That's the thing though. If you're teaching a 9-year-old to RP; you want them to learn that it is all about what their character thinks/feels. You teach them that if you roll well enough you can change their mind; what they take away from that is "It's all about dicerolling".

I wouldn't even bring social interactions of that degree into a game with a 9-year-old. I might have it as a background thing; something to be used with NPCs. But not a major part of it; because they're still learning the difference between "let's pretend" and RPGs. In fact, for players that young, the less rules you bring in the better.

In reply to willvr (msg # 57):

I think you're focusing a little too much on the one specific example and not the bulk of the argument here...

You're right in that there's something to teach, but in the end even your counter is "If I roll high enough then..." and that's still using social rolls and relying on them in the interaction, which is what I've been saying this whole time.

I'm stepping out of this. I think it's gotten to the point where we're circling around, and not actually gaining anything further from it.

(As an aside; there are lots of complaints that combat isn't realistic enough; same with falling damage.)

I tend to use social rolls as informative "My character seems very confident that they are speaking the truth."

I do run into trouble with lots of social aspects, not just the skill use.

For example, sometimes my character might know the truth because they witnessed it or because of logic, which might then contradict some other character's super high bluff roll. My character shouldn't then be convinced otherwise.

Basically, there is more to the social element than just skill, yet the systems I know of never account for anything but attribute and skill.

I for example, am extremely difficult to convince of things because 1, I am logical rather than emotional (most people are emotional and this is what classes focus on manipulating), and 2, my knowledge, experience, and rules (I.E. never take a single source as absolute truth) all play into whether I believe something. I however, do not have the social ability to convince other people of things very well, so it ends up being the equivalent of having high social rolls to avoid being convinced or intimidated, but low social rolls when trying to convince or intimidate others.


I do see the social skills as important because then I can play a character that has more social ability than me the player, but rather than saying that a high roll means I convinced your character, it should be read as my character was very convincing and reasonable to the other player's character.

Most systems I've ever worked with tend to include something along the lines of "use this as a guideline" or "common sense prevails." They also tend to include situational modifiers (for things like logically deducing something, or having seen the real truth), something which I can't harp on enough, apparently. Now, those exact words I used typically don't appear, but maybe that's just the systems I play. No system can or will account for every single thing, but that's why there are GMs, and that's why there are passages like the ones I mention, because you're right that 999/1000 most people won't be convinced that what they saw wasn't what they saw. They won't believe the horse was actually an orangutan or something of the like. Most people aren't that easily-fooled... unless they have reason to doubt their own memory.

And that's where the 1/1000 comes in because, believe it or not, it's not that uncommon to not remember something accurately. Talk long enough and with enough authority in your voice and, unless the event is recorded, some people will begin to doubt themselves. Their own minds. It's even better when you have a group to back you up, because then the lie becomes more convincing than the truth. Ever seen Total Recall (or read "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale," the story the movies are originally based off of)? That's what an insanely high Bluff check might be like. It can and is more real to you than the truth, if it's allowed to go on, if nothing breaks the cycle.

Again, there are a lot of contributing factors there, and if another person says "No, it didn't" then it becomes an even harder lie to prove, but there's always that slim chance they pull it off. That's what the modifiers are for, and that's why there are lines about common sense and admissions that the rules don't cover everything in every player handbook I've actually cared to read the introduction for (and, if they don't, they should because let me tell you what...).


I can see where you're coming from with this, but I ask you: unless they have an In Character reason to doubt your character's statement, like the example you gave above where they've seen/believe something differently, why shouldn't it mean that they've convinced someone? I mean, I get that there's a little bit more of a choice in the matter the other way, but doesn't that sort of invalidate the roll?

I get that a higher number looks good, and you have to check for a fumble or a critical success in some cases, but if your end roll means "You sound very convincing, but everyone still gets to choose whether or not you actually are" then it seems... arbitrary to roll at all. Why not have everyone roll against it with modifiers? Why not set different difficult checks to overcome (and players can set their own, for all anyone really cares, so long as there's a guideline for what they can set it at and they're willing to accept the results).

Does what I'm saying make sense to anyone? >_> I feel like I'm trying to argue that the roll should have meaning, real meaning, like every other roll in every system does. It has concrete, tangible meaning when you say you rolled a 60 to attack, or a 240 in Occult (because most knowledge levels are tiered, so you get a specific level of information for that sort of roll), or a 1 in Animal Husbandry. I just... I think social rolls should have the same effect, like the 3.5 table someone linked earlier. You don't automatically convince anyone of anything, but their attitude shifts to make them more amenable to what you're saying, or maybe you do convince them to do something for you, but it's...

I think my brain has checked out for the night. It was at full steam earlier in this post and now I've lost it. >_> Sorry about that. I shall return on the 'morrow to hopefully be more coherent.

I'm probably re-treading something already mentioned but...

If the game has social 'combat' mechanics, using them against PCs should be okay. It's something I think players should live with.

It works better online, because when you send a PM or PL to the GM saying "I want to roll my bluff skill to [  ]", none of the other players know.

