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.