Handling interpersonal skills

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

But everyone is happy to allow the tyranny of the dice dictate combat.

 

BINGO - we can accept that a lucky roll kills a character, but not that it causes him to make an ill-considered decision in the heat of the moment? Is there anyone alive who hasn't been talked into something, at some point in their lives, that they now look back on and wonder how they could have been so stupid?

[Fitz]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

I've been generally fortunate enough to have played with people who will go with the flow of a scene, whether it be dictated by the roll of the dice or circumstantially. It sometimes takes a little gentle nudging ("Really? Not interested? This woman is the sexiest, most fascinating person you've met in a long time, and you've just come in from six months in the desert without sex....")* but they'll usually play along.

 

Where I find people put up the most resistance is when it comes to Mind Control effects, and I suspect it's for the same reason that players HATE to have their characters taken prisoner. Otherwise reasonable players will bend and twist and rules-lawyer every step of the way to avoid having to do what their controller commands them to. Generally, as long as they dont flat-out refuse to accept the situation I'll let them get away with a certain amount of that, but eventually I think you have to put your foot down and make people decide whether they want to play the game fairly and socially or just make up their own masturbatory stories.

 

In the end, although players have to be able to make their own decisions for their players, I think everyone has to agree to be guided in those decisions by the dice, where the dice are appropriate. Otherwise we might as well be playing one of those storyteller-type diceless games.

 

*[OK, so not-so-gentle blatant kicking and shoving.]

[ghost-angel]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

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

KOTD. nice.

[Cancer]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

BINGO - we can accept that a lucky roll kills a character' date=' but not that it causes him to make an ill-considered decision in the heat of the moment? Is there anyone alive who hasn't been talked into something, at some point in their lives, that they now look back on and wonder how they could have been so stupid?[/quote']

 

Having characters die is part of the deal in most games. Taking away the most fundamental control over a player's character is not part of any game I want to participate in. That's part of the heroic concept that I game for. It's that simple.

 

What follows is an intentionally absurd scenario drawn to demonstrate a point.

 

Sidious: Come, Mother Teresa, all you need to do is take this lightsaber and strike down that beggar over there, and you will be given the power to convert all India to follow you.

 

GM: That one's not gonna be easy, Sidious. I'm giving you a -10 modifier on your Seduction roll there, despite the +2 bonus you have for Appropriate Offer.

 

Mother Teresa's player: Only a -10?! It should be impossible! It's vile, and goes against everything in my character concept! Look, it's right there on that pre-game questionnaire you sent out, "What your character would never do," and my reply there is "Kill an innocent."

 

GM: Play on.

 

Sidious' player: With my PRE of 33, 5 All Skills adds, and +8 modifier from my PRE Aid power, and your PRE of 20 with no skill in Seduction of course, that means I've got a 19-or-less roll ... ... Yes! I succeed by 10!

 

GM: Sorry, Mother Teresa. You take the lightsaber and turn the beggar into teriyaki.

 

Mother Teresa's player: I'd cut myself in half first!

 

GM: Not when Sidious succeeded by 10 you don't.

 

So, when Mother Teresa's player throws everyone out of the house at that point, who's out of line?

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

BINGO - we can accept that a lucky roll kills a character' date=' but not that it causes him to make an ill-considered decision in the heat of the moment? Is there anyone alive who hasn't been talked into something, at some point in their lives, that they now look back on and wonder how they could have been so stupid?[/quote']

*raises her hand*

 

Today, actually.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

When I GM, I really try not to directly control a PC. Even when something like Mind Control is in effect, I tend to tell the players the urges their character have, then let them try to wiggle within the parameters as they can. For example, I might say, "You feel the intense urge to protect the (NPC) enchantress from harm." If the player decides this means his PC would turn around an attack his party, so be it; if he decides his PC will pick up the NPC and run to the far corner of the earth to keep her out of harm's way, so be it; if he decides his PC will attack the NPC anyway, I will say, "Sorry. You just can't bring yourself to do that. You feel the intense urge to protect her. How do you go about doing that?" Maybe if I get a bunch of complaining, bad answers, or a bunch of hesitation I will actually decide directly what the PC does. I try to stay away from that, though.

 

For social interaction, I am even less controlling. I tend to do it by changing the character and/or player's perception of the situation, rather than their actual actions. I might tell them that they are pretty sure the NPC is telling the truth (when they are lying out their a** with Persuasion), or that their argument really sounds reasonable and logically sound (even when it is B.S.), or that the speaker seems just about to get to something really important and vital to their character (when really it is just a bunch of fluff spiced up with Oratory), or that the NPC seems genuinely interested in helping them escape (when really he will stab the closest of them as soon as they turn their backs, and it is a great use of Seduction and/or Acting). Things like that.

