Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905638I 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.

This is what I touched on earlier. Its not that having your PC persuaded or changed is good or bad. Its how the player takes it. And like pretty much everything else in RPGs. The range of reactions is broad. And one type of persuasion or change is perfectly acceptible to a player, but another type is totally not.

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?

I feel like with some players and some situations that would be fine, but I can see how handling this type of system with care would be best.
I know that, for one, as a player, I don't want to be told how my character feels. On the other hand, if there is a system for fear and my character fails a Willpower, or Courage roll or what have you, then they just might be afraid and can't face the monster. That is a feeling imposed on my character via the rules, with penalties to boot.

I think a system like that would be fine as long as the player has an opportunity to have their character react to those feelings, even if it means going against those feelings, albeit with a penalty, like in the "fear" example above.

Essentially, yeah, I don't mind the system influencing the PCs decisions, but ultimately it should be the player's decision what their character chooses to do, even if it means the odds are against them.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;905652Jesus 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:

That's exactly how it is:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;905697That's exactly how it is:D!

I know, my captain. I know. :cool:

I wasn't confusing Asen with Pundit. Who could confuse anyone with Pundit?

But now I'm confused, or just confused enough to also link a LOTR picture.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]219[/ATTACH]

In all seriousness, the comment wasn't aimed at Asen, but rather more generally, but it's easy to see how it was taken that way.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905706I wasn't confusing Asen with Pundit. Who could confuse anyone with Pundit?

Well, I've been visiting certain parts of the great US of A and on the way I've seen this guy:



For a moment I thought to myself, "oh gosh, it's Pundit, the RPG designer, a smoker and part-time butcher". So I approached the guy and asked for an autograph, to which he suggest that I should ... [censored] ...and that he is the Second Coming and that there will be blood. To which I've chosen to react with a slow retreat to safer position.

It turned out it wasn't Pundit, and I should've know that, because the guy had two eyes and no facial scar.

This or that, I swear, I won't ever visit these parts of NorthAm. Ever. People there are a bit... violent for my taste. :cool:

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905706I wasn't confusing Asen with Pundit. Who could confuse anyone with Pundit?

But now I'm confused, or just confused enough to also link a LOTR picture.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]219[/ATTACH]

In all seriousness, the comment wasn't aimed at Asen, but rather more generally, but it's easy to see how it was taken that way.

My reply was just a joke, CZ. JesterRaiin got it right and replied in tune;).

Quote from: JesterRaiin;905785Well, I've been visiting certain parts of the great US of A and on the way I've seen this guy:



For a moment I thought to myself, "oh gosh, it's Pundit, the RPG designer, a smoker and part-time butcher". So I approached the guy and asked for an autograph, to which he suggest that I should ... [censored] ...and that he is the Second Coming and that there will be blood. To which I've chosen to react with a slow retreat to safer position.

It turned out it wasn't Pundit, and I should've know that, because the guy had two eyes and no facial scar.

This or that, I swear, I won't ever visit these parts of NorthAm. Ever. People there are a bit... violent for my taste. :cool:

The similarity was uncanny, wasn't it:D?

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905637This is a sidetrack. The example was about influence, not about selling merchandise.

Nor was I talking about that. Notice "the sale" in scary quotes? That was literally the only mention of selling and it was literally presented in a way to make clear it shouldn't be taken literally. My point still stands.

QuoteYou 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

Reasonable to whom? Am I supposed to just assume that the hypothetical GM both created an NPC who stands a reasonable chance at being swayed by seduction, but also denies any reasonable attempt to do so. Is this the GM being a jerk? Which mechanics won't fix. Or is it simply that you think one thing is reasonable and the GM thinks something else is reasonable? In which case if you spell out the reasons why the GM thinks it's reasonable for the duchess to brush off the bard, and spell out the reasons why you think it's reasonable for her to succumb to the bard, it is highly probable that there is plenty of room for a meeting of the minds, where GM and player alike can walk away satisfied with the outcome, if only the right ideas are communicated. There may be a very small number of cases where the two are simply at an impasse. And that's fine, too. There ARE cases where persuasion is impossible.

