I really must thank you for all your content. Recently, one of my party members told my character that I should act like the leader of the party and that started to make me think. I thought my character was doing a decent job, but after having watched video after video about how to be a good leader I realized that my character is indeed a pretty good leader, she just makes decisions that mostly go against that player characters alignment. I mean... he forced us to turn ourselves into the authorities so he could, in the future, go on a date with his romantic interest. He basically kidnapped the whole party and took away our voice. My character reprimanded him, and told him that that decision wasn't his to make alone. That we, the rest of the party, weren't mad at him because he was turning us in, but we were mad at him that he took away our choice. If he had discussed this with us, we would have agreed and went willingly. Instead this caused a huge rift in the party and I honestly have no ide how to really bring us back together. It's pretty rough, and it sucks that I can't even do anything to him because there's no real punishment that I could give him that would even affect his character. We are now in debt to the government 40k gold and are working free labor (community service) to pay it off. My character and his character are always butting heads now and while it's fun to see us playfully argue it does stagnate the course of the game when we keep going back and forth. Don't worry, there's no real animosity between the players, just the PC's in RP.
In one of my games, everyone is comfortable, and the characters all have a sort of "rank" in their group which is an "investigative" group. We use that to mess around a bit when one of us messes up. ["You're getting paid in EXPERIENCE, don't you worry about maintenance, I'll take care of that for you." and "Boss...are you SURE about this? Remember what you tried LAST time?"]
I'd like to add something if I may: Unless you and your party already discussed it beforehand in a session 0 or whatever, don't just assume leadership. In most all parties/teams, the role of the "leader" (if there even is one) happens naturally over time as players get to know their characters, and characters get to know each other. Take Captain America in the first Avengers movie for example: While he certainly gives his opinion on things, he doesn't try ordering everyone else around right off the bat, he just stays true to his moral compass and "leads by example" so to speak. He's also usually pretty quick to realize when one of the other heroes is more suited and well equipped for a specific task than he would be. But most importantly of all, when it comes right down to it, he steps up when he's needed most, even if no one else would. While he does more often than not think and act like a soldier (because that's basically what he is, but at peak human form lol), he shows through his actions and words that he does so not to try and be "better" than anyone else, but to protect not only the world, but more importantly, the people closest to him. Now this isn't to say that a character has to be exactly like Steve Rogers in order to be a good leader, but he does show a really great example of what a naturally born leader looks like!
My current campaign has a make up of 4 characters in their late teens early 20s and then my character in her late 30s (there might be one guy who is close to her age) She is built to be a mentor character, so she isn't a charismatic person she is just so much more experienced than everyone else. And so far I have been selling it. Erica has had a major character arch already, now she needs to guide everyone else's. She is a support role in the party, not mechanically but narratively
The word good can be misleading. Your video described the actions of a moral leader amd if that's what you meant by good, then mission accompmished. However, based on the entire video you were also touching on being an effective leader in game and at the table. All things considered an effective or successful leader does not need to be moral. Provided that objectives are accomplished the means are up for debate. Aside from that small critique everything else you said was well done. Managing a party in game and out needs a communicator that can grow the other players confidence and trust.
How do you as a GM encourage someone to step up? Have you ever identified a player and felt they made the most sense to lead, but felt they were unwilling to take control of a party or even situation?
Yes absolutely! And I have on occasion forced a player to lead by making their character take charge or center stage. A good example is Khalasa in the game I run. I've used certain devices to shine more light onto her character and make her lead more than before. And I'll shift it again to the next player once the Khalasa line is done. But you have to be careful as some people really don't like leadership.
C. Prusse In my game, the players started off defending a town from attack. At one point, in the keep, I had the leader of the town take the paladin aside and encourage him to take charge, we're counting on you, etc. After the party helped defend the town, the leader thanked the paladin specifically and told him he could tell instantly he was someone that could be counted on.
Solid tips. Exactly how I played a prince in a historical setting, and how I played a Captain in a Star Wars setting, same basics in regards too leadership, two completely different characters, motivation, outset, social standing, but the fundamentals of leadership was to a tee.