[Phil]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Having characters die is part of the deal in most games. Taking away the most fundamental control over a player's character is not part of any game I want to participate in. That's part of the heroic concept that I game for. It's that simple.

 

What follows is an intentionally absurd scenario drawn to demonstrate a point.

Is there a more fundamental control than whether a character lives or dies?

Do you enforce PRE attacks against players?

 

At the end of the day player preferences and GM gaming styles will dictate which way you fall in this argument, but I dont think your example helps. It strikes me that any firmly held conviction such as not killing innocents is something that goes beyond the influence of the skill system and into mind control. Interpersonal skills alone should never be able to accomplish something that the *character* would never, ever want, but they *should* be able to accomplish things that the player doesn't want. A less extreme example would be to persuade you or I to kill a parent or girlfriend - Persuasion is not the appropriate mechanism. Persuasion might make a character see the benefits of doing so ("But look at that life insurance policy...."), if used over an extended period of time it could eventually lead to that outcome (You convince Mother Theresa that sometimes death is a blessing, You convince her that sometimes people do deserve death, You convince her that X person deserves death, You convince her to do it). But if Mother Theresa is still hanging around with you after you've been throwing this kind of conversation at her, she deserves everything she gets!

 

It all boils down to trust in the end - can you trust your players to go with the story, to roleplay consistently in the context of their character's motivations? If you can, good luck to you! If not - and I suspect most players cant be trusted all the time to ignore player motivations in favour of in-game - then using influence skills against them can restore some of that "third wall".

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Is there a more fundamental control than whether a character lives or dies?

Do you enforce PRE attacks against players?

 

At the end of the day player preferences and GM gaming styles will dictate which way you fall in this argument, but I dont think your example helps. It strikes me that any firmly held conviction such as not killing innocents is something that goes beyond the influence of the skill system and into mind control. Interpersonal skills alone should never be able to accomplish something that the *character* would never, ever want, but they *should* be able to accomplish things that the player doesn't want.

 

Well spoken.

 

The bottom line, to me, is that PC's and NPC's should receive equal treatment. The Mother Theresa example is, from that vantage point, perhaps salvageable as something somewhat useful.

 

I would agree that there should be no Seductioon roll. She simply will not take a life. But this is the case regardless of whether Sidious is the NPC, and Mother Theresa the PC, Sidious is the PC and Mother Theresa the NPC, they are both PC's or they are both NPC's. The ability to use the skill, and the effects it can generate, should be consistent for PC and NPC both.

 

No, Sidious fcannot Seduce MT into taking that life. neither can MT use her own interaction skills to persuade Sidious to renounce the Dark Side and live a life of humility dedicated to helping his fellow man with no recognition. And I don't care which, if either, character is a PC or an NPC.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

So' date=' when Mother Teresa's player throws everyone out of the house at that point, who's out of line?[/quote']

 

The GM may be out of line by putting the player into a situation that goes against that characters firmly held beliefs and then making it happen. While I think he may also be out of line in the number crunching as well he is not of line in enforcing the game rules that all the players agree to by entering the game.

 

I think that when we enter a game that one of the most fundamental requirements is to ensure that we are all aware of the rules that we are agreeing to play by.

 

If, as a GM, I allow a player to state something that he would never under any circumstances do, then I would feel remiss in enforcing any action under which that circumstance arose. (of course, I think that the Mother Theresa storyline could be fantastic but only with player consent)

 

I have run games where the game was fundamentally wrong for the players playing in it and I abandoned it with some alacrity - it was fun for neither me nor the players concerned - at every point we were clashing on fundamental priniciples. In your example I would say that there was no game wrongness but definite gameplay wrongness.

 

As a player, especially in Hero, I have a responsibility to ensure that the characteristics, skills and powers that I buy for my character back up and reflect the personality that I want for that character. I cannot simply tell the GM that I will never kill someone and trust to a paltry EGO/PRE/INT score.

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Having characters die is part of the deal in most games. Taking away the most fundamental control over a player's character is not part of any game I want to participate in. That's part of the heroic concept that I game for. It's that simple.

 

.....

 

So, when Mother Teresa's player throws everyone out of the house at that point, who's out of line?

