Playing a tabletop are pee gee

players are in complete control of their characters. Unless that npc is using magic to seduce, if you say "no, my character doesn't fuck the npc", then it doesn't happen.

however many DMs are shit and will make you roll for shit like that, as if you weren't really in control of your character

>What happens?
You tell your GM to not be an idiot, and if he can't so that, you give him your character sheet and leave, because he apparently doesn't want players.

>My DM presented me with a conflict I can't resolve by stabbing it
>That means he doesn't want players

>NPC tries to hit your character
>you say no
>GM rolls for attack
>natural 20

What happens?

these

>the dm revokes control of my character at his convenience to enact something that he wants to happen

poor attempt, anime reaction image

That isn't the same in the slightest

>GM rolls diplomacy

whoops, looks like you took a wrong turn at campaign selection! try retracing your steps and take a left at Good System.

>What happens?
Nothing. Diplomacy doesn't apply to PCs, and even if it did, a natural 20 on a skill check doesn't mean automatic success.
>Do you get fucked whether you like it or not?
No.
>Are all your rolls at a penalty until you can treat your raging erection?
No.
>Is this thread either bait or retarded?
Yes.

ITT: players who can't differentiate between their players and themselves.

Diplomacy, I see the case for.
No matter how convincing a case, an NPC can't force you to make your PC make a choice about something.

What about intimidate?
I feel there's a difference here because fear isn't a choice - if something innately scares you, you can't choose not to be scared of it. Not usually, at least.
A player could decide "even though I'm terrified I'm still going to press on because I'm a hero" and that's fine, but what does Veeky Forums think of rolling to force PCs to feel fear?

how high a seduction roll needs to be entirely depends on how willing the affected pc/npc is. a player or npc may decide to not be sexually interested at all, which invalidates seduction checks completely

It depends on whether I'm in the mood for ERPing nonconsensual scenes today.

If you can't convince the king that you are the real king and he is an impostor by rolling high enough and having ridiculous amounts of Bluff, and you shouldn't, he doesn't get to do the same on your character.

>What about intimidate?
You give the character penalties based on their level of fear for fighting or "stand your ground" checks AND bonuses for running away

Nat 20 does fuck-all in noncombat rolls and you cannot use Diplomacy on player characters in DnD. The game is not built for it, there is no real defense against it, you cannot do it.

In other games, where you CAN use social skills against PCs, which is fine as long as its balanced, just deal with it as the game tells you to.

Yes, you are obligated to drop those pants and present your anus to the GM for summary rodgering.

Diplomacy is not mind control.

We've got "Steel" test in Burning Wheel for that.

You roll a number of d6 equal to your Steel stat and you must beat 10-Will

If you fail you shit your pants, you run screaming, you faint, you beg for mercy.
If you succeed, you get your shit together and you press on.

I like it, it feels better than just "you're scared!"

I feel like most problems people have with rolling social skills against PCs stem from either DnD or oWoD.

The rules of DnD don't allow for Diplomacy or Intimidation rolls against PCs and thus they have no good defense against it, making +30 Diplomacy Bards impossible to resist if you allow it.

WoD on the other hand is extremely heavy on PvP and also abysmally balanced or built, so it's way too fucking easy to make a social character that mind controls circles around you with none but the most dedicated defensive characters having a chance to resist.

Really, in most games it doesn seem like an issue to me. Social Rolls should be allowed the same as any other roll, any character should have access to defenses that don't need extreme investment and as with any roll, you should just work out what happens. If somebody says "I roll to seduce!" without any pretext or some bullshit, the GM should just say "You do that" and hand the defending party a sizeable bonus.

For situations like this, either no rolls at all and roleplay the entire thing, or several rounds of opposed rolls.
The player should also get a bonus to refuse or resist something that obviously disgusts her.

This. Play one of the TSR editions of D&D.
Mind elaborating?

I don't see how this affects my Mindflayer PC in the slighest.

Boku no Pico

You control your character, but I think that in this case you're sort of obliged to ERP with your GM

To sum it up;

>social rolls shouldn't work on PCs
>natural 20s shouldn't do anything on non-combat rolls
>diplomacy isn't fucking mind control and you're free to roleplay your character's reaction any way you want
>if the DM objects to any of the above he's a shit DM

Thread over. Though next time you make another one OP, try playing a tabletop RPG first, not basing your knowledge of the medium solely on Veeky Forums memes and greentexts.