Thanks for sharing my group. Started off with not having a leader. Now my character steped up after death and players leaving and kicking out toxic players, so grest to have some advice
I'm currently doing my first roleplay and my character should be the leader of the group... It's a bit hard for me but my campaign and my GM always support me!
In a lot of games I play I wind up being the leader in one way or another and/or push the plot it helps that the plans I make always work even the more complex ones.
It always seems to be either myself or my brother leading the party in our group. When it comes to deception my brother takes the lead, but during other social encounters I take the lead. It's actually impossible to get a consensus from my group because one of our members is so indecisive that he'll end up making no choice, and while he's agonizing at least one other party member will get bored and do something that requires the rest of us to react.
Hahahaha. Sounds like a regular roleplaying party. Later today I release a video on how to get more out of your fellow players maybe that will help your indecisive one and your brash one :)
I would say my character is the leader in our game. I feel like I follow most of the tips, but there's still this character who just seems to have no respect for my character, even then the my character try to sort it out with the other character.
Respect is difficult to earn. Sometimes it requires you to surrender your position as leader to the individual, let them lead, and see if they do a better job, sometimes it requires you just plain put your foot-down. Almost all the time though it requires you chat to your GM and possibly the other player to see if it's an in-game issue, or something more personal between players.
I feel you. I try rp with people and one doesn't respect as a leader. I just need a good team who listens to me. If I was in a group with my old friends they would of argued as 3 of us would of wanted to be leader I don't think they'd even let me be in the decision of leading. Just earn respect and show you care. Great vid btw OP
I would have structured the video a bit different. In my opinion the last part should be up front, other than that great advice. As a DM I tell my players that skillchecks against other players will only succeed if the other player wishes that they do, if subterfuge is needed I as a DM decide if it furthers the plot/relationship. But I generally give Players more power than there characters (more what do you say, less roll persuasion)
I debated which part should happen first - and my thinking was - identify what is a leader, and why they need to do first - then examine if they're needed or not. But glad the advice is good nonetheless ;)
Through this video I learned communication is definitely a key factor in being a (good) leader. On the note about turning the game into 'just numbers': Would it be wrong for a PC to be talking to another PC and one of the players to ask the other player to make a persuasion check because they are on the fence for joining the others idea? Or perhaps as a way to say, if you crit, I'll join you. It throws the game into a bit of suspenseful chance but is it in bad spirit for DnD?
In my opinion PvP is fine as long as both sides are okay with it. And diplomacy is not much different then fighting. You roll a die and the outcome decides if you stab, steal from or convince the other one. So there should be no problem as long as both players are in the know (and okay with it) and the GM is not involved.
I agree. Often I have players who reach an stalemate and then ask for rolls. It just mustn't become the 'go to' solution otherwise that all important communication falls away.
Need some help. 4 player party A boyfriend and girlfriend have connected backstories are both neutral-evil neutral-chaotic characters and have no other aim in the campaign then making money. Inherently this isn’t an issue. The reason it is is because myself and a new player are both playing characters who are Neutral/good neutral/lawful and are looking for redemption arc stories. Once again think this party can work. The problem is that one of the money motivated characters wants to be leader in a sandbox style campaign and has made it clear their only desire is to run from quest to quest making money, this kind of makes it hard for either me or the new player to actually redeem our characters. My character is a tyrant king and warlord who has led wars and done heinous things in the name of revenge and has realized the errors of his ways and wants to be better but is currently scared of his own abilities. I’m not asking to only redeem my character and forget going on random quests to make money or redeeming the other character, but based on conversation and role play it seems the other player will make the entire campaign nothing but going on quests and making money no matter how much that conflicts with any other characters personal code. Basically looking for suggestions on how to handle the situation or simply take the leadership spot in the party because if I do that I’m confident I can keep everyone happy and provide the money, random quests, exploration, and story time/character arc focus that’s required.
I know this video is almost four years old, but I have an important question. In a recent game, one of my fellow player's character died and I have the mindset to take responsibility for his death in-game and possibly step up and try to lead the group so as to not let that happen again. Is this ideal? We are collaborative but with little direction.
