Quote from: Caesar Slaad;905380As a side note / contrast point, some games treat total loss of PC determinism as equivalent to character death, i.e., "hand the GM your character sheet" when you go insane, lose all your humanity, etc.

That can happen in Albedo too if a character takes a few too many mental shocks. Sometimes they just have to spend some time in rehab. Sometimes thats the end. War is hell.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905386I am not fond of that specific social mechanic, but I just don't get why it's okay for a GM to use NPCs to hack a player character to ribbons with swords, but lord help you if an NPC tries to change your mind. You can go on being the immovable, unalterable rock that won't change their mind for anything, but death, maiming, and polymorphs are okay.

It can come across as possibly denying/railroading player choice with a mechanic instead of role-playing it. It can feel artificial or forced. Especially if the player is used to say D&Ds near totally freeform social part. The players are expected to RP being turned or not.

Probably how frequently the players run into it and how good or bad it was will factor in heavily too. All it takes is one DM who over-uses things like that to turn a player off it. Like anything else in RPGs really.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905386I am not fond of that specific social mechanic, but I just don't get why it's okay for a GM to use NPCs to hack a player character to ribbons with swords, but lord help you if an NPC tries to change your mind. You can go on being the immovable, unalterable rock that won't change their mind for anything, but death, maiming, and polymorphs are okay.

I think I'm odd about that. Generally, I'm okay with my characters being persuaded, manipulated, lied too, etc and acting on it even it is not in their best interest even if its "obvious" to me as the player. People (myself included) get talked into the bad ideas and conned all the time. But I'm more reluctant about someone else (gm or player) making long term alterations to my character's psyche via straight social/interaction via mechanics. I'd have to have allot more trust to allow that freely. I can't explain exactly why it feels different but it does, probably not a rational thing.

In either case though, I much prefer the social mechanics be developed and interactive beyond the "make a skill/attribute check" level. Most combat system don't put your character existence and ongoing health on the result of single afterall (I'm sure some do but its not the norm, IME) so their personality and mental integrity should get roughly the same regard.

Quote from: Nexus;905289Would you be willing to play under a system like that and what are your general feeling about it?

Sounds a bit like Pendragon. Which I like a lot. It works wonderfully well in Pendgraon, but I don’t want every game to do that.

Quote from: Nexus;905374Odd it might seem I'm not opposed to my PCs being convinced, persuaded, etc, about things even things that aren't in their best interest via mechanics. People get talked into some foolish things all the time but I find I'm more reluctant about long term changes occurring that way.

I’m always surprised at the number of players who want much more control over their PC in the game world that they have over themselves in real life.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905386I am not fond of that specific social mechanic, but I just don't get why it's okay for a GM to use NPCs to hack a player character to ribbons with swords, but lord help you if an NPC tries to change your mind. You can go on being the immovable, unalterable rock that won't change their mind for anything, but death, maiming, and polymorphs are okay.

Because it's not an ethical question of whether bad shit should happen to my character--I find that whole realm of thought incredibly childish, that people would throw tantrums over what happens in a game. Rather, it's more of an issue with me of "that's just not how that shit works," which in turn affects the feel.

To put it another way, the whole nature of plunging a blade through someone's chest is you generally don't ask permission first. That's the whole idea of using force. On the other hand, persuading someone to agree to a particular trade or to help you or whatever else is, well, seeking to get that person to agree. That's the whole idea of social skills. They require consent.

When you start using the "force model' to resolve the social, or vice versa (who knows what crazy crap you'll find in RPGs), it just doesn't have the right feel to me. Like I mentioned earlier, I just see that as more combat with different flavor text. It just doesn't mix things up or provide players with a different sort of challenge.

If it's linked to a fantasy element, that's fine. Because just like social ought to feel different from combat, magic ought to feel different as well. And where magic fits into "how shit works" is it gets to defy "how shit works." That's the whole idea of magic.

Quote from: Nexus;905289Would you be willing to play under a system like that and what are your general feeling about it?

I recall some games with either official, or homebrewed rules covering social interaction between PCs and NPCs/DMPCs.

First example that comes to mind is Influence introduced in PFRPG. It's kind of "resource" that might be gained (also lost) and later spend on things, like making NPCs do what you want them to do, build stuff, or such.

Your example looks like a more sophisticated version of such a mechanics, so yeah, why not? I'd try such a thing just to see how it works out.

Quote from: Omega;905375When a personality changing event happened and you, or a player in your group, opted in to play along. What prompted you to play out the shift?