QuoteIntroducing other details makes the situation too specific.

Too specific for what? You've already given your general idea. You attempted to give an example--the example should be specific. If you can't find one specific enough example, it really hurts your case. Getting into specifics is in your best interest, not mine.

QuoteWe 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).

Who's nitpicking?

QuoteFor every situation you can list, in text,

Wait. Why stipulate "in text"? This seems fishy.

Quotewhere this wouldn't apply, I can list one where it would.

So sometimes the details are ripe for success, other times ripe for failure, and the two are in roughly equal proportions and the player doesn't know which apply to the present situation? I would call that a reasonable chance for success. If the result happened to turn out as a failure, that doesn't mean the chance for success didn't exist or wasn't reasonable.

QuoteNo, 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)?

Whose assumption? Yours or the bards? What if the duchess wasn't "known" for her chastity and extreme belief in the social foundation of marriage, yet nonetheless in her heart valued those two things. If she feels that way, maybe there ought not to be so reasonable chance for success. You seem to have admitted that yourself. Is the bard not fallible? Could he not be wrong in what he thinks he knows?

Just because someone has great combat skill, or any other skill, does not mean the person automatically succeeds. A lot of times, there's a call for some unknown--often a die roll--so that high skill never ensures success, only tends to make it more likely. The unknown I've suggested--the duchess's nature rather than demeanor--is just as surely an unknown. It's just not a die roll, so it's harder to model, calculate, or hard code into a game system. That doesn't mean it's not fair and worthwhile. And it doesn't mean it ignores character skill, either.

And it's certainly not without precedent or widespread acceptance in RPGs. Whether or not you hurt the other guy in combat not only depends on your skill and how good the die roll is. If you don't know you're fighting a werewolf and you're not using a silver weapon, that's a pretty key factor. And it's not something we defer to mechanics about.

QuoteCool. 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.

Same here.

QuoteI 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).

And resisting details improves the story? Deferring to dice rolls challenges players? Pushing the player into a situation that maybe you find interesting but maybe the player doesn't reduces dickishness?

I can think of plenty of reasons why it's unlikely the PC would go off with the strumpet. For one, just having identified her as a strumpet, for some individuals, kills any chance she has at seducing him, no matter how inebriated. But I'm more interested in what the player is thinking. Why did the character go off drinking, presumably alone? Maybe he preferred not to have company--another possibility that would kill what you seem to think should be a slam dunk case for him leaving with the strumpet. But maybe, just maybe, the player's idea was for the character to go out drinking and whoring in the first place. If you'd known that (had some way of finding out), and scrapped the strumpet in place of a cute-but-shy serving girl (because you should have some idea what kind of girl the character prefers) then you'd actually be giving the player what he wants, and secretly getting what you want as well.

That's what doing social means. It means getting into the details you insist on evading. It doesn't mean the GM literally has to seduce the player in real life to gain the character's consent. It doesn't require real, out of character persuasion skills. It just requires important details that fairly easily spring forth when you do actually give a damn about what the players want.

QuoteI will assume you're looking for clarification because you aren't understanding the essential point being made, so let me make it here.

Poor assumption on your part. Actually, I think I've been perfectly clear. I don't question your intentions or your values. I question your methods. I share a lot of the same desires. I've tried your way. I've rejected it. I found something better. However, at this point, your resistance seems to suggest you're more married to your method than you are to the ideals you espouse.

QuoteIn 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.

.. and I do all those things.

QuoteI 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.

How do you know the player is deciding the character is immune to the charming, delightful, beautiful, wondrous, or terrifying? How do you know that they just don't find charming what you think is charming, don't find delightful what you think is delightful, don't find beautiful or wondrous what you think are beautiful and wondrous, and don't find terrifying what you think should be terrifying?

QuoteRemember the scene in Star Trek: First Contact

No. Never saw it.

QuoteWell, 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.

