Social Conflict System, How do you handle PC arguments? Options

[Whipstitch]

[Cthulhudreams]

I don't like using dice to determine a players actions. It feels disempowering. It's okay that they fail to fool the guard or pursade the johnson, but they can certainly try.

However I also try and create an agenda for the players and a reason to co-operate, and have a big OOC conversation about the merits of this approach and their need to make characters that can and do work within that borgian framework. And if there is an RP conflict where your character 'would' do something disruptive to said borgian unity, don't even if it's 'OOC' for that character.

What are they arguing about anyway? That would be an important fact to know!

[raggedhalo]

I wouldn't want to use dive to resolve PCvPC arguments, not least because the hour-long decisions about whether to bribe the guards or kill them give me no end of amusement (and prep time!). But perhaps you could give people bonus dice on the social skill check based on the arguments they present IC, and only use dice to resolve it in case of an absolute deadlock.

[Ryu]

People trying to force fellow players to go along with their plans are not welcome at my table. Regardless of method, dice and discussion are the same here.

Next thing we know theres a system do decide which kind of food is ordered...

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[bibliophile20]

[eidolon]

[Critias]

[TheGothfather]

[WearzManySkins]

One thing to keep in mind, SR4 is not a LARPing game, dice are an integral part of it.

To me the role playing part of such social interactions is a small part, ie modifies the dice test in a minor way.

Whose role playing is better is a entirely subjective matter, so determining the better role playing is better is entirely up to the POV of each player. I have played with players that thought they were god's gift to role playing, but to me they were not.

Because a player is a better debater/arguer is totally unfair to those that are not.

If you build a character with out any social skills that character "Should" be poor at social interactions.

Players that spend the bps to have the social skills "should" gain from those efforts. Yes the social character "could" have other players characters do things they do not wish, but again the good debater/arguer could do the same.

WMS

[Buster]

I think this whole discussion comes down to one question: are the players in control of their characters or are the characters in control of their players?

Some people think that the character sheet needs to show every iota of information about a character, and in SR4, that simply isn't the case. Are the characters brave? No, the characters do what the players tell them to do. Are the characters smart? No, the characters are only as clever and cunning as the players are (or are not, as the case may be). Intuition and Logic may let the character spot something fishy about a hinged "Welcome" mat, but only the player can decide if he wants to step on it.

Logic, Intuition, and Charisma are only in-game measures for certain skill rolls, they do not dictate how clever, wise, persistent, or brave a character is. That is for the player to decide and roleplay out. Charisma + Negotiation would dictate how low a character can talk a character (player or non-player) into lower his price, but it will never decide whether or not the character will actually buy the item at that price.

Mundane dice rolls should never dictate whether or not a player agrees with another player or even with a non-player. That's a roleplaying decision, not a roll-playing decision.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[Buster]

[WearzManySkins]

OK an example then

Character A has no social skills what ever, but the player is a world class debater/arguer.

Character B has some social skills, but the player is about average at debating/arguing.

Character C has tons of social skills, but the player is below average in debating/arguing skills.

All three characters are trying to decide a course of action, ie Character A wants plan A, Character B wants plan B, and Character C wants plan C. All three plans are exclusive to each other.

Character A due his player world class debating/arguing skills puts on a fairly effective debate/argument regarding plan A.

Character B does a average job of presenting his reasons for plan B.

Character C puts forth a very weak argument for plan C.

None of the three players will concede that the other characters/players won the debate/argument. None of the three players agree that the others RPed better than themselves.

So which plan gets implemented?

FYI do not go there about players without the skills for the character should not play that character argument. This is a game in which players can play someone much different than they are in RL. It is role playing game not LARPing.

To me as GM all three characters/players will roll the dice to decided the matter.

I would apply the penalties for character A being unskilled but give him a few dice due to his excellant argument. But also a warning about playing his character not himself.

Character B would roll his dice, with no modifier

Character C would roll his pile of dice, with a minor modifier to the total dice rolled. I will not severely penalize a character due to his players dearth or lack of verbal skills.

Who wins the debate/argument regarding the three plans, more than likely Character C, due his players building his character to do exactly that.

