Quote from: ptingler;448035It'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."

Personally, I think what's trying to be done and the spirit in which it is received either move it over into being a dick territory or keep it out to said lands.

As a player, I would roleplay out whatever the results of a check against my character were, but if they intent were to screw me over, I wouldn't be at all thrilled with the player.

Seanchai

If everyone is up for it then I say yes why not. But then you open the door of a major big bad NPC convincing PCs that they are on the wrong side

Unless its some kind of supernatural compulsion I never have NPCs use social skills on PCs. There are better ways to suggest possible courses of action than coercion.

It seems to me that this situation makes bare the problems with social skills as they are generally conceived.  I know that my players would not be impressed with a system whereby they could be forcibly convinced, contrary to what they feel their character would do, by virtue of the other guy having a +20 bluff or diplomacy or whatever.  On the other hand, this creates a strong disconnection with the notion that another player's character is a master of these skills. Additionally, I know my players would be equally unimpressed if their character with a +20 diplomacy or bluff or whatever should roll high enough and then fail regardless in trying to convince/trick/manipulate an NPC just because the GM doesn't feel convinced by it.

This seems to me to be two incompatible views. Though the root of it is, I think, in what things like bluff or diplomacy are "sold as".  They are seen as little less than mind-control powers, the promise to players being that if they have a high enough skill in this they "should" be entitled to do what they like to other people, regardless of personality, and in turn, being "mind control" "powers" they should not be able to use these on fellow players.
Or to put things more simply, social skills are "sold" to players in a way that isn't very emulative, and that at the same time reinforces the idea that PCs are somehow special and not like everyone else.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;448290It seems to me that this situation makes bare the problems with social skills as they are generally conceived.  I know that my players would not be impressed with a system whereby they could be forcibly convinced, contrary to what they feel their character would do, by virtue of the other guy having a +20 bluff or diplomacy or whatever.  On the other hand, this creates a strong disconnection with the notion that another player's character is a master of these skills. Additionally, I know my players would be equally unimpressed if their character with a +20 diplomacy or bluff or whatever should roll high enough and then fail regardless in trying to convince/trick/manipulate an NPC just because the GM doesn't feel convinced by it.

This seems to me to be two incompatible views. Though the root of it is, I think, in what things like bluff or diplomacy are "sold as".  They are seen as little less than mind-control powers, the promise to players being that if they have a high enough skill in this they "should" be entitled to do what they like to other people, regardless of personality, and in turn, being "mind control" "powers" they should not be able to use these on fellow players.
Or to put things more simply, social skills are "sold" to players in a way that isn't very emulative, and that at the same time reinforces the idea that PCs are somehow special and not like everyone else.

RPGPundit

I disagree.  All three current groups of my players are playing a roleplaying game.  It does take some level of GM Skill in that the players have to implicitly trust the GM to run the game and to respond, as in other things, as if the GM plays the rest of the world and they respond to the world around them.  When they okay their skills, they do well.  When they just roll dice, they do less well.

Similarly, the ability to let the social skills affect them the same way they affect others is merely a level of trust in the Gm and the versimilitude of the game.  Might as well let them argue the amount of damage they take.

I think the root of the problem with social skills is that they are seen as enforcing assent to specific propositions. If I pass my check, you now believe that red is blue, even though you know that's a stupid thing to believe.

I have two alternatives to that paradigm that I use, taken from other games.

1) Social skills are used to convince the audience to a discussion, not necessarily the participants. You don't have to assent to what the guy who just rolled 20+ said, but the audience probably thinks you're being unreasonable if you don't at least give a little. This is from Burning Wheel's duel of wits.

2) Social skills are used to change dispositions, rather than get you to assent to specific propositions. So sure, you don't have to believe him, but it's a charming lie, cunningly told and you can see he's nothing but a harmless rake. The disposition someone bears towards you adds bonuses or penalties to a straight percentile roll of some sort that they'll do what you say. This is from Dark Heresy.

I find either of these feel less like taking PC control away from them than forcing them to buy in to specific statements does.

Quote from: RPGPundit;448290reinforces the idea that PCs are somehow special and not like everyone else.

To be fair Pundit even in very mundane settings the PCs are naturally going to be special by merit of their main character status.

This is literary convention as much as an RPG one. Look at Moll Flanders. Very grounded in reality setting but the lead character defies plausibility multiple times.

Quote from: LordVreeg;448298Similarly, the ability to let the social skills affect them the same way they affect others is merely a level of trust in the Gm and the versimilitude of the game.  Might as well let them argue the amount of damage they take.

However much people might want to wish it otherwise, the reality is that players treat physical effects, and mental/social effects differently.
Tell them "you took 8 points of damage", and there's no argument unless something really weird is going on.
Tell them "your character is mind controlled, you HAVE to attack your team" and they'll be resentful.
Tell them "your character was successfully bluffed by this other guy with no special mental or magical powers, but now he MUST believe that the guy is telling the truth about this situation", and you'll have a near-riot.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;448424However much people might want to wish it otherwise, the reality is that players treat physical effects, and mental/social effects differently.
Tell them "you took 8 points of damage", and there's no argument unless something really weird is going on.
Tell them "your character is mind controlled, you HAVE to attack your team" and they'll be resentful.
Tell them "your character was successfully bluffed by this other guy with no special mental or magical powers, but now he MUST believe that the guy is telling the truth about this situation", and you'll have a near-riot.