 

Yep, the GM. The interesting bit comes when Darth and Mother are both PCs....having an NPC influence your player is one thing. having another PC do it.....mind you it is your mates that tend to get you to do the stupidest things in real life....

 

Mind you in this instance I would give Darth a much bigger penalty. Mother'll have one or more total Psych lims, plus a background bonus and probably a role playing one too.

 

I would also say that there are certain 'impossible' tasks, which even if you can try them, would give an additional -10 penalty.

 

You see this situation would only really occur if it was part of the story, that Mother gets tempted, and has to struggle with the conscience a bit. If players were saying 'Jump off that cliff! - I got a 3 on my persuade roll' you'd be handing out slaps. There's nothing wrong with the GM saying, OK you can make the attempt, but it will take some time. Now, if Darth wanted to spend 10 years working on Mother, slowly, slowly then MAYBE she would fall to the dark at the end of that. But probably not. She'd probably have Darth in the light by then, God rest her soul

 

The point is if you are in munchkin game then you don't want PCs controlled by interaction rolls, of course not BUT, Cancer, my friend, if you are in a ROLE PLAYING game, and you've been told that the lightsabre is looking mighty tempting, you wouldn't be playing if you didn't at least pick it up and swish it about a bit.

 

To be honest I do not see my characters as ME. They are someone I am playing, and like any other person out there I am not going to have a perfect understanding of them. Sometimes they will do things that surprise me. That, to me, is part of the enjoyment of the game. It is far more heroic to play a character that CAN yield to temptation but doesn't (or even that does and then has to struggle to put his mistakes right) than to play one where that is not even an issue.

 

Boy howdy, I'm gonna need a ladder to get down off this horse

[Sean Waters]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

One genre classic (pretty much ANY genre) is one of the team going 'bad' (or apparently so) because they believe that that is for the best in some way.

 

In the example of MT and Darth, what if Darth convinced MT that the beggar was really an assassin droid in disguise, not alive at all, and it was about to kill a classroom full of school children.

 

That puts a different slant on things. Whilst you might not be able to get someone to go against their core beliefs, you might be able to sidestep those beliefs entirely.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Actually, the Sidious and Anakin/Vader example is far better, in my view, than the Sidious/MT "I know you weren't considering it when you woke up today, but here's a saber, go slash up someone" example.

 

Sidious worked on Anakin for years, from before Attack of the Clones to Revenge of the Sith, gradually worming his way into Anakin's confidence, playing to Anakin's perception he was powerful with the force, didn't need the restraint the other Jedi were preaching, should be trained faster and advance faster, and nudging him to believe every decision not to give Anakin whatever he wanted was a personal affront, not a reasoned decision.

 

Then Sidious gets his opportunity - he can play on Anakin's loss of his mother and fear of losing his wife and unborn children to the point he'll turn that distrust of the Jedi (nurtured, again, over the better part of a decade) into action against them to protect the ones he loves.

 

So MAYBE if Mother Theresa stayed in close contact with Sidious, never suspecting he had anything at heart besides her best interests, gradually having her views reshaped, he MIGHT have been able to push her over the edge. But I don't see where MT has the same buttons to push. Sidious was able to convert Anakin gradually because there was something for him to work with from the start.

 

Seems I'm still at "some things are impossible against PC or NPC, and wehtehr attempted by PC or NPC, based on the fundamental character of the target."

[RDU Neil]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Is there a more fundamental control than whether a character lives or dies?

Do you enforce PRE attacks against players?

 

At the end of the day player preferences and GM gaming styles will dictate which way you fall in this argument, but I dont think your example helps. It strikes me that any firmly held conviction such as not killing innocents is something that goes beyond the influence of the skill system and into mind control. Interpersonal skills alone should never be able to accomplish something that the *character* would never, ever want, but they *should* be able to accomplish things that the player doesn't want. A less extreme example would be to persuade you or I to kill a parent or girlfriend - Persuasion is not the appropriate mechanism. Persuasion might make a character see the benefits of doing so ("But look at that life insurance policy...."), if used over an extended period of time it could eventually lead to that outcome (You convince Mother Theresa that sometimes death is a blessing, You convince her that sometimes people do deserve death, You convince her that X person deserves death, You convince her to do it). But if Mother Theresa is still hanging around with you after you've been throwing this kind of conversation at her, she deserves everything she gets!

 

It all boils down to trust in the end - can you trust your players to go with the story, to roleplay consistently in the context of their character's motivations? If you can, good luck to you! If not - and I suspect most players cant be trusted all the time to ignore player motivations in favour of in-game - then using influence skills against them can restore some of that "third wall".

