Handling interpersonal skills

[Sean Waters]

Just wondering how you deal with skill rolls against players.

 

I mean, if the roll in question is a stealth roll and the player doesn't make their PER roll, you just don't tell them, no problem, but if the player is subject to a persuade roll or a seduction, well, what then?

 

Generally my perception has been that PCs are NOT required to comply with a successful interaction skill used against them. The logic is that players decide the character's actions, not dice rolls.

 

Maybe PCs should have to follow the dictates of such a skill used against them though....

 

I appreciate that this can cause some problems, but it is an RPG and it seems oddly unbalanced to have PCs immune to such 'effects'. You could restore balance by having NPCs effectively equally immune but that removes most of the utility of the skill.

 

So, how do you handle it, as a player or as a GM?

[Bloodstone]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Speaking in general RPG terms here:

 

I expect my players to roleplay their characters. When they fail to do so, I let them know. That's mainly how I enforce it. So yeah, make the skill roll, make the appropriate counter roll, inform the player of what his character should be feeling based on those rolls and see how the player reacts. Don't take all the control out of the players hands, but definitly nudge them in the right direction. If they persistantly refuse to conform to the suggestions, well probably time for a long talk or a boot to the head...

 

However, if I want to build somone that is so persuasive that their charms or threats are virtually unresistable, I can easily sub in Mind Control as a super skill rather then giving them +30 with Seduction, Persuasion and Conversation.

[Phil]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

I like to use interpersonal skills against characters. This then removes the element of "GM paranoia" that many players exhibit, making their PCs uncharmable, persuadable and general immune to social interactions no matter what. It is also inline with a lot of heroic fiction, where you blatantly see the protagonist being led astray and dont understand why they cant see it! Particularly appropriate for the pulp genre and for modern conspiracy campaigns.

 

I dont have a specific mechanic but one possibility might be to use a mechanic along the lines of Persuade skill, if successful then roll PRE-attack with bonuses as per skill description and use that as the guideline for how taken the player is or isnt. After all, they arent immune to PRE-attacks and isnt persuasion and the like just a very passive PRE attack?

 

Of course, it goes without saying that if you've got good roleplayers, there is no need to enforce this approach. Which is infinitely easier.

[Mister E]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

For as long as I can remember, I've had a "Player gets to make his Character do whatever he wants" rule for RPG's. Superskills built as Mind Control are something I haven't run into yet, but even then the Player would be in control, I'm guessing. I'm sure if I told one of my Players that some uber-hot super-spy Femme Fatale just rolled a critical success (or whatever) with her Seduction Roll, they would play along with it. It's part of what makes the game fun, after all.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

I always use skills against the PCs. Bluffing, Lying, Seducing what have you. I do some RPing and perhaps a roll or three and tell the Protagonist in no uncertain terms that the roll was successful or not (I have even intimated classic fumbles) and that the Player should Roleplay appropriately.

 

If they do not then the standard roleplaying award is forfeit. After all the character was not roleplayed well if Enchantadora was rebuffed by Phil's aforementioned Stone the Unfeeling Man-type PC.

 

Hawksmoor

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Generally my perception has been that PCs are NOT required to comply with a successful interaction skill used against them. The logic is that players decide the character's actions, not dice rolls.

 

Maybe PCs should have to follow the dictates of such a skill used against them though....

 

I appreciate that this can cause some problems, but it is an RPG and it seems oddly unbalanced to have PCs immune to such 'effects'. You could restore balance by having NPCs effectively equally immune but that removes most of the utility of the skill.

 

I think you hit the nail square on the head above. If PC's are immune to these skills, why should NPC's waste points on them?

 

And why should NPC's be subject to these skills? The logic that says the player knows his character best, and should decide how interactions proceed is equally applicable to GM's knowing their NPC's best, so GM's should also decide based on the actual interaction.

 

To me, the purpose of these skills is to show that this character is skilled in specifc methods of interaction. If the character is a suave ladies' man or femme fatale, the fact that the player blushes and giggles whenever speaking to a member of the opposite sex doesn't impact the character's skill. Similarly, the fact that the GM's only mode of speech is a monotone doesn't eliminate the skills of an NPC with oratorical skills.