Big moral question here. Let's say that in my group of players, many of which are new, they require a leader type of player. I'm likely the best candidate for the role, as most of them respect, tolerate, or at least like my character. But as a player and character, I wanted to play them as a bit more of a loner, or someone socially awkward, ill suited to actually being the type to go up and ask if we can hold on a moment to survey the situation. Am I obligated moreso to taking that leadership role, but compromising my enjoyment and vision of the characters personality to fufill this role? and to increase the detail, perhaps the former leader role had to leave the campaign, or we have had some player shuffling happening, does that change the situation?
Wow that is a tough one, well firstly we all play these games because we want to have fun and so if you think it will detract heavily from your fun don't do it! You are not obligated to do anything, and if the other players were in the same situation they also have the right to choose enjoyment over compromise (however don't be a dick about it lol) That being said.... it could create quite a very interesting character and you could play out your dilemma in game, about trying to be a loner and them forcing leadership on your character. This isn't a plug but if you watch our Pathfinder actual plays you will see our Rogue Barador struggling with the same thing, his character is a quiet, stealthy rogue who always ends up being the leader. We find the coolest characters are made by what you originally intended and what the party threw at you, kinda like real life that way and you could have tons of fun role playing the inner turmoil your loner has trying to rally the group because if he doesn't they will all die. Perhaps look at what extreme situations would force him to do something out of character like that? Ie does his will to survive and achieve the party's mission trump his social awkwardness, also just because he is the leader doesn't mean he is the best leader or the most socially skilled one. Regarding the player reshuffling and leader leaving, I don't think that changes the situation because the dilemma still exits in that it isn't necessarily your characters strength or personality to be the leader. Hope this helps.
In case you come across it again, assuming you're way past this one, I have an idea. There is a character in a simple novel I'm working on who's a lot like a loner. He very much so keeps to himself and rarely talks on initiative. However, I do have him throw in a line or two of advice or remarks in order to help the group as a whole. With the lack of interaction, he has an easy time observing so he's usually the one to notice something the others don't.
On a side note, I'd imagine that PVP persuasion or mind control-type abilities are really hard to do. Part of the problem is that there's little counterplay to it-by definition it involves taking control of your character which doesn't make for a great time. Also, such abilities tend to be either overpowered or useless-it's hard to get that middle ground. You can work around these problems (such as non-complete control, ect), but it's not overly easy. As for specifically intra-party diplomacy checks, this runs into the problem that it would give an easy pathway for letting someone be the dick at the table. Using diplomacy roles to force another player to go along with your decision that they normally wouldn't will make everyone hate you quickly. I think I may have had one idea though that might make such a thing non-annoying: So, if you succeed a diplomacy roll against your fellow player, they can technically still refuse your orders. However, if they obey them, they get some sort of experience bonus or something. That way, you're no longer the dick at the table but rather a guy making certain things profitable that weren't before. You'd still need to iron out some metagaming things here, but I think something like that would be what you'd have to do to make such a thing work.
It also depends on your players. On Sunday I ran a game where a player tried to use Intimidate on another player. It didn't devolve into an argument because I interrupted with an alien attack - but it was heading that way. It's an interesting 'rules' point. What does others think?
Im a little late here, but when it comes to PC's interacting with each other I have a strict rule of "You can never use Persuasion/Intimidation and so on, on another PC unless he allows it".
The66Hammer I have a similar rule, they can't use any abilities or loot each other. They need to do it in real life, I have a rule if you want to rob a player you need to rob there d20. It works out pretty well
It depends on how you use the diplomacy/Persuasion/whatever skill overall in the game. In my group, such conversations are always acted out, regardless if you try to convince a PC or an NPC. The player has to really come up with arguments for his point, a good diplomacy roll just influences how convincing those arguments are presented ingame and how openminded the other person is to actually take the players point into account. A player presented with good arguments in an overwhelmingly convincing way (good diplomacy roll) is usually expected to agree, but he still may resist if he has a really solid reason for it (e.g. he knows for sure that the other player is wrong based on surefire ingame Information or he is a fanatic about a certain moral obligation that absolutely won't listen to reason when it comes to this. No matter how epic your diplomacy skill is, you won't convince a priest to piss on his god's altar.)Strict magical mind control on the other hand really does take control out of the players hand, but it is IMHO a hostile violent act just as much as putting a knife to the characters throat to force him to do something, so if the character doesn't have a very good reason for such an extreme measure that is also accepted by the rest of the party (minus the character being mindcontrolled), he should really think twice doing such a thing if he does expect to keep on working with this party and not being kicked out or having his throat cut in his sleep.
