TheRPGSite

In the  Exalted rpg NPCs (gm controlled characters) can use the social interaction rules to add  or remove "Intimacies" to a PC without the players consent. Its more or less like adding Psychological Limitation in Hero System, altering the PCs personality to some extent. For example, a temptress might give a PC feeling of lust or desire towards her or a warlord invoke loyalty or zeal for their cause or erode feelings and beliefs like the PC's love for their spouse or devotion to defending their small village from the warlords invading army. They can be removed (there's a system for it) but they can be long term and removing them has to be somewhat justified by role playing. Other newer systems have similar social mechanics.

Would you be willing to play under a system like that and what are your general feeling about it?

D20m Gamma World by White Wolf had a system there too for modifying personality. PCs and NPCs might have access to it. That could be as simple as shifting emotion, ideology or allegiance. Or as devastating as total personality overwrites.

It depends on the setting and players really. Some love stuff like that. Helms of Alignment Change and cursed weapons that shifted alignment or personality were some early examples in D&D. Others despise having their characters personality or aspects superseded like that. And others are ok with it as long as it was their own actions that brought it about. And so on.

Personally I am neutral on it. As long as theres some way of combating personality shifting or resisting. Then sure. There were ample methods to resist or counterattack tricks like that in d20mGW for example. Though Id oft rather RP such things and decide for myself if the character was swayed. Rather than having it turn into roll-playing as it were.

Not remotely.  Hell, as a GM, I only very rarely have NPCs using mind control magics on PCs.

A bit on the side here and there is fine, especially if it is something like a Helmet of Opposite Alignment.  And for a horror game like Call of Cthulu it is fine for sanity, madness, or whatever to be a big part of the game.

But in general, I game for action-adventure, not for psychological drama.

I don't have any principled objection to the idea per se. Omega cites some examples in D&D where such things happen as a consequence of magic. As far as I'm concerned, all magical alterations to a player character are perfectly kosher. And I can think of plenty of other examples when such a thing is appropriate. Where I draw the line where this sort of thing would become off-putting is if it's just a form of "social mechanics" that ape the mechanics of combat or magic. It's just not going to scratch the "social interaction" itch for me. If you ape combat, I see "social mechanics" as just more combat with different flavor text. Same thing if you ape magic. If you're going to do social, then do social. I clicked into this thread thinking it was going to be stories of when through role-play and unfolding story NPCs had a big impact on PCs that the PCs personality changed. There is no substitute for the organic approach.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905330 There is no substitute for the organic approach.

Absolutely!

I am not really taken with social mechanics - I think social interaction is best roleplayed. I'm never quite sure what social mechanics are there for. Usually someone will say that it levels the playing field for players who are not socially confident, but learning to roleplay social interactions often helps those players who are shy and tongue-tied to come out of their shell and become more confident in social situations in real life. Not the rpgs should be used for therapy, but it can be a happy side effect of playing.

At the table I've never seen a social conflict/exchange handled better by social mechanics than by simply roleplaying the scene.

I've seen many PCs, including my own, changed by NPC actions and PC/NPC relationships, and this all seemed totally natural in the game. Just chucking a few dice around and then being told that your PC now responds favourably to an NPC, or is swayed by an argument opposite to the strongly held view of the PC, just seems lame and unconvincing to me. It takes me out of the game.

And magical mind control used against PCs should be used rarely and be of brief duration - otherwise players get very pissed off in my experience.

I am fine with it, if used sparingly.

Mind control is fine as it is temporary and normally means the controlled PC ends up hating the controller.

Changing personality by adding or removing personality traits removes some player agency but can be fine. CoC has various insanities that are gained by PCs and everyone is fine with that, even though it changes the PC's personality. However, I think it should be done as part of a major event, not just a side-effect of something minor.

I have a general disdain for systems that take player choice out of the equation, even very popular takes on this like Pendragon. But I think there are some reasonable ways to approach it.

In generic D&D style games with skill systems, I sell these sorts of things as perceptions on the character's part, and leave the final choice up to the player. e.g., "you find his argument enticing", "your experience with torture leaves you uneasy around dwarves", etc.

I also like the Fate approach where some condition may affect your mentality, but the player has the option to spend a Fate point to power through it (I had something very similar to this with my determination system in an old homebrew/house rules before Fate was ever a thing.)

If it is a magical effect I have no issue with it. But if it is a mundane social skill, I wouldn't really go for it.

I am playing under a system like that.

I prefer games that led me suit things like these to the situation rather than having a distinct system for it. In a recent Dungeon World game I let the cleric doubt his faith and be influenced by a (evil) religious fanatic after his divine spells failed - I did this to play on the character's doubts. If the system urged me to record points that determined player actions I would have to look up how many points, failed rolls or whatever that same effect needed to happen, and that's, in my eyes, a constrain on the free-form aspect of roleplaying. Being able to determine these sorts of things organically, as some have put it, makes a tabletop RPG stand out from the rigidity of for example computer RPGs where rigid rules determine every outcome.

Of course I'm coming from a rules-light approach. I feel that a system for every eventuality will oftentimes constrain my options, as player and GM, rather than broaden them.

I'm torn about it. I can see it leading to some interesting situations and rp but I can see the downsides like players feeling like their characters are being rewritten for them or controlled. With the right group I can see it working well but some others not at all. It would take a good group with an amount of trust between the players. I think, if I were to use such a system, I'd allow some degree of PC autonomy from the full rules like the ability to cordon off certain aspects of the character's personality and beliefs OOC somewhat like the Red Rule but more broadly applicable. There'd have to be a high degree of trust and some understanding that just because you can do something that doesn't mean you should, IMO. But with the right group it could work. Odd it might seem I'm not opposed to my PCs being convinced, persuaded, etc, about things even things that aren't in their best interest via mechanics. People get talked into some foolish things all the time but I find I'm more reluctant about long term changes occurring that way.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905330There is no substitute for the organic approach.

Sometimes though something really can re-write the characters outlook. Like the aforementioned helm or developing some mental quirk. Hell, even chargen can have things that can totally re-write a PCs personality.

Trick is these things tend to be something the player themselves got the character into or knew was out there. You put on the helm, you poked into things man-was-not-meant-to-know, etc. Not much different from an NPC casting Charm Person or Suggestion on your character. It may be part of the risk of adventuring. And many of these twists can be undone somehow as well.

In one session I ran one of the PCs was replaced by a shapeshifting spy. She ran with that darn good! Same player in a Star Frontiers session I was a player in rather than a DM at some point was turned by a Sathar and for the rest of the game was sabotaging projects and other mayhem. And we never knew untill the big finale!

After session recountings like that seem fairly common too. They are also rare things in the campaign. Usually. So players are more likely to opt in for the challenge or other reasons.

So heres my own question for others.

When a personality changing event happened and you, or a player in your group, opted in to play along. What prompted you to play out the shift?

As a side note / contrast point, some games treat total loss of PC determinism as equivalent to character death, i.e., "hand the GM your character sheet" when you go insane, lose all your humanity, etc.

I am not fond of that specific social mechanic, but I just don't get why it's okay for a GM to use NPCs to hack a player character to ribbons with swords, but lord help you if an NPC tries to change your mind. You can go on being the immovable, unalterable rock that won't change their mind for anything, but death, maiming, and polymorphs are okay.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;905380As a side note / contrast point, some games treat total loss of PC determinism as equivalent to character death, i.e., "hand the GM your character sheet" when you go insane, lose all your humanity, etc.

That can happen in Albedo too if a character takes a few too many mental shocks. Sometimes they just have to spend some time in rehab. Sometimes thats the end. War is hell.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905386I am not fond of that specific social mechanic, but I just don't get why it's okay for a GM to use NPCs to hack a player character to ribbons with swords, but lord help you if an NPC tries to change your mind. You can go on being the immovable, unalterable rock that won't change their mind for anything, but death, maiming, and polymorphs are okay.

It can come across as possibly denying/railroading player choice with a mechanic instead of role-playing it. It can feel artificial or forced. Especially if the player is used to say D&Ds near totally freeform social part. The players are expected to RP being turned or not.

Probably how frequently the players run into it and how good or bad it was will factor in heavily too. All it takes is one DM who over-uses things like that to turn a player off it. Like anything else in RPGs really.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905386I am not fond of that specific social mechanic, but I just don't get why it's okay for a GM to use NPCs to hack a player character to ribbons with swords, but lord help you if an NPC tries to change your mind. You can go on being the immovable, unalterable rock that won't change their mind for anything, but death, maiming, and polymorphs are okay.

I think I'm odd about that. Generally, I'm okay with my characters being persuaded, manipulated, lied too, etc and acting on it even it is not in their best interest even if its "obvious" to me as the player. People (myself included) get talked into the bad ideas and conned all the time. But I'm more reluctant about someone else (gm or player) making long term alterations to my character's psyche via straight social/interaction via mechanics. I'd have to have allot more trust to allow that freely. I can't explain exactly why it feels different but it does, probably not a rational thing.

In either case though, I much prefer the social mechanics be developed and interactive beyond the "make a skill/attribute check" level. Most combat system don't put your character existence and ongoing health on the result of single afterall (I'm sure some do but its not the norm, IME) so their personality and mental integrity should get roughly the same regard.

Quote from: Nexus;905289Would you be willing to play under a system like that and what are your general feeling about it?

Sounds a bit like Pendragon. Which I like a lot. It works wonderfully well in Pendgraon, but I don’t want every game to do that.

Quote from: Nexus;905374Odd it might seem I'm not opposed to my PCs being convinced, persuaded, etc, about things even things that aren't in their best interest via mechanics. People get talked into some foolish things all the time but I find I'm more reluctant about long term changes occurring that way.

I’m always surprised at the number of players who want much more control over their PC in the game world that they have over themselves in real life.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905386I am not fond of that specific social mechanic, but I just don't get why it's okay for a GM to use NPCs to hack a player character to ribbons with swords, but lord help you if an NPC tries to change your mind. You can go on being the immovable, unalterable rock that won't change their mind for anything, but death, maiming, and polymorphs are okay.

