Quote from: Nexus;906132Sticking with the Duchess example, if she was supposed to be chaste and dedicated to her husband to an extent that it would make seduction attempts almost impossible without some sort of supernatural effect I'd like to have some way to represent that on her sheet.

Simple. Write in the general notes section, "chaste; dedicated to the duke."

Though I usually find that a little too generic for my liking (mechanics are even more generic). I would also want to note under which circumstances she would go against her general nature, or at least note she won't even when common sense suggests she might. For example, "chaste, will not lie with any man who is not her husband; dedicated, will remain faithful to the duke even if he is not faithful in return."

So I suppose if you were really hell-bent on having your character sleep with the duchess, I as GM know (and have it written down) that short of using force or magic, you'd basically have to kill off the duke then later marry her. I know specifically bringing forth evidence of the duke's infidelity won't work, not in matters of getting her into bed, nor in matters of state. I also know that she will not even entertain flirtations if she feels doing so would dishonor the duke.

If I were using the old D&D NPC reaction table, even positive results would be interpreted as something along the lines that she feels that although your character may have his charms, he is basically a fool, or at very best take your words as simple flattery. Either way, as a matter of her own honor, she would be sure to gently inform the character such advances are not welcome. The consequences for negative results, on the other hand, could be pretty severe. So you are still far, far better off having high Charisma if you attempt this. Sometimes a win is just walking away with your head still attached.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;906097I know this reply was not in response to one of my posts, but I can assure you - players who don't budge exist.

I see we have had some similar experiences gaming and we seem to have similar views on the use of social mechanics. I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this topic.

Quote from: Nexus;906132I prefer social mechanics with enough complexity to allow me to represent that facets of the character's personality, belief structure and others factors. Sticking with the Duchess example, if she was supposed to be chaste and dedicated to her husband to an extent that it would make seduction attempts almost impossible without some sort of supernatural effect I'd like to have some way to represent that on her sheet. And if a PC does manage to get around it. I'd give them the result they were aiming for (which could get a a little narrative for some tastes since there maybe some OOC discussion and negotiation involved) but there can be repercussions and side effect (an angry cuckholded Duke, the duchess' as an enemy or smitten follower, etc).

Pendragon did a good job managing things like the Duchess being very chaste (and her becoming more or less so over time) as well as possible fallout like forbidden love, jealousy, vengeance, and hate.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;906097PCs doing things advantageous to themselves and co-operating is hardly dynamic or surprising. It's when they enter into situations where the outcome is either unfavorable, or presents the risk of loss or harm, that many players will balk.

I play extensively with a large group where playing disadvantageously and/or outcomes that lead to loss or harm is the whole point of every RP. And both the group I currently DM for and the one I play 5e with have done the same to one degree or another. Especially the one with Jan and Kefra.

But few players like being totally overridden in certain choices either with mechanics or without if it doesnt feel right or make sense.

Most players will go along with say being hypnotized or mind controlled by a spell, item or power. But some are going to get baulky when you tell them that the harlot just seduced them. Or "Random Harlot seduces you at DC 20. Roll at disadvantage." Wait? What? Sorry. No. Dont think so. Whereas the same harlot RPed as coming up and propositioning the PC might succeed as its the players choice to after interactiong with the NPC.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;906149No, no, impossibru. I'd rather strangle everyone else to death than break a promise.

Have mercy on the poor wife:D!

QuoteJust you wait, uncle. Just you wait.

I am waiting.
Consider me reading it in a deep voice while flexing the left hand in the picture;).

Quote from: AsenRG;906197Consider me reading it in a deep voice while flexing the left hand in the picture;).

Is that one of the Viggo pictures? Because he doesn't really have a deep voice. Though of course you might and still look like him.

Quote from: AsenRG;906197Have mercy on the poor wife:D!

She ain't my wife for no reason, ya know.

QuoteI am waiting.
Consider me reading it in a deep voice while flexing the left hand in the picture;).

I think I know what kind of deep voice you're talking about.