For the first time ever, I might actually believe that...

well... how about you make your own decisions for your character, and even if the NPC presses all the buttnos, you may dont want to have sex. for moral reasons or something like that. dont be a slave to the dice.

Not once did they say he lost control over his character. Where did you get that? All that was said was that the npc did a really good diplomacy roll and the player doesn't know if he should go along with it, and if not, what should happen then.

Assuming something like 3.5 or Pathfinder, which I will since this thread is stupid anyway, it's not that social shouldn't work on PCs so much as Diplomacy by RAW dosn't.

>Check: You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check.

Strangely enough Intimidate has no such stipulation. Depending on if you count sex as endangering the target or not for the "takes actions that do not endanger it," clause, you could create Fuckmaster the Half-Orc who diffuses combat situations by scaring his opponents into fucking him.

>by scaring his opponents into fucking him
But that's called rape, onichan.

Wulin handles it well. One of the systems that says PCs can be affected by social rolls. Basically, if someone slaps you with a passion for another character, your choice is to RP the new flaw/emotion/whatever. If you role play it, no penalty. If you roleplay...something else (my character fights back passions burning in his heart, remaining stonefaced!) You eat a mechanical penalty on revelant rolls until you can cure it.

Same thing applies to injuries, diseases, curses, etc. If you try to do the thing your new condition is telling you not to do, penalty. But if you just describe your character as whooping and coughing mid-battle, you actually don't get a penalty from the disease on your dice. Or if you describe your character finding a clever way to move around the battlefield even with his broken leg, as opposed to saying he just walks on it and ignores the pain.

*hands character sheet to DM*

"Eric, if you want to play my character for me, just go ahead and do it. I'll go catch a movie or something."

*grabs stuff, walks out*

PCs are easily impressionable and prone to getting told what is or is not a good idea.

A nat 20 to seduce should be rolled behind the screen, and instead of saying "too bad you bang" the DM should portray a very compelling scenario where the only rational response is to sleep with the NPC.

>PCs shouldn't be affected by social skills.
>Enchantment spells are fine, though.

I don't understand why PCs should be immune to one mechanic of the game and not the other. In something like 3.5, which appears to be what everyone is assuming the game is, it makes sense to not have it affect PCs 'cause there's no defense against it. But in games that give you a defense against social skills, then PCs should be affected by it. So if the PC fails there whatever save against the seduction, then they're seduced.

>not making skill rolls able to crit
>not making the players super excited about the game

Take your tabletop group to the casino if they get "super excited" about giving away their agency to the roll of the dice.

>all this arguing and nobody asks the real question
Why in the world is he using diplomacy for a seduction roll?

Skill rolls being able to crit wouldn't change the fact that you can't use the diplomacy skill on PCs.

Yeah this whole thread is a series of stupid assertions and rule misunderstanding stacked on top of each other. I was really only addressing the "super excited" point there.

Reading comprehension motherfucker.

He's not taking control of your character, he's just determining how eloquent and appealing the NPCs argument is. You can still say no, but it's the players job to roleplay their character, and you have to put some thought into how they would react to such an argument.

>So if the PC fails there whatever save against the seduction
There is no saving throw for seduction. That mechanic does not exist.

Mechanically, a character uses diplomacy to make the target more favorable to the character, then makes a request. If the target would be angered or offended by the request, they go back to their old attitude. However, if they see the action as furthering their goals, they may preform it.

Since a player can at any time decide their character's attitude, the diplomacy mechanic does not function with a PC target.

If I'm going to play you, I'm going to have to get a LOT better at sucking dick

>natural 20s only apply to attack rolls in pretty mich every d20 game, and anyone who houserules them otherwise is a moron
>being this upset over how a group plays a game
>being this upset how people determine a success
>being this upset over a game
Dude you're just a huge asshole.

As a GM if this happened I'd have that nat 20 amount to "you're kinda into it though" and nothing more

Why are you playing tabletop RPGs? They're literally all about chance with the dice +/- your character's aptitudes.

I play my X card.