Because it's not an ethical question of whether bad shit should happen to my character--I find that whole realm of thought incredibly childish, that people would throw tantrums over what happens in a game. Rather, it's more of an issue with me of "that's just not how that shit works," which in turn affects the feel.

To put it another way, the whole nature of plunging a blade through someone's chest is you generally don't ask permission first. That's the whole idea of using force. On the other hand, persuading someone to agree to a particular trade or to help you or whatever else is, well, seeking to get that person to agree. That's the whole idea of social skills. They require consent.

When you start using the "force model' to resolve the social, or vice versa (who knows what crazy crap you'll find in RPGs), it just doesn't have the right feel to me. Like I mentioned earlier, I just see that as more combat with different flavor text. It just doesn't mix things up or provide players with a different sort of challenge.

If it's linked to a fantasy element, that's fine. Because just like social ought to feel different from combat, magic ought to feel different as well. And where magic fits into "how shit works" is it gets to defy "how shit works." That's the whole idea of magic.

Quote from: Nexus;905289Would you be willing to play under a system like that and what are your general feeling about it?

I recall some games with either official, or homebrewed rules covering social interaction between PCs and NPCs/DMPCs.

First example that comes to mind is Influence introduced in PFRPG. It's kind of "resource" that might be gained (also lost) and later spend on things, like making NPCs do what you want them to do, build stuff, or such.

Your example looks like a more sophisticated version of such a mechanics, so yeah, why not? I'd try such a thing just to see how it works out.

Quote from: Omega;905375When a personality changing event happened and you, or a player in your group, opted in to play along. What prompted you to play out the shift?

In our Star Trek campaign we had a few of the typical (for the TV shows) character gets possessed or replaced by doppleganger/pod person adventures. The player would then run "their" character as the alien parasite, doppleganger, etc. It seemed in keeping with the spirit of the TV shows, which was the style of play we used and we had a level of trust that somehow the heroes would prevail in the end. Though there was that one time I had the GM worried that the alien parasite I was playing was going to infect the entire crew and take over all the PCs...which would have kind of ended the campaign. But somehow (just like on the TV shows) the parasites were foiled in the end.

So I think genre convention and expectation helps to play along as does a reasonable expectation that playing the villain isn't going to result in a TPK or a style of play where TPKs are considered just another outcome.

To return to Pendragon

• One of the things that Pendragon does well is that it allows the player to preempt a passion or trait roll - (though doing that often goes against the spirit of the game and the expectations of the setting). Having that option, even it is never used, provides a safety net so the player doesn't have to feel they will be forced into some PC behavior they just can't stomach.

• Passion and Traits can be opposed by other passions or traits. So while it is true that an event like getting married or finding romance will generate a brand new Passion - which is a personality change to the PC. That passion can still be mechanically overcome by other strong traits of the character. So while a PC, may succumb to his passion (like Lancelot did for Guenevere), there is also a chance that the knight's Loyalty to his Liege may allow him to avoid adultery.

• In addition, traits and passions like Honesty, Loyalty to Liege, Love Guenevere, or Hate Gawain  gradually and incrementally change based on actions in play so the changes in behavior are abrupt or the result of a single roll or action.

• And lastly, the player is allowed to increment or decrement a passion or trait at year end based solely on player volition.

Quote from: Nexus;905289In the  Exalted rpg NPCs (gm controlled characters) can use the social interaction rules to add  or remove "Intimacies" to a PC without the players consent. Its more or less like adding Psychological Limitation in Hero System, altering the PCs personality to some extent. For example, a temptress might give a PC feeling of lust or desire towards her or a warlord invoke loyalty or zeal for their cause or erode feelings and beliefs like the PC's love for their spouse or devotion to defending their small village from the warlords invading army. They can be removed (there's a system for it) but they can be long term and removing them has to be somewhat justified by role playing. Other newer systems have similar social mechanics.

Would you be willing to play under a system like that and what are your general feeling about it?

D&D has been doing it longer with their Charm spells and effects.  Not quite as long reaching, but it's still there.

Without going back to quote specific replies, I'll just expand my point. I think social systems where you introduce specific alterations to a personality can often be received poorly by the player, but this has more to do with "concept mutilation" than having the character's mind changed. If the GM has your character loose an arm, or experience a sexual assault, have their power taken away, or (focusiong on our point through an example) persuaded to become a loyalist to the new duke, essential parts of the character have changed. For some, this can direct the character into an area which the player does not wish to change; the altered character is not as fun or engaging to play anymore because they have endured or taken on plot damage that the player didn't sign up for. Note: this mutilation can happen even with choices the player signed up for, but either didn't think through or found out was less fun on the other side of the choice.

I believe that part of the appeal of role-playing is we get to make choices about fictional persons in a more relaxed environment, protect them from misfortune and malady, and watch them struggle to succeed (Bren touched on this). Most RPGs are still "combat heavy" right on the tin, so gamers can accept death by combat as a character end. Yet note that the more popular RPGs rarely have lasting injury tables for that combat (most D&D characters can walk off a near death experience unscathed).

My own thoughts on the "sanctity of the character" lie on the "deal with it" side of things, but my players know that well and seem to enjoy it. I'm also careful not to introduce elements that would obviously crush the spirit of the character, or go against the grain of the player's tastes. Those changes that are system based (hey Joe, you got killed in combat against a totally reasonable foe / hey Joe, you kicked the king of Spain in the junk and now you're in prison for life) are much easier for players to swallow because they can see that there is a lack of "GM Will" involved in the outcome. Where you will see whining about character death (perhaps with merit) is when the group is pitted against a far superior foe, with little warning, and flight / mitigation of risk was not quite possible.

But tacked onto this is the sentiment that a character's mind and decisions are sacrosanct. As a person who depends on persuasion as part of his job (I'm an analyst and forecaster), I can tell you that people's minds can be changed by good wording, and a strong presentation. Watching the director of our department charm people into rethinking their positions (he is a walking definition of high Charisma) makes me utterly unconvinced that social interaction is all "consensual". People are influenced and persuaded, easier when those influences match with their positions. But where to draw the line? I mentioned I disliked Exalted's social mechanics because all they boil down to is making good rolls, laying down points of progress to introducing new character elements, and tallying those when you've persuaded enough (I think it's 3 steps). It's clunky and lack the elegance of real-life socialization. But in play (several year 2nd ed Exalted game) we made it work. The opposite, no social system and player-characters who are impossible to persuade (often for utterly meta-game reasons), is what I complain about.

Side note: imagine a player character trying to charm the duke's wife, with high CHA, because they want to get an inroad into the area and revenge themselves against the duke for previous slights - but despite every good roll by said Bard, well thought out seductions and interactions, the GM says "I like the duchess as faithful, she's remains not interested". In regular play, the GM doesn't have to make her cheat in her vows, but can make her struggle against the charming Bard, trying to get his affections to cease and avoiding him (and perhaps luring the player into crossing the line and using a Charm spell). But the interaction doesn't "bounce" off the plot armour of the NPC, as that's bad form. Why is it good form for PCs?

Expanding this example to one all too common in fantasy games. The pretty strumpet attempts to seduce the fighter. The player of the fighter (we'll call him Joe) is wary - this GM has pulled the "gotcha, it's a succubus" card a few times, or introduced unwanted children and other complications. If Joe just ignores the strumpet entirely, despite being drunk and wandering dungeons for months, the GM gets irritated. But Joe could, instead, have his character shuffle off to bed to avoid the temptation. "Grognak decides to head off the bed, telling the strumpet to buzz off. He then goes and passes out before he makes a mistake with yet another tavern wench."

Contrast with this scenario. The GM notes there is a tough monster unfought in a room of the dungeon the group is exploring. Joe is worried that attacking the monster might be a bad idea - the group is low on spells and resources, and he doesn't want his character to die for a fight he can avoid. Joe declares he will avoid the room entirely, and make his way back to the surface. Joe is acknowledging choice, and keeping in character.

I prefer to work with players to let them know that following bad paths is fun, but also that I will present bad paths that won't kill the party (or will make those paths obvious when I do), and that character flaws are not only interesting, they are mandatory. That being said, I still have at least one character in my group whose real life social skills are lacking (very low human empathy), and his characters will think overly mechanical and introspective more often than not. Changing the reactions of the character for this player, therefore, depend on being very clear about the social plot path that's being introduced. Another delights in subtle social signals and the interesting choices he can make by following hints and machinations. So in closing, know your audience well.

TLDR: You want social mechanics and interactions with your players? Don't be a dick, and watch for emotionally immature players who aren't ready to handle it.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905490I'll just expand my point.

That post was well written and very well thought out. I agree with everything you said.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905490If the GM has your character loose an arm, or experience a sexual assault, have their power taken away, or (focusiong on our point through an example) persuaded to become a loyalist to the new duke, essential parts of the character have changed. For some, this can direct the character into an area which the player does not wish to change; the altered character is not as fun or engaging to play anymore because they have endured or taken on plot damage that the player didn't sign up for. Note: this mutilation can happen even with choices the player signed up for, but either didn't think through or found out was less fun on the other side of the choice.


TLDR: You want social mechanics and interactions with your players? Don't be a dick, and watch for emotionally immature players who aren't ready to handle it.

The very concept of "plot damage" makes me cringe. Unless it's a new Stress Track in Fate, but that would require a rather specific setting:p.

And the place of emotionally immature players is anywhere except at my table;).

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905490I mentioned I disliked Exalted's social mechanics because all they boil down to is making good rolls, laying down points of progress to introducing new character elements, and tallying those when you've persuaded enough (I think it's 3 steps). It's clunky and lack the elegance of real-life socialization. But in play (several year 2nd ed Exalted game) we made it work.

