Quote from: Lunamancer;905511For 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.

I don't know where you allegedly work and who allegedly hires you, but you both shouldn't. I know it for a fact, because contrary to what you're saying, you're not very good at your alleged job.

See "Whether people's motivation, behavior, emotions and temperament might be changed/influenced" is one of favorite questions psychology/behaviorism teachers ask beginner students. And the answer is known and stays the same since some time. It's "yes".

[ATTACH=CONFIG]216[/ATTACH]

Yes, yes, I know the difference between "conventional" and "uncommon" methods and accessories, but really now. Rather than discussing the finger, how about turning your head around and looking in the direction said finger points at, eh? And the point is that it's far from impossible to change one's motivation. QED.

btw: "You're a dick" or similarly cheap insult in... say, 3 comments?

Quote from: Lunamancer;905522Bren, 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.

"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?" sounds like an argumentative question in the context of Coffee Zombie's post. He did preface his example by saying

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905490My 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.

And followed with this

QuoteI 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.

So what persuaded you that Coffee Zombie might have wanted some cliched scenario so the GM can put one over on ol' Joe?

Quote from: JesterRaiin;905528btw: "You're a dick" or similarly cheap insult in... say, 3 comments?

I'll take your bet of a 6-pack, payable when we meet, and say Lunamancer ain't going to resort to that tactic in 3 posts or less;).

Quote from: AsenRG;905530I'll take your bet of a 6-pack, payable when we meet, and say Lunamancer ain't going to resort to that tactic in 3 posts or less;).

6-pack it is. Howgh! :cool:

Quote from: AsenRG;905530I'll take your bet of a 6-pack, payable when we meet, and say Lunamancer ain't going to resort to that tactic in 3 posts or less;).

Why do I suspect a side deal where Asen agrees to a 2:1 split of the six-pack with Lunamancer if Lunamancer delays his response until at least the 4th comment?

Quote from: Bren;905532Why do I suspect a side deal where Asen agrees to a 2:1 split of the six-pack with Lunamancer if Lunamancer delays his response until at least the 4th comment?

Dammit!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]217[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Bren;905532Why do I suspect a side deal where Asen agrees to a 2:1 split of the six-pack with Lunamancer if Lunamancer delays his response until at least the 4th comment?

Funny, I was just writing a PM to someone...

Quote from: JesterRaiin;905533Dammit!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]217[/ATTACH]

Well, the thread is about social influence and manipulation. Finding common grounds to persuade a man to do something is part of this, now, is it not;)?

Quote from: AsenRG;905534Funny, I was just writing a PM to someone...

Traitor! Curse upon yeeeeer head!

QuoteWell, the thread is about social influence and manipulation. Finding common grounds to persuade a man to do something is part of this, now, is it not;)?

Aw, snap, you touched one of my favorite subjects, the one I actually use in my field of work.

The answer is yes, but it's not the only way. In many cases it's not even the default or preferred way.

There's, for example the style preferred by many leaders known as "by the book" aka "sorry guys, I can do shit about it, I have my superiors too". It looks like a soft style, but in reality it's one of hardest available, because it leaves absolutely no room for negotiations, there's no "common ground", no "let's discuss it" etc.

Funny thing is, that while it looks like part-dictatorship, this style proves to be very useful in specific scenarios, at least for some period of time. For example, it's preferred when the company/office goes through difficult times (technological espionage, sabotage, hard competition, etc...)

Quote from: JesterRaiin;905536There's, for example the style preferred by many leaders known as "by the book" aka "sorry guys, I can do shit about it, I have my superiors too".

Instead of "by the book" one can also use them, the superiors, as a sort of bad cop, while you play the good cop, "look I want to help you and get this deal done, but they insist that..."

Quote from: Bren;905537Instead of "by the book" one can also use them, the superiors, as a sort of bad cop, while you play the good cop, "look I want to help you and get this deal done, but they insist that..."

