Quote from: SigmundI 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).

All I know is that PC self-determination is an inalienable player right as far as I'm concerned. I'd simply walk from any game where it wasn't absolute, barring possible supernatural influence (which should be used very sparingly, if at all).

YMMV, obviously, but most other gamers I've met seem to feel the same way.

I agree that JimBob's mechanic sounds like a great way to handle things if the group is amenable.

Otherwise I'd probably just ditch the idea of PC/NPC symmetry.

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.

Essentially, I agree with this.  For me, the PCs using Diplomacy or Intimidate will, in fact, only have limited effects if they don't also roleplay good reasons for why their diplomacy or intimidation checks will have a real impact, even if their ranks are high.

Likewise, as a GM, one of the necessary skills is to be able to effectively portray these social aspects. Naturally, skills like "sense motive" can end up having an impact on the PC's abilities to accurately judge the MOTIVES of NPCs, but how they trust the NPCs and how much they like the NPCs depends principally on how I manage to convey said NPCs through roleplay.

RPGPundit

Quote from: YamoNobody has such skills in games I run, so there's no issue of double-standards.

So you have absolutely no social/interactive skills at all in any of your games? That's harsh IMO, but different strokes and all that.

Quote from: YamoAll I know is that PC self-determination is an inalienable player right as far as I'm concerned. I'd simply walk from any game where it wasn't absolute, barring possible supernatural influence (which should be used very sparingly, if at all).

YMMV, obviously, but most other gamers I've met seem to feel the same way.

Although I agree with Sigmund in mostly disagreeing with your initial point, I agree more with you here, pretty much 100% in fact. But "PC self-determination [as] an inalienable player right" is a bit of a truism really isn't it- in classic rpg's at least? I mean to say: a GM can't make a player think or feel other than they wish, even if the GM is some kind of shithead in the process of screwing a PC over. But that can be done just as much with any other part of the rules as it can with social/interactive skills. So it seems to me that your strong words say more about basic good GM'ing than they do about the use of social/interaction skills by the GM against the PC's, let alone the value of these skills altogether.

I do it the same way tha JimBob does it. It makes no sense to me to use different standards for PCs than for the NPCs, unless there is a good reason (for example, the differences in the use of Hero Points vs. Survival Points in James Bond 007).

Quote from: YamoAll I know is that PC self-determination is an inalienable player right as far as I'm concerned. I'd simply walk from any game where it wasn't absolute, barring possible supernatural influence (which should be used very sparingly, if at all).

YMMV, obviously, but most other gamers I've met seem to feel the same way.

My experience has obviously been different. In games I've played, the player characters can be influenced by npc actions at any time, be they magic or mundane, physical, mental or emotional. For example, in games that have flaws I would absolutely require any PC with the appropriate flaw to be roleplayed with it or risk xp consequences. As an example, in the James Bond RPG, Bond is listed as having the flaw Lechery. Therefore, an attractive female npc influences the way Bond should be roleplayed. If the player can not or will not RP his lechery, I would start requiring saves to avoid behaving in certain ways, with increasingly difficult target numbers on top of possible xp penalties. In games without flaws, I see opposed skill rolls the same way.

All this being said, a PLAYER can do whatever they want. The player CHARACTER, however, must be able to be influenced by the skills and talents of npcs for my game to have consistency and a degree of believability. In my group, we are willing to RP it so we have up to now never needed mechanics to enforce this facet of the game. When I'm a player, I actually enjoy RPing out a situation where my character has been influenced.

Anyone who can't abide their character actually not being in control all the time would probably neither enjoy, or be welcome in my game. I use rules like PC actions being influenced by stuff like being drunk, stunned/dazed, delirious from desert heat and dehydration, hallucenigenic religious rituals, blackmail, and greed too. You'd probably hate it.

I generally do the "strongly inclined" sort of thing, but I give the players the caveat, that if they really feel strongly that their PC would not be swayed by the discussion, that's fine.  I ask them to notate that point of roleplaying on their character sheet for future reference.  If they encounter something similar in the future, they need to be internally consistent.

I did have a situation, however, where a PC was internally inconsistent. At one point, he was arguing that it was totally acceptable to murder a group of "innocent, but unaware" lifeforms and shortly thereafter was arguing to set free someone convicted of murder (because he happened to agree with the circumstances of the murder).  When I pointed it out to him, he said, "Hey, if the Democrats can be in favor of abortion and against the death penalty, then why can't my character be internally inconsistent, too?"

I gave it to him.  

Quote from: VellorianI generally do the "strongly inclined" sort of thing, but I give the players the caveat, that if they really feel strongly that their PC would not be swayed by the discussion, that's fine.  I ask them to notate that point of roleplaying on their character sheet for future reference.  If they encounter something similar in the future, they need to be internally consistent.

I did have a situation, however, where a PC was internally inconsistent. At one point, he was arguing that it was totally acceptable to murder a group of "innocent, but unaware" lifeforms and shortly thereafter was arguing to set free someone convicted of murder (because he happened to agree with the circumstances of the murder).  When I pointed it out to him, he said, "Hey, if the Democrats can be in favor of abortion and against the death penalty, then why can't my character be internally inconsistent, too?"

I gave it to him.  

HA! Gold... but now ya gotta make him RP all the other silly shit democrats say too

Honestly, if one of my players could come up with a reasonable reason for his character to not be swayed by an npc despite failing an opposed skill roll I'd hear him out and maybe rule in his favor as well. It just doesn't come up (my PCs rarely ever fail opposed skill rolls in the areas of diplomacy or intimidate).

Quote from: SigmundWhat'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.

Well, I generally believe that PCs should be the same as NPCs as well -- but I draw the line differently.  

As GM, I generally reserve the right to retain control of my NPCs.  I'll take PC influence rolls into account, but I reserve the right to keep in character for that PC.  So, for example, if an NPC is secretly a spy for the enemy and the PCs want to persuade him to help them.  I'm not going to let the players convert him with a simple contest.  I'll add difficulty and/or adjust results to reflect his inner conviction.  My players trust me that I don't do this arbitrarily.  

What's good for me is good for the players, though.  I trust my players to do the same.  If a player says that her PC wouldn't do something, I have to abide by that the same way that she trusts me when I say about the NPC.  

An influence roll is advisory but can't overrule the nature of the character.  And final say on the nature of the character is with the person who controls it (i.e. the player if a PC, or the GM if an NPC).

Quote from: jhkimWell, I generally believe that PCs should be the same as NPCs as well -- but I draw the line differently.  

As GM, I generally reserve the right to retain control of my NPCs.  I'll take PC influence rolls into account, but I reserve the right to keep in character for that PC.  So, for example, if an NPC is secretly a spy for the enemy and the PCs want to persuade him to help them.  I'm not going to let the players convert him with a simple contest.  I'll add difficulty and/or adjust results to reflect his inner conviction.  My players trust me that I don't do this arbitrarily.  

What's good for me is good for the players, though.  I trust my players to do the same.  If a player says that her PC wouldn't do something, I have to abide by that the same way that she trusts me when I say about the NPC.  

An influence roll is advisory but can't overrule the nature of the character.  And final say on the nature of the character is with the person who controls it (i.e. the player if a PC, or the GM if an NPC).

Oh I fully agree with you here too. The skills in question can INFLUENCE characters, but not CONTROL them. If a npc makes a successful intimidate check against a pc, I'll tell the player that their character feels intimidated (although I'll usually try to do that more creatively ), but what they then do with that is up to them. To date I have never had to interject because a player wasn't acting intimidated... heck, these guys eat that kinda rp up.