 

Often, what I find happens is that players use "well, my character just isn't impressed" as an excuse for not taking actions that, in game, their character probably would. Applying the interaction skill rules equally to PC and NPC eliminates this issue. And the word "equally" is the key to me. If you want your PC to be functionally immune to interaction skills, without paying any points for this privilege, then NPC's should have the same functional immuinity, at the same (lack of) cost.

 

Similarly, many games give the PC a bonus on his interaction skills (or alow the effects of that skill when the character didn't pay for it) because the player is a smooth talker and "role played it well", and penalizes "role playiong poorly" with a skill penalty. So the shy player who pours points into interaction skills rarely succeeds because he role plays it poorly, but the skilled drmatacist pays no points for such skills, and succeeds most of the time due to the player's skills, not the character's. Frankly, when a character with an 8 PRE, no social skills and a "painfully shy" disadvantage is played as a great conversationalist and fast talker, that's not grounds for a skill bonus for "ggod role playing", it's grounds for "the skill roll failed, so your character's presentation wasn't up to the player's portrayal" and an xp penalty for poor role playing since you weren't playing in character.

 

Where do you draw the line? Should PC's also get an automatic immunity to PRE attacks? After all, that's just a more blunt force application of the same ability to bring others around to your way of thinking. Maybe they should also be immune to mind control ("SuperGuy decides the best way to "protect Captain Ego" is to punch him out and lock him up in Stronghold - where could he possibly be safer?" Myabe we should apply it to combat - I envision my character as deadly accurate, so he should always hit, to maximum effect. Your character is tough as nails, so attacks shouold just bounce off with no effect. Why roll at all?

 

The game is about fictional characters, the results of whose actions are determined by their skills and abilities, and a die roll to factor in random chance. The rules and the rolls provide a structure to elevate our game (or so we like to believe) above a group of schoolchildren saying "I got you - fall down" and "No you missed me!" by providing an objective means of determining success and failure. All the fictional characters should be guided by these rules and rolls, not just some of them.

 

Does this mean "who your character is" has no impact? Certainly not. I would expect, for example, a priest whose personality includes "devout" and "vow of chastity" (whether or not he got disadvantage points for these) to be much more resistant to the advances of a seductress than the character whose backstory includes "hedonist" and "sucker for a pretty face (again, regardless of disadvantage points), and a character who is "greedy and amoral" to be far more susceptible to being persuaded to take a split of the take than a "law-abiding" character who "hates crime passionately". Perhaps even to the point that certain skill rolls against that character fail automatically - or succeed automatically. But, outside these extremes, the skills and the rolls set the game's framework, and they should apply equally to all of the characters.

 

The PC's should still get the simplifying advantage that Joe NPC is affected by their better skills without a roll, just because the character is skilled and the issue isn't mission-critical. Just as it's OK to assume an NPC was Persuaded by Dr. Charisma as part of the scenario backstory. But, in a situation where the PC would get a roll, and the NPC would have to abide by the result, the same rule should apply when it's the NPC who gets a roll.

 

Thinking on it, an alternative would be a standard rule that interaction skills are binding only on "bit players", so you may persuade the villain's lawyer to give up his location, but your skill will be just as useless against the villain as his ionteraction skills would be against a PC. Again, this would level the playing field. But that solution seems far less appropriate than simply applying the interaction skills to all of the characters who inhabit our fictional world.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

I think that Sean's premise "the logic is that players decide the character's actions, not dice rolls" goes against the very core of roleplaying. This is not the player in the game but a role that they are supposed to be playing. In Hero it should be a role they have very carefully defined and so it shouldn't be too onerous being made to comply with dice rolls dictated by that role.

 

Pendragon was the game I had the biggest arguments on this topic. All the personality traits dictated whether the character would follow a particular path or not. One of my friends thought that he should be defining the characters actions - I thought that the player defines the character and the character defines the game actions.

