do as I say, not as you think..., leadership and PCs Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Switch to: Standard Linear+

[spotlite]

Quick show of hands - PCs using leadership on other PCs to get them to do what they want when the players/characters can't agree. Is this acceptable use of the rules as written, or should it be used only on NPCs?

I think its something that should be discouraged, but still quite happily allowed. I tend to take the view that if it can be used by PCs vs NPCs, then it should be usable by NPCs vs NPCs and NPCs vs PCs and PCs vs PCs if desired. And if it can't be used against players, then it can't be used against anyone else.

Had a player complain about it last night is all. We were on a corp military style campaign, and the commanding PC gave another PC an order which he refused. It was mid combat, so I ruled a successful leadership test could force the issue. A different player to the one 'ordered' complained and said that it was sucky. Hell, i was just trying to move the game along a bit faster and to cut down on unrealistic conversation during combat, but the player seemed really offended. Have I overstepped a line somewhere?

Oh, in case I need to say - this is SR3 not SR4. And the guy with the leadership skill only got one success, so I ruled that the ordered player still had a choice but was 'inclined' to go along with it for now and argue about it later.

[Sicarius]

I can understand why you did what you did. (the hurry up and get on with, and No you can't have a Lincoln vs. Douglas debate in the middle of a 3 second combat round). but its not something I would have ever done. I've always felt like players needed to control their characters actions, and not have them forced by a set of dice. What I hope as Gm is that characters will be realistic enough in their roleplaying.

Should an NPC force a character's action because he's got Intimidation 8? No. But hopefully by your description of the scene the player can realize that his character SHOULD be afraid of the NPC.

If players don't give their characters reasonable reactions based on their characters, than simply don't provide them with karma points for good roleplaying.

[Critias]

I'd give or take away some karma, depending on stats. If someone's playing an officer, has a high charisma, has some leadership score, and tosses an order to an enlisted man in his "unit," well, the enlisted guy's reflex action should be to follow the order. In a social situation with other characters, I find it's best to role play things out, but the guy spent a lot on skills and appropriate attributes, etc, for some reason, didn't he? Keep dice out of it if you can, but as a last resort, it might be necessary. Officers give orders, enlisted men follow them. If the player feels that's unfair, fine, he can firmly stand his ground, grit his teeth, and keep on soldiering outside the chain of command.

But, see, that can get people shot, in real life. And I'd imagine disciplinary actions in a merc company are pretty harsh, too.

Likewise, it should have some consequence in game (though maybe not his death, outright). If someone "plays along" and does what the officer says (whether aforementioned officer is giving them a numerical bonus thanks to Small Unit Tactics at the time or not), he might get an extra couple karma at the end of the session, for being a good sport and staying in character. If someone doesn't? Fine. Dock him for poor RP, or (ideally) RP out the consequences in-game. Make him learn the chain of command exists for a reason, by taking some of his pay, giving him a bit of a beating, or making up some other punishment that particular merc squad would make up for insubordination and disobeying a direct order.

[spotlite]

Thanks for your thoughts. the commanding player is already working out what charges to bring the other character up on once they get back. The player was roleplaying - the character's a Fox shaman, so he's not really an 'enlisted' man, but they are supposed to have been through the training and the indoctrination and all that. It was a different player who was complaining on general principle about the use of the skill.

I agree that PCs should have as much choice as possible about their actions, but I don't see why they should get to ignore the results of a check like that when NPCs can't. I think its up to them to roleplay the results, not what they would want. Otherwise where does it stop? 'I don't want my character to get shot so that roll didn't count?'

That's my view - but it is subject to change. I'm interested in the consensus so I can modify my actions next time. I wouldn't usually do it in a normal SR campaign, this is true, because shadowrunners tend to be a very individualistic lot - you start throwing orders at them and even if you win they'd probably start a fight rather than admit their own opinion was wrong! In this campaign and specific situation though (if you're interested - a military style campaign, where all were linked via battletac and gaining a VERY hefty bonus to reaction or combat pool thanks to the skill and tac puter of the commander who just gave an order because your cover's blown and so the plan has now changed) i think the use of the skill was justified.

What I'm really asking I suppose is do you think the third players complaint that Leadership is not a skill that should be allowed to be employed vs players is a valid one? H'mm. Probably should have mentioned that first...

[Fuchs]

I'd lean to "player ultimately chooses what his or her character does" - but that's all. A player can refuse an order even with the leadership skill in use, but he can't decide that the order was wrong and his character therefore in the right to refuse, or what consequences refusing the order will have, etc.