Meh. Doing voices or getting into descriptions have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You can tell a great story, get players engaged, and fire up the imagination while being completely dry. Sometimes voices or descriptions can help. Not always. The devil is in the details, which you've spent an awful lot of time evading.

QuoteObviously, if you have a problem with social mechanic systems, don't use them/play those sorts of games.

Who said anything about having a problem with social mechanic systems? I only have a problem with those that ape combat systems. Because they aren't social mechanic systems at all. They're combat systems with different flavor text. I don't want more combat options in my game.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798Wait. Why stipulate "in text"? This seems fishy.

Because we are typing and reading text.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798Who's nitpicking?

Who indeed? Perhaps if we examined the text....

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798If you don't know you're fighting a werewolf and you're not using a silver weapon, that's a pretty key factor.

I think that one of Coffee Zombie’s points was that some players think all their PCs are social werewolves and no one ever has a silver tongue.*

QuoteHow do you know the player is deciding the character is immune to the charming, delightful, beautiful, wondrous, or terrifying? How do you know that they just don't find charming what you think is charming, don't find delightful what you think is delightful, don't find beautiful or wondrous what you think are beautiful and wondrous, and don't find terrifying what you think should be terrifying?

It’s often blatantly obvious when it happens. If it is unclear I often ask. And sometimes the player comes right out and tells me without being prompting. Basically it’s the same way one “knows” anything about what anyone else thinks or wants ever.



* Which is different from another point that CZ mentioned, which is that some GM’s have a similar problem. And still another separate problem, which is players or GMs who thinks a high social skill is some sort of +5 Holy Vorpal Avenger Sword of Sharpness that cuts through all social and mental resistance. If you miss the context, you might be confused about which which problem CZ is addressing where.

Quote from: Bren;905813I think that one of Coffee Zombie's points was that some players think all their PCs are social werewolves and no one ever has a silver tongue.*

Heh. Silver Tongued: This merit allows the character to use their social skills on lycanthropes with increased effect. This includes certain sexual skills as well but this is left to the discretion of the GM.

QuoteIt's often blatantly obvious when it happens. If it is unclear I often ask. And sometimes the player comes right out and tells me without being prompting. Basically it's the same way one "knows" anything about what anyone else thinks or wants ever.

From my stand point, it isn't about what the Player finds charming, wondrous, terrifying, etc, most of the time. Its about what their character does. Sometimes those things will match up, sometimes they won't. For me that's what the mechanics are there for and part of role playing is dealing with that like anything else that's different between the Player and Character (PC or NPC).

On a somewhat related thought, its interesting how much easier accepting the results of extremely high skill and/or spectacular rolls are for physical, mental and combat actions are compared to social activities are for most players. Ties back into some of points Coffee Zombie mentioned earlier. Like Seducing the chaste Duchess into violating her vows quickly thanks to a high skill/outrageous Critical success. More players (and gms) would balk at that than, say, a barely skilled warrior one shotting the Duchess's champion, a high ranking. highly skilled knight, in the triall by combat to defend her honor results from that seduction in my experience.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798Nor was I talking about that. Notice "the sale" in scary quotes? That was literally the only mention of selling and it was literally presented in a way to make clear it shouldn't be taken literally. My point still stands.

In your mind, sure.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798Reasonable to whom? Am I supposed to just assume that the hypothetical GM both created an NPC who stands a reasonable chance at being swayed by seduction, but also denies any reasonable attempt to do so. Is this the GM being a jerk? Which mechanics won't fix. Or is it simply that you think one thing is reasonable and the GM thinks something else is reasonable? In which case if you spell out the reasons why the GM thinks it's reasonable for the duchess to brush off the bard, and spell out the reasons why you think it's reasonable for her to succumb to the bard, it is highly probable that there is plenty of room for a meeting of the minds, where GM and player alike can walk away satisfied with the outcome, if only the right ideas are communicated. There may be a very small number of cases where the two are simply at an impasse. And that's fine, too. There ARE cases where persuasion is impossible.

This was never disputed. There are cases where persuasion is impossible. All sane humans agree on this.

The "example" was not one of them, as was stated in the example.

CTRL+C, CTRL+V from my own post.

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?

To make it clear, the GM has decided s/he likes the Duchess not to be convinced by the Bard, despite all the Bard's efforts. The Bard, as a good assumption, has picked a target that there is a chance of seducing. He hasn't revealed in play that the Duchess is implacable or extremely devout. Though she might be - cool. The bard charms her, and the effect is not "duchess casts aside her personality for plot", but would at least "reveal something of herself". She is influenced - the attempt didn't bounce of the plot wall of the GM. Better yet, the GM can react to the exceptional charm of the bard, and have the duchess tempted - and then regret the temptation, and vow revenge on the bard. We've now made even more plot. One way or the other, the social mechanics added something to the scene, and made social characters feel like investing points/levels/whatever in social abilities isn't a waste of time.

Or you could never use this, get the same results in the group if all are capable players and GMs. That would be just as good. One doesn't negate the use and utility of the other.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798Wait. Why stipulate "in text"? This seems fishy.

Ummm... zounds? Gadzooks? Are you serious?

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798I can think of plenty of reasons why it's unlikely the PC would go off with the strumpet. For one, just having identified her as a strumpet, for some individuals, kills any chance she has at seducing him, no matter how inebriated. But I'm more interested in what the player is thinking. Why did the character go off drinking, presumably alone? Maybe he preferred not to have company--another possibility that would kill what you seem to think should be a slam dunk case for him leaving with the strumpet. But maybe, just maybe, the player's idea was for the character to go out drinking and whoring in the first place. If you'd known that (had some way of finding out), and scrapped the strumpet in place of a cute-but-shy serving girl (because you should have some idea what kind of girl the character prefers) then you'd actually be giving the player what he wants, and secretly getting what you want as well.

Those are all reactions, motives and the like that would have lead to the situation. Funny enough, I would have present for them as well, and have tailored the encounter as such. I also enjoy knowing what the character is thinking. I also like consequences where they make sense. The scene could have resolved any number of ways, including a lonesome trudge to collapse in a bed alone, thinking over the melancholy of loosing a companion, ennui of an adventuring life when poor, glory at a recent triumph, or any number of things. That wasn't the scenario presented, as it wasn't constructive to talking about when social mechanics might be used, and why.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798That's what doing social means. It means getting into the details you insist on evading. It doesn't mean the GM literally has to seduce the player in real life to gain the character's consent. It doesn't require real, out of character persuasion skills. It just requires important details that fairly easily spring forth when you do actually give a damn about what the players want.

I don't insist on evading them. I'm not GMing a god-damned game for you, and not going to lay out a long scenario. Do it yourself! Come to your own conclusions.

Wait, sure, why not.

In this scenario, Arturo has come back from a long and fruitless battle with his friends. After months of toil, they managed to find the tomb of the mad wizard Darksong, but when they made their way into the depths of the earth (passing through wights, darkness, a forray into the underdark, ghosts and a very deadly trap) they found out the terrible secret of his imprisonment. One of his friends was almost destroyed - another was slain, by his own friends thanks to a cunning illusion spell. But the wizard's shade was defeated, sealed away where it will never get free. To his side is the blade of Darksong, almost singing with power and potential, but Arturo is not sure he wishes to explore the power in the sword yet. Was it the sound of the shade of Darksong, wailing to be freed, casting curses at the retreating party? Was it the knowledge that the wizard would be born again, grow old, die in that tomb, over and over, trapped until the end of the world thanks to his own dark pact with ancient gods for immortality?

The cups called to him. He wished to drink and forget, and to honour the memory of the slain sorcerer who had accompanied them. Radgar, poor soul. At least it had not been Arturo's hand that had slain Radgar, but a few moments more and it would have been different. He ordered a stiff pint, and drank. Time passed. He listened to songs - the village was celebrating. They bought Arturo drink after drink, hailed him a hero, and sang his praises and the glory of his companions. The long winter would lift at last, and their village was saved. Arturo smiled, the heady ale going to his head after the fourth of fifth round. He joined in the singing, and soon enough he was dancing, forgetting his woes and cares, and allowing victory to hold him in her arms.

At some point in the night she came to him, and she was beautiful, or at least she was there, and she wanted to be close to him. Arturo rarely took women to the hay with him on his adventures - he had eyes for the elf, even if she seemed to think his adoration cute and called him "man child". But Aedica wasn't here, and the strumpet whispered into Arturo's ear what she wished to do with him that night.

The player can decide a wide variety of things, and this would have been interplay between myself and the player, back and forth, in a less literary form than this. And then, when it came to it, the likely chance of a strumpet wanting to bed a handsome / wealthy / available adventurer is presented, because it fits the scene and the genre. And the player does what they will, as long as they're role-playing it up. If the player is being a block of wood, and I'm still teaching them how to play human beings, then I might pull out the dice and have the strumpet charm him in his stupor - if the dice came up with success for the strumpet / failure for Arturo.

Social mechanics come out when other options fail. Combat mechanics come out when players want more detail on if their characters are made into worm's food or not. Both can, if used well, add excitement. Sometimes you don't bother with combat mechanics. "You slay the single cornered goblin, offering it no quarter."

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798Poor assumption on your part. Actually, I think I've been perfectly clear. I don't question your intentions or your values. I question your methods. I share a lot of the same desires. I've tried your way. I've rejected it. I found something better. However, at this point, your resistance seems to suggest you're more married to your method than you are to the ideals you espouse.



.. and I do all those things.

Cool. Keep it up. I'm not minister of the church of social mechanics. The topic interests me enough to write about them here.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798How do you know the player is deciding the character is immune to the charming, delightful, beautiful, wondrous, or terrifying? How do you know that they just don't find charming what you think is charming, don't find delightful what you think is delightful, don't find beautiful or wondrous what you think are beautiful and wondrous, and don't find terrifying what you think should be terrifying?

I.. ask them? Then I use some common sense, and dismiss absurd reactions. "I'm not afraid of the dragon." Okay, sure. But if I give it a fear effect that's mechanical, you are. On the other hand, I've learned how unfun it is to have scary monsters causing players to run by rolls, and much more fun it is to let players decide to have their characters show fear, be real. When you have blocks of wood or newbs, you can pull out dice and give them chances, odds, and decisions married to something other than whim.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798No. Never saw it.

No problem, there's at least one clip currently on Youtube of the scene here.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798Meh. Doing voices or getting into descriptions have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You can tell a great story, get players engaged, and fire up the imagination while being completely dry. Sometimes voices or descriptions can help. Not always. The devil is in the details, which you've spent an awful lot of time evading.

I'm not evading. I'm refusing to engage in an argument over details, because the general situation is completely mutable. When you don't need social mechanics, you don't use them. When you do, you can use them. You can, if willing, always find some small way to change situational details to suit a point if you're intent on making one. Since you are, and I'm not, I'm not interested in exploring this. Dismiss the entire concept out of hand if you will, declare that every situation is best when there are no social mechanics. I can then find a way (not being there, it's magical) to interpret your situation to illustrate where it would have been better (if I'm trying to make petty points). It pointless to explore this line of conversation when not with friends of peers, so I don't. You are free to label it as evasion, others are free to agree with why I refuse to get drawn into your attempt "to define the terms of the argument".

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798Who said anything about having a problem with social mechanic systems? I only have a problem with those that ape combat systems. Because they aren't social mechanic systems at all. They're combat systems with different flavor text. I don't want more combat options in my game.

