Social stats such as Persuasion or Empathy. If you think they're going to be relevant, make a dice-roll BEFORE the conversation starts. The outcome of the dice-roll is that the GM roleplays more or less favourably than he otherwise might... but he's still roleplaying in response to the PCs' dialogue. OR, for PC to PC dialogue, he drops hints to one player or the other by secret notes during the conversation.

Example of good dice roll + craptacular play:-

Player:- Mr. GM I'm going to try to persuade the mugger to give up his evil ways.
GM:- Roll please.
Player:- Hey look! A FAVOURABLE DICE RESULT.
GM:- OK - the mugger's eyeing your wallet. Let's hear what you say.
Player:- I think you should give up your evil ways.
GM:- And I think you should give me your money.
Player:- Jesus loves you.
GM:- Yeah, I guess he does, good point. And I love money.
Player:- What would you rather have, the $5million diamond in my wallet, or Jesus' love?
GM:- you have a $5million diamond in your wallet?
Player:- er, that's not the point, Jesus loves you.
GM:- Tell you what, I'm a reasonable man, give me the diamond and I'll let you go.

Obviously, the PC's EPIC FAIL dialogue means that even though the GM might be reacting much more favourably than he normally would, the PC still doesn't get what he wants out of the encounter even with a critical success.

The points to observe about the mechanic and the GM's technique are that the dice-roll doesn't get in the way of the actual conversation and doesn't stop immersion.

Example of poor dice-roll and reasonable play:-

Player:- I'm going to try to persuade my fiancee to come with me to R'lyeh.
GM:- Let's have a dice-roll.
Player:- Damn! A POOR DICE RESULT. I'm going to have to make up for that.
GM:- Gotcha. Let's hear what you have to say to your fiancee.
Player:- Sweetheart, you know how you're always saying you love big romantic gestures?
GM:- I sometimes say that. What are you getting at?
Player:- There's somewhere I want to take you. Somewhere really romantic.
GM:- Is this about what you said to my mother? Are you overcompensating?
Player:- Sweetheart it's just something I've had in mind for a while - if you can imagine just going away with me somewhere romantic, somewhere it can be just you, me, the waves around us, somewhere you can feel that connection we share with nothing to distract us from it, do you think you might be interested?
GM:- So, it's really not about what you said to my mother?
Player:- If it's only got to do with how much I love you do you think you might be interested?
GM:- I guess I might be interested.
Player:- And you know how sometimes you can find it romantic when I take risks for you?
GM:- Well, sometimes, I guess I can, if this is really not about my mother...
Player:- And so the riskier it might seem at first, the more romantic it can be, right?
GM:- Well, I guess.
Player:- So if there were a wild place, untamed, say, in the ocean, that might sound risky, and romantic?
GM:- Well, it might...
Player:- And the riskier it is the more romantic it would be, right? Like I mean sometimes it's fun risking being caught isn't it? Being naughty can be romantic?
GM:- It can...
Player:- So if we choose some wild, awesome place, maybe even the sort of place that Elder Gods from another universe might choose as their home, that could be really risky and really romantic right?
GM:- Um, could it?
Player:- Darling you know I want to show you how much I love you, right?
GM:- OK
Player:- And there wouldn't be a better way to show how much I love you than showing I'm willing to take you on a trip to some really wild place and risk myself to keep you safe there, right?
GM:- Um, I guess...
Player:- And there's nowhere much riskier or more romantic than R'lyeh is there?
GM:- Hang on, you're going to take me to visit Cthulhu IN HIS HOME?
Player:- Wouldn't it be romantic though!!
GM:- ...

Comments please?

Not bad. I usually make people roll their social stat at a critical moment in the conversation, but I basically agree with you.

There is this subjective aspect of the process that puzzles me: in the end it's still the GM who decide if the IC speech is good enough to change the mind of the NPC. So what exact impact should a success/fail on the roll have? If in the end we're still observing that eloquent players persuade way better than others then I'm not sure what's the benefit compared to Pundit's "roleplay it and fuck social mechanics".

Quote from: Cranewings;420416Not bad. I usually make people roll their social stat at a critical moment in the conversation, but I basically agree with you.

'declare-roleplay-roll-recover'

Quote from: LordVreeg;420429'declare-roleplay-roll-recover'

I think I have an idea of the model you're describing, but could you give a couple of short examples of those "phases?"

Quote from: Cole;420430I think I have an idea of the model you're describing, but could you give a couple of short examples of those "phases?"

Sure.
I use a d100 skill based system.  And after playing for a while, we have tried to tweak it in gameplay so that it enhances and enforces more roleplay.

 'declare-roleplay-roll-recover' is the terminology we have come up for how we always do this.  The idea is to decide wehat you are doing, roleplay about 75% of it, toll the dice, and then roleplay from there based on the roll...which is often the fun part.  It is different from what Omnifray outlines, as the die roll in his examples comes in the beginning.  It also allows me to assign a bonus or subtraction (and good GMs do this a lot, to reinforce the good roleplay) based on the quality of the players roleplay.
This part is crucial for a few reasons.  You get to reinforce good roleplay by giving bonuses to the roll, which always brings out the best in players trying to get an advantage.  But it also removes the player from knowing his or her fate before they start roleplay (at least until the recover phase).

The recover phase is, BTW, often melded into the next skill attempt.

Quote from: boulet;420421There is this subjective aspect of the process that puzzles me: in the end it's still the GM who decide if the IC speech is good enough to change the mind of the NPC. So what exact impact should a success/fail on the roll have? If in the end we're still observing that eloquent players persuade way better than others then I'm not sure what's the benefit compared to Pundit's "roleplay it and fuck social mechanics".

Exactly, the die rolls in those examples are pretty superfluous.

Quote from: boulet;420421There is this subjective aspect of the process that puzzles me: in the end it's still the GM who decide if the IC speech is good enough to change the mind of the NPC. So what exact impact should a success/fail on the roll have? If in the end we're still observing that eloquent players persuade way better than others then I'm not sure what's the benefit compared to Pundit's "roleplay it and fuck social mechanics".

I agree.

Bottom line: fucking role play your characters and accept the consequences, people.

Quote from: Benoist;420441Bottom line: fucking role play your characters and accept the consequences, people.

That's a point I find very debatable. Sometimes one can feel the need for mechanics for a variety of reason. To let the shy guy play a charismatic character, or maybe to give a break to someone who's stuttering... There's surely other reasons out there.

But crafting such a mechanic is a difficult challenge, especially if you're unsatisfied with the conflict resolution paradigm which is an other way to look at this question but is really storygamey.  

I kind of like The Shadow of Yesterday take on this: start with a conflict resolution but if (for various reasons) the acting player isn't satisfied with this coarse resolution he/she can "bring the pain" and choose to go for a blow by blow resolution. What doesn't work very well for me is the other assumption that come with this mechanic: physical and psychological damages to the character operate at the same level. I have a hard time putting into words what rubs me wrong with this.

Quote from: boulet;420421There is this subjective aspect of the process that puzzles me: in the end it's still the GM who decide if the IC speech is good enough to change the mind of the NPC. So what exact impact should a success/fail on the roll have? If in the end we're still observing that eloquent players persuade way better than others then I'm not sure what's the benefit compared to Pundit's "roleplay it and fuck social mechanics".

Eloquent players have characters who persuade far better.

Players who are better at statistical probabilities and tactics have characters who fight far better.

And the big deal is?

hmmm...what about "Resolve points" that work something like "Hit points"?
Then you have tactics like bully,bait,appeal or whathaveyou and the char./NPC is susceptable to those sorts of tactics (I think there might have been defenses as well),that if roll/role played well subtract from resolve till the opp. "gives" to the others desire. If players are not great at RPing the exchange you can still use d. as the resolution mech. as the character may be great at this sort of thing!

Saw this being developed over at the Forge not long ago...can't recall the thread/poster but I thought it was a cool approach...or you could just Roleplay it!

I think Vreegs method is sound...declare-RP-throw-recover...(In some cases the "declare" bit could be left out )

Quote from: Omnifray;420447Eloquent players have characters who persuade far better.

Players who are better at statistical probabilities and tactics have characters who fight far better.

And the big deal is?

No big deal, just I don't see the point to design your ass off if talking at the table will do the trick.

Quote from: LordVreeg;420439...
 'declare-roleplay-roll-recover' is the terminology we have come up for how we always do this.  The idea is to decide wehat you are doing, roleplay about 75% of it, toll the dice, and then roleplay from there based on the roll...which is often the fun part.  ...
But it also removes the player from knowing his or her fate before they start roleplay (at least until the recover phase).
...

I have previously written up rules for social mechanics very similar to what you outline (not perhaps identical). It's intuitive to the game-designer to think of it in more or less the same order that you describe. But I am proposing my model as a significant improvement on that. Let me set out my reasoning.

Once you have started the roleplay of the dialogue, it is awkward to interrupt it. In tabletop games this means that we often simply don't get around to the rolls, and they interrupt rather than enhancing the game. In the MET-LARP V:tR game I play weekly, the GM-team have actually dropped social skill rolls altogether as they were an unwelcome interruption of play. I used to think that as the immersion factor in tabletop games is inherently weaker, it was not such an issue to do this in tabletop games. But Norbert's post about forcing direct speech in the earlier of the two narrative authority threads has led me to reconsider my view of that. Tabletop is essentially similar to MET-LARP in  this respect. But there is a difference.

