Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;869318Is the "hard close" what is sometimes called "hard sell'?  Because that is the instant at which I leave/hang up.  And yes, I have.  Somebody starts to pressure me, it's over.

Yes, exactly. That's why it doesn't really work. A small number of people do cave to it, but if you try to hard sell everyone, you'll lose more people than you gain. Used as a last resort, yes, it can give you a small boost.

But I think if you look at the really successful career salesmen, they build a client list that they can tap into for future sales. Since there is already trust, those are always easy and lucrative sales. You can't build a client list like that if you go around hard selling everyone.

That's an example of how having a longer term context of social relationships than just a one-time random meeting adds to the game. You can get to know characters, and use real strategies for influencing them according to their personalities and interests.

The more things change...

Quote from: Lunamancer;868850I think I first made that argument 20 years ago, almost to the day, on usenet. This led to my introduction of gamers circular logic.

I'm not having fun when I'm playing D&D.
You can't tell me I'm playing wrong.
The only wrong way to play is not having fun.
So we house-ruled it to make it better.
But I'm not having fun playing D&D.

If you watch very closely, you'll still see it today. People invoke subjectivity as a defense against being told they're playing wrong while clearly expressing dissatisfaction with their gaming experience.

But fun is nothing but subjective. You can convince people that painting picket fences is fun. People can convince themselves that D&D, no matter how it's run, is unfun, just because it's D&D.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;869008MY comment was that if you went back and tried to use the Morale System, it MAY not actually improve on the lack of fun.

It might, but assuming it will is a fallacy.

Quote from: Lunamancer;869054Good thing I didn't assume that. Shitty thing that you did assume that I assumed it.

He said assuming it will is a fallacy, not that you made that assumption.

Subtle difference.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;869008And the game being all combat is the GM's fault for not reading his friends as to what they want.  This is why you TALK it out first.

Quote from: Lunamancer;869054No. That would be the players fault for attacking everything.

I've been in games where the only effective course of action was combat, and any attempts at persuasion were ignored if not outright condemned for wasting everybody's time. Where what the NPCs thought and did had been decided by the GM ahead of time and nothing the PCs said during the game would change that. There's a reason Charisma is notorious for being a dump stat.

If the PCs attack everything, then everything will revolve around combat. But if the GM only provides opportunities for combat, then everything will also revolve around combat.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;869008This is why you TALK it out first.

Quote from: Lunamancer;869054No. You talk it out.

I only have a little bit of free time to dedicate to gaming once a week. I don't want to spend it talking about playing. Talk is cheap. I want to play. Or is that bad wrong fun?

...

So much for the 'discovery' phase.

Quote from: Lunamancer;869088The key to effective communication is listening. You don't seem to be very good at it. Maybe that's why YOU need a talk session before you game.

Many of us don't.

Actually, the key to effective communication is motivating others to want to communicate openly, authentically and safely, which you don't seem to be very good at. Then again, perhaps communication is too complex to have something as simple as a single key.

Anyway, going straight into a game without establishing expectations is a recipe for disaster, and if you can avoid that without any discussion, more power to you. I've found that most long running tabletop groups actually consist of members who shared the same set of cultural values and expectations before engaging play, so explicitly establishing them beforehand was less necessary. Yet even in groups like that I still find expectation clash to be the #1 cause of player conflict.

I highly suspect you've had many such clashes, and that the reason you can avoid discussion before play is not because of your listening skills, but because your group shares enough of the same cultural values and expectations already. I could of course be wrong, so I'm honestly curious as to what your current and previous players might have to say on the matter.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;869160I chat with my players and hear their complaints and try to change my game for the better by explaining and compromising my 'vision' (which is never set in stone anyway) and you're accusing me of not listening?

Quote from: Lunamancer;869204:teehee: You did it again. I didn't accuse you of not listening. I was saying you're bad at listening. :teehee:

*snerk* You think there's a difference in this context.

Quote from: Lunamancer;869317You don't need to establish some general fact of history to use it as an example.

Well, certainly not on the internet at least.

Quote from: Lunamancer;869317The thing is, once you go for a hard close, it can be hard to keep a good working relationship.