 

 

Doc

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

I'm kind of torn about this, myself.

 

See, I'd been dealing with a romantic connection recently between a PC and an NPC. The NPC (female) was getting frustrated by the PC (male)'s chastity, but had a lot of respect for him, at the same time.

 

So, I had her turn on the charm at a dance.

 

She made her roll by 7.

 

And I used a lot of words to say, basically, 'You want her.' When he continued to resist, I put in an OOC comment what her roll was, clarifying that no, I wasn't trying to torture him, I was just describing the effect this kind of success would have.

 

He quit resisting, and I went to fadeout.

 

Now, I'm not certain I handled it correctly (and it had next to no bearing on plot, anyway, so I'm not sure it matters). But it effectively conveyed, in a way the rest of my posts weren't, that she was subtly but effectively seducing him. Where I'm uncertain it was the right thing to do is where it almost seemed like I was saying, 'She overpowered you; you have no choice.'

 

I guess I should be asking the player whether he felt he had a choice when I stated the roll, huh?

[Phil]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

See' date=' I'd been dealing with a romantic connection recently between a PC and an NPC. The NPC (female) was getting frustrated by the PC (male)'s chastity, but had a lot of respect for him, at the same time. So, I had her turn on the charm at a dance. She made her roll by 7.[/quote']

 

This is an example of where a secondary mechanics - such as PRE attacks - might come in handy. It's one thing to succeed and succumb to *some* physical contact, it's another to give up a cherished value. I'd put it as a PRE/EGO+40 result. Making the roll by 7 gives her 3.5d6 bonus to PRE attack.... she's likely to get a kiss, but if this is a genuine conviction (e.g. Psych Lim) she'll probably need to do better.

 

Phil

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

It wasn't a psych lim, it was a matter of speeding up something that was going to happen eventually, but that he was resisting a bit.

 

Oh, and he's playing a 16 year-old, so hormones factor in, here.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

It wasn't a psych lim, it was a matter of speeding up something that was going to happen eventually, but that he was resisting a bit.

 

Oh, and he's playing a 16 year-old, so hormones factor in, here.

 

16 year old boy???

 

Playing hard to get?

 

What world is this. To quite Xander Harris boys think of sex when they see linoleum.

 

Hawksmoor

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Fantasy Hero. So the kind of social norm that makes it OKAY to think about sex every 5 seconds isn't present, and this character was raised by a traditionalist sort of family, with a code mostly derived from those values.

 

Of course, the first thing he said afterwards was, "Why did I wait so long??????"

[RDU Neil]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Speaking in general RPG terms here:

 

I expect my players to roleplay their characters. When they fail to do so, I let them know. That's mainly how I enforce it. So yeah, make the skill roll, make the appropriate counter roll, inform the player of what his character should be feeling based on those rolls and see how the player reacts. Don't take all the control out of the players hands, but definitly nudge them in the right direction. If they persistantly refuse to conform to the suggestions, well probably time for a long talk or a boot to the head...

 

However, if I want to build somone that is so persuasive that their charms or threats are virtually unresistable, I can easily sub in Mind Control as a super skill rather then giving them +30 with Seduction, Persuasion and Conversation.

 

I agree with this... and Hawksmoor below. The roll is kind of a push in the direction a player and GM should follow. A skill roll should be a role playing cue. It is metagaming, but I don't mind that. The roll says, "Ok... NPC #2 just rolled a huge success on Persuasion." As a GM, it changes how I play out the role playing aspects. I will nuance my delivery to play on what I know the PLAYERS are comfortable with... so they are more inclined to agree. Of course, this only works because I know most of the players for years, if not decades. In other cases, I metagame it out in the open. "Skill roll says, your character really believes what NPC #2 is saying. What do you do?" and just leave it up to the player to make it good. Doesn't always work out, but over time, if play styles are compatible, most of the time the story/game/plot will move ahead in a way everyone is comfortable with. Cooperative story telling in action.

[Cancer]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

16 year old boy???

 

Playing hard to get?

 

What world is this. To quite Xander Harris boys think of sex when they see linoleum.