In our Star Trek campaign we had a few of the typical (for the TV shows) character gets possessed or replaced by doppleganger/pod person adventures. The player would then run "their" character as the alien parasite, doppleganger, etc. It seemed in keeping with the spirit of the TV shows, which was the style of play we used and we had a level of trust that somehow the heroes would prevail in the end. Though there was that one time I had the GM worried that the alien parasite I was playing was going to infect the entire crew and take over all the PCs...which would have kind of ended the campaign. But somehow (just like on the TV shows) the parasites were foiled in the end.

So I think genre convention and expectation helps to play along as does a reasonable expectation that playing the villain isn't going to result in a TPK or a style of play where TPKs are considered just another outcome.

To return to Pendragon

• One of the things that Pendragon does well is that it allows the player to preempt a passion or trait roll - (though doing that often goes against the spirit of the game and the expectations of the setting). Having that option, even it is never used, provides a safety net so the player doesn't have to feel they will be forced into some PC behavior they just can't stomach.

• Passion and Traits can be opposed by other passions or traits. So while it is true that an event like getting married or finding romance will generate a brand new Passion - which is a personality change to the PC. That passion can still be mechanically overcome by other strong traits of the character. So while a PC, may succumb to his passion (like Lancelot did for Guenevere), there is also a chance that the knight's Loyalty to his Liege may allow him to avoid adultery.

• In addition, traits and passions like Honesty, Loyalty to Liege, Love Guenevere, or Hate Gawain  gradually and incrementally change based on actions in play so the changes in behavior are abrupt or the result of a single roll or action.

• And lastly, the player is allowed to increment or decrement a passion or trait at year end based solely on player volition.

Quote from: Nexus;905289In the  Exalted rpg NPCs (gm controlled characters) can use the social interaction rules to add  or remove "Intimacies" to a PC without the players consent. Its more or less like adding Psychological Limitation in Hero System, altering the PCs personality to some extent. For example, a temptress might give a PC feeling of lust or desire towards her or a warlord invoke loyalty or zeal for their cause or erode feelings and beliefs like the PC's love for their spouse or devotion to defending their small village from the warlords invading army. They can be removed (there's a system for it) but they can be long term and removing them has to be somewhat justified by role playing. Other newer systems have similar social mechanics.

Would you be willing to play under a system like that and what are your general feeling about it?

D&D has been doing it longer with their Charm spells and effects.  Not quite as long reaching, but it's still there.

Without going back to quote specific replies, I'll just expand my point. I think social systems where you introduce specific alterations to a personality can often be received poorly by the player, but this has more to do with "concept mutilation" than having the character's mind changed. If the GM has your character loose an arm, or experience a sexual assault, have their power taken away, or (focusiong on our point through an example) persuaded to become a loyalist to the new duke, essential parts of the character have changed. For some, this can direct the character into an area which the player does not wish to change; the altered character is not as fun or engaging to play anymore because they have endured or taken on plot damage that the player didn't sign up for. Note: this mutilation can happen even with choices the player signed up for, but either didn't think through or found out was less fun on the other side of the choice.

I believe that part of the appeal of role-playing is we get to make choices about fictional persons in a more relaxed environment, protect them from misfortune and malady, and watch them struggle to succeed (Bren touched on this). Most RPGs are still "combat heavy" right on the tin, so gamers can accept death by combat as a character end. Yet note that the more popular RPGs rarely have lasting injury tables for that combat (most D&D characters can walk off a near death experience unscathed).

My own thoughts on the "sanctity of the character" lie on the "deal with it" side of things, but my players know that well and seem to enjoy it. I'm also careful not to introduce elements that would obviously crush the spirit of the character, or go against the grain of the player's tastes. Those changes that are system based (hey Joe, you got killed in combat against a totally reasonable foe / hey Joe, you kicked the king of Spain in the junk and now you're in prison for life) are much easier for players to swallow because they can see that there is a lack of "GM Will" involved in the outcome. Where you will see whining about character death (perhaps with merit) is when the group is pitted against a far superior foe, with little warning, and flight / mitigation of risk was not quite possible.

But tacked onto this is the sentiment that a character's mind and decisions are sacrosanct. As a person who depends on persuasion as part of his job (I'm an analyst and forecaster), I can tell you that people's minds can be changed by good wording, and a strong presentation. Watching the director of our department charm people into rethinking their positions (he is a walking definition of high Charisma) makes me utterly unconvinced that social interaction is all "consensual". People are influenced and persuaded, easier when those influences match with their positions. But where to draw the line? I mentioned I disliked Exalted's social mechanics because all they boil down to is making good rolls, laying down points of progress to introducing new character elements, and tallying those when you've persuaded enough (I think it's 3 steps). It's clunky and lack the elegance of real-life socialization. But in play (several year 2nd ed Exalted game) we made it work. The opposite, no social system and player-characters who are impossible to persuade (often for utterly meta-game reasons), is what I complain about.

Side note: imagine a player character trying to charm the duke's wife, with high CHA, because they want to get an inroad into the area and revenge themselves against the duke for previous slights - but despite every good roll by said Bard, well thought out seductions and interactions, the GM says "I like the duchess as faithful, she's remains not interested". In regular play, the GM doesn't have to make her cheat in her vows, but can make her struggle against the charming Bard, trying to get his affections to cease and avoiding him (and perhaps luring the player into crossing the line and using a Charm spell). But the interaction doesn't "bounce" off the plot armour of the NPC, as that's bad form. Why is it good form for PCs?

Expanding this example to one all too common in fantasy games. The pretty strumpet attempts to seduce the fighter. The player of the fighter (we'll call him Joe) is wary - this GM has pulled the "gotcha, it's a succubus" card a few times, or introduced unwanted children and other complications. If Joe just ignores the strumpet entirely, despite being drunk and wandering dungeons for months, the GM gets irritated. But Joe could, instead, have his character shuffle off to bed to avoid the temptation. "Grognak decides to head off the bed, telling the strumpet to buzz off. He then goes and passes out before he makes a mistake with yet another tavern wench."

Contrast with this scenario. The GM notes there is a tough monster unfought in a room of the dungeon the group is exploring. Joe is worried that attacking the monster might be a bad idea - the group is low on spells and resources, and he doesn't want his character to die for a fight he can avoid. Joe declares he will avoid the room entirely, and make his way back to the surface. Joe is acknowledging choice, and keeping in character.

I prefer to work with players to let them know that following bad paths is fun, but also that I will present bad paths that won't kill the party (or will make those paths obvious when I do), and that character flaws are not only interesting, they are mandatory. That being said, I still have at least one character in my group whose real life social skills are lacking (very low human empathy), and his characters will think overly mechanical and introspective more often than not. Changing the reactions of the character for this player, therefore, depend on being very clear about the social plot path that's being introduced. Another delights in subtle social signals and the interesting choices he can make by following hints and machinations. So in closing, know your audience well.

TLDR: You want social mechanics and interactions with your players? Don't be a dick, and watch for emotionally immature players who aren't ready to handle it.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905490I'll just expand my point.

That post was well written and very well thought out. I agree with everything you said.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905490If the GM has your character loose an arm, or experience a sexual assault, have their power taken away, or (focusiong on our point through an example) persuaded to become a loyalist to the new duke, essential parts of the character have changed. For some, this can direct the character into an area which the player does not wish to change; the altered character is not as fun or engaging to play anymore because they have endured or taken on plot damage that the player didn't sign up for. Note: this mutilation can happen even with choices the player signed up for, but either didn't think through or found out was less fun on the other side of the choice.


TLDR: You want social mechanics and interactions with your players? Don't be a dick, and watch for emotionally immature players who aren't ready to handle it.

The very concept of "plot damage" makes me cringe. Unless it's a new Stress Track in Fate, but that would require a rather specific setting:p.

And the place of emotionally immature players is anywhere except at my table;).

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905490I mentioned I disliked Exalted's social mechanics because all they boil down to is making good rolls, laying down points of progress to introducing new character elements, and tallying those when you've persuaded enough (I think it's 3 steps). It's clunky and lack the elegance of real-life socialization. But in play (several year 2nd ed Exalted game) we made it work.

You may want to check out the 3rd edition social system. Its improved and, IMO, one of the few things that were done right in that edition.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905490But tacked onto this is the sentiment that a character's mind and decisions are sacrosanct. As a person who depends on persuasion as part of his job (I'm an analyst and forecaster), I can tell you that people's minds can be changed by good wording, and a strong presentation. Watching the director of our department charm people into rethinking their positions (he is a walking definition of high Charisma) makes me utterly unconvinced that social interaction is all "consensual".