So umm.... I'm now in my frist campaign, and when the party are in a continent where all races is at Cold War as each other, the previously Leader off the game due to work....and when the party don't have a leader, we try to vote a new one and it was chaotic cause no one want to be it....so me, a Life Domain Cleric take full responsibility and be the next leader....unfortunately i have no experience what so ever....so pretty much in conclusion.... "WE'RE FUCKED"
Welcome to the table! If you a player - then I hope these may just help you become a better one or a happier one. If you also GM - check out my other channel - how to be a good GM ;)
My group: Cireen - Neutral Good Aasimar Bard of Glamour Floki - Chaotic Neutral Halfling Beastmaster Victoria - Neutral Evil Human Treachery Paladin J'lary - True Neutral Human Divination Wizard Dotorius - Neutral Good Firbolg Druid of the Moon Tobias - Chaotic Good Human Fighter No one is Lawful... we really need a leader.
I really must thank you for all your content. Recently, one of my party members told my character that I should act like the leader of the party and that started to make me think. I thought my character was doing a decent job, but after having watched video after video about how to be a good leader I realized that my character is indeed a pretty good leader, she just makes decisions that mostly go against that player characters alignment. I mean... he forced us to turn ourselves into the authorities so he could, in the future, go on a date with his romantic interest. He basically kidnapped the whole party and took away our voice. My character reprimanded him, and told him that that decision wasn't his to make alone. That we, the rest of the party, weren't mad at him because he was turning us in, but we were mad at him that he took away our choice. If he had discussed this with us, we would have agreed and went willingly. Instead this caused a huge rift in the party and I honestly have no ide how to really bring us back together. It's pretty rough, and it sucks that I can't even do anything to him because there's no real punishment that I could give him that would even affect his character. We are now in debt to the government 40k gold and are working free labor (community service) to pay it off. My character and his character are always butting heads now and while it's fun to see us playfully argue it does stagnate the course of the game when we keep going back and forth.
Don't worry, there's no real animosity between the players, just the PC's in RP.
In one of my games, everyone is comfortable, and the characters all have a sort of "rank" in their group which is an "investigative" group. We use that to mess around a bit when one of us messes up. ["You're getting paid in EXPERIENCE, don't you worry about maintenance, I'll take care of that for you." and "Boss...are you SURE about this? Remember what you tried LAST time?"]
I'd like to add something if I may:
Unless you and your party already discussed it beforehand in a session 0 or whatever, don't just assume leadership. In most all parties/teams, the role of the "leader" (if there even is one) happens naturally over time as players get to know their characters, and characters get to know each other. Take Captain America in the first Avengers movie for example:
While he certainly gives his opinion on things, he doesn't try ordering everyone else around right off the bat, he just stays true to his moral compass and "leads by example" so to speak. He's also usually pretty quick to realize when one of the other heroes is more suited and well equipped for a specific task than he would be. But most importantly of all, when it comes right down to it, he steps up when he's needed most, even if no one else would.
While he does more often than not think and act like a soldier (because that's basically what he is, but at peak human form lol), he shows through his actions and words that he does so not to try and be "better" than anyone else, but to protect not only the world, but more importantly, the people closest to him. Now this isn't to say that a character has to be exactly like Steve Rogers in order to be a good leader, but he does show a really great example of what a naturally born leader looks like!
My current campaign has a make up of 4 characters in their late teens early 20s and then my character in her late 30s (there might be one guy who is close to her age) She is built to be a mentor character, so she isn't a charismatic person she is just so much more experienced than everyone else. And so far I have been selling it. Erica has had a major character arch already, now she needs to guide everyone else's.