That depends. Even after a hard close, if someone spends enough money on an ongoing contract, they'll often convince themselves that it's delivering value even when it's not. In fact, not delivering value can actually make it more likely for someone to convince themselves otherwise, to the point that they may even spend more money in the process.

Quote from: Lunamancer;869317When we spent 2 hours talking about what our characters were having for breakfast, I thought it was time to shut down the free form experiment.

Why? Weren't the players having fun?

Quote from: Lunamancer;869317Yeah, asking the right questions is really key. Because even when players are talking, they still suck at telling you what they want (like that guy who came up to me and said he wants to invest in something high risk).

So you do realize there's a difference between what people say, and what they mean.

Good to know. Shame it's not being effectively applied here.

Quote from: Lunamancer;869317"Just talk it out, man" is a weird kind of advice. It doesn't really give you any hint as to how to accomplish the goals but at the same time sounds so reasonable, who could argue with it. That's why people who are clueless love invoking it. It keeps you from having to actually say anything while putting you in a critique-free zone.

Sorta like "The key to communication is listening"

Quote from: Lunamancer;869317I don't care how much they bitch. If they show up every week, they're having fun. For some people, bitching IS fun.

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly why people stay in actively destructive relationships, and why their complaints should be ignored because they obviously don't know what they're talking about.

Quote from: Lunamancer;869317First, don't under-estimate the CBrady. I think one great way of being a really successful forum bully is to take the weak/pathetic stance. It makes it easier to make everyone else out to be the asshole that way.

Not only did you misuse the term 'bully', but you did so in the process of being a bully. Seriously, the weak are bullies because they make you look like an asshole? Are you fucking kidding me? That's not even SJW level bullshit.

Honestly though this whole thread makes you sound like a narcissistic sociopath. From the analysis of human interaction, to how you speak about your players and customers, which makes me reeealy curious to hear from them now.

Quote from: Lunamancer;869317Aaaaand you can see how well the verbal jujitsu approach to persuasion works.

Well, he did persuade you into acting like a 12 year old (with apologies to actual 12 year olds) :rotfl:

Quote from: AsenRG;869275Just add CBrady to your IL and move on. The thread is interesting even without popcorn-munching, and it's not a fun show due to skill mismatch.

What I particularly like about this statement is that it leaves some ambiguity with regards to who is being outmatched. Chapeau!  

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;876225But fun is nothing but subjective.

That's not a "but." That's exactly what I was saying.

QuoteYou can convince people that painting picket fences is fun.

No. Not really. You either find it fun or you don't. If you can get children to make a game of painting the fence so they have more fun while doing it, it's still not painting the fence that's fun. It's the game they're playing that's fun.

QuotePeople can convince themselves that D&D, no matter how it's run, is unfun, just because it's D&D.

And just like it's not the painting of the fence that's fun, it's not D&D that some people find unfun. It's some people's experience of playing it that was unfun. Being an effective communicator means understanding and unraveling the difference.

Apply it to the fact pattern that the exchange of posts was referring to. If someone claims D&D is unfun, I ask why. If the answer is, "Because it's all combat," I ask, "Well what about the NPC reactions table? What about morale?"

If the answer is, "Well, we don't use those," I can safely say, "Sounds like you're playing wrong." I have two measures to back this up. First, you're not having fun. Second, you're not playing D&D. You're playing D&D minus a couple of rules you decided to skip.

What measures does the guy puking up the term "bad wrong fun" have to point to? Presumably that he's playing the way he likes. And yet he's also claiming he doesn't like it. That's a contradiction no matter how you wish to spin it.

QuoteI've been in games where the only effective course of action was combat,

Effective? Effective how? Effective at what? Towards what end? With what goal in mind? See, your goal is always yours. Never the GMs.

QuoteSo much for the 'discovery' phase.

How do you figure?

QuoteActually, the key to effective communication is motivating others to want to communicate openly, authentically and safely,

The secret to motivation is that it's impossible to motivate anyone. A line that claims the key to anything is motivating others is guaranteed to not be reaching the heart of the issue. In any case, I agree being someone reasonable people want to communicate openly and honestly with is extremely helpful. I do this on a daily basis and am extremely good at it. I owe it in large part to the fact that I'm not deluding myself into thinking I'm motivating people. One of the fastest ways to shut down open, honest communication for a large number of people is by trying to motivate them.