 

 

Darn... can't rep Phil yet.

 

But I seriously love the comment above... "Interpersonal skills alone should never be able to accomplish something that the *character* would never, ever want, but they *should* be able to accomplish things that the player doesn't want."

 

THis is a brilliant little summation. Putting it this way gives room for the GM to say things like, "I know that you, Phil, would never want to do this, nor would you want the character to do it... but think about what the character wants. Might he be tempted? Might this influence him?"

 

Of course... this does require the player to be in a mental position where they have some distance, emotionally, from the character. That is often situational. I've seen players one week enjoy having their character make bone headed moves, and knowingly allow their character to believe what the player knows to be a lie... then next week, 'cause the player has had a **** time in life, fight tooth and nail against anything that they don't like.

 

It is all emotion and trust and how much sleep they had the night before. Some people are more stable than others... you know how they react... most of the time... while others are a friggin' rollercoaster of termperment. I've got both in my group... have played with both kinds for years. Both have upsides and down sides. The temperate player gives you a consistent, trustworthy experience, but rarely hits the home run. The emotional player can drive you nuts... but often they are the core of some of the most brilliant storytelling/character moments you'll ever have.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Having characters die is part of the deal in most games. Taking away the most fundamental control over a player's character is not part of any game I want to participate in. That's part of the heroic concept that I game for. It's that simple.

 

What follows is an intentionally absurd scenario drawn to demonstrate a point.

 

Sidious: Come, Mother Teresa, all you need to do is take this lightsaber and strike down that beggar over there, and you will be given the power to convert all India to follow you.

 

GM: That one's not gonna be easy, Sidious. I'm giving you a -10 modifier on your Seduction roll there, despite the +2 bonus you have for Appropriate Offer.

 

Mother Teresa's player: Only a -10?! It should be impossible! It's vile, and goes against everything in my character concept! Look, it's right there on that pre-game questionnaire you sent out, "What your character would never do," and my reply there is "Kill an innocent."

 

GM: Play on.

 

Sidious' player: With my PRE of 33, 5 All Skills adds, and +8 modifier from my PRE Aid power, and your PRE of 20 with no skill in Seduction of course, that means I've got a 19-or-less roll ... ... Yes! I succeed by 10!

 

GM: Sorry, Mother Teresa. You take the lightsaber and turn the beggar into teriyaki.

 

Mother Teresa's player: I'd cut myself in half first!

 

GM: Not when Sidious succeeded by 10 you don't.

 

So, when Mother Teresa's player throws everyone out of the house at that point, who's out of line?

 

Too extreme an example in some instances and in others dead on.

 

A 33 PRE is a power! Just like a 33 INT would be. Thus it allows for some pretty extreme things to happen.

 

Now in your scenario MT would get a Psych Lim boost to help her not act that way. Will Never Kill (Common Total) is worth 20 points, those 20 points can sometimes work as a defense for your character.

 

OTOH if Sidious was using his PRE and Seduction to convince MT to allow him to take some beggars off her hands and bring them to a nice factory in a far province to work on the death *ahme* I mean shoes. They will make shoes.

 

Mother Teresa not only hands over the kids but is actively recruiting them for Sidious until evidence is brought to her attention about the abyssimal conditions of the people working in the Death *ahem* shoe factory.

 

Hawksmoor

[Sean Waters]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Some excellent input all round: going to need the rep rules looked at again

 

It still leaves the problem of how and when characters SHOULD do something the player doesn't want to, but I have a much clearer grasp of the arguments and issues now.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

One genre classic (pretty much ANY genre) is one of the team going 'bad' (or apparently so) because they believe that that is for the best in some way.

 

In the example of MT and Darth, what if Darth convinced MT that the beggar was really an assassin droid in disguise, not alive at all, and it was about to kill a classroom full of school children.

 

That puts a different slant on things. Whilst you might not be able to get someone to go against their core beliefs, you might be able to sidestep those beliefs entirely.

 

See... to me this is really smart... and I love the concept... but what it requires is actually a level of cleverness and creativity on the part of the PLAYER of Sidious. This goes against Hugh's call for a system that works even if the GM is a monotone.

 

Also... this gets into the personal and emotional aspects of it. While combat is a matter of "set values and numbers... roll the dice" the skill persuasion battle is actually a battle of wits between players. Sidious Player is really clever... Mother Theresa Player can't quite come up with a good counter... now we have ONE PLAYER BEATING ANOTHER PLAYER... nothing distanced and objective about this. Hence the emotional reactions to such situations.

