In my games I'm big on letting the players take their characters down the path they would like to go, as long as it is valid for that characters personality, history, and so forth.

But I was wondering do you guys allow PCs to seduce, intimidate, or otherwise make rolls against each others, for valid reasons of course.

If so, why? and If not, why?

I have been in games were it wasn't allowed and while it doesn't come up often in my games there has been times where it happened. Honestly most of the times the players are pretty good about working it out on their own, so little GM intervention was needed in those cases.

Does it tread the waters of Godmodding if one player uses seduction or mind control on another?

It entirely depends on the players and the situation.  In games where that sort of thing is to be expected, it should be allowed (and sometimes encouraged), especially when someone is playing a clever, manipulative character but is not very good at playing as such without rolling to say "yeah I totally lie my way through" or "yes my character is a very smooth operator and is totes charming."

If the player on the receiving end is getting upset over the results and don't want that sort of dynamic going on in the game (and the act isn't expected/required for the game), then that's fine, too, but I would say that if you don't want people to roll against you, you don't get to roll against them, either.  So if a player says "I don't want other players to roll things like bluff against me because X" then you can, as the GM, reply, "That's okay, but now you can't do it to any player, either."

Also, sometimes people may do it to try and sabotage another player, or just because they're bored and want to stir things up, or a myriad of other reasons that don't make for good gaming, and in those circumstances they should not be allowed to do so (especially when it's against their established character/personality to behave that way!).

There's plenty more reasons for both yea and nay on the rolling/mind control stuff between players, but they are as varied as players themselves.

I think, in games where this is a possibility, getting everyone informed and in agreement is the first step.  Some people won't play in games where that's a possibility, or would refuse to act in accordance with it if it did happen to their character.

So having a chance to come to an agreement before anything actually happens will cut down on potential issues in the future.

I've been in games where everybody knew and agreed that there were mechanics in play that could potentially divert their character.  Generally it was viewed as a challenge in terms of being able to filter whatever orders or commands they were given through their character's personalities and preferred methods of doing things.

I've also seen it done where it's more of a negotiated agreement.  "I'd like to use mechanic X on you, which I think would take the story in direction Y which would be interesting, do you agree?" and then there's maybe some back and forth and the narrative is worked out to make for whatever story the two players are interested in ultimately telling.

Other games it's agreed that it won't happen, such mechanics are for use on NPCs only, and if PCs want to try and influence other PCs in similar fashions it will strictly be role play with the decision to say "yes" or "no" entirely on the targeted player.


But pretty much I think it's most important to ensure everyone is informed and in agreement ahead of time.  Surprises like that can crater a game pretty quick if you find out you have differing opinions that can not be reconciled midway through a story when the subject pops up.

This is sort of the age-old debate in Tabletops, and I think it's a source of more fighting and player contention than almost anything else I've ever seen.

The problem, at least from the groups I've played in, is that people don't want to give up control of their characters. This is fine, and ordinarily it's exactly why people play Tabletops instead of video games, or reading a 'Choose your Own Adventure' book instead. People want agency, and that's fine. The issue arises when one player wants to play someone that's influential over others. They want to play a character that has a silver tongue, and the only problem with that is why doesn't that silver tongue work against PCs?

It's an impossibly difficult situation sometimes. Why can't the man who convinced the Queen of England that she was a ferret in a past life convince the party to go out for pizza? What's stopping the woman who frightened the head of the Magic Mafia from intimidating the Rogue she could easily snap in two? These are questions groups have to decide on, as nauthiz and Shei-kun have already said, and sometimes it means that the 'Face' is going to have continuity issues with their character.

Personally, I've never really found a happy medium. The groups I've played in hav all been staunchly against having social rolls made against their characters, so much so that any compromise I ever proposed may as well have been a declaration of war. Honestly though, I'd just like to see more conditional modifiers involved, and maybe more people taking social resistance abilities/stats if they want to be resistant to social charms.

That's my two cents on it though, even if it is a bit wordy.

Agreed with everything said-above.  Personal Opinion: It must be stated outright, before play or even character creation has begun: "Your character must be played in accordance with how you make them."

Why would such a sentence be necessary?  Because most players don't.  They play how they want AT THAT MOMENT.  It's always humorous when suddenly the 'I fear nothing' Barbarian refuses to take-on three Orcs because someone points out the odds out-of-character.

So, when someone plays the 'naive, curious' character but then they refuse to accept even the most basic half-lie, half-truth that is presented by an incredibly beguiling character; you just have to *facepalm*.

Some games (Hackmaster, yes a parody) are incredibly punishing for it; and I'm okay with that.

But, unless you make it known up-front, that social skills receive the same in-game value and placement as combat and other dice-heavy skills: many players won't accept that people can lie to them.

This is why establishing what the tone of the game is going to be out the gate is important, I think. In any sort of "adventuring party" based game where it's assumed that the PC's are allies working together towards a goal, it's a really easy way to mess with the trust that underlies a group.

So I only really go for it in an established group of people who know and trust each-other really well already. Otherwise? Nope.

I've also - I should add - seen group cohesion really badly damaged by players for whom messing with their fellows is the point.

It's the danger of the game, truly it is. And what you say about people needing to really know and trust each other is key.

The thing is though, building up to that point usually means a lot of gaming beforehand, and getting to that point without being able to play a certain way means that, well, the established norm is going to be what those people are comfortable with. You can try to build up to 'the dice fall where they may' but I really rather think it should begin there. If people are making that sort of character, people should learn to play along.