Can you do what they do? I can. For me, persuasion is a large part of my job. And I only got to this position by beginning with persuasion being ALL of my job and being extremely good at it. There is a very specific science to it, and it begins with realizing you are NEVER changing anyone's motivations. It's impossible. And "the sale" is ALWAYS consensual. Now in the interest of transparency, I'll be the first to tell you not every school on persuasion thinks that way. In fact, the majority does not. But the results the different approaches get indicate quite clearly who is right and who is wrong in that regard. The Harvard Business Review did an article not too long ago on the 8 styles of persuasion their study identified. Only 3 of them were even effective to begin with. And of those three, one stood out as clearly the most effective. But this thread is about gaming, not science, so let's not spend any more time with that.

QuoteSide note: imagine a player character trying to charm the duke's wife, with high CHA, because they want to get an inroad into the area and revenge themselves against the duke for previous slights - but despite every good roll by said Bard, well thought out seductions and interactions, the GM says "I like the duchess as faithful, she's remains not interested".

I'm having difficulty imagining this because you skimmed out all the relevant details and skipped right to what you think makes your point. Like, what does the duchess want? What are her motivations? How did she end up with the duke in the first place? Is she happy? By what means is the player character hoping to seek revenge? What are these inroads of what you speak? And how would these "inroads" affect the Duchess? And what did this highly charismatic bard character do--what actions did he take--to find any of this out? Did he actually engage in role-play and probe on these things, or just sit back and make a die roll?

Like I said, if you want to do combat but pretend you're doing social, then fine. I'm just not interested. But if you want to do social, then do social. And that means getting into these sorts of details. These details make social situations far more compelling in the game.

QuoteExpanding this example to one all too common in fantasy games. The pretty strumpet attempts to seduce the fighter. The player of the fighter (we'll call him Joe) is wary - this GM has pulled the "gotcha, it's a succubus" card a few times, or introduced unwanted children and other complications. If Joe just ignores the strumpet entirely, despite being drunk and wandering dungeons for months, the GM gets irritated.

Why is Joe the Fighter drunk in the first place? It seems like the player actually doesn't have anything against having his character engage in activities that may not be in his character's best interest but do provide the character with some short-term pleasure. So why is Joe drinking? And is he drinking alone? Did the strumpet ask about any of these things, or what his months wandering the dungeons were like? Does the strumpet herself reasons to be particularly out to seduce Joe the Fighter? Or is this just some cliched scenario because the GM just wants something to happen so he can put one over on ol' Joe again?

With what you've presented, why shouldn't every player at your table sit there, arms folded, refusing to play along with your NPC persuasion attempts? What have you done to engage their characters, fire up the players imagination, and get them thinking, what if their characters *did* play along? What would it take? And what could they get out of it?

Quote from: Lunamancer;905511Why is Joe the Fighter drunk in the first place?

Because he imbibed alcohol faster than his system can process it and now his blood alcohol level is sufficient to cause him to be drunk.

QuoteIt seems like the player actually doesn't have anything against having his character engage in activities that may not be in his character's best interest but do provide the character with some short-term pleasure.

If there is never any significant consequence to getting drunk such as a decrease in inhibitions and cognitive function that results in awkwardness or problems for the character then you can't reasonably claim that the player is actually having his character act against his best interest by getting drunk.

QuoteDoes the strumpet herself reasons to be particularly out to seduce Joe the Fighter?

Presumably she does. Of course Joe and his player don't know what her reasons are, they just know what she says and does. And in any case, how are her reasons for her actions relevant to Joe's player who seems to want his character to act with a fully in control superego despite being drunk.

QuoteOr is this just some cliched scenario because the GM just wants something to happen so he can put one over on ol' Joe again?

Other comments by Coffee Zombie make it clear that just putting one over on ol' Joe was not what this was about.

QuoteWith what you've presented, why shouldn't every player at your table sit there, arms folded, refusing to play along with your NPC persuasion attempts?

Because wooden sticks are dull.

There are a lot of reasons that people drink in real life. Presumably one or more of those reasons apply to Joe the PC. Few if any of those reasons are likely to apply to the player of Joe the PC. The player is not drowning his sorrows by having his PC get drunk, the player is not overcoming real life social awkwardness by having his PC drink, nor does the nice cold beer that the PC drank taste refreshing to the player.

QuoteAnd what could they get out of it?

Something more interesting than everyone sitting at the table with their arms folded staring at each other while they each grunt "Nuh uh!"

Bren, I wasn't posing argumentative questions. I was asking questions about the situation. It's not enough to say there exist answers. Or to give vague ones. None of those things are the least bit compelling. If you and Coffee Zombie feel you need a mechanic crutch, well, I think I've just pinpointed the source of the problem.