I was wondering about PCs and social interactions, and how you solve them at your table. I'm talking about inside the game here, I don't want to talk about inter-player drama, which is a whole another beast - one of very little interest. I assume in most of the games you play you have some stat and mechanics regarding social interaction: charisma, fellowship, whatever the name. My question is: what happens at your table when an action of convincing, haggling, charming, commanding is required? Do you only roll the dice and check the numbers? Do you only roleplay the scene without dice rolls (possibly discarding the stat altogether)? Do you mix the two, and how?
And most importantly, how do you manage these rolls when the PCs are on the receiving end? Do they just comply with the result of the dice and for example follow an NPC they previously didn't like, because the roll say so?
Let's share experiences.
> TL;DR How do your group manage social interaction rolls? How do the PCs fare on the receiving end of a Command/Charm action?
Ryan Ward
First, what do the rules say. You are taking a fuckton of different mechanics across different games and grouping them together in way too small package. So the answers to your questions are always dependent on the game and it's rules. Even on cases where rules don't give proper answer, they probably affect on the style of play on general level and that gets then applied to social situations too.
Ryder Reed
I'm not sticking my dick in the can of worms most of your post is about to open.
But what I will chime in on is rolls against players. Never take control away from the players, at least not with a major plot point involving mind control spells or some extreme shit.
However, I still will roll, and the results (opposed or otherwise) will be made available to the players to inform their decisions, often awarding a small bonus if they follow through.
Yeah the buyer for your magic item is pretty convincing with his haggling down the price. Will you actually lower it (or potentially have to find a new buyer)?
Yes he seems to be telling the truth, alright. Will you believe him or will there still be a nagging doubt in your mind?
Stuff like that.
Adrian Jones
Well I mostly GM Monsterhearts which means that the PCs influence each other in much the same way they influence NPCs; strings and conditions.
Strings are earned through certain actions and give players the ability to give bonuses and penalties to the people they have strings on, they can also offer each other xp to do what they want. NPCs can also spend strings on PCs to do the same thing.
Conditions are social weaknesses, personality traits, reputations, that sort of thing. Having a condition makes it easier for people to act against you socially, thus they wind up with more strings on you, and more ability to influence you
Zachary Miller
Yes, I am aware that there is a lot to say on the subject and a lot of different systems handling it - indeed I thought it was an interesting matter to discuss - but I think that operatively it can be narrowed down to two broad extremes, that is > just follow the dice and see if the crunch requirements are met > just let the player speak in total overlap with the character
(and of course the shades between them)
Both have different pros and cons and implications, and I'm interested to see how they are managed. If you disagree with the two broad classifications premise please feel free to provide some examples, I'll learn something from them for sure.
Blake Rivera
I prefer the former. You don't get to know things ICly just because you know them OOCly, and neither are you immune to IC persuasion just because you aren't swayed OOC. You are not your character, nor are yiu the ultimate master of your character - that's me, the GM.
And I have a thing for noncon to con mindbreak, hypnosis, and gullible PCs getting roped into drug, drink, and dick.
Aaron Campbell
> the can of worms most of your post is about to open Heh, I try to be optimistic about the quality of the discussions we can have here.
>I still will roll, and the results (opposed or otherwise) will be made available to the players to inform their decisions, often awarding a small bonus if they follow through
Interesting design. So basically you try to give them a carrot if they comply with the dice roll result, but they are basically free to do as they please, in every case.
I am also aware that is generally a bad thing to rob players of their agency, but I am wondering if they should "get away with it" (I am lacking a better term, sorry) every time they wish. So far I managed to either trick the players themselves when the NPC wanted to fool them (they were taken into custody by a fake guard patrol) or to give them enough motivation to follow their quests, I wonder if there is any other - "crunchier" - way to do the same. One sound enough to be accepted as a normal game mechanic, I mean.
Blake Wilson
>Interesting design. So basically you try to give them a carrot if they comply with the dice roll result, but they are basically free to do as they please, in every case.
Yeah. I've yet to have it go wrong yet. I find that it adds a great opportunity to roleplay a more believable character. Step out of your comfort zone a bit and really ask yourself "what would my character do?" in circumstances where you might not have thought about it much. I mean how often does your character maybe want to do something that you yourself might not want to do?
Of course I also tend to run savage worlds, a system which outright says players are not subject to social rolls. I also tend to play up the action hero nature of wildcard (player characters and important npcs, in my case a very rare "natural" trait). They're the ones that aren't firmly attached to the whims of fate. Hell if you think about it player characters in general are kind of the only people in game worlds with proper free will. Everyone else is at the beck and call of the cosmos known as the gm.
That said, lying to players is easy as hell. Depending on the way you run games and the games you tend to run, it can be difficult for players to get in the mindset necessary to distrust their gm. Think about it. You ask and pretty much require them to trust your descriptions of things. Its a fundamental requirement of the game, and sometimes it can be difficult to divorce you from the characters you present them. I'll sometimes roll bluffing and persuasion in advance and really ham up lower rolls just to give my players a better chance at suspecting something because I know full well that if I'm subtle and competent about it they're not going to handle it.
I've no idea how to crunch it up much more than that.
Ayden Fisher
>And I have a thing for noncon to con mindbreak, hypnosis, and gullible PCs getting roped into drug, drink, and dick.
You completely lost any foot you had to stand on with "that's me, the GM" by throwing this shit in there.
It's just more self interested power-trip fetish shit.
Hunter Brooks
Got sort of a homebrew with seven broad skills, some of which have social applications. Basically characters with different shticks are better able to get on with NPCs of different social classes. Otherwise it still works similarly to a normal skill system.
Players do some RP first. Can be first person ("Malcolm! Look out for that snake!") or third ("I tell Malcolm there's a snake behind him.") depending on player preference.
I set the ability, skill, and difficulty based on the particulars if there are any. Plausible lies get lower DCs but can still fail, for instance. If there are few details the DC might default to something mid to high. If the details are particularly on point or the intent is something dirt simple to accomplish you might get a free pass (buying food at the set price doesn't require a roll, nor does creating a scene by drunkenly demanding to see the groom's manager at a wedding you weren't invited to).
Then players roll with the DC they come out of that with. If something unlikely happens, I might fill in gaps with extraneous details to explain why. Maybe this guard is especially gullible, or you've contradicted some fact they knew. It's not a must, but fun stuff can come out of this.
This isn't really that different from how I handle search checks or locked doors. If the hinges are on your side and you pry them out, the door is open with no roll. If you mention turning a drawer upside-down, the false bottom falls out regardless of what else your check turns up. Beyond wanting my players to think, giving them a little more for describing more will encourage them to live in their character's shoes a little more fully.
Oh, and I usually skip NPC rolls to influence players. This is maybe the one significant difference. PCs can still fail to notice and understand shit based on rolls, but there's no real fair way to set DCs on NPCs directly influencing PCs, since players get to decide what their characters believe, prioritize, etc.