I do think that how you respond to a lie or intimidation, is entirely within your own control though. A successful Intimidate roll means you are intimidated, it doesn't mean you have to do what you are told by the person threatening you.

Lying is easier though. All you have to do on RPoL to lie IC, is type out a lie. You can post your bluff in PL for the GM. Then it's up to the other PCs to decide whether to roll Sense Motive or Wits or whatever the system uses.

You don't have to be persuasive to lie well. You just have to use the right lie, and a GM can help you choose that.

On the other hand, as a player, I would readily PM another player or welcome one to discuss something like this. I wouldn't take offense to my character being manipulated, so long as the result made sense and wasn't just me being forced to bend around something another player 'told' me to do.
This message was last edited by the user at 21:12, Fri 08 May 2015.

I like the way GURPS handles it. If you make a social roll against someone, they're not compelled to act a certain way - people always have choice - but they want to, because they're fooled/intimidated/seduced etc.

So if they want to act contrary to what they're feeling emotionally (fear, trust, etc) then they're struggling against themselves and their emotions, and get skill penalties, but they still get to choose what to do.

So if you win a contest of Intimidation vs Will by 3 points, they get a -3 to defy you because they're afraid.

If you win a contest of Fast-Talk vs IQ by 4 points, they get a -4 to act against what you're trying to get them to do, because they DO believe you.

But they can still choose to act however they want.

In reply to Tortuga (msg # 63):

In my opinion if you are using a skill roll to dictate the actions/attitudes of another PC, there should be a tangible cost to you, and a reward for the manipulated character. One, it incentivizes the transaction correctly, and two, it prevents the skilled manipulator from ALWAYS being able to do so.

Would you advocate a similar penalty for combat-skilled characters who wanted to inflict physical harm on other PCs?

Physical violence is also a transaction. If you must ask for consent to socially disadvantage another PC, then you must ask for consent to physically disadvantage another PC.

I would agree that this would be the best way to go - treating any interaction between PCs the same way; there's no shortage of games where PvP isn't allowed, and that would hold for both the combat and the social aspects f it. And if a game instead allows PvP, then it ought allow both types.

And to anticipate the classic objection: the ability of a combat-oriented character to force a social-oriented one to comply with their wishes due to the threat of physical violence is no less problematic for a player's control of their own character's actions than a social player's ability to manipulate fellow players' characters into following along their whims. If one is acceptable, the other should be too - and if you can trust your player not to lord one kind of power over each other, then you should be able to trust them not to hold the other kind of power, either.

Basically, there's no argument that doesn't apply to both sides - if a system fails to account for that, it'll be up to the GM to compensate, but the ideal outcome is for both skillset to be treated equally.

Except, it's not. You're still getting to choose whether or not you pay attention to that threat. There has been an assumption through this thread though, that if you have a good enough diplomacy, people have to change their character's minds purely because of it.

There's been a comment made a few times that 'it's not mind control'. But other comments suggest that's exactly what it's felt it is - just a short term version of it; and not as powerful.

In fact, the only way a dice roll should determine so absolutely what someone does, would be in a hack-and-slash game. And I don't think diplomacy is really at it's best in those kind of games.

It varies widely by game system, though.  GURPS is a good example of a game where becoming phenomenal at diplomacy is very difficult and it's a known risk that dumping your willpower will cause you trouble down the road (because the thing that resists influence is also the thing that resists running away from big scary monsters).  D&D and the like are the opposite... the diplomacy guy gets good at it for relatively little effort and the defenses of FighterGuy are pathetic and static.  Heck, GURPS has a relatively cheap advantage that makes you immune to all influence rolls (at the expense of having to be emotionally distant in general, though).

My opinion is still that influence rolls should inform the RP but not control it.  If someone successfully diplomacies you, you think he/she is making some good points and sounds reasonable.  What you do with that is up to you.  The better suited modern systems give you some sort of benefit for going along with the rolls in your RP, but don't penalize you if you go against it.

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 68):

I'll agree with that. I come at it from a DnD perspective, and informs my opinion. I don't actually think DnD is great for a diplomacy-based game; purely because of how easy it is to get good at it; but it's where I'm coming from.

You lose your ability of "getting to choose" the moment a fellow players decides to use their abilities against you; you can say that you do something against the will of the combat-oriented character in the example, and then the combat oriented characer shots you in the head before you can complete your actions - and then your character is dead, and you cannot control it anymore. Saying that that's freedom is like saying that anybody under a death treath is free to make themselves a martyr rather than obey; while technically true, that's not really what one would call "free choiche".

As for what everybody perceives, changing people's perception is never easy and rarely useful. You might have notice that I held that combat and social manipulation should have the same effectiveness - which also implies a certain gradual nature to them. I no more think that using social abilities should equate to mind control then I think having the ability to be stealthy equals invisibility. Why most people perceive things that way, I couldn't tell you; abilty and rolls are meant to inform roleplay, not dictate it, and that should. Always hold true for everything any players does in the game, and it's the GM's duty to arbitrate how the roleplay is to be handled.

After all, this applies to everything in the game, including interactions with the NPCs and even combat, because no player has enough absolute knowledge to be sure what the consequences of their actions will be - the fact that the GM gets to arbitrate between two PCs instead of a PC and an NPC/the environment is only notable in that the roleplay compromise to be reached need to accomodate both parts, instead of only one of them.