You may want to check out the 3rd edition social system. Its improved and, IMO, one of the few things that were done right in that edition.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905490But tacked onto this is the sentiment that a character's mind and decisions are sacrosanct. As a person who depends on persuasion as part of his job (I'm an analyst and forecaster), I can tell you that people's minds can be changed by good wording, and a strong presentation. Watching the director of our department charm people into rethinking their positions (he is a walking definition of high Charisma) makes me utterly unconvinced that social interaction is all "consensual".

Can you do what they do? I can. For me, persuasion is a large part of my job. And I only got to this position by beginning with persuasion being ALL of my job and being extremely good at it. There is a very specific science to it, and it begins with realizing you are NEVER changing anyone's motivations. It's impossible. And "the sale" is ALWAYS consensual. Now in the interest of transparency, I'll be the first to tell you not every school on persuasion thinks that way. In fact, the majority does not. But the results the different approaches get indicate quite clearly who is right and who is wrong in that regard. The Harvard Business Review did an article not too long ago on the 8 styles of persuasion their study identified. Only 3 of them were even effective to begin with. And of those three, one stood out as clearly the most effective. But this thread is about gaming, not science, so let's not spend any more time with that.

QuoteSide note: imagine a player character trying to charm the duke's wife, with high CHA, because they want to get an inroad into the area and revenge themselves against the duke for previous slights - but despite every good roll by said Bard, well thought out seductions and interactions, the GM says "I like the duchess as faithful, she's remains not interested".

I'm having difficulty imagining this because you skimmed out all the relevant details and skipped right to what you think makes your point. Like, what does the duchess want? What are her motivations? How did she end up with the duke in the first place? Is she happy? By what means is the player character hoping to seek revenge? What are these inroads of what you speak? And how would these "inroads" affect the Duchess? And what did this highly charismatic bard character do--what actions did he take--to find any of this out? Did he actually engage in role-play and probe on these things, or just sit back and make a die roll?

Like I said, if you want to do combat but pretend you're doing social, then fine. I'm just not interested. But if you want to do social, then do social. And that means getting into these sorts of details. These details make social situations far more compelling in the game.

QuoteExpanding this example to one all too common in fantasy games. The pretty strumpet attempts to seduce the fighter. The player of the fighter (we'll call him Joe) is wary - this GM has pulled the "gotcha, it's a succubus" card a few times, or introduced unwanted children and other complications. If Joe just ignores the strumpet entirely, despite being drunk and wandering dungeons for months, the GM gets irritated.

Why is Joe the Fighter drunk in the first place? It seems like the player actually doesn't have anything against having his character engage in activities that may not be in his character's best interest but do provide the character with some short-term pleasure. So why is Joe drinking? And is he drinking alone? Did the strumpet ask about any of these things, or what his months wandering the dungeons were like? Does the strumpet herself reasons to be particularly out to seduce Joe the Fighter? Or is this just some cliched scenario because the GM just wants something to happen so he can put one over on ol' Joe again?

With what you've presented, why shouldn't every player at your table sit there, arms folded, refusing to play along with your NPC persuasion attempts? What have you done to engage their characters, fire up the players imagination, and get them thinking, what if their characters *did* play along? What would it take? And what could they get out of it?

Quote from: Lunamancer;905511Why is Joe the Fighter drunk in the first place?

Because he imbibed alcohol faster than his system can process it and now his blood alcohol level is sufficient to cause him to be drunk.

QuoteIt seems like the player actually doesn't have anything against having his character engage in activities that may not be in his character's best interest but do provide the character with some short-term pleasure.

If there is never any significant consequence to getting drunk such as a decrease in inhibitions and cognitive function that results in awkwardness or problems for the character then you can't reasonably claim that the player is actually having his character act against his best interest by getting drunk.

QuoteDoes the strumpet herself reasons to be particularly out to seduce Joe the Fighter?

Presumably she does. Of course Joe and his player don't know what her reasons are, they just know what she says and does. And in any case, how are her reasons for her actions relevant to Joe's player who seems to want his character to act with a fully in control superego despite being drunk.

QuoteOr is this just some cliched scenario because the GM just wants something to happen so he can put one over on ol' Joe again?

Other comments by Coffee Zombie make it clear that just putting one over on ol' Joe was not what this was about.

QuoteWith what you've presented, why shouldn't every player at your table sit there, arms folded, refusing to play along with your NPC persuasion attempts?

Because wooden sticks are dull.

There are a lot of reasons that people drink in real life. Presumably one or more of those reasons apply to Joe the PC. Few if any of those reasons are likely to apply to the player of Joe the PC. The player is not drowning his sorrows by having his PC get drunk, the player is not overcoming real life social awkwardness by having his PC drink, nor does the nice cold beer that the PC drank taste refreshing to the player.

QuoteAnd what could they get out of it?

Something more interesting than everyone sitting at the table with their arms folded staring at each other while they each grunt "Nuh uh!"

Bren, I wasn't posing argumentative questions. I was asking questions about the situation. It's not enough to say there exist answers. Or to give vague ones. None of those things are the least bit compelling. If you and Coffee Zombie feel you need a mechanic crutch, well, I think I've just pinpointed the source of the problem.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905511For me, persuasion is a large part of my job. And I only got to this position by beginning with persuasion being ALL of my job and being extremely good at it. There is a very specific science to it, and it begins with realizing you are NEVER changing anyone's motivations. It's impossible.

I don't know where you allegedly work and who allegedly hires you, but you both shouldn't. I know it for a fact, because contrary to what you're saying, you're not very good at your alleged job. ;)

See "Whether people's motivation, behavior, emotions and temperament might be changed/influenced" is one of favorite questions psychology/behaviorism teachers ask beginner students. And the answer is known and stays the same since some time. It's "yes".

[ATTACH=CONFIG]216[/ATTACH]

Yes, yes, I know the difference between "conventional" and "uncommon" methods and accessories, but really now. Rather than discussing the finger, how about turning your head around and looking in the direction said finger points at, eh? And the point is that it's far from impossible to change one's motivation. QED.

btw: "You're a dick" or similarly cheap insult in... say, 3 comments? :D

Quote from: Lunamancer;905522Bren, I wasn't posing argumentative questions. I was asking questions about the situation. It's not enough to say there exist answers. Or to give vague ones. None of those things are the least bit compelling. If you and Coffee Zombie feel you need a mechanic crutch, well, I think I've just pinpointed the source of the problem.

"Or is this just some cliched scenario because the GM just wants something to happen so he can put one over on ol' Joe again?" sounds like an argumentative question in the context of Coffee Zombie's post. He did preface his example by saying

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905490My own thoughts on the "sanctity of the character" lie on the "deal with it" side of things, but my players know that well and seem to enjoy it. I'm also careful not to introduce elements that would obviously crush the spirit of the character, or go against the grain of the player's tastes.

And followed with this

QuoteI prefer to work with players to let them know that following bad paths is fun, but also that I will present bad paths that won't kill the party (or will make those paths obvious when I do), and that character flaws are not only interesting, they are mandatory.

So what persuaded you that Coffee Zombie might have wanted some cliched scenario so the GM can put one over on ol' Joe?

Quote from: JesterRaiin;905528btw: "You're a dick" or similarly cheap insult in... say, 3 comments? :D

I'll take your bet of a 6-pack, payable when we meet, and say Lunamancer ain't going to resort to that tactic in 3 posts or less;).

Quote from: AsenRG;905530I'll take your bet of a 6-pack, payable when we meet, and say Lunamancer ain't going to resort to that tactic in 3 posts or less;).

6-pack it is. Howgh! :cool:

Quote from: AsenRG;905530I'll take your bet of a 6-pack, payable when we meet, and say Lunamancer ain't going to resort to that tactic in 3 posts or less;).

Why do I suspect a side deal where Asen agrees to a 2:1 split of the six-pack with Lunamancer if Lunamancer delays his response until at least the 4th comment?

Quote from: Bren;905532Why do I suspect a side deal where Asen agrees to a 2:1 split of the six-pack with Lunamancer if Lunamancer delays his response until at least the 4th comment?

Dammit!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]217[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Bren;905532Why do I suspect a side deal where Asen agrees to a 2:1 split of the six-pack with Lunamancer if Lunamancer delays his response until at least the 4th comment?

Funny, I was just writing a PM to someone...:D

Quote from: JesterRaiin;905533Dammit!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]217[/ATTACH]

Well, the thread is about social influence and manipulation. Finding common grounds to persuade a man to do something is part of this, now, is it not;)?

Quote from: AsenRG;905534Funny, I was just writing a PM to someone...:D

Traitor! Curse upon yeeeeer head! ;)

QuoteWell, the thread is about social influence and manipulation. Finding common grounds to persuade a man to do something is part of this, now, is it not;)?

Aw, snap, you touched one of my favorite subjects, the one I actually use in my field of work. ;)

The answer is yes, but it's not the only way. In many cases it's not even the default or preferred way.

There's, for example the style preferred by many leaders known as "by the book" aka "sorry guys, I can do shit about it, I have my superiors too". It looks like a soft style, but in reality it's one of hardest available, because it leaves absolutely no room for negotiations, there's no "common ground", no "let's discuss it" etc.

Funny thing is, that while it looks like part-dictatorship, this style proves to be very useful in specific scenarios, at least for some period of time. For example, it's preferred when the company/office goes through difficult times (technological espionage, sabotage, hard competition, etc...)

Quote from: JesterRaiin;905536There's, for example the style preferred by many leaders known as "by the book" aka "sorry guys, I can do shit about it, I have my superiors too".

Instead of "by the book" one can also use them, the superiors, as a sort of bad cop, while you play the good cop, "look I want to help you and get this deal done, but they insist that..."

Quote from: Bren;905537Instead of "by the book" one can also use them, the superiors, as a sort of bad cop, while you play the good cop, "look I want to help you and get this deal done, but they insist that..."

Precisely.

The style is best suited for people with little... let's use good old "charisma", who are put in the position of power. It relies on the idea, that either there are very detailed protocols describing the way things should be handled, or the leader in talking really has someone above himself, who is unavailable for longer periods of time - "distant ruler".