But then, I do some of that for NPCs too. Some you will be able to order around, others you simply won't get to order around no matter your leadership skills, due to other factors (hidden agendas, conscience, distaste or hatred for authority, mental issues etc.).

[Critias]

I'm of the opinion ANY skill can be used against ANY character -- player, NPC, minor bit part, Ryan Mercury, whatever. You can always try. Intimidation is gonna get you farther against some hobo (who knows a secret you're after) than it is against Lofwyr (who might feel a bit of amusement before calling your bluff), but you can always get your dice and make a roll.

If one player wanted to shoot another one, would you let him? Or is Pistols not applicable against other PCs? What if one botched a Throwing Weapons roll and a 'nade landed where it would blow up his buddy -- is that one on the list, too? Oh, wait, what about Sorcery? Does it only work for certain spells?

I say you let anyone roll whatever they want to roll, whenever they want to roll it. Would I prefer two of my players role playing? Of course. But if that doesn't cut it, and one guy's got a high Intimidate (or Leadership, or Negotiation, or whatever) skill that he paid for fair and square... well, roll dem bones.

Tally up the modifiers like normal, and then leave it to the characters to work out -- and if Character A should have Character B cowed and intimidated, but Character B decides not to play along? Dock 'em some karma. A smack where it hurts should let them know to get in character a little better, and to remind them the rules apply to everyone. Don't take away control of their character entirely, no one's going to use Leadership to command someone to piss themselves, or something, no matter how well they roll being an inspirational leader just doesn't work that way... so leave it to the PC to role play, but, hey. Role play it.

Social skills exist on character sheets for a reason, as does the Willpower attribute (used to resist most of them). If one player wants to take charge, and has a sheet that backs it up, and the other character should be the sort who's still got schoolyard bullies pushing him around because of his low self esteem -- heh. You makes your characters, you takes your chances.

[Ryu]

Generally: It can be rolled, it should be roleplayed. Orders can and will be disobeyed. In your case, that should only be the case if said orders where not sensible at all OR there was a strong character motivation to do something else.


As a human: You force me to make my character do something I don´t like. I can deal with that. Do it to often, or if I (not my character) really don´t like the way it is done, and I will search for ways to ...rectify... the situation.

As was said, it´s okay, but take care.

[toturi]

I think it is quite a bit easier to influence a PC to do something disadvantageous to himself than an NPC simply because the way the rules are written. If a PC were to influence another and the other PC's player wasn't going to play along, then the other PC would not get karma for good roleplaying but his present karma would not be deducted. But if the "leader" was to order the "follower" to do something really stupid, then that player is not roleplaying well and he gets less karma.

[SL James]

[Straight Razor]

Well... IMO
This really all comes down to players meta-game knowladge. this is something i have to deal with alot. as I'm sure we all do.

I make my playesr roll on social skills aolt, some times i even roll for them behind a screen. I do my best to keep them blind as to what and why. some times i will not even descride a Npc till the roll social. Ofen i will tell them wrond information if they roll badly.

It's like training a dog. you have to be consistant with the rules or they will make a mess on the floor. :spin:

[mfb]

i try to avoid having players roll social skills against each other. that's something i feel can generally be better handled with rp. that said, i think that the GM made the right move in this situation. i'd encourage him to make sure it doesn't happen too often, but in the situation described, i don't see any real issues.

[mmu1]

I think the rules probably allow the use of the Leadership skill in this way, and I don't think it's wrong for a GM to rule as you did.

That being said - my opinion on the matter is that, short of magical mind control, or chemical interrogation (or some other exceptional set of circumstances) the GM or the other players have no business making a character do something the player doesn't want to do - ever.

Especially when it comes to an issue like trying to get someone to do something they don't want to do, in three seconds, in the middle of a fight. The rules are simplistic out of necessity, but applying them too literally tends to produce results that are not reasonable or belieavable... If someone is determined that their character is stupidly stubborn, let them. Just make sure the consequences of that also play out in a logical fashion.

[The Stainless St...]

[Critias]

That's allright. Normally I just spew sarcasm, cynicism, spite, and vitriol. I don't blame folks who sometimes don't read my posts.

*sniffle*

If anyone needs me, I'll be over here, talking to myself.

[mmu1]

[SL James]

[mmu1]

[toturi]

I've been reading up the Social Skills rules for Leadership and... I'd house rule either of these 2 ways:

1) The PC who is being successfully influenced thinks that the idea is good or he should go do it(unless brought up short by some other game mechanic like Common Sense or psychotropic conditioning), but the final decision lies with the player and the "order" may end up twisted from its original idea.