It requires a very mature group that provides postive feedback and support for both players to avoid the ugly "me vs. him" kind of feelings of competitiveness.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Darn... can't rep Phil yet.

 

But I seriously love the comment above... "Interpersonal skills alone should never be able to accomplish something that the *character* would never, ever want, but they *should* be able to accomplish things that the player doesn't want."

 

I got him, the same reason - but he should get more!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

See... to me this is really smart... and I love the concept... but what it requires is actually a level of cleverness and creativity on the part of the PLAYER of Sidious. This goes against Hugh's call for a system that works even if the GM is a monotone.

 

Also... this gets into the personal and emotional aspects of it. While combat is a matter of "set values and numbers... roll the dice" the skill persuasion battle is actually a battle of wits between players. Sidious Player is really clever... Mother Theresa Player can't quite come up with a good counter... now we have ONE PLAYER BEATING ANOTHER PLAYER... nothing distanced and objective about this. Hence the emotional reactions to such situations.

It requires a very mature group that provides postive feedback and support for both players to avoid the ugly "me vs. him" kind of feelings of competitiveness.

 

**struggling to get head through door**

 

I suppose the example is one way you could justify a roll going against the player, though. I mean, just because the player comes up with a smart way to justify the play shouldn't really matter, nor, to a large extent should the fact that the player CAN'T some up with a reasonable explanation to come up witht he play matter. Role playing games over the years have been guilty of making playing easier for the glib. The thing is (at one level, at least) if the roll is made, the roll is made. If I am playing Bodkin Bump, fresh in from the country, a normal by anyone's standards, and I pick up the nullification wand that stops mutants dead and wave it at Flash Fry, who has a rather tasty 33 DEX, and just happen to scrape a hit with a roll of 3, there would be grinding of teeth and wailing but everyone would accept it. There wouldn't be any 'that could never happen, I'm superhumanly agile, I'm just not accepting I was hit!

 

Similarly, if one character or an NPC gets a good interaction roll against another, there may be some explanation as to why the poor victim believed the con, even if no one can think of it at the time. I do understand that this adds another layer of frustration, but I'm not sure why decision making should necessarily be sacrosanct. I mean the only way I can imagine hitting Flash Fry with Bodkin Bump is if something goes wrong for old Flashy: he slips or is distracted or something contrived like that.

 

Unless we want to argue that the bell curve should be steeper (welcome to Hero, the 4d6 system....) OR that you should ignore extreme results (a roll of 3-6 counts as a 7 and 15-18 counts as 14, for example), then pretty wrong things can happen, or appear to. The whole nature of using dice in a system comes down to accepting a substantial random element.

 

I don't know what the right way to play it is, but the extreme positions are either The Tyranny of the Dice on the one hand, or, on the other, removing interaction skills from the system entirely and role playing it all. The answer, as always, lies somewhere in the middle, and those judgement calls always wind up eventually going through the GM. It does seem unfair that PCs can influence NPCs but not vice versa.

 

Maybe the wrinkle that Hugh mentioned is the way to go: players are NOT subject to dice rolls for interaction but will get a roleplaying award of XP for going along with them. NPCs ARE subject to such roles EXCEPT where the GM has a 'scripted' character and knows what they are going to do, come hell or high water...thus a plot should never be derailed by a lucky persuade roll (Life of crime? Mugs game, mate...) but interaction skills can still be used to get bit players to do what you want.

 

Ultimately it is all going to be a matter of style and approach (which is, I think, the general consensus). I think discussions like this are really useful though: next time it crops up I'll have a much better idea of why Mother Theresa chopped that old beggar in half

 

 

Aside: I have known players who positively enjoy being thrown the sort of curve ball that a dodgy persuade/conversation/seduction roll can bring. takes all sorts.

 

One more thing: talking about conversation, what would everyone's position be if some great NPC detective were chatting with the player character, they make a conversation roll, and succeed, and the GM rules the PC let slip some piece of information....maybe nothing too obvious, but information nonetheless that, say, allowed the detective to track down their secret base (coupled with an impressive deduction roll and bits of other information he had gleamed from elsewhere). Would that have the same impact as an unwanted seduction or persuade?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

I got him' date=' the same reason - but he should get more![/quote']

 

 

Don't say that, he'll be unbearable. It's probably already too late....

