For D&D yeah, the standard 'make my PC's role play it out' or 'roll on the Reaction Table.'

Really it does depend on what kind of game you're playing.

Some days you only socially interact with the +2 Battle Axe the character is holding.
All good fun.

As of my current majestic wilderlands campaign, I'm really loving playing fast and loose with the reaction table.

RPGPundit

Forgive the thread necromancy, especially one that was apparently started by a now banned user. But I found this doing some research on social skills in RPGs, and this is what got me to register instead of just lurk. Anyway...

To understand where I'm coming from on this topic, it's important for me to mention two things. One, I've been GMing for a long, long time. There are a lot of situations that just arise regardless of which game you're playing. Over time you find really effective procedures for doing things. The procedures themselves are not specific to any one game. For example, regardless of whether I'm playing D&D or GURPS, I can choose to end each session on a cliff hanger if I find that keeps players coming back week after week and showing up on time. (I don't. It's just an example.)

The second thing is, I actually "persuade" for a living and have been successful enough at it to have time to waste on RPG message boards. So I am familiar with the popular notion of how it works, how it really works, myths that don't work at all, et cetera. So I have a pretty clear picture of how a persuasion attempt would go, and I've boiled it down to a procedure that will work for virtually any RPG. ("Virtually any RPG" here means any RPG that doesn't already dictate a specific procedure and would be greatly unbalanced by ignoring said procedure.)

The procedure I put in place, since it does follow a real conversation, can be 100% role-played out, with it calling for skill checks in a few key points. I hesitate to liken social encounters to combat encounters, because the whole point of social skills is to gain consent and cooperation, which is the complete opposite of conflict and domination. But, much like combat, it doesn't cram everything into one die roll. There is interaction and the opportunity for choice between dice rolls.

True, combat in D&D doesn't require that the player know how to swing the sword. But it does require that the player choose a weapon and decide which enemy to strike. I feel the same should hold for social encounters. You don't need to know how to best deliver an argument because that should come down to your character skill. But you do need to choose or formulate your argument and decide who to pitch it to.

And just like in combat, where a blessed crossbow bolt will automatically slay the Rakshasa, and a non-magical, non-silver weapon will never harm the werewolf, and the player and character alike may have no way of knowing their opponent is one of those creatures, sometimes choice alone, not dice, will determine the outcome. Similarly, certain arguments in social encounters will guarantee success, or guarantee failure, and the player and character alike may have no way of knowing that about the person they are pitching.

^Can you spell out how you do it?

Interesting stuff, I'd like to read a more detailed description as well.

Much like combat* I prefer to have some differentiation between player persuasive ability and character persuasive ability.

Quote from: Lunamancer;866395The procedure I put in place, since it does follow a real conversation, can be 100% role-played out, with it calling for skill checks in a few key points.

This sounds interesting. Tell us more.


* Actually almost exactly like how combat works in a lot of systems.

• In most (if not all) RPGs a player with good tactical ability will do better in combat than a player with poor tactical ability. That is almost unavoidable and not really a bad thing. (Similarly, it is almost unavoidable that a player with good persuasive ability in real life will be able to be more persuasive than a player with poor persuasive ability in real life.)

• In most RPGs a player whose PC has good in-game combat ability will (all things being equal) do better in combat than a player whose PC has poor in-game combat abilities. Again this is almost unavoidable and is not a bad thing. (Similarly, a player whose PC has good in-game persuasive ability should (all else being equal) do better at persuasion in game than a player whose PC has poor in-game persuasive ability.

As a DM and designer I lean to a mix. I have the players talk out the interaction and then make a check based on charisma and possible modifiers to see how well it went over since the player may not have the force of personality the character has.

But I also like having some framework to automate interactions for those times when you just want to breeze through and move on. Or want a surprise. Or even solo play. BX D&D has that system and it works great.

I'd like to hear more too.

(although you might want to start a new thread for it so it gets more traffic)

Well, thanks for the interest. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this. Every time I have to explain it, I get a little bit better at explaining it.

So in its basic form, I break persuasion down into 5 phases. Introduction, discovery, presentation, elaboration, and the close. The introduction is about getting the other person's attention and willingness to listen. Discovery is about finding out what they want, their motivations. Presentation is framing your proposal in a way likely to appeal to your prospect. Elaboration is when the prospect still has doubts--objections or questions--and you clarify to ease their concerns. The close is like the handshake that seals the deal.

I think the way most people approach it (especially bad salesmen in real life) is they skip discovery and treat elaboration as a battle of wits. So it's like, "Hi, this is what I think you should do," followed by several rounds of verbal jujitsu until someone finally admits they're wrong. Being that this is an internet message forum, I think we all know how unrealistic that is.

