In my games I'm big on letting the players take their characters down the path they would like to go, as long as it is valid for that characters personality, history, and so forth.

But I was wondering do you guys allow PCs to seduce, intimidate, or otherwise make rolls against each others, for valid reasons of course.

If so, why? and If not, why?

I have been in games were it wasn't allowed and while it doesn't come up often in my games there has been times where it happened. Honestly most of the times the players are pretty good about working it out on their own, so little GM intervention was needed in those cases.

Does it tread the waters of Godmodding if one player uses seduction or mind control on another?

It entirely depends on the players and the situation.  In games where that sort of thing is to be expected, it should be allowed (and sometimes encouraged), especially when someone is playing a clever, manipulative character but is not very good at playing as such without rolling to say "yeah I totally lie my way through" or "yes my character is a very smooth operator and is totes charming."

If the player on the receiving end is getting upset over the results and don't want that sort of dynamic going on in the game (and the act isn't expected/required for the game), then that's fine, too, but I would say that if you don't want people to roll against you, you don't get to roll against them, either.  So if a player says "I don't want other players to roll things like bluff against me because X" then you can, as the GM, reply, "That's okay, but now you can't do it to any player, either."

Also, sometimes people may do it to try and sabotage another player, or just because they're bored and want to stir things up, or a myriad of other reasons that don't make for good gaming, and in those circumstances they should not be allowed to do so (especially when it's against their established character/personality to behave that way!).

There's plenty more reasons for both yea and nay on the rolling/mind control stuff between players, but they are as varied as players themselves.

I think, in games where this is a possibility, getting everyone informed and in agreement is the first step.  Some people won't play in games where that's a possibility, or would refuse to act in accordance with it if it did happen to their character.

So having a chance to come to an agreement before anything actually happens will cut down on potential issues in the future.

I've been in games where everybody knew and agreed that there were mechanics in play that could potentially divert their character.  Generally it was viewed as a challenge in terms of being able to filter whatever orders or commands they were given through their character's personalities and preferred methods of doing things.

I've also seen it done where it's more of a negotiated agreement.  "I'd like to use mechanic X on you, which I think would take the story in direction Y which would be interesting, do you agree?" and then there's maybe some back and forth and the narrative is worked out to make for whatever story the two players are interested in ultimately telling.

Other games it's agreed that it won't happen, such mechanics are for use on NPCs only, and if PCs want to try and influence other PCs in similar fashions it will strictly be role play with the decision to say "yes" or "no" entirely on the targeted player.


But pretty much I think it's most important to ensure everyone is informed and in agreement ahead of time.  Surprises like that can crater a game pretty quick if you find out you have differing opinions that can not be reconciled midway through a story when the subject pops up.

This is sort of the age-old debate in Tabletops, and I think it's a source of more fighting and player contention than almost anything else I've ever seen.

The problem, at least from the groups I've played in, is that people don't want to give up control of their characters. This is fine, and ordinarily it's exactly why people play Tabletops instead of video games, or reading a 'Choose your Own Adventure' book instead. People want agency, and that's fine. The issue arises when one player wants to play someone that's influential over others. They want to play a character that has a silver tongue, and the only problem with that is why doesn't that silver tongue work against PCs?

It's an impossibly difficult situation sometimes. Why can't the man who convinced the Queen of England that she was a ferret in a past life convince the party to go out for pizza? What's stopping the woman who frightened the head of the Magic Mafia from intimidating the Rogue she could easily snap in two? These are questions groups have to decide on, as nauthiz and Shei-kun have already said, and sometimes it means that the 'Face' is going to have continuity issues with their character.

Personally, I've never really found a happy medium. The groups I've played in hav all been staunchly against having social rolls made against their characters, so much so that any compromise I ever proposed may as well have been a declaration of war. Honestly though, I'd just like to see more conditional modifiers involved, and maybe more people taking social resistance abilities/stats if they want to be resistant to social charms.

That's my two cents on it though, even if it is a bit wordy.

Agreed with everything said-above.  Personal Opinion: It must be stated outright, before play or even character creation has begun: "Your character must be played in accordance with how you make them."

Why would such a sentence be necessary?  Because most players don't.  They play how they want AT THAT MOMENT.  It's always humorous when suddenly the 'I fear nothing' Barbarian refuses to take-on three Orcs because someone points out the odds out-of-character.

So, when someone plays the 'naive, curious' character but then they refuse to accept even the most basic half-lie, half-truth that is presented by an incredibly beguiling character; you just have to *facepalm*.

Some games (Hackmaster, yes a parody) are incredibly punishing for it; and I'm okay with that.

But, unless you make it known up-front, that social skills receive the same in-game value and placement as combat and other dice-heavy skills: many players won't accept that people can lie to them.

This is why establishing what the tone of the game is going to be out the gate is important, I think. In any sort of "adventuring party" based game where it's assumed that the PC's are allies working together towards a goal, it's a really easy way to mess with the trust that underlies a group.

So I only really go for it in an established group of people who know and trust each-other really well already. Otherwise? Nope.