Of course, just saying that invites all sorts of nasty business... but I think there really is a balance, and I think it's...


This. This. Infinitely and unequivocally this.

I've always been of the belief that social roles should be made by PCs against PCs, but that the results should be informative to the RP rather than controlling the RP.

A good liar and a crazy person both sound like they're telling you the truth when they tell you that drinking this bottle of pond water will make you invincible (one because he rolls well, the other because he's insane).  That doesn't mean you have to act on their belief or even believe it yourself.

I'm okay with a fellow PC attempting to lie or bluff me.  I get really skeeved out on seduction though.

The problem here isn't just with lying convincingly though. Most games have a general Persuasion check, or Leadership, or Negotiation as well. Whether or not you believe someone is lying may be something that the game works out mechanically, but regardless of whether the system does or not if the intention of the roll is to make you believe something, or persuade you to do something, and that result is ignored when it should have succeeded, it becomes an issue.

Most social rolls ARE trying to make you believe something or act on that belief.

If someone is telling you drinking pond water will make you invincible, and it's a contested roll, then give the person being lied to a situational bonus. Or, if they know their friend is a rampant liar, then give them a situational bonus. Or, if their character has enough smarts to say "then why don't you drink it and prove it to me?" then maybe give them a situational bonus. Of course, the problem with that is then differentiating between what their character knows and what the player knows, because players not wanting to be manipulated might just go right back into the "Well, I wouldn't believe him because..." routine when they otherwise wouldn't.

I think that's a general flaw in game design and GMing.  A social roll should inform what the NPCs do and not control them like some sort of magical mind control.  A roll with penalties is only appropriate when there's at least an outside chance that the person would agree to what you want them to do of their own free will.

I really don't see how that's a flaw.

An attack roll is trying to hit someone.
An animal handling roll is trying to influence an animal to do something.
A strength roll is trying to utilize strength for a specific purpose.
A jump roll is trying to make an actual jump.

In every other situation the roll is meant to do what it says on the box. Why shouldn't a persuasion roll persuade? Why shouldn't a leadership roll lead people to do things? I'm not saying that a person does exactly what you want them to to the letter. People will often interpret an order or a persuasive speech in an unintended way, but in the end a social roll is made so that they agree to do what you told them to.

It's not Mind Control, which is what everyone writes it off as. It's an argument that appeals to the NPC/PC, whatever that means, that is rolled instead of acted out because not everyone can have a silver tongue, or think of the reasons why someone would follow them into the Mountainous Cavern of Doom. That's the real flaw in this, that people don't see anything other than the roll so it seems like Mind Control.

I might be able, with some planning or some luck, give a speech like Aragorn gave to his army in front of the Gates of Mordor, but given that I don't have one of those every time I want to have the party follow me that's what the roll is for.

You're right though. A situational modifier should only be used when there's an actual chance that someone can be manipulated. If there's absolutely nothing anyone could say or do to make you believe in the pond water thing then there has to be an upfront discussion about that and it has to fit with the character. But the moment you let the rolls in you have to let the dice fall where they may.

As a final note, if you don't like rolls being a direct correlation to what happens and instead only influences things, you should check out Houses of the Blooded, which is an amazing nearly-diceless system.

Specifically in regards to PCs, it's because you're giving a die roll the power to rob a player of their ability to control their character.

In regards to NPCs, it's just not realistic.  This is especially true of systems that have critical successes that "always work" or the like.  Take a merchant in D&D.  If you allow Bluff or Diplomacy to work that way, every 20th time he talks to someone intent on cheating him, he'll fall for it no matter how bad they are at lying or how good he is at reading people (all because they rolled a 20).

Having the NPCs be influenced but not directly controlled just makes more sense from a GM perspective.  It's the job of the GM to make things fun and to balance out how much players have invested into various areas of expertise with the benefits they reap.  Successful rolls should give things to the PCs... but they shouldn't give them everything.

Giving a real example, my players recently captured 50 human slaves from devils while trying to free their conquered town.  I, as the DM, made the decision that the default want of the slaves was to flee to the south and abandon the town.  The PCs wanted them to stay and fight.  The bard made a series of persuade checks to convince them to stay put until nightfall and even got a dozen of them to agree to help as long as they didn't have to fight the devils directly.  A number more agreed to stay and help rebuild the town if the PCs agreed.  A smaller group of about 10, though, was determined to leave no matter what.

The dice roll was important, because it influenced the actions of the NPCs, but it didn't control them.  The ones that were angry with the devils more than anything else decided to fight.  The ones that just wanted to flee couldn't possibly be talked into staying, though they could be reasoned with so that they didn't get caught.  The rest could be swayed in a number of mild directions by the PCs, but no die roll was going to turn them into a peasant army to face down the forces of Hell.

If a PC attacks another it does the same thing, no? If they tie them up with rope or use a skill like Theft/Stealing to take something, doesn't that also affect a person's ability to play as they like? Any roll against a PC is going to affect them in a way they don't want if they lose the check. That's the point of the roll, isn't it? That players don't always get what they want or get to do exactly what they want to do.

And, again, if they don't want to be influenced, or if it's that far out of their character's range of actions that they would do then there's situational modifiers, and flat out "it's not going to work"s. But people ARE persuaded to do things, as you yourself point out in your example. Some people will be convinced of a certain amount of something, others won't be convinced no matter what. That's exactly what I've been saying, and it's what your Peasant Army example illustrated.

You're right. PCs shouldn't be handed everything they want, which is what the modifiers are about, which is what needing to spend a ton of points into being good at something is meant to help overcome. It's still not going to work all the time if you're a good GM, but a high Diplomacy should increase my ability to influence my teammates, no matter how little I as a player continue to fail influence the other players with my real-world arguments.


And, I'm sorry, but DnD isn't exactly 'realistic' by any stretch of the the imagination in the first place. You're a group of typically non-humans with magical powers fighting dragons, gods, and the forces of Hell itself (as in your example). Where, praytell, is the realism in leveling up? In a Barbarian having unlimited move capacity with the right feats in the right edition (free move and attack on kill, line of mooks) in 6 seconds?

We accept a very large discrepancy in how the world works already in order to play games like DnD, and so if they have a critical success factor that works for everything else in existence, why in the world would we kill it for one subsystem because "it's unrealistic?"

If critical successes are that much of a problem, you can always houserule that a critical success doesn't mean automatic success, it just gives an additional bonus to the roll or something like that.

  In any situation where one PC is trying to manipulate another PC/NPC, the keyword is highlighted above.  Manipulate is such a strong word where you are actually influencing the target.  If you allow the PC to roleplay this out, then great.  But as it was mentioned in an earlier post, not everyone has this gift of gab and have to rely on their skill bonus added to a die roll.  In this case the target should also get a die roll to reist the influencing maneuver.  This could be a saving throw of some sort, in the case D&D, or an appropriate skill check to detect the level of BS being dealt out, such as the case of the pond water.

These influence skills are in the game for a reason.  All players have to be made aware of their use and how you, as a GM handle these rules.  But under no circumstances should a PC/NPC be forced to do something that they know is just true BS.  For instance, being convinced that the pond water will give them the ability to fly and if they jump off the 200' cliff they will be able to fly back to the ledge after jumping.

Common sense is required in these instances of skill uses and all players have to know that at some point in their adventuring careers they will he influenced in some shape, form or fashion.  Otherwise, what is the point of having these skills in the game?

In reply to tulgurth (msg # 16):

Thank you for pointing out the contested roll/save/etc, tulgurth. I feel like I was implying it in my posts, but sometimes I forget that saying it out loud is just so much better. ^_^

DnD is a really bad example to bring in to this; because RAW actually state you can't use diplomacy/sense motive/bluff etc against PCs. You can use bluff to feint in combat, but not to change what they think.

Yes, you can houserule it, but unless you've got it written down it's allowed, players will assume it's not.

Doesn't change mind control though.

In reply to willvr (msg # 18):

Really now? In which edition? I've never actually seen this rule in the reading I've done, but, then again, there are a LOT of rules to go over. So many rules...

And nothing changes mind control ;) It's always the way of the world.

3.x and beyond. Basically, they decided that nothing short of magic could take away from the way you played your character. That if you didn't believe someone; the best bluff in the world couldn't make you.

This is the same for NPCs vs PCs though.

In reply to Tyr Hawk (msg # 19):
From the SRD: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm

Diplomacy (Cha)
Check

You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs.

It's not specifically citing "do not use on PCs" - but, it cites that it is specifically used VS NPCs.

I think the thing that's missing here is that I'm assuming the PCs want to play their character and not ignore things that they just don't want to deal with.  Most modern games (including D&D5e) have methods for rewarding PCs that RP their character, even when it's not in their character's best interests.

On D&D specifically, 5e makes rolling for social interactions entirely optional at the DM's discretion.  It's all based on RP unless the DM specifically allows it not to be.  Actually, the whole section in the 5e PHB sounds a lot like what I've been saying.

True.  A lot of this conversation is really directed at the 3.X series of DnD games.

Many other games either ignore social 'skills' outright, incorporate rewards as part of a 'stunting' mechanic, or make them basically the exact same as combat rolls.  The 3.X series really dropped the ball in this regard.  But, yes, most players (as I said at the beginning) really don't play consistently.  Some do, most don't.

Well, if that's how DnD does it then that's how it does it. I'm not always sold on the "it's not there, but it's implied by the wording over here about something else" thing but, then again, I play Anima (whose second middle name is 'vague rules'). I suppose that's just one more thing I disagree with DnD about >_>


Oh... if only. But even in a world where every player wants to play their character to the 't,' there's still the issue of those that can't be as social or convincing as their character is. At that point, while a character might be able to convince another character, the player can't always convince the other player, in character or otherwise.

That's where I see the value of the roll, because, as I said before, it's bothersome to play someone who is generally likeable, convincing, and can debate down a king in their own court, but who somehow can't negotiate with the other players on what to get for lunch because they're 'not allowed to roll against PCs.' I understand the example I'm using isn't drastically important or anything, but this goes for anything at all, from which direction the party should travel to how they should treat the prisoner they just kidnapped. It boggles my mind to think that rolls shouldn't be used at all for something that's a part of adopting a different persona.

Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, but it shouldn't just be 'roll and I win,' it should be a matter as complex as real social interactions are. If it's done entirely mechanically you establish modifiers, both sides make a roll, and then you get the result. You can add in multiple rolls if you want to, making every social exchange an 'extended test,' or throw in something else. Isn't that how every other situation works in pretty much every other system with dice? Modifiers? Contested rolls?

Again, it's not mind control any more than a swim check represents walking on water, or an attack roll represents splitting the atom (possible in some systems, but I'm generalizing). It's influence, as suggested above, and even as suggested in the DnD rules that Gamer linked.

I'm sorry, I'm ranting. I just don't understand how people simplify so much when even 3.5 has a chart for it and contested rolls.

When you introduce magic to the manipulation of a PC by another PC, influence goes out the door and it does become pure Manipulation.  But even so, if you use a suggestion type spell or charm, it can automatically fail if it something the PC will not ever consider doing.  Such as jumping off that 200' cliff but you told him he can fly.  But using a charm spell or something similar to get the PC or NPC to believe you are a long lost friend from your childhood, now that is a different story.  Of course in amsituation like that the PC would be allowed am saving throw of some sort.

What is the purpose of the skill or spell in the game if you can not use t the way it was designed to be used.  Or even if a PC found an creative way to use it?  Might as well not even use the skill at all.  Now using said skills and spells on another party member is definitely getting into a tabooed area, but it should still be possible.

Because people really don't like being told they have to act a certain way because the dice say so. With charm-like effects (whether just charm/suggestion or dominate) it's a bit different, because magic means it's not really your character making that decision.

If I play a paranoid little git, I shouldn't have to believe someone because they roll a natural 20.

In another example; one PF game I'm playing in, someone has an insane diplomacy score for level 2; but he comes across as wrong. Technically, I should just follow him because he's going to be able to sway me with a decent roll; but he just comes across as wrong, that I won't. It just wouldn't make sense. If I had to due to dicerolling it, no matter what modifiers?

You want my character to act in a way I don't see them acting; you can use magic, thanks.

Then willvr, my suggestion to you, play in games that do not have those type of skills.

You're told everything else in most situations by what the dice say. Whether you jumped successfully and how far you jumped, how well you hit (or critically missed) a stationary target, what you can teach a dog to do, how fast you learn, whether you know it's a griffin or not, things which you, as a player, might know how to do or everything about which your character doesn't. Again, DnD/PF apparently doesn't allow those checks against PCs so no need to worry there, but this isn't just about DnD.

If the character has an insanely high diplomacy check why shouldn't they get to use it like you could use an insanely high Attack value against them? Because they come off wrong? The thing is, if they overcome enough obstacles and modifiers against you then it should work. If there's absolutely no way in Hades anyone could ever say or do anything to make you do something, then that needs to be established, just like you can't melee someone from 6 miles away (in most systems... without magic).

But, again, this is not just for times when it's "Go jump off that cliff" which would be an insane difficulty check before any modifiers got involved, this is for mediocre stuff too, like convincing another character not to buy a particular item or to choose green instead of blue when dying their horse a new color.

Also, what tulgurth suggests is also good, I suppose.

Or, use the rules as they're set out, which is not to use them against PCs.

You can use those skills against NPCs all you like. But if you want to change my mind, you have to convince me.

And per the rules - diplomacy is insanely easy to change someone's attitude, unless they're actually hostile.

IF it's all down to dicerolling, this isn't an RPG anymore. It's more like a boardgame.

I have to say I agree with willvr here, and there is a pretty large difference between using a diplomatic skill against a PC versus using a weapon. When you strike a weapon at a PC, they will have the option to attack back, where as one can passive aggressively use a diplomatic skill to make your PC think a certain way without you being able to do a thing about it.

All the same, I see you guys points as well, a player should be able to play a charming character even if they're not charming. As a personal compromise, I generally allow a roll to determine how they aught to come off to the PCs, but allow them the decision on how to act in reaction. Sometimes you might have to stop a PC from acting against their character to avoid giving in a little to the other character, but I find a lot of PCs will respect the honor system of "Do what your character would do". After all, they did come to role-play.

In the social situation you can also 'attack back.' That's what the contested roll is about. There's nothing 'passive' about rolling against someone (since that's the most physical thing there is in these games, typically), and diplomacy is anything but a passive act. It's less physically aggressive than hitting someone with a club, but diplomatic exchanges are not passive. And in making the counter roll you DO get to do something about it, which is more than you typically get to say for Attacks in a system like DnD where Armor Class is a static value and you only save vs effects. Some systems let you roll your defense, but it's rare to see a system where there isn't a counter roll for a social check.

You're right though, you both are. We do come here to roleplay, not just roll dice, but when it comes down to it and, like I said, I don't have the social charms my character does, that shouldn't stop my character from being social. I doubt many of us have the combat skills of our characters, the physical constitution, but the numbers say we do and having strength, stamina, or otherwise isn't limited in any way, even though you can make contested checks against another player using every other stat and skill out there.

Social skills are the odd man out because people feel something that isn't actually there. They feel like they lose control when it comes to social interactions but in reality these things happen to us all the time. It's how advertising works. It's how we've built societies and why we have leaders in the world. It's happening to all of us on a daily basis without magic, without us even noticing, and the only reason it's an issue in the game is because we do suddenly have to admit that we're not the sole arbiters in how we make decisions in the real world. Other people influence us, and we don't want to admit that despite all of our free will, all of our choices, that maybe someone else put the idea in our heads and we agreed to it.

I think that's it... I think I figured it out >_> I think I understand what's going on now.

I also sound extremely conceited when I talk that way. I apologize for that.

I see what you're saying, let me rephrase myself a bit. I meant more that a social roll is passive aggressive when compared to a physical attack roll because the player being effected cannot acknowledge that his character was "attacked". That makes it a little different, because if you stab me I can contact the authorities or stab back, while even if you fail a social roll towards my character a player can do little more than ignore what you brought up. All the same, I still see how those kind of rules could be necessary, especially if you're playing a charming guy and your not charming, since you should still be able to benefit from your stat.

I do see your point about our characters being effected as well as us as humans being effected by advertising, and it is a good one. At the same time, though, it's little fun to play a drone who simply acquires Doritos when he sees a billboard for them. To some extent, us player characters want to be setting the goals of our characters, and it can be boring and frustrating if another player redefines them.

Honestly, I can definitely see both sides of this argument, which is why I tend to leave it to some kind of honor system which will be changed in extreme circumstances. (ex. Sorcerer with high charisma and leadership cannot convince rogue to steal a pint of ale for him; in some cases, giving in to the characters wishes just makes sense, and it's better not to go against the grain if there's no reason for it)

Well depends on the type of rogue; but this isn't really what I'm talking about.

If someone is rude, and arrogant (and talking about the character, not the player), I don't care what his diplomacy is, I'm not just going to readily fall into line and do what he asks.

ALso, if my characters love interest used to have a crush on charismatic barbarian, and he has no objection to reminding everyone of that, all the diplomacy in the world isn't going to get him to support his leadership easily.

I do think there's also a difference between trying your best to be diplomatic; and just not having the skills though your character does. And having your character be rude, and aggressive, and arrogant, and expecting a high diplomacy skill to overrule all that.

In reply to Covenant (msg # 32):

I can see what you're saying there now with the passive thing. It is more subtle, and therefore not always obvious that you're being manipulated into something. A skilled diplomat is supposed to work like an advertisement, making you think you came up with the idea first.

But, and I'm uncertain how I'm not getting this across, but situational modifiers are everything in the world to me here. So, I'm going to try a chart.

Let's just say, for argument's sake, that we're playing in a DnD situation where someone is trying to influence your character to do something. The chart will include a +/- system for bonuses penalties to checks and/or a target DC. This DC can be what you have to breach before being able to make the contested roll (a roll just to get someone to listen to you), or the target number you have to hit to actually convince someone.

If the idea is...
Something you were either planning to do or already believe: +5 (DC: 15)
Something you'd probably do anyways if asked: +0 (DC: 20)
Something you wouldn't normally do, but isn't that bad: -5 (DC: 20)
Something you wouldn't normally do: -5 (DC: 25)
Something you wouldn't normally do; and it's a bit risky/out of your usual: -10 (DC:25)
Something you wouldn't do: -15 (DC: 35)
Something you wouldn't ever do: -20 (DC: 40)
The idea is absurd to your character: -20 (DC: 40)
Something you would never do, ever, for any reason: No check.
Know the person is likely lying to you: +15 to resist
Angry at the person trying to persuade you: +15 to resist.
In love with the person trying to persuade you: -15 to resist.
Asleep: No check.

My DC's are probably a bit off, since I haven't actually run anything DnD in... well... years >___> But that's the general idea. Increased difficulties, often combined with penalties to the checks involved the less like your character it actually is, and/or bonuses to your resistance based on how you're feeling at the time.

This, again, isn't meant to be perfect or even a definitive ruling on how this should be run, but it's how I envision one day being able to run a game with social interactions, rather than my players being violently against them.
---
Also, to your point, willvr, that's be a pretty hefty penalty if a jerk suddenly started trying to persuade you, at least without intimidation or something close to it.

In reply to willvr (msg # 33):

Now your making sense.  What you are describing Willvr, at least in my perceptions, is the die roll playing a part, but also the character's attitude playing a part in the scene.  For instance, thee rude, aggressive barbarian has a high charisma and some social skills, and yes these will affect the die roll.  But he also has that attitude you described which would also affect the die roll.  Depending on bad his ahole attitude is, could affect the die roll more than his social skills.  Hence it would derail any attempt to get your character to do something for him or be INFLUENCED to do something for him.

When using mat cmto manipulate your character to do something for him, well that is a different story.  Grab your ankles son, because you are doing what he wants at that time.  Of course you do get a save versus the magic, but your feelings of the barbarian do not enter the equation.

In reply to Tyr Hawk (msg # 34):

Actually from what I recall, except for the ones you've added near the end, are exactly what the PHB describes.

My issue with modifiers, is that how can the GM know what the PC is thinking? Only the player can know that. Admittedly, I've played with mostly excellent RPers, so my filter might be colored, but I find that if people know the character is charismatic, they'll play it up, without resorting to die rolls.

Generally I'll admit, I'm against PvP, and this is just another form of it, as it creates bad feelings between -players-. I'm also against more rolls, but as I said, I've been blessed in playing with mainly excellent players.

In reply to willvr (msg # 36):

Really? Almost exactly? >_> Wow... and here I thought I was being original for once in my life.

And you truly are blessed, willvr. I wish I had such luck, but in the groups I've been in playing a social character typically meant "Sucks to be you, we're doing whatever we want and you suck." I also love less rolling, which is one reason why I'm such a fan of Houses of the Blooded, and dislike DnD. >_> Maybe it's just because I've been in the place where it's necessary, but the evils of PvP are sometimes less than the evils of someone not being able to play their character.

Also, bafflingly, sometimes people like PvP. I've never been much of one for it, but it's the need for it that has developed in me such a strong opinion about this subject >_>

I just don't see why you would use those skills against your party. I've played my share of social characters; both in DnD, and outside of, and they're generally highly wanted for their ability to talk the party out of trouble. Why I was staying out of the conversation originally, but when DnD got mentioned had to point out the issues with DnD in particular.

DnD isn't actually a very good system. I like it, but I see it's flaws. It's main advantage is that it's very easy to get a group together for it. But ideally, I prefer something more skills-based.

You really have been blessed. That or I've been cursed. Perhaps both since both are equally likely.

For me it tends to go like this:

"Alright, we've got the guy tied up and he's defenseless. Let me talk to him and I'll figure out what we need to know."
"No thanks. I'm just gonna shoot him."
"But he has the information we want. He's more valuable to us alive than dead. He's an important player in this-"
"I roll to shoot the guy."

And that's how it goes pretty much every time. There's some slight variation on the theme, but quite frankly there are time when I need social rolls because my character is a flimsy stick of a person and there's no other way to convince the Axe-wielding Murderhobo that maybe he shouldn't slaughter the villagers. Completely in character for this person, mind you, and oftentimes for the whole party. The only time the group cares that there's a face is when they can't get by doing whatever they want, or it gets them more money.

I swear, even the person who introduced me to Houses of the Blooded was like that as a player sometimes... and he's the most 'group-based everything' person I ever met. He even liked to chargen as a group, having other players take part in building your character, so it was at least 15% theirs. And yet even he hated the very idea of social rolls andcalled them mind control, said they took away from player autonomy >____>

Whilst I can't agree to really like social skills taking away from me like that, I begin to see why you want them. That's just... I can't even begin.

Every game I've ever played just about, whether it's DnD, Shadowrun (ESPECIALLY Shadowrun), or whatever, we always designate at least one person to be a Face. Sometimes they're not very good at combat; but occasionally they can be awesome at it. The very idea of not having a some kind of diplomat (bards are good at this in DnD) just fills me with horror. Even the hack and slash groups wanted someone to do their negotiating; for more money if nothing else.
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 15:40, Tue 05 May 2015.

Wow.  Just wow.

That is a style I associate with immature gamers and gamers that are just apples.

I suggest that the problem doesn't lie with the system, but rather the players and, to some extent, the GM that allows that kind of PC on the game.

I'm glad we can all agree then. I've had to play with some apples, as swordchucks calls them. >_>



While I completely agree with it being a problem with the players and the GM, it is a little bit of a problem with the system. Even if we take it for granted that social rolls shouldn't be used in PvP, NPCs may want to convince players of something, and that necessitates using rolls at times against players. And, frankly, I don't see the difference in taking it from another PC if we expect people to be mature enough to take it from the GM.

It's something which comes up in games like L5R, in which social combat can and does make up nearly entire campaigns. I know the theme of the world calls for it, but it's just another world, in the end. Another world in which PCs and NPCs interact socially within a system where rolls may need to substitute actual player/GM capacity at times. I honestly think that most social situations can be resolved in person, and that most people need as much practice at being social as possible (no offense meant, I've just had a unique perspective on life), but sometimes... well...

Don't get me wrong, I love me some L5R and when I'm on a roll in that game I could convince the wind itself to change direction, but there are times when I feel the line "She asks you to go to the palace on her behalf. She seems genuine and convincing" (a terrible example, I know, but sometimes people really do feel that out of it during a live session) just doesn't cut it, and a dice result is more immediately honest about what went down.

---
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was moot, at 15:42, Tue 05 May 2015.

Actually, in DnD 3.5 and PF in any event; diplomacy can't even be used by an NPC on a PC. Not RAW. Same issue as with players - you can't control without magic, basically, what another character thinks.

Other systems may allow for it; and if they do, and you have PvP in that game, fine. It's really not something I'm a fan of; but I'm not going to argue that it should be banned if the system specifically allows for it.

When players refuse to let their characters believe anything told them by NPCs, it is just awful metagaming with the attitude that the GM is the opponent. Even when a player is SURE she/he's being lied to, the PC needs to react in keeping with personalty, background, etc.

And a player who always wants to kill everyone, needs to ameliorate his character's actions with the intention of maintaining relationships with his comrades.

C'mon, people, grow up.

There are several matters kind of getting all muddled together here.

1. The low charisma player with the high charisma character
2. The murder hobo that never listens to reason
3. Systems that don't have RP carrots and sticks

In general, I believe that PC vs. PC social rolls should be a thing to inform the RP but not control it.

That means if Bob lies to Karen, there are some rolls made to see how believable Bob is to her.  I then believe that there should be carrots and sticks available to encourage the targeted PC to play it straight (Fate points, inspiration, Moxie, bonus xp, whatever) or resources that they must spend to ignore the result (WoD's willpower and the like).  In no way is control being taken away from Karen, but ignoring the dice costs her something.

Even in games without a built in mechanic for it, the GM can give rewards of various sorts to encourage it.

If the players and GM aren't interested... find a new group?

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is I don't see why social roll results should have to be incentivised (incentivized?) at all. They're just another roll. I understand that some systems reward players for doing certain things (stunting, rolling a critical success or critical glitch even), others have costs (willpower, fate/destiny points), and that's fine, but why social rolls in particular should garner such attention just seems like a double standard.

Again, I understand why people dislike it so much, the 'loss of control' they feel (however misplaced I think that feeling is when compared to everything else we let the dice control), the difference between magic and diplomacy, why people consider it mind control even though it isn't, etc. I just feel like people can/should get past it because it's really no different than any other roll except in how we perceive it (and that perception, as I've noted, seems to be skewed).

I dunno. I'm beating a dead horse at this point by making the same points over and over. So, I think I'll leave off with the following:

1. I don't believe dice rolling should ultimately control everything.
2. I don't believe dice rolling should be the first line of defense/go-to strategy during every interaction/action.
3. Despite 1 & 2, I believe that dice rolling is both necessary and a perfectly legitimate way to resolve in-character disputes, whether they be physical, mental, or social because...
4. There are a thousand ways to modify rolls, to defend against rolls, and to not allow rolls, all of which can and should be based on player input and GM discretion.
5. ???
6. PROFIT!

Thank you all for the insight and the intelligent debate. It's been ages since I've been able to reasonably discuss a topic like this. >_> I really appreciate it, even if the text I'm using can't properly convey that.

Man, you guys really got to postin in this thread. Anyway, I'm gonna go ahead and respond to the bit directed at me now that I have some time:



It's not that I don't understand situational modifiers, I just don't personally use them for social skills when I run, and prefer not to use them when I play (for PCs at least). I think most of the time if you have enlisted a mature set of players, you're not going to deal with a lot of people who wouldn't be happy to roleplay a situation in which they fall for a charming person, or are inspired to do some specific thing. I just think it can take the fun out of the situation if you leave the whole thing up to die rolls and take a little of the player's ability to interpret away from them. All the same, after seeing your comment about the captive, I can see why these kinds of rules could be necessary in some games.

It is a double standard, but it's a double standard for a reason.  Most game systems have intricate, well thought out systems for how to handle a guy swinging a sword at you.  You know, going in, what to do to avoid it and are prepared for it.  Very few games have detailed "social combat" mechanics (Exalted and L5R spring to mind), much less balanced social combat mechanics.

That aside, the consequences of social rolls can be much, much more dramatic than sword blows.  The guy with the sword?  He injures you a bit.  Depending on the system, you'll get better in a matter of minutes or days.  The guy with the maxed out Diplomacy?  He can send you on a quest that takes years of your character's life to play out or he can turn you into a virtual slave by making repeated checks.  Those two things are nowhere near the same thing.  The sword strike also doesn't change your character's personality in any way, whereas the social roll can.  It's those factors that make it different.

Even when you start talking magic, most systems make it very difficult to control someone for any length of time, and most of those make it so that the target can struggle to resist it the entire time.  There's no resisting a social thing once it's been done.  Not only do you have to act in a certain way now, but you have to like it and want to do it.  That's another factor that makes people dislike it.

All of that is why I prefer to have the rolls be informative rather than authoritative.

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 48):

I think I missed the part where decapitation and death aren't as serious as being sent on a quest or having your personality altered a little bit.

Because, again, major changes to personality can't be achieved by diplomacy, or at least not without an insane roll that most Gods would have a hard time reaching. That's what I've been saying the whole time.

I never said they're not as serious, just that they're more dramatic (and I mean that from a gameplay perspective).  If your character is dead, you make a new character or someone finds a way to raise you from the dead.  The suffering stops.  If you're being lead around by the nose by Skippy the Bard, it's a fate that goes on and on and requires you to actively participate in it.

As for the rolls... that's the other half of the problem.  Most games don't have a balanced social system.  In Pathfinder, it's not too hard to swing a Diplomacy high enough to overcome any sane amount of penalty by 2nd level (and by that, I mean a -20).

My two cents' worth as a player: I'd treat any player who tries to manipulate another player against that player's best interests, or who (for example) unilaterally makes a roll to kill a prisoner whom others with to question, as an evil aligned character. I'd be open to having the party kill such a character

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 50):

If you die from it all, yes. But you can lose arms, legs, even both your ears and eyes thanks to some vicious attack rolls. Those are very lasting effects you have to continue playing along with.

And, again, I'm not certain what I'm not getting through here, but the longer something like that goes on the more likely you are to know what's going on, the better saves you'll have, or the more options you'll have to get out of it. At a certain point, anyone with a halfway decent IQ is going to realize they're being manipulated after a few weeks, or even less when the party stops and says 'You know, we always do what the Bard says, let's do something else' (because real people do get tired of one person making all the decisions all the time, kind of why we have term limits, among other things) and at that point the checks stop working.

It's not like Diplomacy is some infinite power gag that never stops working or can never be overcome. It's just a skill roll and everything has its counter.

As far as OceanLake's comment goes, sometimes the party condones such things. Whether it's because their characters are similarly-minded, or because their players don't want to keep someone from playing their character (some people will do anything to keep the group/make the party work), or it's just that no one wants to listen to the Face.

Well, except that many games don't really use rules for such things.

As stated; I feel that those social skills take away from the RP experience if you can just use them to change my mind.

What I've seen done, and am not adverse to, is a player making a roll, and telling the other players "Well, I got 22 for diplomacy, take that as you will". That 22 might not be enough; but unless you have proof I'm just metagaming, how about we assume that I have IC reasons for it?

Yes, I understand, having seen discussion other players in games from Tyr where they're coming from; but I'm also of the opinion that for social interactions to be a major part of a game, you need strong RPers, not dice-rolling maniacs.