QuoteAnyway, going straight into a game without establishing expectations is a recipe for disaster,

When I follow a recipe for pancakes, I always get pancakes. If it's a recipe for disaster, then going straight into a game without establishing expectations should always produce disaster. That's what the word recipe means. In my experience, it never once has.

You do seem a little shy about stepping up and saying it produces disaster in your game. Is that because it doesn't and your so-called recipe doesn't even yield what you claim it does in your own experience? Or is it because you run train-wrecks and yet presume to tell others how they ought to run their game.

QuoteYet even in groups like that I still find expectation clash to be the #1 cause of player conflict.

The phrase "player conflict" is telling. Yes, every player may want something different. And everyone is free to go off and play solo the rest of their lives that way they can have everything exactly the way they want it. But most people see clear, without having to be told, that it's more fun to have others to game with. Even if that means you stifle some of the things you enjoy. It's a trade-off, and you're trading up. And the benefit is mutual among the players in the group. That is not player conflict. That's the exact opposite. It is player cooperation. Now if you insist on viewing it as conflict, I can see why that might cause problems in some instances. Sure.

QuoteI highly suspect you've had many such clashes, and that the reason you can avoid discussion before play is not because of your listening skills, but because your group shares enough of the same cultural values and expectations already.

No clashes. Lots of diversity. I'm grateful for the fact that everyone at the table wants something a little different and so brings something a little different to the table.

This is another bizarre idea. If anything, people wanting something different has the potential for less clashing. If everyone wants to play the hero who slays the dragon, and only one person can get in that killing blow, then I guess that's a sort of clash. But if one person wants to slay the dragon, another wants to rescue the princess, another just wants it to be a really dramatic struggle, and still another just wants to take its stuff, there's more than enough room for everyone to get exactly what they want.

QuoteWell, certainly not on the internet at least.

Not anywhere. Not even in hard science. You are at all times allowed to make arbitrary, even untrue assumptions if you are looking to prove something conditionally (that is, on condition that the assumption holds, all the rest follows) or if you are searching for a contradiction to establish the assumed premise as demonstrably false.  Furthermore, if you want to avoid selection bias, in some instances you have to consider not only what did happen but also what could have happened.

In any case, you are certainly allowed to suppose a fictional duke you made up for an example can have whatever motives or other characteristics you choose to ascribe.

QuoteThat depends. Even after a hard close, if someone spends enough money on an ongoing contract, they'll often convince themselves that it's delivering value even when it's not. In fact, not delivering value can actually make it more likely for someone to convince themselves otherwise, to the point that they may even spend more money in the process.

This is a fallacy. The Harvard Business review recently put out an article outlining 8 types of salespeople. The "closer" type, surprise surprise, does close at a slightly higher percentage than the "expert" type when given the opportunity to close. However, the expert is far more likely to get into a position to close in the first place. And the closer type has far worse retention and is thus not very effective when it comes to selling services.

Now I'm not even necessarily citing the Harvard Business Review as the end-all-be-all authority on this. But I do trust their data. If you play the expert but at the very end switch tactics to the closer, you are going to get a slight bump in your closing percentage. And it is slight. And it does hurt future customer relations.

The real edge the expert enjoys is the long-term repeat customers and referrals. Only 9% of all salesmen fit the "expert" type. Yes. A full 91% of the information, training material, "science" and ideas about the sales industry are complete bunk. And 63% is downright counter-productive. Including crazy fallacies about creating value by destroying value.

QuoteSo you do realize there's a difference between what people say, and what they mean.

And this is a surprise to you?

QuoteGood to know. Shame it's not being effectively applied here.

Where?

QuoteSorta like "The key to communication is listening"

No. Not sorta like that at all. Communication is a two-way street. Effective persuaders do more listening than talking. That's a non-trivial statement that you can put into practice immediately and goes against the common image of the smooth-talker.

QuoteYeah, I'm sure that's exactly why people stay in actively destructive relationships,

Destructive according to whom? A lot of us would agree that drug abuse is destructive. But it seems that the short-term high is more significant from the junkie's point of view than is the long-term damage. For all your preaching on the subjectivity of things, you seem to slip in the assumption of an objective view of "destructive", and earlier on up the post, "effective" as well.