 

 

Doc

[Vanguard00]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

I wish there was a way to equate Interpersonal skills to the charts they use for Presence and Mind Control. Even then, some things you should never be able to make a player do (which is great grammer, I know, but it flows... )

 

For instance, in the above example Sidious basically uses PRE & Seduction to affect what is normally an EGO+30 Mind Control. I don't see how that's possible with a skill roll, no matter what the characteristic value or modifiers are. At the very least, Mother Theresa should've been allowed an EGO roll to resist what is essentially an action against her very nature. At the most, the GM should have told the player of Sidious that he knows such a direct command wouldn't work and give the player a chance to try and be more seductive and subversive. In my mind, Mother Theresa is darn-near Yoda when it comes to convictions, and Sidious wouldn't ever be able to convince her to kill an innocent.

 

Dice should be rolled whenever the GM doesn't have any idea what the outcome could/would/should be, or it doesn't matter. If something specific needs to happen, or should happen, then let it happen and the dice be damned. Reward players for extraordinary RP when it comes to interpersonal skills, but don't punish them for shortcomings their characters might not have.

 

Dice should never replace common sense under any circumstance, plain and simple.

[Cancer]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

My character's death doesn't really bother me, as long as it's a "good death". I'm willing to take a KIA result, especially if it's either "cinematic" or "plot advancing", but even an inglorious bullet at a bad time is, to me, just part of the game; that's what lethal combat is about, isn't it? I would be just as irritated as anyone to be given "Oops, that's a natural 18 on your driving roll, you crash through the guardrail and are killed on your way to work this morning." But I trust my GMs in heroic-flavor campaigns not to do that to a character that is intended to be ongoing.

 

Something that has influenced our group's thinking is from the old TORG game, where there were "subplot" cards that influenced actions. One of those was the "Martyr" card, which had some interesting in- and meta-game effects. In effect, the player and GM cooperate in getting the PC killed in a meaningful-to-the-story-arc way: a glorious or meaningful death. "Playing the Martyr Card" is a byword in our group, though it has happened very few times in actual play.

 

On the other hand ... I do NOT have a problem with having my character being manipulated in ways that aren't directly opposed to core ideals. I may have come across that way, but that's not what I was trying to say. And I have very little problem with many of the posters' suggestions for ways to go about the Sidious/Teresa cartoon situation I set out. I can see Sidious slowly getting Teresa to send children from her orphanage to his slave-labor death-camp factory, or to a "girls school" that turns them into crack whores ... just as I can see Teresa doing something brilliant, after discovering what's happened and living with the self-loathing that follows, such as converting the guards and staff of the camp so that no one actually dies there, and turning the "school" into a miracle site where the drugs lose their addictive quality and the girls become secure, successful, and devout members of society who ultimately bring about Sidious's downfall.

 

Zornwil had a sig line, quoting someone else, something to the effect of "That's what heroes do. They make choices from a lot of bad options." Having the GM steer characters toward bad options that advance the plot, or otherwise make the game fun for all involved, is an EXCELLENT thing in a game, and that IS a big part of what I game for. It is incumbent upon both players and GMs to recognize that and cooperate in agreeable ways. If need be, a private OOC discussion can get a lot of things clear and keep the game going.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Don't say that, he'll be unbearable. It's probably already too late....

 

 

Doc

 

 

I know, let's cut him in half with a lightsabre.

 

***rattle rattle rattle***

 

Cool. I got a 3...

 

My take is that the dice are a central part of the game, and I never ever ignore them. Well, not if I've rolled them in fromt of the players, I don't....

 

I do think that it is incumbent on the GM to rule that there are situations where a dice roll just isn't going to help:

 

It is a 1974 Ford Escord rustbucket. I don't care what you get on your combat driving roll, it isn't capable of a 200 foot leap across the canyon...

 

OR

 

She's Mother Theresa. She won't be shish-kebabing anyone.

 

OR

 

No, they are not going to visit London to Kill Phil.

 

BUT if the dice do get rolled, I think you have to live with it. Equally, if the GM says 'No', i think you have to live with that too.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Actually, i'd just like to complain that everyone is being far too reasonable. we set up in opposing camps then meet in the middle and agree on stuff.

 

What IS going on?

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

I got him' date=' the same reason - but he should get more![/quote']

I hit him with the 'rep stick', too.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Actually, i'd just like to complain that everyone is being far too reasonable. we set up in opposing camps then meet in the middle and agree on stuff.

 

What IS going on?

Dispel vs. 7th Seal, Extra Time, Ritual, Requires Multiple Participants, Requires all Participants to make a Conversation check, Requires all Participants to make an EGO check (as in, 'check it at the door, gentlemen')