Precisely.

The style is best suited for people with little... let's use good old "charisma", who are put in the position of power. It relies on the idea, that either there are very detailed protocols describing the way things should be handled, or the leader in talking really has someone above himself, who is unavailable for longer periods of time - "distant ruler".

Fun fact: I know an office where subordinates call their "ultimate" employer "a Crusader King", because just like one he is always visiting other countries (cutting deals, gathering sponsors and attracting serious clients).

Quote from: JesterRaiin;905539Fun fact: I know an office where subordinates call their "ultimate" employer "a Crusader King", because just like one he is always visiting other countries (cutting deals, gathering sponsors and attracting serious clients).

Crusader King sure sounds like a better title than Seagull Manager.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905511Can 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.

This is a sidetrack. The example was about influence, not about selling merchandise. It was to illustrate that I depend on convincing others in my job (but am not a sales person), and that a person I work with in a much higher pay grade than me had demonstrably higher charisma. Unpacking more of this isn't going to happen, as I'm not going to discuss where I work, what I do on an RPG forum, for a variety of reasons.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905511I'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?

You can insert all the details as required, but should insert those that lead you to a situation where the fellow trying to seduce the Duchess' wife has a reasonable chance of convincing her to like him (not instantly tossing off her clothes in court and proclaiming "take me bard!" or something, just persuaded to start down that path). Introducing other details makes the situation too specific. We all can apply this to situations in games we have played or run in, and the situations where it didn't. So nitpicking how we got there is irrelevant to the point (no, wait, it actually is).

For every situation you can list, in text, where this wouldn't apply, I can list one where it would. No, I don't believe any dumb ass charming bard can just approach a noble lady out of the blue and say "Hey, sexy, wanna breed?". The assumption (indicated in the example) is that the bard is doing this as part of revenge against the duke, and knows something of the situation, and is targeting someone who is a possibility. If the duchess was known for her chastity and extreme belief in the social foundation of marriage... well, he better know some magic then, right (or blackmail)?

Quote from: Lunamancer;905511Like 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.

Cool. I've played with a few players who have the social skills of a wet rock, and I like to give them the chance to engage in that 1/2 of the plot. I can bring in mechanics to help them with their own social limits. Those with a more social and theatrical flare continue to do well at social situations (providing they are actually RPing their listed social skills). The best thing is, most of the time I only have to use these kinds of rules against NPCs - the players play along with good plots, or enjoy the fun of their mettle being tested by the smooth talking sorts.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905511Why 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?

I think we can assume the presence of a strumpet, the mention of the inn, and the obvious cliche listed is enough. Do you have a reason to want to dissect this for some reason? Others have pointed out in my post what my intent is (tell good story, challenge players, don't be a dick). I will assume you're looking for clarification because you aren't understanding the essential point being made, so let me make it here. In RPGs, scenarios exist where players are trying to convince NPCs, and vica verca. Having a mechanism in place to have something other than player/GM whim govern the outcome of social situations suits me better because I like social stats, skills, perks, etc. to matter. I dislike players who decide their characters are immune to the charming, delightful, beautiful, wondrous, terrifying (here's a common one) as this irks me to no end.

Remember the scene in Star Trek: First Contact where Captain Picard, Data and crew members are stalking the halls of the Enterprise in search of Borg? Data admits to growing fear, and Picard suggests he turn his emotion chip off. Data's neck twitches, off goes the fear, and Picard remarks something to the effect of "Data, I envy you." When players shut off their characters and behave tactically only, that's when I call foul. Unless that's something the character, on paper, can do.

In play, emotional response and motivational influences must be used carefully, and social combat systems can be used to crush players by a ruthless GM as efficiently as deadly combat encounters can, and show a basic problem with said GM in both occasions. This is why I would recommend that social combat mechanics be restricted to games that are for experienced players - that armour for the player group to prevent dipshit GMs from chortling as cool characters are disgraced, female characters are seduced by wandering hobos and other despicable abuses of common sense are avoided while the players learn to play RPGs and what GMs to show the door to.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905511With 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?