[video=youtube;W7muCRio2nQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7muCRio2nQ[/youtube]

Quote from: Lunamancer;906151These wooden players of which you speak, do they voluntarily participate in dungeon adventures? If so, they clearly ARE willing to face risk of loss and any number of bad things that could happen to their characters. Why? My guess is because they see some purpose to it, and the purpose is appealing. Hearkening back to even your more detailed description of the strumpet situation, I still am not seeing a compelling reason to going off with her. It really doesn't surprise me some players will balk at that.

You have never been hit upon by man or woman whom was attractive when you were inebriated. Ever? Or in the case where you haven't been, you've never witnessed this? In game terms, unless I introduce a buff for sleeping with a warm body, what incentive could I possibly offer to this bog standard fantasy encounter? Do I need to introduce an urges meter that builds, and can be relived?!?

I'm not going to LARP it at the table...

Quote from: Lunamancer;906151Such is the player's prerogative. Minus the malign language, and you're almost describing how an RPG works. I think the more combative and pointless stance is fighting the fact that players are going to do those things they perceive to be most beneficial--fun counting among the possible benefits. Fortunately, you don't need to pick that fight. The very set-up of the RPG also places GMs in a position where they have direct influence over the player's perception of and in the game

I can say, with certainty, at my table being a Mary-Stew/Sue with impossible to decipher emotional reactions, that are inconsistent and often contradictory is not something I permit for long. People learn to make characters that have personalities that not only myself, but the rest of the table can discern and even talk about. It makes role-playing a lot more fun. It makes my job as GM a lot less stressful. You may disagree, that's cool, we don't game together so there's no impact to you nor I. I still think it's useful, however, to present these differences in perspective.

Quote from: Lunamancer;906151On point #4, we agree.

On point #1, I begin by asking myself, is there utility to engaging in emotional situations in real life? Sometimes. Surely there are cases where one's future relationships, along with the benefits they derive from nurturing those relationships, are incumbent on a person's willingness to play a role in emotional situations. On the other hand, there are emotional situations which are poisonous, such as Jerry Springer-like psychodramas. #1 ties back to whether the player sees a benefit and whether there's a compelling purpose.

On point #3, I find that compelling reason to require things be role-played out rather than mechanical--they need the practice.

As for #2, I distinguish between the terms "action" and "reaction" in that actions are chosen and reactions are not. When a billiard ball suddenly starts to move after another ball collides with it, the ball isn't making a choice. It's just a physical reaction. When the doctor whacks your knee with a small rubber mallet causing your leg to extend is an example of a reaction by a human. Actions, however, are chosen freely. If the player doesn't get the purpose of his character behaving a certain way--if I don't understand why my character is going off with the strumpet (not why my character "might" do it, but why my character "is" doing it) using mechanics to force it are going to do more to disengage that player than they will do to engage him.

So for me, point #1 tells me I need to do a better job. #2-4 tells me I want to avoid mechanics that make players decisions for them. As for why I would want social mechanics? It goes back to what I said above, about the game form putting a GM in the position to feed the player's perceptions. Perception checks are already common in RPGs. The ability some characters have to see in darkness means the GM feeds their players perceptions of a dark room differently from someone else's. The use of skills to pick up on or conceal social cues allows a system to differentiate and support characters who are especially adept socially, to give them substantial advantages in influencing others without treading all over any player's free will to choose. Because I want character skill to matter, even when I'm playing with highly skilled players. And I want even unskilled players to have full freedom to choose who their characters are and what their characters do.

Some of your ideas are sound, but where I find they don't work, and why breaking out the dice are useful, is that devoting time to bringing a subpar player up to speed also takes a lot of time away from the rest of the group. In my school years, I rarely cared about this - we would play from noon till midnight, and take time for single encounters. Nowadays, my players have one day a week (sometimes) and 3-4 hours to devote. They don't want to waste time if someone isn't getting the groove. Social mechanics help move along an encounter. Great thing is, I've rarely had to use them of late.

Obviously, wherever my description sucked, or I didn't set up a scenario well, I would look to either concede this OOC and redo it or move on, or improv and both spice and and improve the encounter. It's happened before, it will happen again. That is not what we're talking about. There are players, no common yet not uncommon, who have a false belief that making characters immune to persuasion is completely acceptable. Some will even begin toting out phrases like "consent".

But above this all, there's a big difference to having meaningful social encounters and "gotcha" social traps for the characters. The latter should be avoided for the same reason "gotcha" traps in dungeon style games are to be avoided.

Quote from: Lunamancer;906175Simple. Write in the general notes section, "chaste; dedicated to the duke."

Unless the game system works in such a way that I'd also write: Highly skilled with daggers or Good at Wilderness Survival" as mechanics that interact in a structured way  that's not a mechanical representation just a descriptive note.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;906286Some will even begin toting out phrases like "consent".

I've seen social mechanics for romantic and sexual seduction compared to rape implied or explicitly and even more bizarrely as the same thing against the Player.

Quote from: Nexus;906299I've seen social mechanics for romantic and sexual seduction compared to rape implied or explicitly and even more bizarrely as the same thing against the Player.

There certainly are some weird people in the world.

Quote from: Bren;906205Is that one of the Viggo pictures? Because he doesn't really have a deep voice. Though of course you might and still look like him.

Not much similarities with him, for good or ill, but that's not what JesterRaiin means:).

Quote from: JesterRaiin;906206She ain't my wife for no reason, ya know.

Well, let's hope it's her only sin...

QuoteI think I know what kind of deep voice you're talking about.

[video=youtube;W7muCRio2nQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7muCRio2nQ[/youtube]

You've got it right;).

Quote from: Nexus;906296Unless the game system works in such a way that I'd also write: Highly skilled with daggers or Good at Wilderness Survival" as mechanics that interact in a structured way  that's not a mechanical representation just a descriptive note.

Do I need to remind that there's at least one system where "highly skilled with daggers" is "Melee 3-5", "good at wilderness survival" is "Survival 2", and yet "Chaste" and "Dedicated to her husband" are also system-relevant information:D?

Quote from: Nexus;906299I've seen social mechanics for romantic and sexual seduction compared to rape implied or explicitly and even more bizarrely as the same thing against the Player.

Quote from: Bren;906330There certainly are some weird people in the world.

+1 to that.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;906286You have never been hit upon by man or woman whom was attractive when you were inebriated. Ever? Or in the case where you haven't been, you've never witnessed this? In game terms, unless I introduce a buff for sleeping with a warm body, what incentive could I possibly offer to this bog standard fantasy encounter? Do I need to introduce an urges meter that builds, and can be relived?!?

Why would you? I make sure to track this for all my characters, and to take relevant measures;). Mind you, that's probably not "going to the whorehouse".
More than one romance in games has been initiated when I decided my character is more susceptible to female beauty than normal, though. In some cases, that included climbing guarded towers to be able to deliver a poem:D!

Note to self: next time I play Fate and the beloved isn't in a tower, I should spend a Fate point between scenes to change that fact;).

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;906286You have never been hit upon by man or woman whom was attractive when you were inebriated. Ever?

Actually, I have. In my 20's, I was a musician. Being drunk and around sexually forward women was commonplace. And there was one and only one time I ever ended up going home with a girl who asked me rather than the other way around. And that's because she was out with a friend, I wanted the friend, and they found some other random guy and invited both of us to go home with them under the guise of some late night partying. After playing a few drinking games at their place which led to some girl-on-girl kissing, the one I wanted had to get to bed, it was obvious at this point the other one was the one who wanted me. The other guy, realizing at that point he was a third wheel, went home.

Which illustrates my point. I ended up with her because I had a very specific purpose in mind--to get with the other girl. Things didn't work out that way, but even drink, I operated according to my conscious purpose.

QuoteOr in the case where you haven't been, you've never witnessed this? In game terms, unless I introduce a buff for sleeping with a warm body, what incentive could I possibly offer to this bog standard fantasy encounter? Do I need to introduce an urges meter that builds, and can be relived?!?

No. There just needs to be some purpose. I usually find it better when it's not a mechanical one, not part of the game system, but rather some element specific and important to the PC in question. Most of the times, you probably won't be able to think of one, or at least not a good one. Some of the time, you will. But "some of the time" is plenty to give a taste of a bog standard trope without turning the whole campaign cliche.

In my own "dynastic" campaign, it's pretty common for someone to play the offspring of their original character. And so finding a quality mate is potentially a very important motive PCs have. Obviously a strumpet is anything but that. But that does not preclude a roguish sort of strumpet who passes herself off as being of higher class (using social skills), and I certainly have no problem applying a penalty to the PCs capacity for scrutiny due to inebriation. The benefit of having good social skills here is very apparent, and their application is non-invasive. It just requires the PC have some important purpose to start with.