The difference is that in MET-LARP you are seamlessly roleplaying all the time (outside contested dice-rolls) and all dice-rolls really do interrupt that. In tabletop, as a player you are NOT seamlessly roleplaying in-character dialogue and actions all the time. You have elements of scene-setting from the GM. So dice-rolls are not the problem, as long as they don't interrupt real roleplay (by which I mean in-character dialogue using direct speech) when you are in the middle of it.

In our MET-LARP game we have considered using "Persuasion badges" as an optional costume adornment, with your Persuasion stat pool written on them. Most people have mediocre Persuasion stat pools and don't bother, but for a social stat monkey it can be worth doing. Obviously you can't force your interlocutor to read your badge or react to it but they can if they wish.

Now I see a problem with having players react to persuasion badges. It is inherently counter-immersive because it requires you to metagame - twisting your dialogue to fit a desired outcome. And this makes persuasion badges not great in MET-LARP because most of your conversations are with PCs.

But when the GM is doing it in tabletop games, it's a different matter, as his priorities are not simply roleplaying the NPC. (This is different from MET-LARP where even the GMs and assistant GMs playing NPC parts are probably more deeply in character.)

So for the GM in a tabletop game, reacting to players' Persuasion badges would be unproblematic. Of course, Persuasion badges aren't physically needed as he knows the PCs' stats pretty well as the group is small.

But in interaction with an NPC the GM could either use the Persuasion stats directly as a factor to take into account, or effectively roll a Persuasion effect beforehand. It's as if your Persuasion pool is varying from conversation to conversation, so the game isn't predictable.

As for your important point about the player not knowing how the conversation is going to go, that can be dealt with by the GM making the dice-rolls in secret, and I propose to stipulate that that be the norm.

I can see the case for no social stats at all, and in a purely immersive boffer LARP it's the only way to go. In a tabletop I think it's an added dimension to the characters to have that variability and makes different archetypes playable in the sense of sufficiently effective in the game to be able to act as a vehicle for your contribution to play.

Comments?

Quote from: skofflox;420449hmmm...what about "Resolve points" that work something like "Hit points"?
Then you have tactics like bully,bait,appeal or whathaveyou and the char./NPC is susceptable to those sorts of tactics (I think there might have been defenses as well),that if roll/role played well subtract from resolve till the opp. "gives" to the others desire. If players are not great at RPing the exchange you can still use d. as the resolution mech. as the character may be great at this sort of thing!

Saw this being developed over at the Forge not long ago...can't recall the thread/poster but I thought it was a cool approach...

Excessive intervention of game in dialogue. Total negation of actual immersive roleplay.

Quote from: boulet;420450No big deal, just I don't see the point to design your ass off if talking at the table will do the trick.

This is a big question for RPG design of course. Is it desirable at all to incorporate social stats into the game to affect persuasion, empathy etc.?

If it can be done WITHOUT detracting from immersion, is it a worthwhile endeavour? I think so. If it can be done WITHOUT interrupting dialogue (which by directly interrupting a key process of immersion breaks your sense of immersion), WITHOUT making the outcome predictable to the player (which interferes with suspension of disbelief and also negates the player's role in the dialogue, as opposed to the character's, like railroading, so defeats immersion) and WITHOUT straitjacketing the direction the dialogue can take (which can make the whole dialogue artificial, either causing it to stall or to be unbelievable, thus breaking immersion either by interrupting the immersive process of dialogue, or by breaking suspension of disbelief - though these things are only a risk not a certainty).

I think my model avoids these three risks (interruption of dialogue, predictability of outcome, straitjacketing of dialogue). Yes, it is subjective, depending on the GM's sense of what is reasonable, but so is a whole raft of the game in any event, e.g. assessing appropriate Stealth modifiers due to lighting, distance, distractions etc. So no biggie there.

Let's assume that the adopted model does not hinder immersion in ANY significant respect. Does it have advantages for play? I think so. As has already been suggested on this thread, you can let a stuttering numpty play someone with more social impact. You can also hamstring the most eloquent player with naff social stats. You can let someone have a real specialisation in persuasion. AND importantly, it can be paralleled in its effects in off-camera interaction which is not fully played out but narrated by the ref (e.g. downtime), meaning that the ref has some yardstick by which to make one PC more effective than another in downtime interactions which is broadly consistent with the uptime dialogue.

In short it lets players play a huge variety of characters, and it lets the ref run downtime interactives consistently with the PCs' different abilities, so PCs are not blandly samey regarding their social abilities off-camera. I think that's a valuable addition to the game.

It also meshes nicely with allowing a sense-motive type ability for things like guessing if someone is hostile before you get too close to them, from their posture etc.

Comments?