Well, without showing you a video of how I GM, I will let you use your imagination and reason to deduce a) when I run a game, I don't post blocks of text on a discussion forum in dry, conversational bursts. I play it up. I use voices. I use descriptions. You know, the basic stuff any GM worth his or her salt does. When that is not getting anywhere because a player is being a blockhead, and can't even justify their lack of response or complete immunity to the world around them, I will either use social mechanics or drop OOC to see if the player is awake.

Obviously, if you have a problem with social mechanic systems, don't use them/play those sorts of games. And by the sounds of it, you wouldn't need them. Heck, your entire group might not need them. My current group doesn't need them most of the time (we've used a yes/no outcome for social influence once in my 16 month campaign right now). YMMV, etc.

Quote from: AsenRG;905509The 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;).

I thought this might irk some. When I say Plot Damage, I mean distortion of the underlying character that made said character fun for the player. There are thresholds, I've found, where the character is no longer fun to play. Making the fighter lame, scarring up the pretty one, etc. Some people play through any change to a character ("Let the Dice Roll Where They May!"), others will take punishment but find a character drifts from their tastes after a certain degree of change. Others have one concept, one vision. I don't like the third kind of player's tastes, and they don't flourish or stay in my games - but this is a thing I've seen, so I mention it as there is this phenomena, and Story Games didn't invent it.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905638I thought this might irk some.

On a forum like this, this is more like a certainty:).

QuoteWhen I say Plot Damage, I mean distortion of the underlying character that made said character fun for the player.

I know what you mean. The very concept that a character can change only "within limits" is, to me, not really different from the concept of "no death without player agreement"...a concept I can say many things about, but none of them is nice. So I won't;).
Death is the final change. It changes your character into a sac of meat, as a rule (crispiness optional and depends on the ifreet in question:p).

QuoteThere are thresholds, I've found, where the character is no longer fun to play. Making the fighter lame, scarring up the pretty one, etc.

...dying, too.

QuoteSome people play through any change to a character ("Let the Dice Roll Where They May!"), others will take punishment but find a character drifts from their tastes after a certain degree of change. Others have one concept, one vision. I don't like the third kind of player's tastes, and they don't flourish or stay in my games - but this is a thing I've seen, so I mention it as there is this phenomena,

Oh, sure - I've seen it as well.
Which is why I warn them that I am ready to maim a fighter, destroy the magic of a wizard, scar a courtesan and the dice will still roll where they may. I've done all of the above, BTW.

Quoteand Story Games didn't invent it.

You mistake me for the Pundit, I see:D!
We're really not the same person. Honest!

One of the differences is, I don't think story games and SJWs are responsible for everything in the hobby that sucks;).

Quote from: AsenRG;905647You mistake me for the Pundit, I see:D!
We're really not the same person. Honest!

Jesus Christ, this happens way too often. Allow me to produce short "how to tell the difference between Pundit and Asen" tutorial:

Observe, people.

This is Pundit.



Can I ask for a close-up? Thank you.



Notice a fake eye, a genuine scar, an exhaust pipe (Pundit is a coal-powered mechanism), often mistaken for just a regular pipe and unmistakable "I'm gonna rip yer balls off, slowly" grimace supplementing his default negotiation technique (known as "thar will be blüt", since it involves excessive violence and a bloodshed).


Now, this is uncle Asen:



And another close-up, please.



Observe "Nephew, I'm disappoint, but it's ok, you weren't my favorite nephew anyway" facial expression he uses quite a lot and big friggin' sword called "The Pen" (Get it ? "The Pen is mightier than a sword", but what if the Pen is a sword> Yeah, just like pretty much every aspect of Asen's persona this is... complicated).

I hope this helps. :cool: