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.