Fun fact: I know an office where subordinates call their "ultimate" employer "a Crusader King", because just like one he is always visiting other countries (cutting deals, gathering sponsors and attracting serious clients).

Quote from: JesterRaiin;905539Fun fact: I know an office where subordinates call their "ultimate" employer "a Crusader King", because just like one he is always visiting other countries (cutting deals, gathering sponsors and attracting serious clients).

Crusader King sure sounds like a better title than Seagull Manager.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905511Can you do what they do? I can. For me, persuasion is a large part of my job. And I only got to this position by beginning with persuasion being ALL of my job and being extremely good at it. There is a very specific science to it, and it begins with realizing you are NEVER changing anyone's motivations. It's impossible. And "the sale" is ALWAYS consensual. Now in the interest of transparency, I'll be the first to tell you not every school on persuasion thinks that way. In fact, the majority does not. But the results the different approaches get indicate quite clearly who is right and who is wrong in that regard. The Harvard Business Review did an article not too long ago on the 8 styles of persuasion their study identified. Only 3 of them were even effective to begin with. And of those three, one stood out as clearly the most effective. But this thread is about gaming, not science, so let's not spend any more time with that.

This is a sidetrack. The example was about influence, not about selling merchandise. It was to illustrate that I depend on convincing others in my job (but am not a sales person), and that a person I work with in a much higher pay grade than me had demonstrably higher charisma. Unpacking more of this isn't going to happen, as I'm not going to discuss where I work, what I do on an RPG forum, for a variety of reasons.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905511I'm having difficulty imagining this because you skimmed out all the relevant details and skipped right to what you think makes your point. Like, what does the duchess want? What are her motivations? How did she end up with the duke in the first place? Is she happy? By what means is the player character hoping to seek revenge? What are these inroads of what you speak? And how would these "inroads" affect the Duchess? And what did this highly charismatic bard character do--what actions did he take--to find any of this out? Did he actually engage in role-play and probe on these things, or just sit back and make a die roll?

You can insert all the details as required, but should insert those that lead you to a situation where the fellow trying to seduce the Duchess' wife has a reasonable chance of convincing her to like him (not instantly tossing off her clothes in court and proclaiming "take me bard!" or something, just persuaded to start down that path). Introducing other details makes the situation too specific. We all can apply this to situations in games we have played or run in, and the situations where it didn't. So nitpicking how we got there is irrelevant to the point (no, wait, it actually is).

For every situation you can list, in text, where this wouldn't apply, I can list one where it would. No, I don't believe any dumb ass charming bard can just approach a noble lady out of the blue and say "Hey, sexy, wanna breed?". The assumption (indicated in the example) is that the bard is doing this as part of revenge against the duke, and knows something of the situation, and is targeting someone who is a possibility. If the duchess was known for her chastity and extreme belief in the social foundation of marriage... well, he better know some magic then, right (or blackmail)?

Quote from: Lunamancer;905511Like I said, if you want to do combat but pretend you're doing social, then fine. I'm just not interested. But if you want to do social, then do social. And that means getting into these sorts of details. These details make social situations far more compelling in the game.

Cool. I've played with a few players who have the social skills of a wet rock, and I like to give them the chance to engage in that 1/2 of the plot. I can bring in mechanics to help them with their own social limits. Those with a more social and theatrical flare continue to do well at social situations (providing they are actually RPing their listed social skills). The best thing is, most of the time I only have to use these kinds of rules against NPCs - the players play along with good plots, or enjoy the fun of their mettle being tested by the smooth talking sorts.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905511Why is Joe the Fighter drunk in the first place? It seems like the player actually doesn't have anything against having his character engage in activities that may not be in his character's best interest but do provide the character with some short-term pleasure. So why is Joe drinking? And is he drinking alone? Did the strumpet ask about any of these things, or what his months wandering the dungeons were like? Does the strumpet herself reasons to be particularly out to seduce Joe the Fighter? Or is this just some cliched scenario because the GM just wants something to happen so he can put one over on ol' Joe again?

I think we can assume the presence of a strumpet, the mention of the inn, and the obvious cliche listed is enough. Do you have a reason to want to dissect this for some reason? Others have pointed out in my post what my intent is (tell good story, challenge players, don't be a dick). I will assume you're looking for clarification because you aren't understanding the essential point being made, so let me make it here. In RPGs, scenarios exist where players are trying to convince NPCs, and vica verca. Having a mechanism in place to have something other than player/GM whim govern the outcome of social situations suits me better because I like social stats, skills, perks, etc. to matter. I dislike players who decide their characters are immune to the charming, delightful, beautiful, wondrous, terrifying (here's a common one) as this irks me to no end.

Remember the scene in Star Trek: First Contact where Captain Picard, Data and crew members are stalking the halls of the Enterprise in search of Borg? Data admits to growing fear, and Picard suggests he turn his emotion chip off. Data's neck twitches, off goes the fear, and Picard remarks something to the effect of "Data, I envy you." When players shut off their characters and behave tactically only, that's when I call foul. Unless that's something the character, on paper, can do.

In play, emotional response and motivational influences must be used carefully, and social combat systems can be used to crush players by a ruthless GM as efficiently as deadly combat encounters can, and show a basic problem with said GM in both occasions. This is why I would recommend that social combat mechanics be restricted to games that are for experienced players - that armour for the player group to prevent dipshit GMs from chortling as cool characters are disgraced, female characters are seduced by wandering hobos and other despicable abuses of common sense are avoided while the players learn to play RPGs and what GMs to show the door to.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905511With what you've presented, why shouldn't every player at your table sit there, arms folded, refusing to play along with your NPC persuasion attempts? What have you done to engage their characters, fire up the players imagination, and get them thinking, what if their characters *did* play along? What would it take? And what could they get out of it?

Well, without showing you a video of how I GM, I will let you use your imagination and reason to deduce a) when I run a game, I don't post blocks of text on a discussion forum in dry, conversational bursts. I play it up. I use voices. I use descriptions. You know, the basic stuff any GM worth his or her salt does. When that is not getting anywhere because a player is being a blockhead, and can't even justify their lack of response or complete immunity to the world around them, I will either use social mechanics or drop OOC to see if the player is awake.

Obviously, if you have a problem with social mechanic systems, don't use them/play those sorts of games. And by the sounds of it, you wouldn't need them. Heck, your entire group might not need them. My current group doesn't need them most of the time (we've used a yes/no outcome for social influence once in my 16 month campaign right now). YMMV, etc.

Quote from: AsenRG;905509The very concept of "plot damage" makes me cringe. Unless it's a new Stress Track in Fate, but that would require a rather specific setting:p.

And the place of emotionally immature players is anywhere except at my table;).

I thought this might irk some. When I say Plot Damage, I mean distortion of the underlying character that made said character fun for the player. There are thresholds, I've found, where the character is no longer fun to play. Making the fighter lame, scarring up the pretty one, etc. Some people play through any change to a character ("Let the Dice Roll Where They May!"), others will take punishment but find a character drifts from their tastes after a certain degree of change. Others have one concept, one vision. I don't like the third kind of player's tastes, and they don't flourish or stay in my games - but this is a thing I've seen, so I mention it as there is this phenomena, and Story Games didn't invent it.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905638I thought this might irk some.

On a forum like this, this is more like a certainty:).

QuoteWhen I say Plot Damage, I mean distortion of the underlying character that made said character fun for the player.

I know what you mean. The very concept that a character can change only "within limits" is, to me, not really different from the concept of "no death without player agreement"...a concept I can say many things about, but none of them is nice. So I won't;).
Death is the final change. It changes your character into a sac of meat, as a rule (crispiness optional and depends on the ifreet in question:p).

QuoteThere are thresholds, I've found, where the character is no longer fun to play. Making the fighter lame, scarring up the pretty one, etc.

...dying, too.

QuoteSome people play through any change to a character ("Let the Dice Roll Where They May!"), others will take punishment but find a character drifts from their tastes after a certain degree of change. Others have one concept, one vision. I don't like the third kind of player's tastes, and they don't flourish or stay in my games - but this is a thing I've seen, so I mention it as there is this phenomena,

Oh, sure - I've seen it as well.
Which is why I warn them that I am ready to maim a fighter, destroy the magic of a wizard, scar a courtesan and the dice will still roll where they may. I've done all of the above, BTW.

Quoteand Story Games didn't invent it.

You mistake me for the Pundit, I see:D!
We're really not the same person. Honest!

One of the differences is, I don't think story games and SJWs are responsible for everything in the hobby that sucks;).

Quote from: AsenRG;905647You mistake me for the Pundit, I see:D!
We're really not the same person. Honest!

Jesus Christ, this happens way too often. Allow me to produce short "how to tell the difference between Pundit and Asen" tutorial:

Observe, people.

This is Pundit.

(http://i.imgur.com/eUovAg4.jpg)

Can I ask for a close-up? Thank you.

(https://cdn3.whatculture.com/images/2013/01/daniel-day-lewis-gangs-of-new-york.jpg)

Notice a fake eye, a genuine scar, an exhaust pipe (Pundit is a coal-powered mechanism), often mistaken for just a regular pipe and unmistakable "I'm gonna rip yer balls off, slowly" grimace supplementing his default negotiation technique (known as "thar will be blüt", since it involves excessive violence and a bloodshed).


Now, this is uncle Asen:

(http://www.hotstarz.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/viggo_mortensen_43034.jpg)

And another close-up, please.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTX52X7WIAAvUOs.jpg)

Observe "Nephew, I'm disappoint, but it's ok, you weren't my favorite nephew anyway" facial expression he uses quite a lot and big friggin' sword called "The Pen" (Get it ? "The Pen is mightier than a sword", but what if the Pen is a sword> Yeah, just like pretty much every aspect of Asen's persona this is... complicated).

