DISCUSSING
In the Shadow of the Spire – Session 31B: Vaults of Forgotten Evil

In the next cave they discovered the creature’s “larder”. A horrible stench permeated the air and the walls were slick with moisture. In a low spot near the center of the cave was assembled a grisly, bloody mess: The partially dismembered corpse of a goblin and a half-devoured corpse, greenish white with bloating and decay, that looked as if it might have once belonged to a man.

Tee was disgusted by the sight and wanted no part of it. But as she turned to leave, Agnarr stopped her. “Aren’t you going to search the cave?”

At this moment during the session, Tee (a PC) decided she was going to lie to Agnarr (another PC).

And I’m guessing that for quite a few GMs reading this, there alarm klaxons blaring.

But this interaction did not, in fact, blow up the entire campaign as the table melted down into tears and recriminations. Instead, it was a lighthearted little moment in which Tee pulled the wool over Agnarr’s eyes, but then the other PCs (who had succeeded on their Sense Motive checks) convinced Tee that she actually should search the bodies. Which, of course, baffled Agnarr, who had been convinced she already had.

Why did this work?

Well, there basically two parts to this.

First, there’s PC vs. PC conflict in general. (Which can be tetchy subject.)

Second, there are social skills aimed at PCs. (Also a tetchy subject.)

Let’s start with PC vs. PC conflict. I’ve found this is often frowned upon and openly banned at many tables. There can be very good reasons for that, but it tends not to be prohibited at my tables. In my experience, tension between the PCs — and even open hostilities — can often result in some of the most memorable and powerful moments at the gaming table.

But it can definitely be problematic. If you want to succeed with PC vs. PC conflict, in my experience, you need a couple of things.

First, and probably most importantly, a group that respects and trusts each other. That includes a healthy understanding that you are not your character, and neither is the other player. (I say “healthy” here because stuff like, “But it’s what my character can do!” seems superficially similar, but is often being used to cover up toxic behavior.)

Second, you have to be willing to lay aside the unspoken presumption that the PCs must go adventuring together just because they’re the PCs.

The problem with this unspoken presumption is that it can very easily turn your gaming session into an improvised production of Sartre’s No Exit: Artificially forcing people together (in this case the characters) who would not logically stay together is to create a living hell. We then try to route around this by layering on even more artificial social rules (e.g., “Thou shalt not conflict with another player character”).

But if you just jettison the presumption, the problems tend to evaporate: The problem is not that Ratface is picking the pockets of Tomlin the Paladin or slitting the throats of prisoners. The problem is that the logical outcome of that action would be Tomlin meting holy justice upon Ratface or, at the very least, expelling Ratface from the group. (Or Tomlin choosing to leave instead.)

(This doesn’t mean that Ratface’s player needs to be expelled from the group. This goes back to a healthy separation of player from character.)

So, long story short, the fact that there’s antagonism and conflict between Tee and Agnarr is not, fundamentally, a problem for this group.

Which brings us to the other side of this, which is a social skill being aimed at the PCs: The idea that Agnarr is being “forced” to believe Tee’s lie.

This sort of thing often results in social skills only being something that PCs are allowed to use on NPCs (and not vice versa). I tend to find that this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and I’d rather not have mechanics that can only be used by one set of characters.

This is an issue that I discuss in much greater depth in Rulings in Practice: Social Skills, but in this specific case it mostly just boiled down to the skill check providing Agnarr with information: He believes that Tee is telling him the truth when she says that she searched the bodies. What he chooses to do with that information is ultimately up to the player; the social skill does not dictate action.

As a result, Agnarr’s player was able to take the check as a roleplaying prompt. By taking the mechanics as a cue pointing him in the direction of his character, Agnarr’s player was able to lean into this one and turn it into something ironic and funny for everyone at the table.

Campaign Journal: Session 31C – Running the Campaign: Let It Ride Interrogations
In the Shadow of the Spire: Index

Rappan Athuk – Maze 7A-D Reactions to OD&D: Wandering Adventures The Intemperate Jungle