 

Hawksmoor

 

I've had ... hell, I've lived ... characters that do this, in the Hero system sense. The result is "hard to get", but the sfx is something entirely different.

 

If a guy was sufficiently, ah, emotionally abused in an earlier encounter, he could come to believe what he was told: that no one could ever possibly be interested in him.

 

Structure your mind that way, then every come-on is just another female trying to yank you around, another cruel practical joker. The Buffy RPG calls this "fear of attachment" or something similar. The character doesn't have the social skills to "play the game", so usually he just leaves quietly, disappears into his studies/library/work/garage, and waits for the "threat" to give up and go away.

 

(In a nearly-completed Buffy RPG sequence our group is playing, it is Valentine's weekend, and a cupid demon has shot half the team with arrows. The (female) slayer got a demonically-induced set of hots for my character, a controlled werewolf/computer nerd/fear of attachment geek. And yes, his reaction is suspicion and flight. He ended up "going wolf" and diving out an upper-story window to get away. For reasons that I forget now, the slayer didn't go into hot (sic) pursuit. Which is too bad, because I had hopes of having the pursuit getting to the parking lot of the police precinct building, where he'd revert to human -- but be dressed only in the loose stretchy gym shorts that can stay on him in wolf form (and this is in Seattle in mid-February) -- and scream at the slayer: "What part of NO don't you understand?!?")

 

I'm perfectly willing to roleplay social interaction things that are counter to the character's true interest, as long as those are consistent with the character concept. The more fun, the better. But I don't think the tyrrany of the dice should be enough to force a player character to do something which is counter to the character concept, just like the player can't willingly do something outside the character concept.

[Phil]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Are people out there seriously roleplaying teenagers trying to get laid? And we wonder why roleplayers are portrayed in a bad light in the media...?

[Vanguard00]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

I always use skills against the PCs. Bluffing, Lying, Seducing what have you. I do some RPing and perhaps a roll or three and tell the Protagonist in no uncertain terms that the roll was successful or not (I have even intimated classic fumbles) and that the Player should Roleplay appropriately.

 

If they do not then the standard roleplaying award is forfeit. After all the character was not roleplayed well if Enchantadora was rebuffed by Phil's aforementioned Stone the Unfeeling Man-type PC.

 

Hawksmoor

That's how I run it, as well.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Are people out there seriously roleplaying teenagers trying to get laid? And we wonder why roleplayers are portrayed in a bad light in the media...?

Well, I have RPed such, yeah.

 

But the difference is, in that game my PC couldn't get laid in a women's prison with a fistful of pardons, whereas I get nookie pretty much whenever I want.

[Cancer]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Are people out there seriously roleplaying teenagers trying to get laid? And we wonder why roleplayers are portrayed in a bad light in the media...?

 

Only occasionally. Our GM is a sadist. Also, calling in a cupid demon to give the PCs a set of teenage hots turns out to be a (highly amusing) tactical diversion while more gruesome demonic stuff is going down partway across town.

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Are people out there seriously roleplaying teenagers trying to get laid? And we wonder why roleplayers are portrayed in a bad light in the media...?

Well, there WAS a lot more going on than that, but that's what that interaction boiled down to.

 

And yes, it WAS in-character for him to end up with this girl, and doing so helped him out quite a bit, plot-wise, especially with the way he handled it. Basically, because he didn't leap right into bed with her, she got to caring about him, and ended up giving the party information they wouldn't have gotten, otherwise.

[Phil]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

And yes' date=' it WAS in-character for him to end up with this girl, and doing so helped him out quite a bit, plot-wise, especially with the way he handled it. Basically, because he didn't leap right into bed with her, she got to caring about him, and ended up giving the party information they wouldn't have gotten, otherwise.[/quote']

 

Rubbish! 3d6 *rattle* Complimentary skill Seduction successful. *rattle* Successful Conversation attempt. Right, now let's kick some ***

[Sean Waters]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Some really good points here. I like Hawksmoor's suggestion (obvious in retrospect, but isn't it always?) that the way to deal with not roleplaying is not award a roleplaying XP point.