I hope this helps. :cool:

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905638I thought this might irk some. When I say Plot Damage, I mean distortion of the underlying character that made said character fun for the player. There are thresholds, I've found, where the character is no longer fun to play. Making the fighter lame, scarring up the pretty one, etc. Some people play through any change to a character ("Let the Dice Roll Where They May!"), others will take punishment but find a character drifts from their tastes after a certain degree of change. Others have one concept, one vision. I don't like the third kind of player's tastes, and they don't flourish or stay in my games - but this is a thing I've seen, so I mention it as there is this phenomena, and Story Games didn't invent it.

This is what I touched on earlier. Its not that having your PC persuaded or changed is good or bad. Its how the player takes it. And like pretty much everything else in RPGs. The range of reactions is broad. And one type of persuasion or change is perfectly acceptible to a player, but another type is totally not.

Quote from: Nexus;905289In the  Exalted rpg NPCs (gm controlled characters) can use the social interaction rules to add  or remove "Intimacies" to a PC without the players consent. Its more or less like adding Psychological Limitation in Hero System, altering the PCs personality to some extent. For example, a temptress might give a PC feeling of lust or desire towards her or a warlord invoke loyalty or zeal for their cause or erode feelings and beliefs like the PC's love for their spouse or devotion to defending their small village from the warlords invading army. They can be removed (there's a system for it) but they can be long term and removing them has to be somewhat justified by role playing. Other newer systems have similar social mechanics.

Would you be willing to play under a system like that and what are your general feeling about it?

I feel like with some players and some situations that would be fine, but I can see how handling this type of system with care would be best.
I know that, for one, as a player, I don't want to be told how my character feels. On the other hand, if there is a system for fear and my character fails a Willpower, or Courage roll or what have you, then they just might be afraid and can't face the monster. That is a feeling imposed on my character via the rules, with penalties to boot.

I think a system like that would be fine as long as the player has an opportunity to have their character react to those feelings, even if it means going against those feelings, albeit with a penalty, like in the "fear" example above.

Essentially, yeah, I don't mind the system influencing the PCs decisions, but ultimately it should be the player's decision what their character chooses to do, even if it means the odds are against them.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;905652Jesus Christ, this happens way too often. Allow me to produce short "how to tell the difference between Pundit and Asen" tutorial:

Observe, people.

This is Pundit.

(http://i.imgur.com/eUovAg4.jpg)

Can I ask for a close-up? Thank you.

(https://cdn3.whatculture.com/images/2013/01/daniel-day-lewis-gangs-of-new-york.jpg)

Notice a fake eye, a genuine scar, an exhaust pipe (Pundit is a coal-powered mechanism), often mistaken for just a regular pipe and unmistakable "I'm gonna rip yer balls off, slowly" grimace supplementing his default negotiation technique (known as "thar will be blüt", since it involves excessive violence and a bloodshed).


Now, this is uncle Asen:

(http://www.hotstarz.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/viggo_mortensen_43034.jpg)

And another close-up, please.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTX52X7WIAAvUOs.jpg)

Observe "Nephew, I'm disappoint, but it's ok, you weren't my favorite nephew anyway" facial expression he uses quite a lot and big friggin' sword called "The Pen" (Get it ? "The Pen is mightier than a sword", but what if the Pen is a sword> Yeah, just like pretty much every aspect of Asen's persona this is... complicated).

I hope this helps. :cool:

That's exactly how it is:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;905697That's exactly how it is:D!

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-40ZIQRzYGR8/T61g43odpGI/AAAAAAAAAFM/Lmy-6NO4rBA/s1600/boromi3.jpg)

I know, my captain. I know. :cool:

I wasn't confusing Asen with Pundit. Who could confuse anyone with Pundit? :D

But now I'm confused, or just confused enough to also link a LOTR picture.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]219[/ATTACH]

In all seriousness, the comment wasn't aimed at Asen, but rather more generally, but it's easy to see how it was taken that way.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905706I wasn't confusing Asen with Pundit. Who could confuse anyone with Pundit? :D

Well, I've been visiting certain parts of the great US of A and on the way I've seen this guy:

(http://images4.static-bluray.com/reviews/416_5.jpg)

For a moment I thought to myself, "oh gosh, it's Pundit, the RPG designer, a smoker and part-time butcher". So I approached the guy and asked for an autograph, to which he suggest that I should ... [censored] ...and that he is the Second Coming and that there will be blood. To which I've chosen to react with a slow retreat to safer position.

It turned out it wasn't Pundit, and I should've know that, because the guy had two eyes and no facial scar.

This or that, I swear, I won't ever visit these parts of NorthAm. Ever. People there are a bit... violent for my taste. :cool:

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905706I wasn't confusing Asen with Pundit. Who could confuse anyone with Pundit? :D

But now I'm confused, or just confused enough to also link a LOTR picture.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]219[/ATTACH]

In all seriousness, the comment wasn't aimed at Asen, but rather more generally, but it's easy to see how it was taken that way.

My reply was just a joke, CZ. JesterRaiin got it right and replied in tune;).

Quote from: JesterRaiin;905785Well, I've been visiting certain parts of the great US of A and on the way I've seen this guy:

(http://images4.static-bluray.com/reviews/416_5.jpg)

For a moment I thought to myself, "oh gosh, it's Pundit, the RPG designer, a smoker and part-time butcher". So I approached the guy and asked for an autograph, to which he suggest that I should ... [censored] ...and that he is the Second Coming and that there will be blood. To which I've chosen to react with a slow retreat to safer position.

It turned out it wasn't Pundit, and I should've know that, because the guy had two eyes and no facial scar.

This or that, I swear, I won't ever visit these parts of NorthAm. Ever. People there are a bit... violent for my taste. :cool:

The similarity was uncanny, wasn't it:D?

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905637This is a sidetrack. The example was about influence, not about selling merchandise.

Nor was I talking about that. Notice "the sale" in scary quotes? That was literally the only mention of selling and it was literally presented in a way to make clear it shouldn't be taken literally. My point still stands.

QuoteYou can insert all the details as required, but should insert those that lead you to a situation where the fellow trying to seduce the Duchess' wife has a reasonable chance of convincing her to like him

Reasonable to whom? Am I supposed to just assume that the hypothetical GM both created an NPC who stands a reasonable chance at being swayed by seduction, but also denies any reasonable attempt to do so. Is this the GM being a jerk? Which mechanics won't fix. Or is it simply that you think one thing is reasonable and the GM thinks something else is reasonable? In which case if you spell out the reasons why the GM thinks it's reasonable for the duchess to brush off the bard, and spell out the reasons why you think it's reasonable for her to succumb to the bard, it is highly probable that there is plenty of room for a meeting of the minds, where GM and player alike can walk away satisfied with the outcome, if only the right ideas are communicated. There may be a very small number of cases where the two are simply at an impasse. And that's fine, too. There ARE cases where persuasion is impossible.

QuoteIntroducing other details makes the situation too specific.

Too specific for what? You've already given your general idea. You attempted to give an example--the example should be specific. If you can't find one specific enough example, it really hurts your case. Getting into specifics is in your best interest, not mine.

QuoteWe all can apply this to situations in games we have played or run in, and the situations where it didn't. So nitpicking how we got there is irrelevant to the point (no, wait, it actually is).

Who's nitpicking?

QuoteFor every situation you can list, in text,

Wait. Why stipulate "in text"? This seems fishy.

Quotewhere this wouldn't apply, I can list one where it would.

So sometimes the details are ripe for success, other times ripe for failure, and the two are in roughly equal proportions and the player doesn't know which apply to the present situation? I would call that a reasonable chance for success. If the result happened to turn out as a failure, that doesn't mean the chance for success didn't exist or wasn't reasonable.

QuoteNo, I don't believe any dumb ass charming bard can just approach a noble lady out of the blue and say "Hey, sexy, wanna breed?". The assumption (indicated in the example) is that the bard is doing this as part of revenge against the duke, and knows something of the situation, and is targeting someone who is a possibility. If the duchess was known for her chastity and extreme belief in the social foundation of marriage... well, he better know some magic then, right (or blackmail)?

Whose assumption? Yours or the bards? What if the duchess wasn't "known" for her chastity and extreme belief in the social foundation of marriage, yet nonetheless in her heart valued those two things. If she feels that way, maybe there ought not to be so reasonable chance for success. You seem to have admitted that yourself. Is the bard not fallible? Could he not be wrong in what he thinks he knows?

Just because someone has great combat skill, or any other skill, does not mean the person automatically succeeds. A lot of times, there's a call for some unknown--often a die roll--so that high skill never ensures success, only tends to make it more likely. The unknown I've suggested--the duchess's nature rather than demeanor--is just as surely an unknown. It's just not a die roll, so it's harder to model, calculate, or hard code into a game system. That doesn't mean it's not fair and worthwhile. And it doesn't mean it ignores character skill, either.

And it's certainly not without precedent or widespread acceptance in RPGs. Whether or not you hurt the other guy in combat not only depends on your skill and how good the die roll is. If you don't know you're fighting a werewolf and you're not using a silver weapon, that's a pretty key factor. And it's not something we defer to mechanics about.

QuoteCool. I've played with a few players who have the social skills of a wet rock, and I like to give them the chance to engage in that 1/2 of the plot.

Same here.

QuoteI think we can assume the presence of a strumpet, the mention of the inn, and the obvious cliche listed is enough. Do you have a reason to want to dissect this for some reason? Others have pointed out in my post what my intent is (tell good story, challenge players, don't be a dick).

And resisting details improves the story? Deferring to dice rolls challenges players? Pushing the player into a situation that maybe you find interesting but maybe the player doesn't reduces dickishness?

I can think of plenty of reasons why it's unlikely the PC would go off with the strumpet. For one, just having identified her as a strumpet, for some individuals, kills any chance she has at seducing him, no matter how inebriated. But I'm more interested in what the player is thinking. Why did the character go off drinking, presumably alone? Maybe he preferred not to have company--another possibility that would kill what you seem to think should be a slam dunk case for him leaving with the strumpet. But maybe, just maybe, the player's idea was for the character to go out drinking and whoring in the first place. If you'd known that (had some way of finding out), and scrapped the strumpet in place of a cute-but-shy serving girl (because you should have some idea what kind of girl the character prefers) then you'd actually be giving the player what he wants, and secretly getting what you want as well.