I'm not as fond of "parry / thrust" apes of combat. I also haven't found many good social mechanic systems overall. But Exalted's wasn't bad, and wasn't good. I certainly won't praise it, but it was worth a read, test in play, and abandonment along with the rest of that game. In D&D, I use skill checks alone, with modifiers based on the situation, and ask the players to role-play results that make sense. Works when I need them to work.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905901I'm not as fond of "parry / thrust" apes of combat. I also haven't found many good social mechanic systems overall. But Exalted's wasn't bad, and wasn't good. I certainly won't praise it, but it was worth a read, test in play, and abandonment along with the rest of that game. In D&D, I use skill checks alone, with modifiers based on the situation, and ask the players to role-play results that make sense. Works when I need them to work.

I'd just like to note that the Third Edition has better social system than an emulation of the combat engine:).
Basically, you have Values (Intimacies in the system). Those values are of a level that you priortize - basically the ones that are essential to you, the ones you'd risk serious inconvenience for, and ones you'd make small sacrifices for. In order to persuade someone of something, you have to threaten him (often physically), bribe him (not necessarily with money) or use one of his Intimacies. If you deduced correctly, it works. If you deduced it wrong, you don't even get to roll.
Furthermore, people can have contradictory desires and loyalties, just like in real life. And, like in real life, it's harder to persuade against someone's loyalties (and it's easier to persuade someone who's confused, tired and feels down).
It's not a perfect system, but it works - and accounts for stuff that most of the at least mildly experienced GMs should account for anyway;).

While I an heavily in the "Dont need mechanics for social interaction" camp. I do rather like 5e D&D's system which requires you to interact with the NPC to get to know them and some checks to see just what you learn or influence based on that. I think it mirrors a little better the social dynamics of getting to know someone or getting them to open up as opposed to some other systems. It works without being to clunky.

QuoteI'm not evading. I'm refusing to engage in an argument over details, because the general situation is completely mutable. When you don't need social mechanics, you don't use them. When you do, you can use them. You can, if willing, always find some small way to change situational details to suit a point if you're intent on making one. Since you are, and I'm not, I'm not interested in exploring this.

All I did was ask questions because I am NOT intent on making a point. You're the one who got defensive and responded argumentatively.

QuoteDismiss the entire concept out of hand if you will, declare that every situation is best when there are no social mechanics.

Who said I'm dismissing the entire concept? Who says I'm not using social mechanics? These are all YOUR assertions, and every one of them is false. Why would you assume false facts in evidence rather than just ask simple questions on any points of confusion?

Quote from: Bren;905813I think that one of Coffee Zombie’s points was that some players think all their PCs are social werewolves and no one ever has a silver tongue.*

No one ever? Sure. I can see how that might be a problem. Players who are so unreasonable that "no one ever" can sway them to a course of action in the game? That sounds like something that demands a solution.

Unless, of course, there are instances--even just one--when these hypothetical players actually DO have their characters willingly take some action than an NPC (or PC) wants them to take, in a social situation, without deferring to game mechanics, that they otherwise wouldn't do if the PC or NPC hadn't asked.

Because that would mean that all those times we get upset at the players being "too wooden" isn't because that's the inherent nature of the player. It's because the player isn't engaged. And that would suggest a VERY different problem with a very different cause and a very different solution.

That said, I've yet to see an actual living, breathing player who didn't occasionally do things like, say, give up treasure earned through adventure in exchange for coin of the realm. Or exchange coin of the realm for equipment or other goods and services. They very willingly give up these things to NPCs who want them. Because? It benefits the PC (or at least they think at the time that it does) to engage in these social situations and to do as these NPCs ask. Now this is just the easiest example to point to. But there are countless interactions, including those of non-commercial nature, that occur and go unnoticed. The simple fact is, it's hard to get very far without cooperating with others. It's taken for granted. Until those relatively rare times when someone doesn't want to budge. Only then do we take notice and see a problem.

So yes, when I hear GMs in particular citing this "problem" I question things.

Does the player simply refuse to go along the majority of the time, or is it just the rare times they do is grating to the GM?
If this is truly frequent behavior, is the player just not engaged in social situations?
Is this due to the GMing style? (Clearly other parts of the game are engaging otherwise the player wouldn't keep showing up!)
Do mechanics address the actual underlying problem or does the GM just need to refine his craft?