Your so-called "recipe for disaster" might include a few ingredients that you neglected to list. Such as a belief that players are engaged in conflict rather than cooperation, and that players who enjoy complaining is somehow like being in a destructive relationship. Not to mention the heaping portion of negativity that you seem to be spewing here.

QuoteHonestly though this whole thread makes you sound like a narcissistic sociopath.

I'm pretty sure that's just something people with an inferiority complex accuse others of to make themselves feel better.

QuoteFrom the analysis of human interaction,

Such as?

Quoteto how you speak about your players

Such as?

Quoteand customers,

Such as?

For someone who spends a lot of time linking completely irrelevant internet sources, I would think relevant citations from this very thread would be easy.

QuoteWell, he did persuade you into acting like a 12 year old (with apologies to actual 12 year olds) :rotfl:

He did not. And I thought I had made this clear, but I'll say it again just in case. Part of the job of a skilled persuader is to recognize when someone is being unreasonable. He failed to persuade me that he had anything of value to add or that anything he said it worth taking seriously. And now you have, too. All I see is negativity.

Quote from: Lunamancer;876382Apply it to the fact pattern that the exchange of posts was referring to. If someone claims D&D is unfun, I ask why. If the answer is, "Because it's all combat," I ask, "Well what about the NPC reactions table? What about morale?"

If the answer is, "Well, we don't use those," I can safely say, "Sounds like you're playing wrong." I have two measures to back this up. First, you're not having fun. Second, you're not playing D&D. You're playing D&D minus a couple of rules you decided to skip.

And if the answer is "I don't like the artificial restrictions of class and level, plus the absurd increase in power between starting and highly-experienced characters destroys any sense of connection I may feel to the game world"?  Those are things which actually are a part of the D&D rules, not a result of ignoring those rules and, for some of us, they are unfun (i.e., when those elements are present, they directly reduce the level of fun).

I'll certainly agree that this is subjective and that those factors are benign for some people and that they directly increase the level of fun for still others.  But not everyone who says "D&D is unfun" is actually talking about a broken D&D-like game that they call "D&D".

Quote from: Lunamancer;876382The phrase "player conflict" is telling. Yes, every player may want something different. And everyone is free to go off and play solo the rest of their lives that way they can have everything exactly the way they want it. But most people see clear, without having to be told, that it's more fun to have others to game with. Even if that means you stifle some of the things you enjoy. It's a trade-off, and you're trading up. And the benefit is mutual among the players in the group. That is not player conflict. That's the exact opposite. It is player cooperation. Now if you insist on viewing it as conflict, I can see why that might cause problems in some instances. Sure.

I have no idea what you intend to be replying to here, but it's not anything that I saw in Anon Adderlan's post.  He did not say that player conflict is desirable, nor that it is inevitable.  But it does happen.  Even if you have never seen it in your games, all you have to do is follow any random gaming forum for a while and you're going to see someone asking for help with resolving a player conflict in their game.  Based on reading several such discussions (and, yes, some personal experience as well), when player conflicts arise, the #1 cause tends to be mismatched expectations, which is what Anon Adderlan actually said.

Social intrigue mechanics came up often during the development of ZWEIHÄNDER Grim & Perilous RPG. We've used several different models, but eventually settled on this:

QuoteUniversally, players and Gamemasters alike tend to take umbrage at systems which focus solely on "skill rolls" over role-playing to determine success. A few even employ social combat, albeit intensely mechanical in nature (Honor and Intrigue, Song of Ice and Fire). Many tabletop role-playing games don't have social skills (early editions of D&D), instead leaning on player's ability to influence non-player Characters through role-play. Some games, like Pathfinder, distill social interaction down to a handful of dice rolls without giving players agency or allowing role-playing to augment their chance for success. Heck – some systems actively discourage third person role-playing all together!

While we certainly see a place for these approaches, here at ZWEIHÄNDER Grim & Perilous RPG, we think we found a great middle ground. Role-playing determines success or failure, while Skills augment the conversation. Both first and third person role-playing is supported, and rewarded. In our optional Social Intrigue system, there are two approaches a Gamemaster can take:

SIMPLE EXCHANGE
This is whenever Social Intrigue warrants an expedient answer through use of a Skill. For example, either the player gets the lowest price possible for a piece of equipment using Bargain, manage to Charm a doorman to let them into an exclusive tavern or even Intimidate to scare off onlookers standing around a scene of a crime. These sort of Skill Tests are very easy for the Gamemaster to rule on, distilling everything down into a single, binary result. While role-playing is still considered to be a factor, Social Class and a Character's Order & Chaos Ranks influence the Difficulty Rating while the result of the Skill Test determines the outcome.