And certainly players can try to do that within the confines of my persuasion system. They're welcome to try anything they like. But doing so leaves everything entirely up to luck. And I'm not talking about luck of the dice. I'm talking about the player just happens on the one argument (or one of several arguments) that will successfully convince the NPC. And even then I may still call for a skill check--just because you say the right thing doesn't mean the NPC trusts what you say.


So usually I would begin by calling for a skill check on the introduction. Which skill, of course, depends on whatever's most appropriate for the situation and the game system. But the idea is you're just trying to get an NPC to listen. Players can decide for themselves whether or not to listen. They almost always do, suckers that they are! But if a PC or NPC succeeds in a skill check to get a reluctant player to listen, the GM can nudge the player with something like, "You sense that the person standing before you has some very important information."

In lieu of a skill check, it is possible to capture someone's attention by other means. Telemarketers, who are generally extremely low-skill persuaders, offer some freebie for listening. In a fantasy RPG, there are limitless other ways to bypass the need for a social skill, perhaps even calling on other adventuring skills--a Hold Person ought to get someone's attention!

The wise player will move onto the discovery phase. In the classic case, it's literally asking questions of the prospect. However, the conversation could also be more subtle, calling on social skills to try to get a "read" on the prospect. Whichever, some sort of lie detection skill can help to make sure you're getting accurate information. However, if the Introduction went exceedingly well, the prospect will be truthful at this stage. Again, it's also possible to bypass social skills by using other means of discovery. It might involve consulting the Harlot table in the 1st Ed DMG to get the dirt on your prospect.

Once you know what the other person wants, then you can begin to argue (or offer a proposal) about how in helping you, that person will actually be helping themself. While it should be placed entirely on the player--not the character or game system--to decide exactly what direction to take this, effective presentation can be determined by a skill check. If the player needs to say things that are untrue to make the proposal appeal to the prospect, then some sort of deception check is also in order.

The elaboration phase will be initiated by the prospect. Sometimes no further elaboration is required. If the proposal truly matches the prospect's motivations, and it was communicated clearly in a way deemed trustworthy, it can move straight to the close. However, if the "pitch" included anything that was vague or any deal-breakers, those will be addressed here. If a skilled persuader was way off in presentation (perhaps the character had high persuasion skills but the player foolishly skipped discovery), a skill check can keep the prospects attention, giving the persuader the opportunity to fall back to discovery and make a new presentation based on new information.

If everything has gone well in the prior stages, the close won't even require a skill check. Success just follows. On the other hand, if the persuader gave a poor presentation and fumbled through the elaboration, it is likely the close will fail without a skill check as well. (Again, here a skilled persuader can, with a skill check, continue to hold the prospect's attention, fall back to discovery, and try to present a new case.) In between the extremes of automatic success (which should really be the most common case if all the steps were followed well) and automatic failure, the persuader can go for a hard close.

A hard close can go simply as a skill check. But there might also be actions the persuader can take outside the scope of social skills that can win the day. Think of playing poker. You think the other guy is bluffing. He goes all in. You still think he's bluffing, but the fact is you can't afford to be wrong about it, so you fold anyway. A hard close can be like that.


That's the basics of it. There are other little details. Like using an "up-front contract" in the introduction--because in reality, the biggest pitfall isn't a "No" but a non-committal answer. The up-front contract is designed to head that off. Or, the discovery phase should end with a question that sums up all information discovered, like, "So, if you could get x and y, will you be willing to do z?" Because the prospect admitting to what they want keeps them from lying about it just to frustrate your attempts at persuasion.

I hope this has been clear and helpful.

Quote from: Bren;866443Much like combat* I prefer to have some differentiation between player persuasive ability and character persuasive ability.


This sounds interesting. Tell us more.


* Actually almost exactly like how combat works in a lot of systems.

• In most (if not all) RPGs a player with good tactical ability will do better in combat than a player with poor tactical ability. That is almost unavoidable and not really a bad thing. (Similarly, it is almost unavoidable that a player with good persuasive ability in real life will be able to be more persuasive than a player with poor persuasive ability in real life.)

• In most RPGs a player whose PC has good in-game combat ability will (all things being equal) do better in combat than a player whose PC has poor in-game combat abilities. Again this is almost unavoidable and is not a bad thing. (Similarly, a player whose PC has good in-game persuasive ability should (all else being equal) do better at persuasion in game than a player whose PC has poor in-game persuasive ability.