WMS

[FriendoftheDork]

Just want to chime in: In my game we resolve discussions without any use of dice. However, to some degree the players take account of the respective character's social skills/charisma, as well as thinking of their own mental stats when they agree/disagree to a proposal.

For instance, the party face often comes up with poor plans (well used to when his logic was 1), then after the other PCs accept the plan the face player says "no! you weren't supposed to agree to the plan!"

The party hacker is very bright (and so is the player), but alot of his plans are ignored, at least until the face comes with the exact same plan and takes credit for it ;)

Likewise the characters with low willpower tend to accept other's proposals more readily.

It's not foolproof, and quite often players underplay their PCs social and mental merits or lack of them, but at least there's no need to start rolling dice on how to do a run. If we did, the face would automatically decide everything... And really, players want to decide how their character acts. Only a few reasons exist to take away the player control: Mind affecting magic, failing composure checks, being intimidated.

Even when negotiation, I never force the PCs to take a job for a certain pay even if the Johnson has 10 net hits on the bargain roll. However, I tell them it's take it or leave it. Usually they decide on a job before negotiating though, although they may, just as the Mr. J has a max price, have a minimum price.

[NightRain]

For PC to PC interactions, if you're going to take in to account skills and/or dice rolls, it really should only happen when all other things are equal. If the face has a crappy plan, no amount of charisma is going to make the street sam with small unit tactics think it's a good idea, whether or not said street sam can articulate his issues with the faces plan. Any sort of system that requires the player of said street sam to fall in to line with the faces plan is going to feel wrong to everyone involved.

When it comes to planning a run, the skills that will matter are tactics and combat experience. If one PC has them, the others will have learnt the hard way to listen to what he has to say, whether or not he says it in a particularly expressive way.

The only time charisma should matter is when there is an impasse. If the face and the sam both have the skills and combat experience, and the group can't decide, then the roleplaying (or the roll of the dice) should give the face the chance to come out ahead and have his plan chosen. But if one plan is obviously better than the other, the better plan will win out.

Yes, things don't work that way when dealing with people you don't know or with crowds, when bad social skills can stop the conversation getting to the point where you can lay out your ideas, but for a group of people that have ran with each other in the past, bad social skills aren't a game stopper. They either know you've got other skills to make up for your bad social skills (because you've demonstrated them in the past) and so will give you an ear for that reason, or they think you have no skills and bad social skills (in which case, you wouldn't be part of the group)

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[TheGothfather]

Wow, people seem to be stuck on the "follow the face's plan" idea. Is the only social conflict in your games planning out how to do the run?

[Fortune]

[Glyph]

[FriendoftheDork]

[Glyph]

[Whipstitch]

[Riley37]

A possible outcome not mentioned so far: the PCs, after some amount of talking, realize that neither is going to persuade the other, and some variation of "I won't stop you, but I'm not involved and I won't help you" ensues.

In the game I'm in, the team scored some loot, and loaded it all into my troll rigger's Bulldog van. Then we had some questions about fencing it. A buyer with links to Sons of Sauron offers a great price on the guns, while a dwarf warren that the Sons are about to attack (for sheltering ork refugees, whom the SOS now consider "race traitors") offers all their $$ which ain't much.
The face PC says "get the most nuyen, that's all I care about".
My PC is *never* gonna sell arms to SOS.
Deciding factor: the loot is *in his van*. He drives it to the dwarf warren, unloads guns, takes cash, delivers cash to his teammates.
If the face's player says IC "well, gimme a bigger share so that you get less money for following your ideals, but I get the same amount either way", and OOC "my face is really persuasive, (rolls double handful of dice) six hits", then perhaps I'll say "I guess my PC wants to keep you happy and gives you the money." It's consistent with my concept of the character: after all, I just made a point that money isn't his primary motivation, so sure, he'd go along with the face's puppy-eyed request.

Which PCs are pure mercenaries, and which have loyalties to a person, a community, or an ideal, can be a good story point, and IMHO more important that tactics eg frontal attack vs. sneaky.

[TheGothfather]