QuoteI can say, with certainty, at my table being a Mary-Stew/Sue with impossible to decipher emotional reactions, that are inconsistent and often contradictory is not something I permit for long. People learn to make characters that have personalities that not only myself, but the rest of the table can discern and even talk about. It makes role-playing a lot more fun. It makes my job as GM a lot less stressful. You may disagree, that's cool, we don't game together so there's no impact to you nor I. I still think it's useful, however, to present these differences in perspective.

Indeed, to each his own. Here's the thing, though. I have a different understanding of what's going on that leads me to believe, based on the facts you offered up in your scenario, that the PC going off with the strumpet is actually what's potentially inconsistent or contradictory. And it doesn't take some convoluted, indecipherable character concept to explain why.

Suppose you do indeed go out to a bar to observe and collect data on how drunk men behave when a pretty woman comes onto them. And let's say for the sake of argument, 80% of the men end up going home with the woman (I think actual studies have been done suggests it's closer to 50%, but let's just go with the 80% for now). Does this then mean an inebriated man is 80% likely to go off with a strumpet because that's just human nature and that defiance of that strong probability is inconsistent and bad roleplay? No. Not necessarily.

What if 80% of men go out specifically looking for a lay, while 20% are out there for some other reason? And suppose those out for a lay are 100% likely to go home with the woman, because that aligns with their purpose quite well, and those there for some other reason are 0% likely, because the strumpet does not engage their purposes at all. The observable data in this case will just as surely show 80% of men going off with the women.

Or how about a middle way? Suppose you have four character types to this situation. Type A will sleep with the first pretty girl that comes along. Type B wants the best possible lay he can find that day. Type C is there for some reason other than to seek a sex partner, but is not opposed to the idea so long as it doesn't interfere with his primary purpose. Type D is there for some other reason, and going off with a strumpet would be counter to his goals. Type A is 100% likely to be seduced by the strumpet, Type D is 0% likely. Type B is highly likely to be seduced (perhaps represented as a skill check on the part of the strumpet with favorable sit mods for her good looks and the PCs inebriation). There is a moderate probability of seducing Type C (perhaps represented as a skill check without the aforementioned favorable modifiers).

This leaves room (in the case of Types A and D) for total player control if the player feels he has a strong purpose in this situation that makes the choice clear. It also leaves room for players who are open to accepting the fate of the dice that take into account not only the situation, but the character's specific purpose and personality. And if you suppose 60% of men are Type A's, 20% are Type B's, 10% are Type C's, and 10% are Type D's, and the strumpet's adjusted probability of seducing each are 100%, 80%, 40%, and 0% respectively, you arrive right back at the general observation of 80% of men leaving with the girl.

In your strumpet example, it's not entirely clear to me whether the character is Type C or a Type D to the situation. But I am fairly certain it's not a Type A or a Type B thing. However, if you fall back on the general observation probability (80% of men will go off with the strumpet), you're basically applying a Type B mechanic to a situation that isn't Type B. And I think this more or less epitomizes social situations in general. If the PC went in with a purpose that made for a type A or type B situation, the player wouldn't be balking, and so wouldn't trigger your call for social mechanics. It's always going to be a Type C or Type D situation that's going to call for you to apply Type B mechanics. This is something I'd like to avoid for the sake of consistency.

QuoteSome of your ideas are sound, but where I find they don't work, and why breaking out the dice are useful, is that devoting time to bringing a subpar player up to speed also takes a lot of time away from the rest of the group.

For a single subpar player in a group of great players, they learn through acclimating. If I had an entire group of subpar players, then yeah, I guess a little RPG boot camp might be in order, but that's hardly taking away from the rest of the group if they're all in it.

QuoteThere are players, no common yet not uncommon, who have a false belief that making characters immune to persuasion is completely acceptable. Some will even begin toting out phrases like "consent".