COMPLEX EXCHANGE
Complex exchanges are reserved for specific interactions, ones which require delicate wording, subtle threats and honeyed words to persuade others to consider and approve of something they'd normally not agree to do. Before complex exchanges occur, all participants discuss above board their objectives and what may be at risk. Once determined, each player selects a Skill to use – otherwise known as a Social Tactic – which will influence both the role-play and how it influences the emotions of the non-player Character they interact with. In this system, they make Social Tactics check before in depth role-playing begins. As before, Social Class, along with Order & Chaos Ranks, determine the Difficulty Rating. The results of these rolls determine emotions, otherwise called Temperaments, that the Gamemaster writes down to help guide them on how to role-play the non-player Character the players are interacting with. Success and failure matter; one can generate favorable Temperaments, whereas the other can generate unfavorable ones. After these Temperaments are generated, the Gamemaster references them throughout the interaction to determine how the non-player Characters interact with the players in return.

In the end, Skill Tests determined the general mood of the person the party interacted with, but the result of a complex exchange is resolved solely by role-playing.

http://grimandperilous.com/?p=817

As far as I am concerned, no mechanics can simulate human interaction. Even today with thousands of hours and millions of dollars the best that science been able to produce are a few clever simulations of human interact that work very well for specific circumstances. For example Siri on Apple iOS devices.

One of the strengths of tabletop RPGs is the having the human referee to handle this.

However you have to have some type of mechanics because we have players playing characters with skills and attributes better than their own personal skills.  In my experience it is easier to come up with mechanics to deal with attribute that deal with physical interactions like strength, dexterity, and constitution. And it is harder to deal with the mental/social ones like intelligence, wisdom, and charisma.

My techniques are based around the concept of while the player may not be as mentally/social adept as his character, I as the human referee have complete control over how the setting/NPCs respond to him. So in the absence of a compelling reason, I will act as if he was the smartest or most socially adept person in the room if his attribute/skill warrants it.

A compelling reason for me means that the players has totally misread the situation to be the point that is he not just way out in left field but not in the ballpark.

What I use to decide how my roleplaying playing out are the circumstances of the encounter, the result of a skill/attribute check, and my notes on the NPCs involved.

The downside of course these are all highly subjective criteria that benefit enormously from experience both from life and time spent refereeing campaigns.  Which can make it daunting for a young referee just starting out in tabletop.

In which case, I would tell the young or new referee is to rely heavily on the stereotypes you know already. Eventually as you grow older and gain more experience, you will develop a greater range in how your NPCs act.

I think most RPGs, even detailed ones like GURPS would benefit from more advice and less rules when it comes to social interactions.

On the flip side, when I hear that D&D is lacking in social mechanics I view it as bullshit. Because the one rule that ALL RPGs share is the fact that the game has human referees adjudicating the actions of the character as they interact with the setting.  Because all social mechanics are inadequate to simulating human behavior, the need for a human referee handle social interactions for D&D is no different than any other RPG.

Quote from: nDervish;876413And if the answer is "I don't like the artificial restrictions of class and level, plus the absurd increase in power between starting and highly-experienced characters destroys any sense of connection I may feel to the game world"?  Those are things which actually are a part of the D&D rules, not a result of ignoring those rules and, for some of us, they are unfun (i.e., when those elements are present, they directly reduce the level of fun).

Then you're speaking in irrelevancies here. This thread is not about whether or not you like D&D. It's about social encounters in RPGs. The comment I was initially responding to was Philip's where I chimed in to agree when he said this, where his use of "it" refers to use of social encounters in RPGs:

QuoteI think the point is that they knew full well that it was there, and decided not to use it. Tactical-wargame experience or not seems to me little to the point, as this looks like people picking up Monopoly and immediately changing things.

If they then complain that the game design is unbalanced or whatever, the complaint is illegitimate because they are not actually playing the game design in the first place!