She is a support role in the party, not mechanically but narratively
The word good can be misleading. Your video described the actions of a moral leader amd if that's what you meant by good, then mission accompmished.
However, based on the entire video you were also touching on being an effective leader in game and at the table.
All things considered an effective or successful leader does not need to be moral. Provided that objectives are accomplished the means are up for debate.
Aside from that small critique everything else you said was well done. Managing a party in game and out needs a communicator that can grow the other players confidence and trust.
How do you as a GM encourage someone to step up? Have you ever identified a player and felt they made the most sense to lead, but felt they were unwilling to take control of a party or even situation?
Yes absolutely! And I have on occasion forced a player to lead by making their character take charge or center stage. A good example is Khalasa in the game I run. I've used certain devices to shine more light onto her character and make her lead more than before. And I'll shift it again to the next player once the Khalasa line is done. But you have to be careful as some people really don't like leadership.
C. Prusse In my game, the players started off defending a town from attack. At one point, in the keep, I had the leader of the town take the paladin aside and encourage him to take charge, we're counting on you, etc. After the party helped defend the town, the leader thanked the paladin specifically and told him he could tell instantly he was someone that could be counted on.
Perfect! How did the pally player respond? Smiles and pride?
Bacon Battalion RPG Precisely! It worked great.
Solid tips. Exactly how I played a prince in a historical setting, and how I played a Captain in a Star Wars setting, same basics in regards too leadership, two completely different characters, motivation, outset, social standing, but the fundamentals of leadership was to a tee.
Thanks for sharing my group. Started off with not having a leader. Now my character steped up after death and players leaving and kicking out toxic players, so grest to have some advice
As a new player, I am SO grateful this is here! It really helps me role play better!
I'm currently doing my first roleplay and my character should be the leader of the group... It's a bit hard for me but my campaign and my GM always support me!
Thanks for taking the time to make these videos both concise and thorough. I have a feeling I'll be returning to this one quite a few times.
Awesome! Glad you joined us :)
I'd love to see more videos like this one about the other character types!
I'll add it to the list! Glad you enjoying the videos - you have been busy watching!
In a lot of games I play I wind up being the leader in one way or another and/or push the plot it helps that the plans I make always work even the more complex ones.
It seems that being a good leader in role-playing and being a good leader IRL aren't too different. Thanks for the video!
Bingo! This video really could be used for either :)
It always seems to be either myself or my brother leading the party in our group. When it comes to deception my brother takes the lead, but during other social encounters I take the lead. It's actually impossible to get a consensus from my group because one of our members is so indecisive that he'll end up making no choice, and while he's agonizing at least one other party member will get bored and do something that requires the rest of us to react.
Hahahaha. Sounds like a regular roleplaying party. Later today I release a video on how to get more out of your fellow players maybe that will help your indecisive one and your brash one :)
I would say my character is the leader in our game. I feel like I follow most of the tips, but there's still this character who just seems to have no respect for my character, even then the my character try to sort it out with the other character.
Respect is difficult to earn. Sometimes it requires you to surrender your position as leader to the individual, let them lead, and see if they do a better job, sometimes it requires you just plain put your foot-down. Almost all the time though it requires you chat to your GM and possibly the other player to see if it's an in-game issue, or something more personal between players.
I feel you. I try rp with people and one doesn't respect as a leader. I just need a good team who listens to me. If I was in a group with my old friends they would of argued as 3 of us would of wanted to be leader I don't think they'd even let me be in the decision of leading. Just earn respect and show you care. Great vid btw OP
I would have structured the video a bit different.
In my opinion the last part should be up front, other than that great advice.
As a DM I tell my players that skillchecks against other players will only succeed if the other player wishes that they do, if subterfuge is needed I as a DM decide if it furthers the plot/relationship.
But I generally give Players more power than there characters (more what do you say, less roll persuasion)
I debated which part should happen first - and my thinking was - identify what is a leader, and why they need to do first - then examine if they're needed or not. But glad the advice is good nonetheless ;)
Great showcases!
Through this video I learned communication is definitely a key factor in being a (good) leader.
