PRE attacks on PCs

[Rebar]

The 5E rules say a PRE attack by a PC does not affect other PCs.

 

Would you say that the correct spirit of the rules is that this does not apply if the two PC characters do not know each other and do not know whether they're goo or bad guys?

 

Yes, I can certainly rule that way, but what do you think is the technical "by the book" answer?

 

(Context: First game, first actions: character A (a manimal) blows into combat past character B, then stops, and lets out a howl of rage). Character B does not yet know that Character A is a good guy. Does he get affected by the PRE attack?

[Ragitsu]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

I'd allow it, in some campaigns.

 

For instance: you want to scare a PC into getting out of the way, but the other player is playing someone that doesn't want to let the other PC go for whatever reason. The mechanics they have chosen will give an outcome that is far less arbitrary, and far more fair. Don't forget to roleplay, however!

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

I'm in a weird middle ground.

 

Part of me thinks that rule is there so you don't get the oddity of Captain Presence (PRE 75) telling the villains to drop their weapons and put their hands up, and everybody in the room does so, including his allies. Though, that might be funny in the right game. "Drop your weapons and put your hands over your head!" *clatterclatter* " ... not you, THEM!"

On the other paw, I don't generally believe that PC-PC interactions should involve die rolls.

On the other other paw, it does seem appropriate for a high-PRE PC to scare another one in certain circumstances.

 

I generally assume that instead of 'not affecting other PCs' is intended to mean something more akin to 'not affecting your allies'.

[Rebar]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

I'd allow it' date=' in some campaigns.[/quote']

So, does that mean that in some campaigns, you would NOT have a PRE attack by a PC affect another PC, even though they didn't know the other character?

[Rebar]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

OK, let me rephrase.

 

If you had a rules Nazi, who claimed that the book says "does not affect PCs", would he be technically correct? Literally, PCs? Or would you say that the spirit of the rule is intended to be "PC's characters who know each other? (which is why they don't drop their guns when the PC yells DROP IT!")?

 

(Note: not that I'm really having a debate with the player; I made the GM call, I'm just trying to settle a bet that, IMO, no call is needed, just an intelligent interpretation of the intent of the rule.)

[Ragitsu]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

So' date=' does that mean that [u']in some campaigns[/u], you would NOT have a PRE attack by a PC affect another PC, even though they didn't know the other character?

 

If the campaign is short enough, or there really will be no inner-PC conflict to that degree, pretty much.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

I generally assume that instead of 'not affecting other PCs' is intended to mean something more akin to 'not affecting your allies'.

 

This^^

[Christopher]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

This^^

I think it means: Doesn't affect his allies negatively. I think it should be possible to "Protect" your allies from enemy PRE-Attacks by make an encouraging PRE attack (that's what the "or receives +5 PRE only for purposes of resisting contrary Presence Attacks made that Phase" there for and the bonus stacks).

 

But when the intent is to cow your enemys and the ohter PC thinks he is a (potential) enemy of the PRE attacker (like in your example), he might at least have a delaying effect. Maybe halve it if he isn't shure of it, or let the Manimal take a "Frightening Howl" Power (+x PRE only for Fear Based PRE attacks) with "Affects Allies" Limitation.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

Why did you quote me instead of the person I was agreeing with that actually explained what they meant?

[Christopher]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

Why did you quote me instead of the person I was agreeing with that actually explained what they meant?

No reason, just did it.

You can always click on the "View Post Arrow"

And it's not like this thread has started to get hard to overview after only 7 Posts (before my first one).

 

I could just ask why you didn't asked a personal question in a personal message, but that would only produce more posts unrelated to Title/Intent of this thread.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

Generally you quote someone if you are either responding to them or addressing something they said. I was trying to figure out how your post could be a response to my one word post...

[Christopher]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

Generally you quote someone if you are either responding to them or addressing something they said. I was trying to figure out how your post could be a response to my one word post...

When it makes you happy: "I choose your post, to extend your agreement to the post you quoted. I am teribilly sorry if this did chause confusion and will qoute both the orginal and the answer simultaniously in the future."

 

Can we now please go back to the thematic at hand?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

Sorry, I couldn't tell from the post that you were in aggreement.

[Rebar]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

Well, I guess I've got my answer. It's not as clear cut as I assumed.

 

Anyway, it isn't that my intent was to punish the PC by making him hesitate, it was to keep the atmosphere up that no one knew each other yet, and that they should be RPing it as such.

[Tasha]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

OK, let me rephrase.

 

If you had a rules Nazi, who claimed that the book says "does not affect PCs", would he be technically correct? Literally, PCs? Or would you say that the spirit of the rule is intended to be "PC's characters who know each other? (which is why they don't drop their guns when the PC yells DROP IT!")?