One trend I'm seeing a lot in more "narrative driven" RPGs is a mechanical give-and-take between players and GM for situations like these. The best example I can think of off the top of my head is the whole Destiny Point system in FFG's Star Wars system, but I know there are more out there. Basically, the GM would say, "This NPC wants to seduce you," and you then have two options:
1.) If you don't feel your character would comply, or you're so insecure of your fictional persona's sexuality that you're afraid of the GM's magical realm, you can choose to ignore the advance, OR...
2.) You play along in-character, and the GM compensates you in some way, such as with an "exchange for [insert mechanical benefit or narrative control here] token".

I've been fortunate to mostly have groups who are good sports enough to just play along with the story, but it's amazing what a little extra incentive can provide for conflict. Players are almost always willing to go along with obviously detrimental scenarios in games like Ironclaw because you get bonus EXP for roleplaying character flaws.

It's a good way to work it out in the metagame. Really, why would any character willingly choose a detrimental action? For narrative purpose? In a game you really have to detach yourself to choose that.

The best way is generally with a system of give-and-take. Choosing a detrimental effect or course of action can gain you an advantage you can cash in later, or gaining additional EXP if you play to character flaws. Risk vs. Reward is a big motivator for humans in general, and by building a system that appeals to it you have something much smoother.

>What happens?
Nothing, if the player doesn't want his character to be seduced, nothing happens.

>Do you get fucked whether you like it or not?
See above.

>Are all your rolls at a penalty until you can treat your raging erection?
No, there is no need. Unless the player wants to go for something like that, that is.

Why not?
Are you going to say that save or suck spells don't work on PCs either? How about weapons? Are PCs immune to HP damage as well?

>baiting this hard
On the off chance you're only retarded, read

>you get a Fate point for sucking the NPCs dick

So the game system literally encourages you to whore your character for mechanical benefits

See

Different approaches are used for different situations.

In combat, the player makes all choices about what he or she DOES, but some elements have to be abstracted away to make combat actually playable. The player character takes damage and, assuming he or she is not dead, the player maintains control.

In social situations, to allow NPCs to simply "do things" to the player characters would be to take control of the character from the player, such that he or she is no longer actually playing a game.

No.

>I roll intelligence to solve the riddle!

is no different from

>I roll dex to hit the monster!

Good point. For the sake of consistency, we'd better either:

1. Make the player actually swing a sword or do an obstacle course IRL

or

2. Just roll dice and never even bother making the player do anything.

You're a fucking idiot.

>This is to act in lieu of the NPC having actual wills of their own
Aren't NPCs getting played by the GM? Who is capable of instilling them with just as much will as the PCs, if he cares to?

So should a GM be able to say, "Natch, I got this NPC senpai, no rolls here." and waive rolls for a particular NPC?

I mean, you seem to be arbitrarily declaring, "Alright, this section of the rules doesn't apply to PCs" without any consistent reasoning.

>If the players have control of their characters in a diplomatic situation, then by that logic, the players can't make the king give them his kingdom by asking nicely
You're right, this is broken.

Maybe we should make the player suck actual dick when their character does so in-game. You'd be good at that ;^)

>AWAKEN, MY MASTERS!

deployment rolls aren't normally for coxing some one to do something. if its against there chericter but they want to any ways then you can convince them otherwise the diplomacy roll is to prevent a deterioration in social standing / personal relations with the NPC.
>ask NPC for sex
>ROLL DIPLOMACY
secess.) no thank you
fail.) get the fuck out

the focus of the game should still be on role playing and rolling is just when there is a chance of both success and failure as a fair way of resolving the problem.
right idea

Yup. No two ways about it.

I like to have social skills that *are* usable on pcs, because my players often want to use them on eachother.

To accommodate such a *house rule*, you have to rewrite the social skill rules so they're not mind control plus.

That said, the notion that you can roll diplomacy to control someone who isn't even willing to hear you out, is ridiculous. As is nat 20 on skills

maybe if you use it to let you speak and hear you out that could be a roll or they might be so insulted that they might not pay you any attenchen

If you notice they were just giving an example that mirrored the OP's. At no point did they mention bonuses for specifically sexual acts.

Stoic orc saga best saga

>natural 20

stoic orc saga?
link cause i'm too lazy?

g.e-hentai.org/s/0800efc424/818846-1

Nothing actually happens.
But there should be some fanart around, if you catch my drift.

Stab the DM in the neck

>diplomacy and other social skills like that explicitely don't work on PCs

They explicitly do in the 40k RPGs