QuoteI'll certainly agree that this is subjective and that those factors are benign for some people and that they directly increase the level of fun for still others.  But not everyone who says "D&D is unfun" is actually talking about a broken D&D-like game that they call "D&D".

And nobody EVER made that claim. Again. This thread is about social encounters in RPGs. You want to talk about the pros and cons of D&D? Start a new thread.

QuoteI have no idea what you intend to be replying to here, but it's not anything that I saw in Anon Adderlan's post.  He did not say that player conflict is desirable, nor that it is inevitable.

And I didn't say he said either of those things and there is nothing in my response that implies such. I understood perfectly what he said.

QuoteBut it does happen. Even if you have never seen it in your games, all you have to do is follow any random gaming forum for a while and you're going to see someone asking for help with resolving a player conflict in their game.

Just because people call it player conflict doesn't mean that it is player conflict. This is what my response addressed. If in your subjective opinion as evidenced by your choice, the benefit of playing in a group outweighs the cost of not getting exactly your way, then you're trading up. And if it doesn't, don't join. There's no conflict.

If you insist on seeing it as conflict, you're going to come up with some false diagnosis. And I guess you folks decided on "mismatched expectations."

Strangely, this is actually on-topic in a way. Persuasion only works because the perceived benefit of the proposition outweighs any cost incurred by going along with it. If you choose to view things as conflict that are really not, you're not going to understand the basis for effective persuasion.

Quote from: estar;876429As far as I am concerned, no mechanics can simulate human interaction. Even today with thousands of hours and millions of dollars the best that science been able to produce are a few clever simulations of human interact that work very well for specific circumstances. For example Siri on Apple iOS devices.

I'm not disagreeing with your general point. I definitely agree there is something special about human interaction. However, I would suggest that if it costs thousands of hours and millions of dollars, it is in fact not the best science for studying human behavior.

To use a classic example, imagine you're standing in grand central station during rush hour. If you merely track the observable, physical movements of people, you will see nothing but complete chaos. But the moment you take into account the insight that humans have goals, the chaos suddenly fades and it all makes perfect sense. People are just trying to get home.

No amount of hours or dollars of research will make sense of it. The insight that will make sense of it can be arrived at free of charge and instantaneously for some people.

Quote from: Lunamancer;876440However, I would suggest that if it costs thousands of hours and millions of dollars, it is in fact not the best science for studying human behavior.

The payoff is substantial which why people continued to investigate and try to make something of it. And there have been advances just not quite in the areas people were expecting.

Quote from: Lunamancer;876440To use a classic example, imagine you're standing in grand central station during rush hour. If you merely track the observable, physical movements of people, you will see nothing but complete chaos. But the moment you take into account the insight that humans have goals, the chaos suddenly fades and it all makes perfect sense. People are just trying to get home.

No amount of hours or dollars of research will make sense of it. The insight that will make sense of it can be arrived at free of charge and instantaneously for some people.

Actually that not true, there quite a bit of research into how how traffic flows pedestrian, vehicle, etc and a lot of practical techniques that come out of it.  But you are right in the sense that it is useless in picking out the motivation of any specific individual.

As far as it relates to RPGs, understanding the patterns of traffic for pedestrian at various level of technology can be useful to distill a few useful rules in describing the life of a place to the players. It all grist for the mill.

However when it to randomly selecting a person out of the crowd I would recommend a good random table. With multiple points of entry to allow for a random roll to answer something like "I look for somebody who is well dressed". Because for all intents and purpose it is random who is there at a given moment absence additional information.

One key element to roleplaying NPCs, is for their reactions to be plausible given the circumstances. And their reactions need to be random from the point of view of the players. Basically variation within a range. A good random table will help you from falling into a rut when it comes to roleplaying NPCs. It doesn't have to be elaborate to be useful.

Of course if you have prepared notes then there is need for a random table. Although I will say random tables are useful in coming up with various details. I general I find that when I prepare something that has a large list of details (like a village or city) I have about a two dozen or so specific ideas. I use random tables for the rest. I don't blindly use the results. It serves as an idea generator for the stuff I haven't thought of yet.

The same with roleplaying social interactions, in absence of notes, I will use a table to get some ideas. I will keep some and reject others and then wing it from there.