 

(Note: not that I'm really having a debate with the player; I made the GM call, I'm just trying to settle a bet that, IMO, no call is needed, just an intelligent interpretation of the intent of the rule.)

 

I would allow it as a once in a campaign thing. I might allow it during a PC disagreement, to help bolster the High Pre PC who is saddled with a Low Pre Player. ie with a good roll I would allow one PC to make a Pre Attack (or a Persuasion Roll) and if successful tell the Target PC's player something like "Wow they sure have a convincing argument" or something to help sell the Idea that the winner of the Pre attack was advocating. You never want to allow one PC to puppeteer another PC with Pre (or MindControl).

 

If 2 unknown heroes were meeting for the first time I might have them make competing Pre Rolls against one another as a part of the "Describe your character" process of introducing the PCs to one another. I would do this to help the PC's make a first impression (good or bad). It's also the time where I roll Good and Bad Reputations.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

For myself, I dislike any rule that says "PC's are different from everyone else". The game universe has no way of differentiating between PC and NPC, so why would my being impressed by Captain Confident differ depending on whether he is a PC or an NPC?

 

For that matter, would it change if, tonight, CC's player is sick so CC is being run as an NPC by the GM?

[Christopher]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

(Context: First game' date=' first actions: character A (a manimal) blows into combat past character B, then stops, and lets out a howl of rage). Character B does not yet know that Character A is a good guy. Does he get affected by the PRE attack?[/quote']

The real question is: Does he feel "adressed" by the PRE attack?

 

In this chase, it only depends on how Character B percieves Character A.

If he percieves him as an ally, he would be unaffected.

If he percieves him as an enemy (mind controlled; "All manimals are evil and want to eat you" complication before knowing him), then he is affected.

If he isn't certain, I would give him a "bonus of the doubt". Maybe reduce the PRE-Attack-Result by two steps or give B a Bonus against the attack. If he still fails, A was so frightening that B wasn't that sure for a moment (the effect of the PRE attack).

This can be funny form time to time (or even a complication) when A is very frightening and always causes the groups henchmen and horses to flee...

 

Between characters in a non Combat setting/when characters argue: Depends on you and your players want to solve the overall idea of using Interaction skills among players. Just go with that for PRE attacks.

 

Edit: The same thing, with reversed friend/foe perception goes for "Bolstering" PRE attacks. Do you think this enflaming speech ("Who doesn't serves me in battle, serves me as target" *Bam*) is directed at you?

And one PRE attack should only be able to do one thing: Either asking for help, hindering the enemy or bolstering allys.

[Vulcan]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

By and large, in our games, we (the players) voluntarily accept the affects of a PRE attack against our characters in the name of roleplaying. Very rarely do we buck the roll. We only do so when we feel it is VERY important that we not react in the intended way... and even then, we tend to accept a 'lost phase' while we mentally deal with the PRE attack.

 

Thus, we follow the rule (PCs are not forced to react) by accepting the effects ourselves, and let the GM have a little fun with PRE attacks too. That way we can buck it when it is IMPORTANT that we be able to do so without hard feelings - or the GM ignoring PRE attacks for Mind Control...

[Ragitsu]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

For myself, I dislike any rule that says "PC's are different from everyone else". The game universe has no way of differentiating between PC and NPC, so why would my being impressed by Captain Confident differ depending on whether he is a PC or an NPC?

 

For that matter, would it change if, tonight, CC's player is sick so CC is being run as an NPC by the GM?

 

THANK YOU!

 

I dislike the notion that PCs have magical mind protection and rock solid courage without paying for it.

[megaplayboy]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

Well, I think that "house rule" sprang into being as a result of some groups/players having a bad experience with some GM or PC using PRE attacks and social skills to effectively push PCs around(at least that's my suspicion). Besides which, some players are just extremely uncomfortable not having complete control over their PCs roleplay and decision-making.

That said, I still lean towards the "no immunity" approach--let the players choose how they RP their reaction/decision, but don't let them "break" the system and defy any outcome they don't like. The second half of that is for the GMs to not overdo it on the other side of the equation.

[Ragitsu]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

Well, I think that "house rule" sprang into being as a result of some groups/players having a bad experience with some GM or PC using PRE attacks and social skills to effectively push PCs around(at least that's my suspicion). Besides which, some players are just extremely uncomfortable not having complete control over their PCs roleplay and decision-making.

That said, I still lean towards the "no immunity" approach--let the players choose how they RP their reaction/decision, but don't let them "break" the system and defy any outcome they don't like. The second half of that is for the GMs to not overdo it on the other side of the equation.