I wanted to address these great points specifically, and how that looks following my procedure.

Case 1. Player is a terrible persuader. But the character is highly skilled.

Say the player pulls the bad salesman tactic, skipping discovery. Thanks to the character's high social skills, the introduction goes well. Maybe all the player said was "I have a proposition for you," but the character said it with such genuine conviction that the prospect is willing to listen. Maybe he even likes you.

So you go into the pitch. Since you skipped discovery, you only assume you know what the NPC wants. Maybe you get lucky and your guess just happens to match the NPCs hidden motives quite well. Between that and your skill, the presentation goes off without a hitch. Maybe there will be a question or two on the elaboration phase (since odds are it's not going to be a perfect match since you were guessing), and as long as you can handle them, you move into the close with the blessing of an automatic success.

However, if you aren't so lucky, and what you think the NPC wants isn't what he really wants, you meet with a lot of resistance in the elaboration phase. The player doesn't have to be the most socially adept person in the world, but as long as he's got a brain, I think at some point it's going to become clear that his pitch was way off the mark. If he's smart enough to start questioning why the NPC doesn't want something that will obviously benefit him, or start asking questions that get at what he DOES want, the character's high social skill will allow that player a second chance at forming a proposal the NPC will go for.

One point (a detail I didn't mention in the last post), usually if you try to propose something someone doesn't truly want, that person might get to thinking you really don't care about what they want and you're only out for yourself. This might undo the good will generated by a good introduction. The prospect might become dishonest, or just play his cards close to his chest. It may take skills like cold reading and lie detection to save the deal at this point. Again, if the character has high social skills that cover the bases, this is possible, but the difficulty of the situation has just gone up.


Case 2. A player who knows what I know about persuasion but his character has no skill at it.

Without skill, you're likely to fail at the introduction. No matter how persuasive you are as a player, you CAN effectively be shut out at the get-go if the character has no skill. One thing you can try to do to compensate is offer some consideration, a gift perhaps. This can open the door for you, but this is already a cost that a more skilled character could have avoided.

Next, you go onto the discovery phase. Because you as a player are such a great persuader, you ask all the right questions, you avoid any words that might trigger hostility, and you find out exactly what the NPC wants. Now all you have to do is present your proposal.

Since your character has no skill, you may say all the right words, but that doesn't mean a difficult NPC will believe them. Like in the introduction, you could offer some consideration. Part of the proposal could be some automatic penalty that would befall you if you have been untruthful. If you were trying to convince an NPC to go through a certain door, but he's suspicious it's a trap, you might offer to be the first to go through. You might also sweeten the deal. The NPC may still not trust you, but the reward is so great, it's worth a small gamble. Again, it CAN be done without skill, but you are incurring costs that you would not have if your character had the skills.

If you've done everything as best as possible, there may not be an elaboration phase. It would be kind of pointless if the NPC doesn't trust you. Although if your offer is so interesting, the NPC may be forward enough to tell you what they need to overcome the trust issue. It might be the NPC that insists you walk through the door first.

In any case, you better make sure you have it wrapped up. Without skill, don't expect to succeed at a hard close. Like my poker example from the previous post, you could up the odds and go all-in. This puts you in a very perilous place, however, if the NPC still doesn't bite. It's a risk you wouldn't had to have taken if you had invested some skill points in your character's social skills.



I'm also going to add a Case 3. This is an example of trying to be as persuasive as possible using zero social skills. You might also try to call it a quick sell.

In this case, I imagine you've done your homework on your prospect. You've used your other character skills to investigate and dig up all the dirt. It might have been a full blown adventure in itself to get all the information, but you now know your prospect's motives.

You have no skill to win the introduction. So you just blurt out the ideal question I referred to in the previous post for ending the discovery phase, "My lord, if I can deliver to you your grandmother's lost signet ring, will you grant me and my companions safe passage?"

If that truly is one of the most important things to the NPC, that question itself is sufficient to grab the attention without an introduction. You can shoot straight into your proposal. If the motive was powerful enough to get you this far, this can be entirely roleplayed out without skill checks. The NPC may have some questions in the elaboration phase, but if you're sufficiently prepared with all the information before hand, you can knock those out of the park and move onto a clean, successful close.

How would you guys handle two PCs trying to convince an NPC to agree with one of them?

In our game each PC wanted the town mayor to accept their idea, each of which was mutually exclusive. So they took turns arguing with him and each other, and I had them rolling Persuasion checks and having the NPC respond logically. But I'd be interested how you'd break it down on a mechanical level if you were going to do that here.

