
If said DM/Player insisted that I had no choice but to go along with said outcome, I would neatly stack my character sheets and hand them to the DM or Player.
"I see you're much more interested in playing my character than I am, so here you go. Its okay, I brought a spare," as you pull out a back-up character that you made, knowing this was exactly what was going to happen.
And repeat as many times as necessary.
"I see you're much more interested in playing my character than I am, so here you go. Its okay, I brought a spare," as you pull out a back-up character that you made, knowing this was exactly what was going to happen.
Dude. I love this!