So, most players would, and rightly so, argue that their uses of Intimidate or Diplomacy should be able to have an effect on NPCs.

But do you think that an NPC with a high score in these kinds of skills should be able to have a forced impact on a player's PC?  I'm not talking about someone with a "charm spell" or something else supernatural, I'm talking about the supposed smooth-talking charisma but nothing magical.

RPGPundit

Yes, I do. My players are sporting enough that if I need their characters to be influenced by an npc, I can just tell them and they will rp it if I need to, or if I can get away with it I will rp it myself.

Quote from: SigmundYes, I do. My players are sporting enough that if I need their characters to be influenced by an npc, I can just tell them and they will rp it if I need to, or if I can get away with it I will rp it myself.

That's how I run it, and my players are usually cool enough when I give them cues in that regard.

I tend to think that a dice roll is a little bit of a blunt instrument in these kinds of circumstances.  As a GM you should be able to sway your characters one way or another and if you play your NPCs fairly then the fact that someone's more believable and likeable should come across immediately.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut do you think that an NPC with a high score in these kinds of skills should be able to have a forced impact on a player's PC?

No.  I make it a point never to tell a player what goes on inside their PCs head unless they are under supernatural compulsion.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo, most players would, and rightly so, argue that their uses of Intimidate or Diplomacy should be able to have an effect on NPCs.

But do you think that an NPC with a high score in these kinds of skills should be able to have a forced impact on a player's PC?  I'm not talking about someone with a "charm spell" or something else supernatural, I'm talking about the supposed smooth-talking charisma but nothing magical.

I'm fine with the way D&D handles this: an NPC can use the social skills in ways that have an immediate mechanical impact (Intimidate to make an opponent shaken for a round, Bluff to feint, etc.), but the players' roleplaying remains at their own direction.

There is plenty of precedent in fantasy literature for the hero being the only one who distrusts the smooth-talking schemer.

I usually elect to have my character respond as though Diplomacy and the like made a difference, but my position is ultimately that any system that dictates roleplaying responses will produce inferior results to systems that allow players to determine their own responses, and I oppose systems that say "you have to like him" or "you have to hate him."

I'm in agreement with hgjs:

If the NPC ever rolls bluff or intimidate (or whatever), he is doing so for a specific rules-based reason. A feint or an 'inspire awe' result, per whatever the rules say the effect is.

If I only want an npc to lie (bluff) or scare (intimidate) a PC, I'll just go ahead and either lie on my own or describe myself 'trying to be intimidating' as I roleplay the NPC and let the players decide whether or not I'm telling the truth, or whether they feel intimidated.

It's fairly obvious that you can't use these interaction skills to enforce PCs' reactions the way you can with NPC's. But I suppose you could use them creatively with opposed rolls to get different effects, where the NPCs' successful use of the skills against the PC's determines how a situation works against the PC's instead of how the players judge their characters' personal reactions.

Intimidate could be used against Notice rolls for example- the NPC's intimidating manner might be distracting at a crucial moment say. This might even help NPC's get an initiative bonus when a stand-off breaks out into violence. And of course, PC's who look intimidated will find it harder to impress other bystanders.

Diplomacy rolls could be used to suggest just how far an NPC might be willing to go to win over PC's: a poor roll means that they aren't interested in trying very hard; a good roll means that they will make a big effort. You could decide this yourself of course, but sometimes letting the dice decide these sorts of things can stop the GM from playing out too-familiar riffs with NPC's, or can be just plain fun.

My point here is that I do think that NPC's should be able to use these skills on PC's- it's only fair it seems to me, and it can make life easier for the GM too I reckon. But you have to figure how interaction skills will affect PC's 'externally', as opposed to determining the 'internals'- as when, say, Diplomacy changes an NPC's attitude.

I'll tell the player that they feel 'an unusual thrill of fear', or something, but their character's specific responses are up to the player. The guys I game with are good enough to portray the personality they've created. The same player might respond with violence, rudeness, wary suspicion, or running away, depending on which character they're running.

I don't like to take the player out of the driver's seat. I'll tell them what they're characters see, hear, and feel, but not what they do.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI tend to think that a dice roll is a little bit of a blunt instrument in these kinds of circumstances.  As a GM you should be able to sway your characters one way or another and if you play your NPCs fairly then the fact that someone's more believable and likeable should come across immediately.

Yeah, this is the way how I do it. Context is also important esp for establishing stuff like intimidation etc IME. I once ran a CoC campaign set in the 1920' s but with all the pcs playing African- Americans. They were supposed to meet a contact that would supposedly help them out in their investigations.

I wanted this guy to be both scary and unpredictable, so I replayed the scene from Devil In A Blue Dress where our black private detective hero was supposed to meet his employer in a "white" area.

When the pcs heard where they were supposed to meet this guy, their sense of uneasiness about the adventure and about the person they were to meet increased. They had not even met the guy, but already they were weary of him. No magic nothing. There was not even any roleplaying yet.Just a sense that something was not right about this guy.

It takes a bit longer to set up, but it's more satisfying than using dice, IMHO.