That's what doing social means. It means getting into the details you insist on evading. It doesn't mean the GM literally has to seduce the player in real life to gain the character's consent. It doesn't require real, out of character persuasion skills. It just requires important details that fairly easily spring forth when you do actually give a damn about what the players want.

QuoteI will assume you're looking for clarification because you aren't understanding the essential point being made, so let me make it here.

Poor assumption on your part. Actually, I think I've been perfectly clear. I don't question your intentions or your values. I question your methods. I share a lot of the same desires. I've tried your way. I've rejected it. I found something better. However, at this point, your resistance seems to suggest you're more married to your method than you are to the ideals you espouse.

QuoteIn RPGs, scenarios exist where players are trying to convince NPCs, and vica verca. Having a mechanism in place to have something other than player/GM whim govern the outcome of social situations suits me better because I like social stats, skills, perks, etc. to matter.

.. and I do all those things.

QuoteI dislike players who decide their characters are immune to the charming, delightful, beautiful, wondrous, terrifying (here's a common one) as this irks me to no end.

How do you know the player is deciding the character is immune to the charming, delightful, beautiful, wondrous, or terrifying? How do you know that they just don't find charming what you think is charming, don't find delightful what you think is delightful, don't find beautiful or wondrous what you think are beautiful and wondrous, and don't find terrifying what you think should be terrifying?

QuoteRemember the scene in Star Trek: First Contact

No. Never saw it.

QuoteWell, without showing you a video of how I GM, I will let you use your imagination and reason to deduce a) when I run a game, I don't post blocks of text on a discussion forum in dry, conversational bursts. I play it up. I use voices. I use descriptions. You know, the basic stuff any GM worth his or her salt does. When that is not getting anywhere because a player is being a blockhead, and can't even justify their lack of response or complete immunity to the world around them, I will either use social mechanics or drop OOC to see if the player is awake.

Meh. Doing voices or getting into descriptions have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You can tell a great story, get players engaged, and fire up the imagination while being completely dry. Sometimes voices or descriptions can help. Not always. The devil is in the details, which you've spent an awful lot of time evading.

QuoteObviously, if you have a problem with social mechanic systems, don't use them/play those sorts of games.

Who said anything about having a problem with social mechanic systems? I only have a problem with those that ape combat systems. Because they aren't social mechanic systems at all. They're combat systems with different flavor text. I don't want more combat options in my game.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798Wait. Why stipulate "in text"? This seems fishy.

Because we are typing and reading text.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798Who's nitpicking?

Who indeed? Perhaps if we examined the text....

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798If you don't know you're fighting a werewolf and you're not using a silver weapon, that's a pretty key factor.

I think that one of Coffee Zombie’s points was that some players think all their PCs are social werewolves and no one ever has a silver tongue.*

QuoteHow do you know the player is deciding the character is immune to the charming, delightful, beautiful, wondrous, or terrifying? How do you know that they just don't find charming what you think is charming, don't find delightful what you think is delightful, don't find beautiful or wondrous what you think are beautiful and wondrous, and don't find terrifying what you think should be terrifying?

It’s often blatantly obvious when it happens. If it is unclear I often ask. And sometimes the player comes right out and tells me without being prompting. Basically it’s the same way one “knows” anything about what anyone else thinks or wants ever.



* Which is different from another point that CZ mentioned, which is that some GM’s have a similar problem. And still another separate problem, which is players or GMs who thinks a high social skill is some sort of +5 Holy Vorpal Avenger Sword of Sharpness that cuts through all social and mental resistance. If you miss the context, you might be confused about which which problem CZ is addressing where.

Quote from: Bren;905813I think that one of Coffee Zombie's points was that some players think all their PCs are social werewolves and no one ever has a silver tongue.*

Heh. Silver Tongued: This merit allows the character to use their social skills on lycanthropes with increased effect. This includes certain sexual skills as well but this is left to the discretion of the GM.

QuoteIt's often blatantly obvious when it happens. If it is unclear I often ask. And sometimes the player comes right out and tells me without being prompting. Basically it's the same way one "knows" anything about what anyone else thinks or wants ever.

From my stand point, it isn't about what the Player finds charming, wondrous, terrifying, etc, most of the time. Its about what their character does. Sometimes those things will match up, sometimes they won't. For me that's what the mechanics are there for and part of role playing is dealing with that like anything else that's different between the Player and Character (PC or NPC).

On a somewhat related thought, its interesting how much easier accepting the results of extremely high skill and/or spectacular rolls are for physical, mental and combat actions are compared to social activities are for most players. Ties back into some of points Coffee Zombie mentioned earlier. Like Seducing the chaste Duchess into violating her vows quickly thanks to a high skill/outrageous Critical success. More players (and gms) would balk at that than, say, a barely skilled warrior one shotting the Duchess's champion, a high ranking. highly skilled knight, in the triall by combat to defend her honor results from that seduction in my experience.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798Nor was I talking about that. Notice "the sale" in scary quotes? That was literally the only mention of selling and it was literally presented in a way to make clear it shouldn't be taken literally. My point still stands.

In your mind, sure.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798Reasonable to whom? Am I supposed to just assume that the hypothetical GM both created an NPC who stands a reasonable chance at being swayed by seduction, but also denies any reasonable attempt to do so. Is this the GM being a jerk? Which mechanics won't fix. Or is it simply that you think one thing is reasonable and the GM thinks something else is reasonable? In which case if you spell out the reasons why the GM thinks it's reasonable for the duchess to brush off the bard, and spell out the reasons why you think it's reasonable for her to succumb to the bard, it is highly probable that there is plenty of room for a meeting of the minds, where GM and player alike can walk away satisfied with the outcome, if only the right ideas are communicated. There may be a very small number of cases where the two are simply at an impasse. And that's fine, too. There ARE cases where persuasion is impossible.

This was never disputed. There are cases where persuasion is impossible. All sane humans agree on this.

The "example" was not one of them, as was stated in the example.

CTRL+C, CTRL+V from my own post.

Side note: imagine a player character trying to charm the duke's wife, with high CHA, because they want to get an inroad into the area and revenge themselves against the duke for previous slights - but despite every good roll by said Bard, well thought out seductions and interactions, the GM says "I like the duchess as faithful, she's remains not interested". In regular play, the GM doesn't have to make her cheat in her vows, but can make her struggle against the charming Bard, trying to get his affections to cease and avoiding him (and perhaps luring the player into crossing the line and using a Charm spell). But the interaction doesn't "bounce" off the plot armour of the NPC, as that's bad form. Why is it good form for PCs?

To make it clear, the GM has decided s/he likes the Duchess not to be convinced by the Bard, despite all the Bard's efforts. The Bard, as a good assumption, has picked a target that there is a chance of seducing. He hasn't revealed in play that the Duchess is implacable or extremely devout. Though she might be - cool. The bard charms her, and the effect is not "duchess casts aside her personality for plot", but would at least "reveal something of herself". She is influenced - the attempt didn't bounce of the plot wall of the GM. Better yet, the GM can react to the exceptional charm of the bard, and have the duchess tempted - and then regret the temptation, and vow revenge on the bard. We've now made even more plot. One way or the other, the social mechanics added something to the scene, and made social characters feel like investing points/levels/whatever in social abilities isn't a waste of time.

Or you could never use this, get the same results in the group if all are capable players and GMs. That would be just as good. One doesn't negate the use and utility of the other.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798Wait. Why stipulate "in text"? This seems fishy.

Ummm... zounds? Gadzooks? Are you serious?

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798I can think of plenty of reasons why it's unlikely the PC would go off with the strumpet. For one, just having identified her as a strumpet, for some individuals, kills any chance she has at seducing him, no matter how inebriated. But I'm more interested in what the player is thinking. Why did the character go off drinking, presumably alone? Maybe he preferred not to have company--another possibility that would kill what you seem to think should be a slam dunk case for him leaving with the strumpet. But maybe, just maybe, the player's idea was for the character to go out drinking and whoring in the first place. If you'd known that (had some way of finding out), and scrapped the strumpet in place of a cute-but-shy serving girl (because you should have some idea what kind of girl the character prefers) then you'd actually be giving the player what he wants, and secretly getting what you want as well.

Those are all reactions, motives and the like that would have lead to the situation. Funny enough, I would have present for them as well, and have tailored the encounter as such. I also enjoy knowing what the character is thinking. I also like consequences where they make sense. The scene could have resolved any number of ways, including a lonesome trudge to collapse in a bed alone, thinking over the melancholy of loosing a companion, ennui of an adventuring life when poor, glory at a recent triumph, or any number of things. That wasn't the scenario presented, as it wasn't constructive to talking about when social mechanics might be used, and why.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798That's what doing social means. It means getting into the details you insist on evading. It doesn't mean the GM literally has to seduce the player in real life to gain the character's consent. It doesn't require real, out of character persuasion skills. It just requires important details that fairly easily spring forth when you do actually give a damn about what the players want.

I don't insist on evading them. I'm not GMing a god-damned game for you, and not going to lay out a long scenario. Do it yourself! Come to your own conclusions.

Wait, sure, why not.

In this scenario, Arturo has come back from a long and fruitless battle with his friends. After months of toil, they managed to find the tomb of the mad wizard Darksong, but when they made their way into the depths of the earth (passing through wights, darkness, a forray into the underdark, ghosts and a very deadly trap) they found out the terrible secret of his imprisonment. One of his friends was almost destroyed - another was slain, by his own friends thanks to a cunning illusion spell. But the wizard's shade was defeated, sealed away where it will never get free. To his side is the blade of Darksong, almost singing with power and potential, but Arturo is not sure he wishes to explore the power in the sword yet. Was it the sound of the shade of Darksong, wailing to be freed, casting curses at the retreating party? Was it the knowledge that the wizard would be born again, grow old, die in that tomb, over and over, trapped until the end of the world thanks to his own dark pact with ancient gods for immortality?

The cups called to him. He wished to drink and forget, and to honour the memory of the slain sorcerer who had accompanied them. Radgar, poor soul. At least it had not been Arturo's hand that had slain Radgar, but a few moments more and it would have been different. He ordered a stiff pint, and drank. Time passed. He listened to songs - the village was celebrating. They bought Arturo drink after drink, hailed him a hero, and sang his praises and the glory of his companions. The long winter would lift at last, and their village was saved. Arturo smiled, the heady ale going to his head after the fourth of fifth round. He joined in the singing, and soon enough he was dancing, forgetting his woes and cares, and allowing victory to hold him in her arms.

At some point in the night she came to him, and she was beautiful, or at least she was there, and she wanted to be close to him. Arturo rarely took women to the hay with him on his adventures - he had eyes for the elf, even if she seemed to think his adoration cute and called him "man child". But Aedica wasn't here, and the strumpet whispered into Arturo's ear what she wished to do with him that night.

The player can decide a wide variety of things, and this would have been interplay between myself and the player, back and forth, in a less literary form than this. And then, when it came to it, the likely chance of a strumpet wanting to bed a handsome / wealthy / available adventurer is presented, because it fits the scene and the genre. And the player does what they will, as long as they're role-playing it up. If the player is being a block of wood, and I'm still teaching them how to play human beings, then I might pull out the dice and have the strumpet charm him in his stupor - if the dice came up with success for the strumpet / failure for Arturo.

Social mechanics come out when other options fail. Combat mechanics come out when players want more detail on if their characters are made into worm's food or not. Both can, if used well, add excitement. Sometimes you don't bother with combat mechanics. "You slay the single cornered goblin, offering it no quarter."

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798Poor assumption on your part. Actually, I think I've been perfectly clear. I don't question your intentions or your values. I question your methods. I share a lot of the same desires. I've tried your way. I've rejected it. I found something better. However, at this point, your resistance seems to suggest you're more married to your method than you are to the ideals you espouse.



.. and I do all those things.

Cool. Keep it up. I'm not minister of the church of social mechanics. The topic interests me enough to write about them here.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798How do you know the player is deciding the character is immune to the charming, delightful, beautiful, wondrous, or terrifying? How do you know that they just don't find charming what you think is charming, don't find delightful what you think is delightful, don't find beautiful or wondrous what you think are beautiful and wondrous, and don't find terrifying what you think should be terrifying?

I.. ask them? Then I use some common sense, and dismiss absurd reactions. "I'm not afraid of the dragon." Okay, sure. But if I give it a fear effect that's mechanical, you are. On the other hand, I've learned how unfun it is to have scary monsters causing players to run by rolls, and much more fun it is to let players decide to have their characters show fear, be real. When you have blocks of wood or newbs, you can pull out dice and give them chances, odds, and decisions married to something other than whim.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798No. Never saw it.

No problem, there's at least one clip currently on Youtube of the scene here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kthHrC88K7c)

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798Meh. Doing voices or getting into descriptions have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You can tell a great story, get players engaged, and fire up the imagination while being completely dry. Sometimes voices or descriptions can help. Not always. The devil is in the details, which you've spent an awful lot of time evading.

I'm not evading. I'm refusing to engage in an argument over details, because the general situation is completely mutable. When you don't need social mechanics, you don't use them. When you do, you can use them. You can, if willing, always find some small way to change situational details to suit a point if you're intent on making one. Since you are, and I'm not, I'm not interested in exploring this. Dismiss the entire concept out of hand if you will, declare that every situation is best when there are no social mechanics. I can then find a way (not being there, it's magical) to interpret your situation to illustrate where it would have been better (if I'm trying to make petty points). It pointless to explore this line of conversation when not with friends of peers, so I don't. You are free to label it as evasion, others are free to agree with why I refuse to get drawn into your attempt "to define the terms of the argument".

Quote from: Lunamancer;905798Who said anything about having a problem with social mechanic systems? I only have a problem with those that ape combat systems. Because they aren't social mechanic systems at all. They're combat systems with different flavor text. I don't want more combat options in my game.

I'm not as fond of "parry / thrust" apes of combat. I also haven't found many good social mechanic systems overall. But Exalted's wasn't bad, and wasn't good. I certainly won't praise it, but it was worth a read, test in play, and abandonment along with the rest of that game. In D&D, I use skill checks alone, with modifiers based on the situation, and ask the players to role-play results that make sense. Works when I need them to work.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;905901I'm not as fond of "parry / thrust" apes of combat. I also haven't found many good social mechanic systems overall. But Exalted's wasn't bad, and wasn't good. I certainly won't praise it, but it was worth a read, test in play, and abandonment along with the rest of that game. In D&D, I use skill checks alone, with modifiers based on the situation, and ask the players to role-play results that make sense. Works when I need them to work.

I'd just like to note that the Third Edition has better social system than an emulation of the combat engine:).
Basically, you have Values (Intimacies in the system). Those values are of a level that you priortize - basically the ones that are essential to you, the ones you'd risk serious inconvenience for, and ones you'd make small sacrifices for. In order to persuade someone of something, you have to threaten him (often physically), bribe him (not necessarily with money) or use one of his Intimacies. If you deduced correctly, it works. If you deduced it wrong, you don't even get to roll.
Furthermore, people can have contradictory desires and loyalties, just like in real life. And, like in real life, it's harder to persuade against someone's loyalties (and it's easier to persuade someone who's confused, tired and feels down).
It's not a perfect system, but it works - and accounts for stuff that most of the at least mildly experienced GMs should account for anyway;).

While I an heavily in the "Dont need mechanics for social interaction" camp. I do rather like 5e D&D's system which requires you to interact with the NPC to get to know them and some checks to see just what you learn or influence based on that. I think it mirrors a little better the social dynamics of getting to know someone or getting them to open up as opposed to some other systems. It works without being to clunky.

QuoteI'm not evading. I'm refusing to engage in an argument over details, because the general situation is completely mutable. When you don't need social mechanics, you don't use them. When you do, you can use them. You can, if willing, always find some small way to change situational details to suit a point if you're intent on making one. Since you are, and I'm not, I'm not interested in exploring this.

All I did was ask questions because I am NOT intent on making a point. You're the one who got defensive and responded argumentatively.

QuoteDismiss the entire concept out of hand if you will, declare that every situation is best when there are no social mechanics.

Who said I'm dismissing the entire concept? Who says I'm not using social mechanics? These are all YOUR assertions, and every one of them is false. Why would you assume false facts in evidence rather than just ask simple questions on any points of confusion?

Quote from: Bren;905813I think that one of Coffee Zombie’s points was that some players think all their PCs are social werewolves and no one ever has a silver tongue.*

No one ever? Sure. I can see how that might be a problem. Players who are so unreasonable that "no one ever" can sway them to a course of action in the game? That sounds like something that demands a solution.

Unless, of course, there are instances--even just one--when these hypothetical players actually DO have their characters willingly take some action than an NPC (or PC) wants them to take, in a social situation, without deferring to game mechanics, that they otherwise wouldn't do if the PC or NPC hadn't asked.

Because that would mean that all those times we get upset at the players being "too wooden" isn't because that's the inherent nature of the player. It's because the player isn't engaged. And that would suggest a VERY different problem with a very different cause and a very different solution.

That said, I've yet to see an actual living, breathing player who didn't occasionally do things like, say, give up treasure earned through adventure in exchange for coin of the realm. Or exchange coin of the realm for equipment or other goods and services. They very willingly give up these things to NPCs who want them. Because? It benefits the PC (or at least they think at the time that it does) to engage in these social situations and to do as these NPCs ask. Now this is just the easiest example to point to. But there are countless interactions, including those of non-commercial nature, that occur and go unnoticed. The simple fact is, it's hard to get very far without cooperating with others. It's taken for granted. Until those relatively rare times when someone doesn't want to budge. Only then do we take notice and see a problem.

So yes, when I hear GMs in particular citing this "problem" I question things.

Does the player simply refuse to go along the majority of the time, or is it just the rare times they do is grating to the GM?
If this is truly frequent behavior, is the player just not engaged in social situations?
Is this due to the GMing style? (Clearly other parts of the game are engaging otherwise the player wouldn't keep showing up!)
Do mechanics address the actual underlying problem or does the GM just need to refine his craft?

Quote from: Lunamancer;906054No one ever?

No one said. "No one ever."

Well, no one except you.

QuoteSo yes, when I hear GMs in particular citing this "problem" I question things.

Why? Seriously why?

Why do you care that someone, somewhere wants to play an RPG in a different manner than you do?

Quote from: Bren;906061No one said. "No one ever."

Well, no one except you.

You know, I just love it how you blast other people for shit only you said. I was responding to your "no one ever" comment. Quoted you quite clearly. If you want to recant your straw man, by all means do so.

Because "no one ever" wasn't just a tragic choice of words on your part to express an otherwise sound idea. It was an essential assumption to the problem you were trying to cite. Whereas dropping "no one ever" from the equation-- if players show a clear willingness to engage in some social situations but not others, it follows pretty damn simply that those "other" social situations simply do not engage the players. Which is what I've claimed all along, a claim that apparently has your panties in a bunch.

So yes, you said  "no one ever" and you meant it.

QuoteWhy? Seriously why?

Why do you care that someone, somewhere wants to play an RPG in a different manner than you do?

Same reply. You are the one who jumps down peoples throats for simply presenting an option different from what you do. I very simply answered the OP that what he was asking about is just not for me. I never said nobody should do it. I never indicated that I cared if someone else did it. I simply said I don't care for it, here's why, and oh, by the way, I have an alternative. And for some reason made apparent by your own posting behavior matters so much to you that you post inane comments just for the sake of not allowing anyone's fun to go unchallenged by your own holy opinion.

So basically nice try quoting your own character flaws and then attempting to attribute them to others.

Quote from: Lunamancer;906063You know, I just love it how you blast other people for shit only you said. I was responding to your "no one ever" comment. Quoted you quite clearly. If you want to recant your straw man, by all means do so.

Werewolf...Silver tongue...It was a pun. :rolleyes:

I know, I know you didn't get it because it was written in text. Which you find "fishy."

I hereby proclaim that I've just won a 6-pack out of this thread, which might well be more than the rest of the participants;).

Quote from: AsenRG;906082I hereby proclaim that I've just won a 6-pack out of this thread, which might well be more than the rest of the participants;).

But uncle Asen, just because mr. soon-to-be-fired didn't choose to respond doesn't make you a winner. He is still working on the strategy proving him right in spite of being wrong. He will answer, oh ya, he will and low-tier insults are to be expected. :D

Quote from: Lunamancer;906054That said, I've yet to see an actual living, breathing player who didn't occasionally do things like, say, give up treasure earned through adventure in exchange for coin of the realm. Or exchange coin of the realm for equipment or other goods and services. They very willingly give up these things to NPCs who want them. Because? It benefits the PC (or at least they think at the time that it does) to engage in these social situations and to do as these NPCs ask. Now this is just the easiest example to point to. But there are countless interactions, including those of non-commercial nature, that occur and go unnoticed. The simple fact is, it's hard to get very far without cooperating with others. It's taken for granted. Until those relatively rare times when someone doesn't want to budge. Only then do we take notice and see a problem.

So yes, when I hear GMs in particular citing this "problem" I question things.

I know this reply was not in response to one of my posts, but I can assure you - players who don't budge exist. Your commerce scenario is not a useful example, except to help place where social mechanics belong. I also don't want you to have the burden, implied or otherwise, to defend the camp of "no social mechanics", in case you feel that's been thrust upon you (and from your responses, you don't seem utterly opposed to their use).

PCs 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. Good, sensible people who outside of game will compromise, co-operate, collaborate and even buy you dinner every week will indeed stand like a child in the mud refusing to acknowledge that their playing piece (player character) has any emotional reaction at all. They will even fabricate personality elements to try and justify this lack of reaction, elements which vanish into an increasing haze of rhetoric and interpretation the next time the character is put in a situation the player favors at all. The only genius who can understand this player's emotional reaction scheme is, apparently, the player, and said player can not understand how disruptive, combative and pointless this stance is. To the player (all points should have an and/or suffix):

1) They value their character concept, and want to be the ultimate author of how this character reacts to the ongoing plot, including giving character near Mary Stew/Sue levels of immunity to adverse emotional situations
2) They don't want specific things to happen to their character, and have determined that the taboo against social rules is an excellent area of the game to get away with bad behavior, since GMs can't enforce emotional reactions
3) They have actual, real life problems understanding what makes people tick, and their character is only as good as the player piloting the fictional ego of that character (this is not as uncommon as it sounds in RPG circles - a lot of odd ducks and cast-offs gravitate to role-playing)
4) They do not agree with the interpretation of the GM, or even group, on the emotional reaction, either from life experience, misstated terms of the situation, or general tastes. This is sometimes because the player hasn't sufficiently invested themselves into the environs of the character; other times it is because the knowledge of the player is honestly telling them the request for emotional reaction is patently false or incorrect in this scenario, and alternatives for the character they are playing exist

Of the 4 above, 1-3 are the better cases where Social Mechanics are aids. The 4th point, however, is where social mechanics can turn into a hammer that crushes good dialogue, development of the character, and make social interactions feel as artificial as the nonsense depicted below. This is why, in light of #4, why I prefer to use them sparingly and sometimes not at all, but for the previous points, appreciate having them as tools to fall back on when #4 doesn't seem very applicable.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]227[/ATTACH]

Quote from: JesterRaiin;906083But uncle Asen, just because mr. soon-to-be-fired didn't choose to respond doesn't make you a winner. He is still working on the strategy proving him right in spite of being wrong. He will answer, oh ya, he will and low-tier insults are to be expected. :D

Lunamancer still replied more than three times, whether he addressed you or not;).

I 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).

Quote from: AsenRG;906131Lunamancer still replied more than three times, whether he addressed you or not;).

Maybe this will tide you over.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]228[/ATTACH]

Quote from: AsenRG;906131Lunamancer still replied more than three times, whether he addressed you or not;).

Forced award won't do you any good. Be a sport, uncle! :p

[video=youtube;KN0lD6QLA9w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN0lD6QLA9w[/youtube]

Quote from: JesterRaiin;906135Forced award won't do you any good. Be a sport, uncle! :p

Oh, I'm going to weave the prize anyway - it's winning that matters in a bet;).

Quote from: AsenRG;906144Oh, I'm going to weave the prize anyway - it's winning that matters in a bet;).

Grrrrrrrrr... Damn winners... Ok, sixpack of good beers is yours, then.

Quote from: AsenRG;906144payable when we meet

(http://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1426108492i/13975508.jpg)

Quote from: JesterRaiin;906146Grrrrrrrrr... Damn winners... Ok, sixpack of good beers is yours, then.

You can keep them. Actually, drink them tonight, if you wish, and tell your wife you won them on a forum bet;)!

Quote(http://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1426108492i/13975508.jpg)

Deal it is:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;906148You can keep them. Actually, drink them tonight, if you wish, and tell your wife you won them on a forum bet;)!

No, no, impossibru. I'd rather strangle everyone else to death than break a promise.

QuoteDeal it is:D!

Just you wait, uncle. Just you wait. :D

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. [. . .] PCs 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.

So we're talking about players who choose to do some things and not others. It's not immediately clear why this a problem in and of itself. But I will grant that maybe there are times we'd like players to choose some of those other things more often. Now there are a couple different ways to go about this. Sure, you could introduce a set of mechanics that forces them to do the other things. That's one way. Or, because now we're clear that we're talking about players who WILL voluntarily engage in situations where they see some benefit to doing so, you could simply make those "other" things more appealing to players.

These 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.

QuoteGood, sensible people who outside of game will compromise, co-operate, collaborate and even buy you dinner every week will indeed stand like a child in the mud refusing to acknowledge that their playing piece (player character) has any emotional reaction at all. They will even fabricate personality elements to try and justify this lack of reaction, elements which vanish into an increasing haze of rhetoric and interpretation the next time the character is put in a situation the player favors at all. The only genius who can understand this player's emotional reaction scheme is, apparently, the player, and said player can not understand how disruptive, combative and pointless this stance is.

Such 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

QuoteOf the 4 above, 1-3 are the better cases where Social Mechanics are aids. The 4th point, however, is where social mechanics can turn into a hammer that crushes good dialogue, development of the character, and make social interactions feel as artificial as the nonsense depicted below. This is why, in light of #4, why I prefer to use them sparingly and sometimes not at all, but for the previous points, appreciate having them as tools to fall back on when #4 doesn't seem very applicable.

On 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.

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. :D

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. :p

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. :D

[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. :p

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

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

[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... :D

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

There definitely are. Or people desperately seeking some moral high ground to justify their own preferences.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;906708I'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.

I've seen seduction rules applied in a very clumsy, heavy handed manner that came across a creepy too, often with some very obvious meta game and OOC motivation. But the reaction that that is the only way they can be or will be used feels like a big over reaction. Any rules can be abused and mishandled after all. It almost like claiming that if a game has rules for physical grappling that they're to facilitate physical rape scenes or social mechanics over all as “mind control”.

But sex is always a sensitive subject that's difficult to be totally rational and objective about. Exalted 3rd's “Red Rule” is an example of the dichotomy in attitude. In short, Players (gm included with caveats) have OOC shut down power against sexual seductions, use of sexual charms and similar matters, no questions asked or explanation needed. This “plot armor” doesn't extend to other types of social actions. Players can veto their character being seduced into cheating on their spouse but not talked into murdering them, at least by RAW. Of course, nothing stops you from objecting but the gm isn't officially obligated to listen.

I've run into the “social werewolf” more often than I like. They've had a number of reasons but the end result was the same. At this point, I just tell new players flat out what I expect and how I run things and if its not compatible with them then its not compatible.

Quote from: Omega;906769They must really blow a gasket at the thought of 5e Warlocks out there... somewhere... :D

I'm not familiar with 5e (or really almost any) to get the reference?

You know, it's funny. No one owned up to the idea of believing in the social werewolf that "no one ever" had the silver solution to. Yet, here it is, being used again in association with a player who NEVER budges, but that's a straw man. No one's denied that these same players HAPPILY engage in social situations and are even persuaded by NPCs to part with valuables IF the player believes doing so will get him something HE values. That "something" IS the silver bullet.

Suppose the Exalted PCs primary ambition is to get a seat of political power, and a situation arises where an NPC is able to put him in that seat. The NPC just requires the PC cheat on his wife. No skill checks are needed here (though they might be employed to assure all parties that the terms of the proposition are legit). The player sure enough HAS the veto power. But if he values power more than fidelity, as my example stipulates, then he's not going to choose to use it. That's the power of the silver bullet. And it's all equally possible that this NPC in question is not really any kind of power broker but a lowly con operator with maxed out social skills so the player can't tell the difference.

Quote from: Nexus;906785I'm not familiar with 5e (or really almost any) to get the reference?

Warlocks in 5e can get various mind effecting powers.
Archfey path has Beguiling Presence & Dark Delerium(charm all within 10ft/1 in 60ft), and Beguiling Defense(reflect charms). Great old one path has Create Thrall(place a semi-permanent charm on one target), and two invocations are mind effecting. Mercifully none are at will powers. And all but Thrall allow a save.

A fully tricked out 5e Bard can be pretty formidible in conversation alone as they can gain a doubled proficiency bonus.

The bards probably the more potent of the two. By level 5. With a mere 16 CHA as long as they succeed the skill check they are pretty much guaranteed at least an ok result with NPC reactions even with hostile ones. Now put that sort of persuasive power in the hands of an NPC.