 

Hugh Neilson makes some excellent points too, especially on the difference between the player and the character. I am guilty of this when playing: I tend to be a reasonably good fast talker and can often persuade the GM even against his better judgement of certain things. As a result I tend to build interaction skill heavy characters, as i know what my play style is like.

 

A couple of suggestions.

 

I would imagine that the counter to most PRE skills is EGO rather than PRE. maybe sometimes even INT. Being good at seduction would not imply that you are good at resisting seduction (probably quite the opposite ). When an NPC has a go at seducing a PC, first check if they WANT to resist. They might not.

 

If they do, have the player make an EGO roll with any appropriate bonuses, and use the NPC's PRE/5 and skill levels and other bonuses as a penalty. In my experience if a player blows the roll they are more willing to live with the consequences, they are, after all, their own fault:sneaky: . The player can argue for bonuses, or even argue that a skill rather than an EGO roll is more appropriate (a streetwise roll might be a good one to counter a seduction attempt in some cases...). If the character is a cop about to arrest a major villain, he is unlikely to be persuaded by a little girl to get her cat out of the tree (unless there is significant comedy value involved ).

 

Appropriate psychological or social limtiations give bonuses or penalties, usually +2/+5/+10 depending on the intensity value (or -2/-5/-10 if the Psych lim would make you more vulnerable), or you could just roll them seperately to see whether they scupper the attempt, but that feels a bit odd - if the EGO roll SUCCEEDS, then the psych lim doesn't help. Hmm. Also back-story can garner bonuses or penalties: a straight playing law-abiding Joe is less likely to be persuaded that the cheap goodies on offer are not stolen...

 

If the player makes the roll he can act as normal. If, after blowing the roll, the player can thnk of a way to go along but subvert the intent I'd probably allow another roll - depends on circumstances. If the player flat out refuses to play along then the XP penalty cuts in. That or the Fist of Doom....

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Rubbish! 3d6 *rattle* Complimentary skill Seduction successful. *rattle* Successful Conversation attempt. Right' date=' now let's kick some *** [/quote']

Which is how it might've gone if this was a tabletop game, but PbP gives a lot more freedom to roleplay out this stuff, and even encourages it. ^ v ^

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Hugh Neilson makes some excellent points too' date=' especially on the difference between the player and the character. I am guilty of this when playing: I tend to be a reasonably good fast talker and can often persuade the GM even against his better judgement of certain things. As a result I tend to build interaction skill heavy characters, as i know what my play style is like.[/quote']

 

To me, that's appropriate - you want a character who's good at interaction, so you buy that character interaction skills. The "problem player" would be the one who spends no points on such skills, then expects to get the benefiits of his, the player's, interaction skills when these are superior to those of the character.

 

If you want your personal skills to apply to the character, then I want to see you perform that triple backflip over a pit of fire yourself before I believe your character's 21- acrobatics roll allows success

[Sean Waters]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Interaction skill style is something else that is quite interesting. Two characters might have Oratory 12-, but incredibly different styles of delivery. One might argue logically and carefully, the other loudly and passionately. They BOTH persuade 74% of the audience, but it is probably a different 74% (well, OK thre's going to be overlap: we'll call them undecideds)

 

The logical calm speaker might appeal to the thinkers and the loud passionate one to those with more emotional attachment.

 

Which is odd, from a game model perspective: the high INT low PRE audience members should surely be more effected by the passionate speaker....hmm. Too complicated for me....

 

I know I tend to get turned off rather than persuaded by those who go for the animal in the audience. I have no idea what that means about MY character sheet

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

But I don't think the tyrrany of the dice should be enough to force a player character to do something which is counter to the character concept' date=' just like the player can't willingly do something outside the character concept.[/quote']

 

But everyone is happy to allow the tyranny of the dice dictate combat. I think there is often too much of ourselves invested in the character and while our wargame-y side allows us to accept combat setbacks that does not extend to social contests.

 

I like Heroquest as each and every ability can be used as the basis for a contest.

 

 

Doc