Regards,.
David R

The way spycraft does it is to convey to the player how the roll should make them feel, and let them respond.

An alternate I was toying with on RPG-create was the idea of ginving PCs a "willpower" or "conviction" pool. This pool could provide bennies related to characters interests/code what have you, but can also be spent to avoid compulsory behavior mechanisms. That way, the player retains the ultimate decision, but you give them an incentive to behave as you think they should.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo, most players would, and rightly so, argue that their uses of Intimidate or Diplomacy should be able to have an effect on NPCs.

But do you think that an NPC with a high score in these kinds of skills should be able to have a forced impact on a player's PC?  I'm not talking about someone with a "charm spell" or something else supernatural, I'm talking about the supposed smooth-talking charisma but nothing magical.

RPGPundit

Nobody has such skills in games I run, so there's no issue of double-standards.

In any case, though, I say no. PCs are special. They're the focus of the game. NPCs are a whole other (lower) species entirely. Treating the former like the latter is a bit of a slap in the face.

The way I do it is this. Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc, act as usual with PC vs NPC, or NPC vs NPC. But when it's NPC vs PC, or PC vs PC, I say, "your character feels strongly inclined to act in such-and-such a way. If you choose to have your character act differently, they'll be acting at a penalty."

So for example, Jim the NPC warrior tries to intimidate Bob the PC warrior. He says, "put your weapon down!" The rolls are made, and the NPC succeeds, the PC fails. So now Jim's player can have Jim put his weapon down, and act at no penalty, or have him keep the weapon in hand - but if he uses it to fight, he'll be acting at -3. He'll be at no penalty to run away. Jim the NPC warrior's basic intention with the intimidation was to remove Bob the PC warrior as a threat to him. So when Bob wants to do something which lessens his threat to Jim, there's no penalty; when he wants to do something which is threatening, such as attack with his weapon, then there's a penalty.

Similarly, with other influence skills. This means that the player is always free to have their character act as they think good, but they'll have less chance of success if they act against the successful influence of NPCs or other PCs.

I find that players accept these penalties to their characters' actions quite well. They see them as equivalent to wound penalties. Being intimidated or diplomatically influenced by some NPC or other PC is equivalent to having been wounded by them, except that it rarely entirely cripples them...

Quote from: YamoPCs are special. They're the focus of the game. NPCs are a whole other (lower) species entirely. Treating the former like the latter is a bit of a slap in the face.

I don't agree with this at all. When I make a diplomacy roll for a merchant to gouge the PCs on a price it's ok, but not if I have an actual diplomat make a convincing case for whatever without having to actually try to really convince the players without it being a "slap in the face"? I can't have the city guard captain face the PCs down over beating a thief who stole a PCs valuables
senseless, even though the captain is an ex adventurer who's supposed to be intimidating and the PCs really don't want to become outlaws without having to try to really intimidate the players without it being a "slap in the face"? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The PCs have to roll to hit and do damage in combat, just like npcs and monsters. They have to roll to successfully practice a skill. So, in my mind, the PCs can be influenced and intimidated just like any other character in my game. The fact that they are PCs and are special just means they are better at resisting the skill use of npcs than most other npcs are, but it doesn't make them immune. You might not agree, you might not like to have npcs use these skills, but it doesn't make those of us who do wrong, just different in style. Our group is ok with this and we are mature enough to not only RP it well when it happens, but we actually enjoy it, because we are not our characters, so where IRL I might be the biggest sucker ever born, my character can be the iron willed miser who never gives in to pressure... or vice-versa. We get to explore a world from someone else's perspective, and be surprised when our characters end up liking a guy who we as players might be highly suspicious of (usually because of meta-game knowledge or thinking anyway).

Quote from: JimBobOzThe way I do it is this. Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc, act as usual with PC vs NPC, or NPC vs NPC. But when it's NPC vs PC, or PC vs PC, I say, "your character feels strongly inclined to act in such-and-such a way. If you choose to have your character act differently, they'll be acting at a penalty."

So for example, Jim the NPC warrior tries to intimidate Bob the PC warrior. He says, "put your weapon down!" The rolls are made, and the NPC succeeds, the PC fails. So now Jim's player can have Jim put his weapon down, and act at no penalty, or have him keep the weapon in hand - but if he uses it to fight, he'll be acting at -3. He'll be at no penalty to run away. Jim the NPC warrior's basic intention with the intimidation was to remove Bob the PC warrior as a threat to him. So when Bob wants to do something which lessens his threat to Jim, there's no penalty; when he wants to do something which is threatening, such as attack with his weapon, then there's a penalty.

Similarly, with other influence skills. This means that the player is always free to have their character act as they think good, but they'll have less chance of success if they act against the successful influence of NPCs or other PCs.

I find that players accept these penalties to their characters' actions quite well. They see them as equivalent to wound penalties. Being intimidated or diplomatically influenced by some NPC or other PC is equivalent to having been wounded by them, except that it rarely entirely cripples them...

This is actually a pretty cool idea. I might run this by my players and see if they like it.