Or would it all just be roleplaying?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;866522How would you guys handle two PCs trying to convince an NPC to agree with one of them?

In our game each PC wanted the town mayor to accept their idea, each of which was mutually exclusive. So they took turns arguing with him and each other, and I had them rolling Persuasion checks and having the NPC respond logically. But I'd be interested how you'd break it down on a mechanical level if you were going to do that here.

Or would it all just be roleplaying?

Could you provide more details about the situation? What are the ideas each of the PCs have? What makes them mutually exclusive? How do their ideas benefit the mayor? And what are the mayor's priorities?

I'm so glad you posted this and shared your approach! (Might've been best to start a new thread and just link to the old thread, for clarity.)

We had a thread recently about whether the best GM's seem to be well-read, or not. I would say another determination (at least for the social interactions in a campaign) is how well the GM understands human behavior, whether through psychology, literature, experience, or whatever. The best GM's I know were all quite sharp and broad in their understanding of how many different people might behave in different circumstances. The GM's who didn't have so much of that, or who were a bit unbalanced themselves, naturally ran worlds where everyone in them, and the social interactions, were a bit like the GM and the GM's slant or lack of social perception/skills/etc. Almost goes without saying.

The whole thing about using some mix of dice, rules, and/or just roleplaying, seems like something good GM's just develop their own way of handling that works for them.

I really like the system you've shared! It makes a lot of sense, especially for attempts to convince someone of something. I wonder if you have other systems for other types of social interactions?

It has me think of various other forms of real-world communications training I've done, and how they compare and contrast. They would all seem to agree that your “discovery” is vital, as there is another person there, and without relating to them, you would just be guessing, so your results in convincing about something would be fairly random (or as good as your guess), as you wrote.

I would add that there's also another layer of practical effect about “discovery”, which is that other people will have some things in mind that they will want to communicate to you, and if you don't at least listen to those things (including reactions to what you say), then they may not listen to you. If their ideas are irrelevant to what the game wants to resolve, then that might just be something the game can abstract into the skills of the convincer, however.

It could be interesting to try to develop this sort of system for other models of communication, and/or other types of conversation.

As with a lot of game design, I like to try to model what I know about the situation in detail first, with little or no weight given to playability, and then later see how rules based on a full modelling can be abstracted into something playable. I think GMs who have strong understanding of human interactions end up doing this automatically when handling social interactions in RPGs: they combine roleplaying with some mechanical thoughts and improvised die rolls to fill in where they don't know the details and to take into account the differences between PC skills and player performance, but it's very interesting and useful to try to break it down with the benefit of a good formal explanation of a real-word model of communication like you've done.

My preferred way of dealing with social encounters is that you make dice-rolls or stat-comparisons before the encounter begins, and those:-

* do not point to specific outcomes of the dialogue
* instead merely bias the GM's roleplay of NPCs, and choice of hints to give players

What then happens is that conversation flows naturally, but the GM treats high-skilled PCs or high-rolling players' characters more favourably than he would probably have treated them without that element of bias, and treats low-skilled PCs or low-rolling players' characters less favourably than he would probably have treated them without that element of bias. A player skilled at persuasion can mitigate the effects of poor dice and stats, and a player hopeless at persuasion can use good rolls and good stats to mitigate their poor conversational skills, but crucially the natural ebb, flow and twists of conversation are preserved.

Quote from: Lunamancer;866524Could you provide more details about the situation? What are the ideas each of the PCs have? What makes them mutually exclusive? How do their ideas benefit the mayor? And what are the mayor's priorities?

We were playing Lost Mines of Phandelver with Sildar as the mayor. He's the mayor of a backwater town called Phandalin that he wants to build up and bring prosperity to.

After the party helped save the town several times, he appointed one of the PCs as the vice-mayor, who gets to speak for the mayor when the mayor is busy / not around / etc. We'll call him PC A.

The other PC is one who's rich and helped fund a lot of the repairs the town was going through, responsible for a lot of the buildup they've had lately. We'll call him PC B.

So PC B decides that he wants to help build up the town's guard forces. Right now it's just a handful of guards who can handle cat burglars and drunks but that's about it. He wants to fund them and buy them equipment and train more recruits and organize them.

PC A intervenes and says that he can't let someone divide the town's loyalties, as PC B would effectively be building a private militia. PC A says that if PC B wants to help the town he should donate to the town treasury and then PC A can distribute the goods through proper government channels. PC B doesn't want the town turned into a bureaucratic morass and enjoys the free wheeling nature frontier nature it had until now.

So they both go to the mayor and argue their case between them and him.