I can agree that D&D in particular dropped the ball into developing their social interaction system; each class ought to have a social BAB and a social AC (likely based on CHA and WIS, respectively) instead of relying on skills (which only work well against environment), but that's a fault of the system (and as I just pointed out, easily corrected by a creative GM), and even then, in the end it all depends on how the players want to handle it - cooperative players who want to make it work as a medium when interacting with each other will find a way to do it among themselves, and players who don't will require their GM to prevent it from being abused just like any other game mechanic would be.

What's the significant difference between:



and



PVP either has to be consistently consensual or roll-based. You cannot decide some types of conflict operate via dice and others via agreement; both are attempts to inflict a condition on one another, whether that condition be an injury or an attitude.

If you cannot choose not to be injured, then you should not choose to not be persuaded.

But the problem isn't mechanical. The problem is poor roleplaying and a lack of trust between players. The solution: Don't play with people who can't or won't roleplay the effects of social traits.

In robust systems, I agree.  The problem is that a lot of systems aren't robust enough to handle social conflict.

Except, you can't just kill someone. Unless they're tied up and helpless anyway.

I think the big thing is, DnD really assumes all the PCs are working together. SO it's pretty much the last system I'd use for any kind of PvP, whether on a social or combat level.

Yes, we agree DnD dropped the ball about social interactions. I just disagree how easy it is to change, even with a creative GM. And honestly, if I was lucky enough to get that creative GM, I don't think I'd want them wasting their creative energies on fixing something so inbuilt into the system. If I really wanted that aspect of it, I'd probably see if there was a better system for it.

DnD excels at simplicity. For combat? That's great. But it's simplicity is a real hindrance for a lot of other things, which means unless you actually have a group of good RPers; DnD tends to suffer in a RP-heavy game.

You obviously never played 4th edition and mid-high levels.

I skipped 4th edition. But even mid-high levels is fairly simple at it's heart. At least in the first 3.5 versions of the game. Enough, at any rate, to say that it's advantage over other games is it's simplicity. Well that, and nearly any RPer you meet knows it to some degree; so getting a game for it is pretty easy.

Sure you can. Shoot them in the face. Stab them in the heart. Chop their heads off. Nick their carotid artery and they'll bleed out in seconds. Hit them in the head hard enough and they'll lapse into a coma they never awaken from.

DnD doesn't let you do this, but many games will. I'm not talking about any specific system, but rather, gaming and rpgs in general.

What you cannot do is talk someone to death.



Uh... most games are simpler than 3.5e. Including other versions of DnD. Fate, Fudge, Apocalypse World, PDQ, Over the Edge, Unknown Armies, Feng Shui, Dungeon World, All Flesh Must Be Eaten... I could go on and on. DnD is not simple. But it is well known, and that's its big advantage.
This message was last edited by the user at 23:55, Tue 12 May 2015.

In reply to Tortuga (msg # 76):

Even in DnD, if you do enough damage in a single strike to get someone's HP to a certain negative value, they're dead. Whether they started injured or not, you can kill someone with a single strike in DnD if you're powerful enough.

Also, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one pro-social rolls being treated like any other roll >_> I'm just gonna stay quiet now though, since ya'll seem to have it covered in my absence.

If you -really- want them treated the same; you need to have 'Diplomacy HP' or whatever. Not what it is in DnD as an example - one diplomacy roll, you automatically influence their reaction.

To take someone down, you need to rolls. One actual to-hit roll, then roll enough damage. Except at first level; one hit will not be enough. But one successful diplomacy roll is.

That right there is a wonderful idea. Gives much more freedom of choice and a stat or two can be chosen to add their own benefits. If a person lets there Diplomacy HP drop than they have no choice but at any point can choose to 'play along.' Which may be all they are doing but like with surrendering in combat, they can revisit and escape the situation.

I think the point here was that you can't just kill someone.  Pretty much every system devotes extensive playtesting and page real estate to the art of making someone dead and the art of not letting people make you dead.  Games that spend even a fraction of that effort on the non-combat conflicts are few and far between (FATE being a good example of one that does).

D&D with its popularity does a disservice to the hobby as a whole and this discussion in particular by spending very little time on the topic.  Admittedly, D&D5e does the best job of any of the editions with the inclusion of Inspiration as an RP award and the general flattening of skills to the point that being the diplomacy master comes only as the result of massive amounts of character investment.

In general, I think most of the folks in this discussion are on the page of allowing a balanced system to guide them without straight-jacketing them.  The fact that a lot of systems are so very far from balanced is part of what muddies the system discussion.

In the end, the whole discussion is kind of silly.  Most groups should use some sort of group template or share background threads which make this kind of thing a non-issue.
This message was last edited by the user at 01:07, Wed 13 May 2015.

Yup. DnD had a huge chance 15 years ago to do something special. 3.x is okay; but that really was a glaring oversight; when they rewrote the skill rules.

5e has finally promoted RP; but I know for a lot of people it's too little too late, unfortunately for WotC.