RPGPundit

Well, the basic action of RPG play is deciding what you want your character to do, so unsurprisingly that's going to be a buzz kill.

When I am GMing, I do not rule that these kinds of skills work on PCs, whether the source is an NPC or another PC. I don't really see how it improves play to enforce the effects of these skills on PCs. It does not bother me if this is inconsistent with how NPCs might be affected within the ruleset. The listening player can 'play along,' if he wants but I would not want to penalize him for failing to do so.

In games with these kinds of skills, in the past I have used the dice results of these kinds of skills to answer player questions like "do I think [this NPC] is being sincere?" But if they still doubt the NPC even after the dice lead me to answer "you don't sense otherwise," more power to them. They might be wrong, anyway.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;448087So 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.

Not a bad approach, but I would probably confine its effects to naked appeals to emotion, and read the scope of what it would effect fairly narrowly. Intimidation, seduction, genuflection, etc. --> a penalty to attack seems more palatable than an argument layering on a general penalty to any action contrafacting it.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;448310I have two alternatives to that paradigm that I use, taken from other games.

1) Social skills are used to convince the audience to a discussion, not necessarily the participants. You don't have to assent to what the guy who just rolled 20+ said, but the audience probably thinks you're being unreasonable if you don't at least give a little. This is from Burning Wheel's duel of wits.

How do you treat this when PCs are among the audience? In a non-Wheel game where there is a straightforward roll, sometimes I will make the roll beforehand and subtly or unsubtly adjust the description of the NPC's performance to make him sound more or less like an asshole for the PC's "benefit."

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;4483102) Social skills are used to change dispositions, rather than get you to assent to specific propositions. So sure, you don't have to believe him, but it's a charming lie, cunningly told and you can see he's nothing but a harmless rake. The disposition someone bears towards you adds bonuses or penalties to a straight percentile roll of some sort that they'll do what you say. This is from Dark Heresy.

How does a disposition change affect PCs? I have not played Dark Heresy at all.

When it comes to NPCs using social skills on PCs, it is a matter of context and perception. A successful NPC Fast Talk roll informs the way I play the NPC, and the information I give the players, just as a failed Fast Talk roll would. The last thing I would do is draw the players attention to the rules in play, e.g., You must believe him because he made his Fast Talk roll. Players can draw conclusions from the clues characters perceive in my discriptions.

Quote from: Cole;448428How do you treat this when PCs are among the audience? In a non-Wheel game where there is a straightforward roll, sometimes I will make the roll beforehand and subtly or unsubtly adjust the description of the NPC's performance to make him sound more or less like an asshole for the PC's "benefit."

How does a disposition change affect PCs? I have not played Dark Heresy at all.

In both cases, it changes the description of the event. I often find PCs asking for information or speculation as to what the motive, attitude and consequences of particular social interactions could be, and the responses I give are not objective declarations but at least partially based on the disposition they have to the person.

For example, if someone successfully tests Intimidate against you, and you ask "Well, what could he do if I resist him?" you're likely to get speculation from me that focuses on the consequences of transgressing his will than if he fails (and in fact, him failing doesn't mean you're getting objective info either - you might underestimate him as a result).

I'll also grant certain bonuses or penalties for acting in line with a successful roll (credit where credit is due: I got the idea from Kyle a few years ago). So if someone is trying to command you, and you go along, you can get any bonuses they can give you as a result of a successful command test (there are many of these in the 40K games). But if they fail, you also suffer any penalties that might result.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;448435In both cases, it changes the description of the event. I often find PCs asking for information or speculation as to what the motive, attitude and consequences of particular social interactions could be, and the responses I give are not objective declarations but at least partially based on the disposition they have to the person.

For example, if someone successfully tests Intimidate against you, and you ask "Well, what could he do if I resist him?" you're likely to get speculation from me that focuses on the consequences of transgressing his will than if he fails (and in fact, him failing doesn't mean you're getting objective info either - you might underestimate him as a result).

Sounds good. I use similar techniques in subjective description - the inspiration, for me, was Amber's "stuff."

Quote from: RPGPundit;448290Or to put things more simply, social skills are "sold" to players in a way that isn't very emulative, and that at the same time reinforces the idea that PCs are somehow special and not like everyone else.

RPGPundit

I do think if you are going to use social skills, they need to work against PCs as well. I also think the core problem with them is people treating social abilities as nearly magical. There needs to be a line both the PCs and NPCs can draw that they won't cross simply because someone rolled well on diplomacy.

Quote from: RPGPundit;448424However much people might want to wish it otherwise, the reality is that players treat physical effects, and mental/social effects differently.
Tell them "you took 8 points of damage", and there's no argument unless something really weird is going on.
Tell them "your character is mind controlled, you HAVE to attack your team" and they'll be resentful.
Tell them "your character was successfully bluffed by this other guy with no special mental or magical powers, but now he MUST believe that the guy is telling the truth about this situation", and you'll have a near-riot.

RPGPundit

No resentment or riots at any of my game tables, sir.  Or my online games.
I think if they were not getting the benefit of said skills regularly, you might be right.  
But none of my groups have the issues you talk about.  I'm not saying it's easy for every group, but the good roleplayers get it.  It's part of the way their characters experience the world.  Often the GM can couch the terminology to accomplish the desired effect without being so blunt, also.