When it comes to INFLUENCE rolls you are not being led around by the nose.  Instead you follow because you chose to do so.  The person who influenced you talked a good enough game that you were WILLING to follow that person.  For instance, the thief discussed in an earlier post, he goes into an Tavern with his buds to check out the local talent or the group's Bard perform.  The Bard gets thirsty and tries to influence the Thief to go steal an ale for him.  If the Thief is not inclined to do so, then that Bard is going to have a rough time trying to convince the Thief to steal the ale.  However we if the Thief tells the Bard to keep performing while he steals an ale and the Bard sweet talks the Thief a little to steal one for him too, then it could be likely the Thief will do it.  A lot of it is based on how disposed the Thief is to the idea.

As far the idea of using magics to convince a PC to something, well that is a very different story.  Mainly because the PC's disposition towards the idea does not matter.  If he fails his saving throw, well get ready to be led by the nose.  As was mentioned earlier, this type of magic is normally not permanent and the magic using PC would have to continually cast the spell.  In my previous example if the Bard was using magic to get the Thief to steal the ale and then after a couple castings the Thief makes his save, woe to the pretty Bard.  He may not be so pretty anymore, depending on how the PC takes to being charmed.

But you see examples of this very thing in literature all the time.  A prime example I can use is from the Books of the Wheel of Time series.  In the first book when Moiraine left the Two Rivers, Nynaeve followed afterwards and tracked them to a resting point.  Moiraine manipulated Nynaeve to come with her, using the kids as bait so to speak.  Was Nynaeve happy about it?  No she was not, but she was willing to follow.

However, when you had Nynaeve and Elayne tracking the Black Ajah and they were in the city Ebou Dar.  They had Compulsion used on them.  At the time they did not realize it and were happy to answer all questions asked.  Although when they came to their sense and some time passed they realized what happened to them, Nynaeve was furious.

The dice are a tool, nothing else. If we did not have them in system games concerning PvP, nobody would ever get hit or have some rather unfortunate disability to show for it. Nobody wants this but it adds an interesting dynamic to characters. Perhaps a small amount of homebrewing may be in order for social situations(different can of worms). Likely the rules against using such abilities against players was put there for a reason or reasons; probably in reflection of what has been discussed already. There are many factors to take into play.

For instance:

Character B is a lawful good whatever they are and Character A is a chaotic neutral something else.

Character B is very unlikely to accept killing Enemy A who is a captive(for arguments sake).

Character A may have a personal vendetta against Enemy A who has despoiled something rather important to them or killed someone close.

Character B may not agree with Character A's opinion but rather than step in and defend Enemy A with their life, they may sit back. We are not all completely of one mind and a strong roll could compensate the dual halves of an individual. They may not agree with what is going on and perhaps in the future they may be more standoffish towards Character A. Their opinion hasn't been swayed, however they do not actually agree with Character A.

Should die rolls reflect that other partners in the group agree with Character A, it could give strength to the opinion.

Just a hypothetical situation...

I find whether system or freeform is in place, simply talking to another character through PM can create an understanding. That may be all it takes. One doesn't have to go against their principles entirely but there could also be circumstances which could be taken into account where the roll of a dice should be taken into consideration. No one has to go against their character entirely but a difference in die rolls does not mean other paths can not be taken.

Personally even during combat, I would not really want another player to be permanently disabled in a drastic way, just because the rules make it so.

*edit*

Or what Tulgurth said. Like the reference BTW. :)
This message was last edited by the user at 00:06, Wed 06 May 2015.

Most games don't have called shots and penalties for blind, deaf, or an atrophied limb? >_> I guess I play in more combat-heavy systems or something... My bad.


But how? It's mimicking real life. It's how people actually do things. I understand that we play games to get away from reality, but we don't throw out things like gravity and how combat works (except in Exalted, where words can literally hurt you) just because they're too realistic. That's what fall damage is. It's what weight limits are in some games. And I get that some people don't like certain mechanics, but it's almost universal that people don't like the social rolls against players.

I just don't see why it takes away from the RP experience if it's a part of the game and it helps to define a character you might not otherwise be able to play (because, again, we are not all social juggernauts, and convincing people in-game can be at least as difficult as this conversation we've been having on this topic).


And, as I stated before, I agree that dice-rolling maniacs are not who I agree with either, but sometimes you are introducing people to RP for the first time. Sometimes it's the first time someone's played a social character. Sometimes you don't have the luxury or the blessing of playing with a group of strong RPers, or their strengths lie elsewhere besides social rules (which a player has to be aware of if they're going to participate functionally in the social exchange). It's not the sort of thing you can expect to encounter on a regular basis if you're trying to expand your playbase.

That and, well, social mechanics come up in non-major ways all the time. So what about then?

Dice rolling is, and always has been, there to arbitrate decisions in games when there is a disagreement about how it should go. It's what separates rolled systems from freeform. It's why we don't just flip coins to decide how something went (as many problems as it would solve, it would only create more). It's a way to play a character. Your method of 'I rolled a 22, do with it what you will' is a leap of faith that, yes, in the groups you play in probably works and works well, and I would love to always be in that situation, but there is a large world of players out there, as I described above, and if I'm teaching my 9-year old cousin how to play and tell her 'take it as you will' she's going to do what she wants, no matter how small of a reason there is for the check.

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.