I use is a program from nBos call inspiration pad pro. I coded up a table that combined the NPC personality traits from the AD&D 1st edition DMG guide and from Paizo's Pathfinder Gamemastery Guide. The result is short stat block with enough traits that I always find one or two that allows me to come up with something interested to use as the basis for roleplaying an NPCs.

I combine that with the player is trying to do with his roleplaying. Using any rolls he makes as a guideline as to how his character presenting himself.  Sometimes making a NPC roll if it is situation involving a contest of wills or skills. The result is how the social encounter plays out.

Quote from: estar;876445The payoff is substantial which why people continued to investigate and try to make something of it. And there have been advances just not quite in the areas people were expecting.

There is no question that in some instances, data-driven studies have been profitable. For some types of problems, that is an effective way of looking at them. For others, however, I have two important questions.

1. How many of these studies eschew human motivations entirely?
2. And of those, how many are time-tested?

You have to be careful with large data sets. The number of spurious correlations grows exponentially the more variables you track. They do eventually deteriorate in the long run with time. But the technology to make economically viable some of the larger data sets doesn't go back far enough to allow this corrective effect to take place.

QuoteI use is a program from nBos call inspiration pad pro. I coded up a table that combined the NPC personality traits from the AD&D 1st edition DMG guide and from Paizo's Pathfinder Gamemastery Guide. The result is short stat block with enough traits that I always find one or two that allows me to come up with something interested to use as the basis for roleplaying an NPCs.

I do like the inspiration pad. What you've done was actually on my to-do list. I may have actually alluded to similar things in this thread, can't remember.

I once attended a workshop given by Gary Gygax where during the Q&A someone asked him why he included so many pole arms in AD&D. His answer always stuck with me. He had this vision of an orc army, each with a different type of ole arm.

I thought it was a powerful visual. And it inspired me to get away from the whole thing where, say, a gang of bandits all have the same weapons and armor, except perhaps distinguishing a leader. Instead, I want each member of even a large gang to be unique. Software like the inspiration pad really goes a long way in helping me generate 40 different gang members rather than a leader and 39 clones.

Social encounters can sometimes be resolved simply through talking and roleplaying.

When conflict occurs, Savage Worlds is quite robust. Its charisma system applies to Persuasion tests which can change an NPC's attitude. In combination with solid roleplaying this can get an NPC to do what you want them to do. With the right edges. charisma either positive or negative can be applied to Intimidation rolls which can also serve the same effect by getting an NPC to not do something like raise an alarm.

The social conflict rules are even more robust for a large debate or other social contest of wills. In 50 Fathoms, they came up when Kirk tried to depose Captain Kirel and later Captain Tellah and attempted to incite a mutiny among the pirate crew.

One of the reasons I like Savage Worlds is that these social skills follow the same rules as combat. They also have a clause which prevents them from being used against PCs leaving that strictly to roleplaying whereas social conflicts are NPC vs. PC.

Another great system was Earthdawn which had a large variety of social skills that all applied against a character's Social Defense (the higher the Charisma, the higher the Social Defense and the better they were at social skills from Etiquette to Seduction).

D&D doesn't handle this particularly well in the editions I played and even 3.x was limited to diplomacy/bluff checks in social situations.

Quote from: slayride35;876466Social encounters can sometimes be resolved simply through talking and roleplaying.

That's how I handle *all* social encounters, so as a consequence Explore doesn't have any social skills or attributes. If NPC reaction is ever in doubt I might resort to a roll, mostly that's restricted to checks such as "their leader is dead, do they flee". I've no rules for this, same as there's no rules for the "is there a gun behind the bar" situation, where I might reply "probably – there is unless I roll a 1".

Savage Worlds also has rules for initial NPC reaction, a roll of 2d6 determines the initial starting attitude of an NPC if the GM hasn't selected one already.

I generally handle morale checks in Savage Worlds with a spirit check. If a leaderless enemy fails the TN 4 check, they run away. Of course that harkens back to my days of D&D 1e Red Box and AD&D 2e with Morale checks.

I usually determine random scene items if asked by rolling a d6 die with + and - on its sides (3 + and 3 -, so its 50/50). Spending a Bennie after the roll adds it to the scene automatically if the roll indicated it was not present (and I have done that for GM characters too).