 

 

If a player is pushing around the other player's character with their character's abilities, for no good reason, it's time to have a talk with them.

[Rebar]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

For myself, I dislike any rule that says "PC's are different from everyone else". The game universe has no way of differentiating between PC and NPC, so why would my being impressed by Captain Confident differ depending on whether he is a PC or an NPC?

 

I remember (granted, vicariously) a D&D game where the power-gamer was vying with the rest of his team for some found loot. One of the NPCS grabbed a hot item, and the power-gamer said "Wait. He's just an NPC. I want that item!". The NPC turned to the power-gamer, pulled the hilt of his sword from his scabbard and said "I'm a what now?"

 

[Vondy]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

I tend to fall in the "let players run their characters" camp.

 

That said, in terms of presence attacks (and social skills used) on PCs I have a nuanced policy. Some may take nuanced to mean inconsistent. My experience is that fear-intimidation effects are more offensive to players than more subtle effects. As a result, for such presence attacks, I limit the effect (from a major NPC or another PC) to "lose 1 action." I will never tell a player their character is cowering, losing bladder control, or running helter-skelter like scream queens from a foe. Their supposed to be the story's "Heroes." My players have always taken the "lose 1 action" maximum effect to be the "Whoah," "Holy ----," or "Gott in Himmel!" reaction and usu. play it up. Sometimes they do stage a retreat. But its their choice - not the dicta of a die roll.

 

In terms of social skill effects I'm a little more elastic. Insofar as its not going against the player's conception of the character, or hard-coded psychological lims, I tell the player how big a success was made. Its up to them to role-play a success against their character properly. Some players are much better than others at this. But overall, I've found giving them the latitude makes them more receptive to playing the scene out, even with the chance of a disadvantageous outcome.

 

All of this said, I do presence attacks as opposed characteristic rolls (Presence Vs. Presence OR Ego) with the MoS determining the "level of effect." I also allow people to buy resistance with pre-defined special effects that don't just apply to torture or fear-intimidation. This allows players who are paranoid about a failed interaction or fear check to cheaply inure themselves to it. I don't mind. I want to create scenarios they will enjoy.

 

In terms of player vs. player: I just let them decide for themselves.

[Vondy]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

Well' date=' I think that "house rule" sprang into being as a result of some groups/players having a bad experience with some GM or PC using PRE attacks and social skills to effectively push PCs around(at least that's my suspicion). Besides which, some players are just extremely uncomfortable not having complete control over their PCs roleplay and decision-making. [/quote']

 

A lot of gamers have had experiences that have taught them not to trust GMs. Or don't play with regular groups they know well enough for the kind of trust good role play requires to develop. GMs have to use soft-power when it comes to social interactions with PCs and focus on a good story and what makes for interesting twists rather than "consequences" if they want to 1) earn their players trust, and 2) encourage players to take risks.

 

By taking risks I mean good role playing that might put the character in a disadvantageous position. A lot of Old School materials, and the culture those materials inspired, were highly adversarial and "mistakes" of any sort often proved lethal. You have to teach your players you won't abuse the power that comes with social interaction rules.

 

If players think their character will be seduced on a die roll (esp. if the character isn't "easy" or the player will feel the character has been sundered in some way), raped, Mutilated, knocked up or infected with STDs, humilitated by a a sadistic GM, or killed because they played out a failed social interaction they will - rightfully - fight you tooth and nail.

 

God love Gary Gygax, but the man was famous for the not-so-nice GM-Player rivalry his "style of play" introduced to our our dear hobby. I've played with asinine GMs. I've also played with good ones. Until I know who I'm playing with I'm always circumspect. Its the asinine ones, however, that taught me to be a good one (I hope).

 

That said' date=' I still lean towards the "no immunity" approach--let the players choose [i']how[/i] they RP their reaction/decision, but don't let them "break" the system and defy any outcome they don't like. The second half of that is for the GMs to not overdo it on the other side of the equation.

 

I have traditionally taken the "let them define what failure means" and then trust them to play it out. I've generally had good results, though I've had 1 or 2 players who never got over their bad experiences with other GMs (or their own tendencies). At least one of those paranoid players was, when he ran, a murderously juvenile and sadistic game-master. He was tolerably good as a player, though. Still, not letting players "break" the system is only one half of the contract. The other half GMs being careful not to "break" the [players perception of and enjoyment in playing] character.

[Tasha]

Re: PRE attacks on PCs

 

When it comes to Pre and Pre Skills. I don't take over the PC and RP the character. What I do is look at the dice and say things like "That was so impressive you lose a Phase" or "That looks like a good deal" (ie if the NPC vendor makes a good Trading roll). IMHO it's really how you sell the outcome.