Well, consent is a real word. But as long as they're sitting down to your game and don't have a gun to their head, they are consenting even to every character they roll up being struck down by blue bolts from above. So I don't think it's ever kosher to use "consent" in that context; it only creates confusion when "consent" is used legitimately, like to point out the difference between influencing others (in game) by gaining consent versus by imposing force. And so I think it is absolutely shameful that anyone would go there.

But to address the point of immunity, again, no one is completely immune to persuasion. You've noted yourself, when these players see a clear benefit to agreeing to terms of a social situation, they happily do so. Well, that's what real persuasion does. It's not about manipulating people by evoking emotional response, it's about demonstrating a clear benefit. The former is a complete myth, a myth that a lot of people believe to be true and therefore wish to be modeled in an RPG. And if you want to take that tract, then just model it exactly like magic, for the two ideas are equally the stuff of fantasy. I have no absolutely zero problem with magic being used to influence characters. I'd just like to see more genuine options to social influence also included in the game as well.

QuoteBut above this all, there's a big difference to having meaningful social encounters and "gotcha" social traps for the characters. The latter should be avoided for the same reason "gotcha" traps in dungeon style games are to be avoided.

Well, the thing about that is, when gamers look at an RPG system and start pointing out the ways it can be abused, I personally don't find those to be valid concerns. Because I'm not going to play with the sort of GM who's going to play the "gotcha" game. Equally, your concerns about players running around with zero attempt to play their character, then making up convoluted character concepts as they go in order to deny they aren't role-playing at all, are just of no concern to me because I'm not going to play with someone like that.

Now lest you think this is a whole shit ton of people I refuse to play with, I think I should mention that I've run an open-table policy for the past 15 years. Come one, come all, and bring your own characters too if you like. Even in doing such minimal gate-keeping, I just haven't encountered that many of these problem players. I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm saying either they're so put off by my willingness to call them out on having their head up their ass that they stay away from my games for fear of their feelings being hurt or their bubble being burst. Or else maybe I'm able to persuade them to actually pull their heads out of their asses. Whatever the explanation may be, I run an open table, don't get a lot of the problems nerds spend countless hours worrying about on message boards, and I have a lot of fun.

Quote from: Nexus;906296Unless the game system works in such a way that I'd also write: Highly skilled with daggers or Good at Wilderness Survival" as mechanics that interact in a structured way  that's not a mechanical representation just a descriptive note.

Sure. Some RPGs do that.

Not my thing. Like I said, I find "chaste" too generic. I want more specifics, as I posted in the expanded version. With that in mind, something like "highly skilled with daggers" fails the specific standard. What in blue blazes does "highly skilled" mean? What can you accomplish with daggers? And under what circumstances will your skill with the daggers fail you? Aren't those the exact same sorts of questions I cited in my post when explaining the level of detail I like to see in social traits? And yet we have combat mechanics which do answer those questions in highly quantitative ways.

A legitimate response might be, "Well, what about social mechanics that answer those questions in highly quantitative ways?" And I suppose if that's what you want, knock yourself out. There's a specific reason it doesn't strike my fancy. Look, if I have a block of ice at 0 degrees F and I leave it in a room of a particular temperature, atmospheric pressure, humidity, etc, and I measure how long it takes the ice to fully melt, if I repeat the experiment, the answer is going to be the same (within a fairly small margin of error) each and every time. If I stick a person in that same room and start telling jokes until I get him to laugh and measure how long that takes, if I repeat the experiment, it may take him a lot longer to laugh the next time because he's already heard half my jokes. Or he might begin laughing immediately because in his mind he's already conditioned to believe I'm a funny guy. It's a lot more subjective, so quantitative mechanics are just kind of meh.

I mean, hey, we can create quantitative mechanics. We can create qualitative mechanics. Where is it etched in stone that we must choose one and only one type for the entirely of the RPG? Or else we're somehow not taking some aspect of play seriously?

Quote from: Nexus;906299I've seen social mechanics for romantic and sexual seduction compared to rape implied or explicitly and even more bizarrely as the same thing against the Player.

I've seen this before too. I've also seen seduction rules used as a creep form of "time to rape your PC", which was not awesome. I've also seen the previous (and very witty turn of phrase) PCs behaving like social werewolves and refusing to admit there are silver tongues in the world.

They must really blow a gasket at the thought of 5e Warlocks out there... somewhere...