2) Flat out no to PC-PC Negotiation and Leadership. Reason? Look at the Social Mod Table and you'd see that all modifiers for Leadership and Negotiation refer to NPCs only which I take to mean that the Lead/Nego rules were not intended to be used on PCs.

[SL James]

HAHAHA

That's awesome. Really. Let's start making exceptions for all physics, life and death, and so on. And where shall we draw the line?

[Dog]

(shrug)
I wouldn't let a PC influence another PC with a social skill. Just me.
Could use the skill to influence how third parties would regard the interaction though: "Yes, your honor sir, the Captain gave him a clear order."

This seems to be a small part of the uber-debate of canon vs. "wing it." I'm a "wing it" guy. Doesn't mean I think those who disagree are wrong, just that I wouldn't like playing that way.

[Syd]

It's a question of how much the players metagame. That is, using info outside of the game to influence the character's decision. A player can swallow the idea that the Leader has used his Charisma, force of will and persuasion to make his character honestly believe it's a good idea to do what he's told. Or they can piss and moan.

The way I see it, it's no different than a player failing his check to see if an NPC is lying. Or failing the resist test for invisibility.

A good player will accept that the character has only certain information available and will act on that info. A bad one will bitch, capitulate to what the GM says, and then try to weasel around it. It bugs me when a character mysteriously starts cycling through his various vision enhancements just because the player was told to roll a resistance test.

I can understand the rub of having lost character control, but I don't see that as different than a GM using Control Thoughts on the PC. My players hate that too.

[Syd]

[Dog]

I'll presume that wasn't rhetorical.

I'd let the Troll's player decide whether to buy it or not, figuring he would do something appropriate to the character. Is he a touchy troll who doesn't pay attention? Is he a touchy troll who hates suits? Is he a touchy troll who unerringly trusts his close buddies?

Thank you for respecting that, even if you don't agree.

[Dog]

[caramel frappucc...]

Do you guys allow PCs to roll Intelligence to come up with brilliant schemes and/or keep them from doing stupid things?

Depending on how you think about it, this isn't necessarily relevant to the matter at hand, but I'm just curious.

[eidolon]

If the game was a concept game, such as a military team with an actual in game leader, then I would consider allowing it.

99.999% of the time, I do not allow the use of any social skill on another PC. I'd say never, but there's that hypothetical situation out there.

[Dog]

[Taran]

I would never permit a PC to control another PC's actions with skill use, at least not in Shadowrun. I might in D&D, where the advanced skill uses are basically magic anyway. I wouldn't permit NPCs to control PCs with skills either.

caramel frappuccino: No, but I do permit Intelligence (or Security Procedures, or Magic Background, or whatever) rolls when the players forget things that I believe the character would definitely remember.

[Syd]

Do I allow an Int check for horrendously shitty ideas? Oh yeah. It's generally because the players forgot about some clue from 3 sessions ago that would convince them their plan is horrible. The characters would probably remember those little things.

Do I allow an Int check if they are totally stumped and need to work past a problem? No. If they inquire about a specific knowledge skill, I'll let them roll to get a clue.

[Glyph]

I would never compel a PC to react a certain way to a social skill. I would let the dice influence how I presented the situation to that PC, and even resort to penalizing the PC on karma if the player completely ignored the dice rolls and descriptions.

The first reason that I feel this way is because losing control of how a character is played is something most players hate, and rightfully so. It disrupts roleplaying and ruins fun. You might as well just have the GM read a book to you.

The other reason that I feel this way is because the player is the only one who really knows what makes the character tick. There are probably things that the character would never do, or allow, and things like that should not be overridden by the roll of the dice. On the flip side, I would play fleshed-out NPCs the same way. In other words, if the Johnson is a lesbian who is virulently racist against orks, the male ork ganger will not manage to seduce her, even if he rolls a 29.


Personally, I have seen a lot of examples of social skill usage on this board that have made me cringe. Social skills should not be treated like mind control! Negotiation lets you get the best possible deal out of someone - but they still won't sell you that item you really want at a loss, unless you are somehow conning them as well as merely bargaining. Leadership can make people look to you for guidance, but that doesn't mean you can command a stranger 'Kneel!" and roll for it (unless you're in an S&M bar or something).

[fistandantilus4....]