On the note about turning the game into 'just numbers':
Would it be wrong for a PC to be talking to another PC and one of the players to ask the other player to make a persuasion check because they are on the fence for joining the others idea? Or perhaps as a way to say, if you crit, I'll join you. It throws the game into a bit of suspenseful chance but is it in bad spirit for DnD?
In my opinion PvP is fine as long as both sides are okay with it.
And diplomacy is not much different then fighting.
You roll a die and the outcome decides if you stab, steal from or convince the other one.
So there should be no problem as long as both players are in the know (and okay with it) and the GM is not involved.
I agree. Often I have players who reach an stalemate and then ask for rolls. It just mustn't become the 'go to' solution otherwise that all important communication falls away.
Also, sometimes PvP charisma rolls make for good comedic relief / tension release.
Agreed! Had one last night... bluff for the win right? What gold? I didn't find any gold... I swear...
Need some help.
4 player party
A boyfriend and girlfriend have connected backstories are both neutral-evil neutral-chaotic characters and have no other aim in the campaign then making money. Inherently this isn’t an issue. The reason it is is because myself and a new player are both playing characters who are Neutral/good neutral/lawful and are looking for redemption arc stories.
Once again think this party can work.
The problem is that one of the money motivated characters wants to be leader in a sandbox style campaign and has made it clear their only desire is to run from quest to quest making money, this kind of makes it hard for either me or the new player to actually redeem our characters.
My character is a tyrant king and warlord who has led wars and done heinous things in the name of revenge and has realized the errors of his ways and wants to be better but is currently scared of his own abilities.
I’m not asking to only redeem my character and forget going on random quests to make money or redeeming the other character, but based on conversation and role play it seems the other player will make the entire campaign nothing but going on quests and making money no matter how much that conflicts with any other characters personal code.
Basically looking for suggestions on how to handle the situation or simply take the leadership spot in the party because if I do that I’m confident I can keep everyone happy and provide the money, random quests, exploration, and story time/character arc focus that’s required.
Very good video, thank you :)
I know this video is almost four years old, but I have an important question. In a recent game, one of my fellow player's character died and I have the mindset to take responsibility for his death in-game and possibly step up and try to lead the group so as to not let that happen again. Is this ideal? We are collaborative but with little direction.
It actually can be interesting to roll social skills against the group but the results are non binding
Every CEO should watch this.
I’m making a minecraft world for my friends in minecraft and I will be the leader...
Solid!
Like a bull!
Big moral question here. Let's say that in my group of players, many of which are new, they require a leader type of player. I'm likely the best candidate for the role, as most of them respect, tolerate, or at least like my character. But as a player and character, I wanted to play them as a bit more of a loner, or someone socially awkward, ill suited to actually being the type to go up and ask if we can hold on a moment to survey the situation. Am I obligated moreso to taking that leadership role, but compromising my enjoyment and vision of the characters personality to fufill this role? and to increase the detail, perhaps the former leader role had to leave the campaign, or we have had some player shuffling happening, does that change the situation?
Wow that is a tough one, well firstly we all play these games because we want to have fun and so if you think it will detract heavily from your fun don't do it! You are not obligated to do anything, and if the other players were in the same situation they also have the right to choose enjoyment over compromise (however don't be a dick about it lol)
That being said.... it could create quite a very interesting character and you could play out your dilemma in game, about trying to be a loner and them forcing leadership on your character. This isn't a plug but if you watch our Pathfinder actual plays you will see our Rogue Barador struggling with the same thing, his character is a quiet, stealthy rogue who always ends up being the leader.
We find the coolest characters are made by what you originally intended and what the party threw at you, kinda like real life that way and you could have tons of fun role playing the inner turmoil your loner has trying to rally the group because if he doesn't they will all die. Perhaps look at what extreme situations would force him to do something out of character like that? Ie does his will to survive and achieve the party's mission trump his social awkwardness, also just because he is the leader doesn't mean he is the best leader or the most socially skilled one.
Regarding the player reshuffling and leader leaving, I don't think that changes the situation because the dilemma still exits in that it isn't necessarily your characters strength or personality to be the leader.
Hope this helps.
In case you come across it again, assuming you're way past this one, I have an idea.
There is a character in a simple novel I'm working on who's a lot like a loner.
