Do those of you who have social skills make it so that a player character can use his social skill against other PCs?

If not, how do you justify it? How do you justify that the +20 Diplomacy with the power to sway thousands can't ever possibly convince his team-mate to give him the extra helping of franks-n-beans?

RPGPundit

I justify it with the Mr. Hand Theory:

"If I'm here and your here, isn't our time." -Jeff Spiccoli

So if another player wants to be a social monkey and influence other people, then go for broke when doing it with the NPC masses.  However, don't piss in my cornflakes and try to control my character with your min-max social masturbation.

Quote from: RPGPundit;447951If not, how do you justify it? How do you justify that the +20 Diplomacy with the power to sway thousands can't ever possibly convince his team-mate to give him the extra helping of franks-n-beans?

Can't he? What happened to actual role playing?

I let PCs use any skill they want against other PCs.  And if their PC is swayed by the other's charm, I expect the player to roleplay that.  Just as I expect players to not use out of character information for their roleplay.

Perhaps using the old Familiarity Breeds Contempt Rule on characters trying to influence other player characters with social skills. Using penalties, where appropriate.

I've had pc use it on pc and npc use it on pc (especially online lately, poor bastards).
No issue.   they roleplay based on what their character experiences.

Heh, actual conversation from the HackMaster 4th Edition game that I play.

Player 1 = Party Leader/NG Human Fighter who is Truthful and is all about Fairness

Me = Gnomling Thief, CN and loves gambling and getting rich.


Me: "Hey, I've got the 'Call Dibs' Skill..."

Player 1: "The FIRST Time that you use that skill my sword is going to 'Call Dibs' on your Head!"


And thus my character has a "Social Interaction" Skill that I've never ever used in game play...


GM Fiat not needed, situation taken care of In Character...

Of course, player-characters that over use such skills may develop a reputation for being manipulative, possibly end up being ejected from the group.

Also, a fumbled skill roll could lead to insult or offense leading to party in-fighting.

It's never come up, but maybe that's because in the groups that I've played trying to use the game to control other players is not something anyone would do under the rule of thumb "don't be a dick."

I can only really justify it in games where PCs are actively antagonistic to each other or in Opposing Teams.

Or when it's hillarious.

I have never disallowed it, but I think the Familiarity Breeds Contempt Rule and the possible negative repercussions of social skills certainly discourages it.

I really can not remember a time when player-characters used social skills in-party, except with hirelings.

I always let players use them on one another and they do a good job rping it.

That said, some things are just impossible with social skills. For example, as a medic, no matter how commanding, nice, polite, beautiful or whatever a nurse is, if I'm in charge of patient care I don't let the nurse do anything I don't like.

I imagine that no matter how high your get your +45 diplomacy skill, if a marine was told by his CO not to let anyone through a door, no one is walking through the door.

Quote from: RPGPundit;447951Do those of you who have social skills make it so that a player character can use his social skill against other PCs?

If not, how do you justify it? How do you justify that the +20 Diplomacy with the power to sway thousands can't ever possibly convince his team-mate to give him the extra helping of franks-n-beans?

RPGPundit

We usually do something like this:

Player A wants to persuade/seduce/deceive Player B's PC for whatever reason.

They roleplay the interaction. If Player B considers that his PC is persuaded / seduced / buys Player A's lie, that is it.

If Player B says he doesn't see it decided, we use social skills (usually we favor opposed checks whenever possible so both players are part of it).

If Player A loses, Player B's PC is not persuaded / seduced / deceived and may act as he wishes, and both roleplay the outcome of the situation accordingly.

If Player A wins, Player B still can decide to ignore Player A's demands (if he can rolpelay how his PC has a reason to do so), but his PC will have a penalty to any action opposing Player A's intent to emulate the doubts of being at least partially persuaded (after all, IRL we are far from being inmune to persuasion and many times we are persuaded without knowing it). What usually happens is that Player B roleplays being persuaded / seduced / deceived and game goes on smoothly because we don't think social skills should be treated any differently than any other set of skills. If you have them, you can use them on anyone.

Quote from: Spinachcat;447974I let PCs use any skill they want against other PCs.  And if their PC is swayed by the other's charm, I expect the player to roleplay that.  Just as I expect players to not use out of character information for their roleplay.

Yeah, pretty much so.

IRL, we are persuaded many times even when we rationally know we should not agree (when your alcoholic brother tells you he's quitting for real this time, when your cheating spouse tells you that there's no affair, when your boss tells you that a pay rise is coming). In our heart of hearts we may know that they're lying to us, but even then we buy it. RPGGs should reflect that.

Quote from: hanszurcher;447997Perhaps using the old Familiarity Breeds Contempt Rule on characters trying to influence other player characters with social skills. Using penalties, where appropriate.

There's that. And there's also what I use when NPCs use social skills on PCs - since players whinge about that, too. I simply treat the social effect as like an encumbrance penalty. You have a malus to actions which work against the N/PC's social influence on you.

So if someone intimidates your PC, saying "put down your weapon!" you have a malus to attack them - but no malus to beg for mercy, run away, etc. If they seduce your PC, you have a malus to walk away, a big malus to attack them, but none to just go with the flow.

Thus, like encumbrance, social effects don't determine what your character does, they just make some courses of action a lot harder. Thus like real people, PCs retain free will.

When PCs use social skills against NPCs, then the social effect determines the NPCs' actions.

In summary, we should not treat social skills as magical spells. There are as hans implies many situational modifiers, and the effects are not absolute.

I allow it. However I usually keep the effects of a such a roll to yielding an outcome within the target's normal range of behavior. I don't like the idea of using diplomacy to convince the king to hand over the throne to the party, or to convince the evil wizard that his plans for world domination could be better directed toward helping the less fortunate.