He very much so keeps to himself and rarely talks on initiative.
However, I do have him throw in a line or two of advice or remarks in order to help the group as a whole.
With the lack of interaction, he has an easy time observing so he's usually the one to notice something the others don't.
Then be the quiet owl. Hoot only when you need to give orders and give apreciation. Observe what others cant and make edjucated desicions
On a side note, I'd imagine that PVP persuasion or mind control-type abilities are really hard to do. Part of the problem is that there's little counterplay to it-by definition it involves taking control of your character which doesn't make for a great time. Also, such abilities tend to be either overpowered or useless-it's hard to get that middle ground. You can work around these problems (such as non-complete control, ect), but it's not overly easy.
As for specifically intra-party diplomacy checks, this runs into the problem that it would give an easy pathway for letting someone be the dick at the table. Using diplomacy roles to force another player to go along with your decision that they normally wouldn't will make everyone hate you quickly.
I think I may have had one idea though that might make such a thing non-annoying: So, if you succeed a diplomacy roll against your fellow player, they can technically still refuse your orders. However, if they obey them, they get some sort of experience bonus or something. That way, you're no longer the dick at the table but rather a guy making certain things profitable that weren't before.
You'd still need to iron out some metagaming things here, but I think something like that would be what you'd have to do to make such a thing work.
It also depends on your players. On Sunday I ran a game where a player tried to use Intimidate on another player. It didn't devolve into an argument because I interrupted with an alien attack - but it was heading that way. It's an interesting 'rules' point. What does others think?
Im a little late here, but when it comes to PC's interacting with each other I have a strict rule of "You can never use Persuasion/Intimidation and so on, on another PC unless he allows it".
The66Hammer I have a similar rule, they can't use any abilities or loot each other. They need to do it in real life, I have a rule if you want to rob a player you need to rob there d20. It works out pretty well
It depends on how you use the diplomacy/Persuasion/whatever skill overall in the game. In my group, such conversations are always acted out, regardless if you try to convince a PC or an NPC. The player has to really come up with arguments for his point, a good diplomacy roll just influences how convincing those arguments are presented ingame and how openminded the other person is to actually take the players point into account. A player presented with good arguments in an overwhelmingly convincing way (good diplomacy roll) is usually expected to agree, but he still may resist if he has a really solid reason for it (e.g. he knows for sure that the other player is wrong based on surefire ingame Information or he is a fanatic about a certain moral obligation that absolutely won't listen to reason when it comes to this. No matter how epic your diplomacy skill is, you won't convince a priest to piss on his god's altar.)Strict magical mind control on the other hand really does take control out of the players hand, but it is IMHO a hostile violent act just as much as putting a knife to the characters throat to force him to do something, so if the character doesn't have a very good reason for such an extreme measure that is also accepted by the rest of the party (minus the character being mindcontrolled), he should really think twice doing such a thing if he does expect to keep on working with this party and not being kicked out or having his throat cut in his sleep.
So umm.... I'm now in my frist campaign, and when the party are in a continent where all races is at Cold War as each other, the previously Leader off the game due to work....and when the party don't have a leader, we try to vote a new one and it was chaotic cause no one want to be it....so me, a Life Domain Cleric take full responsibility and be the next leader....unfortunately i have no experience what so ever....so pretty much in conclusion.... "WE'RE FUCKED"
subbed:-) :-) :-)
Welcome to the table! If you a player - then I hope these may just help you become a better one or a happier one. If you also GM - check out my other channel - how to be a good GM ;)
+Bacon Battalion RPG iam a player we have our own set up and my gm trust me the most to be a leader due to my connections with the 🌎 and the npcs
Awesome! Then lead on dear leader!
My group:
Cireen - Neutral Good Aasimar Bard of Glamour
Floki - Chaotic Neutral Halfling Beastmaster
Victoria - Neutral Evil Human Treachery Paladin
J'lary - True Neutral Human Divination Wizard
Dotorius - Neutral Good Firbolg Druid of the Moon
Tobias - Chaotic Good Human Fighter
No one is Lawful...
we really need a leader.
666 likes...
Until Now!