The problem, as I see it, is one that comes up the most often:torture. The original Harlequin adventure hadnles it pretty well IMO.

here's the prob: character is chained down to a metal operating table, butt naked, has had three fingers chewed off by a hell hound, been starved for three days, and kept awake for two. Character is currently being electrocuted, with glasses of cold water being poured on to them. The torturer is asking the PC's character 'where is [insert plot device here], and I'll stop. Don't and...' lifts up a pair of nutcrackers for the male character to see.

Now... if a PC were to do this to an NPC with a will of say 2.. .they'd break in an instance. But change it around a little bit, you could say that one PC was doing this to another PC, willpower 2, intimidaaion skill of toruter an 8, whatever. Now, by saying that a PC cannot make socail rolls agianst another PC, the torutred character could say IC'Frag you!" OOC I spit in his eye. And that's complete bull. It's just not in the dice.

It's an extreme example yes, but that is what you are ineffect saying when you say that PC's can't use social skills on another character.

Back to SLJ's example what if the player just is not a smooth talker, but wants to play a Face character .it is a fantasy game, and soem people just want to play to do things that they can't do in real life. Most people that role play can't really climb a wall, or even a rope. But I'll bet that 90% of their characters can, just by rolling a dice. So why can't they roll for social skills if the player isn't capable? More to the point, why is it that the Face that seems to be abel to get what ever they want from any NPC hits a brick wall when trying to convince a PC to buy him a drink.
Player #1:"come on man... buy me a drink, I'm broke". Rolls negotiation - 13
Player #2"uhhh... no" - just because the player doesn't want to
Bull shit

[tisoz]

[mmu1]

[Critias]

[tisoz]

And comparing Control Thoughts (which many seem to allow PC vs. PC) to Leadership, the Leadership skill probably cost more to get at an effective level than the Control Thoughts spell did. (Yes, you need Sorcery to cast it, but Sorcery has a lot of other uses. What else is Leadership good for?)

[caramel frappucc...]

Hey Critias, since you completely parallel Pistols rolls with Leadership rolls, does that mean that if someone takes a bullet up the nostril in your game, they can avoid all damage at the expense of having some roleplaying karma docked from their endgame reward?

Sign me up, baby!

[Critias]

No, they can't, but your absurd rhetorical question is duly noted.

And, generally speaking, a fair/hard-assed/by-the-book GM shouldn't even let someone lose some karma for ignoring social rolls (any more than physical ones), simply because he shouldn't let anyone "brush off" the effects of a social roll.

I just suggested a karma penalty for bad RPing as a "middle of the road" option for this guy's game, because I know the DS liberals would cry even more if I stated a suggestion like "roll the dice, and do what they fucking tell you to do," as a way to handle future inter-character social rolls.

[Glyph]

Torture and mind control, to me, are slightly different than the use of social skills. For one thing, they don't have the same risk of messing up the character's personality, as envisioned by the player.

If your character eventually breaks under intense interrogation, or is mentally dominated by a spellcaster, then it's just a brute force thing overwhelming the character. You may lose some freedom of action, just like you would if your character gets hospitalized or imprisoned. But you don't feel that how you roleplay your character has really been compromised.

Enforcing how your character responds to other characters, though, takes that away. Will your shy decker-girl, who is waiting for the right man to marry, hop into bed with the smooth-talking face, even though the character is one who would never do something like that outside of marriage? Will your embittered ganger, who doesn't care if he lives or dies, meekly apologize to the sneering suit, because he failed to resist an intimidation roll? Taking over a PC's character in such a way can ruin the character, because you can wind up completely compromising the core concept(s) of the character.


The other thing about torture and mind control, and gunshots for that matter, is that they are relatively straightforward. But with social skills, the result of a "success" can be very subjective. You could wind up with a lot of arguments about just how compliant an intimidated PC will be. What will a street sammie do if he is intimidated by a ganger who gets a freakishly lucky roll? Will he inadvertently flinch, then flush and get angry? Will he hand over his credstick to the hoodlum with a knife instead of unholstering his Uzi III? Will the GM let the player roleplay something the character would plausibly do, or just take over the character?


I think that social skills and high Charisma should be accounted for when roleplaying - otherwise why waste points on either - but they should not be used to straightjacket other PCs. Because how a PC reacts is such a personal and subjective thing, and since being able to roleplay your own character is such an important part of the game, I would hesitate at taking that control away from a player. I have played in games like RavenLoft with things like fear checks, and they detracted from roleplaying more than anything. Imposing reactions to social skills on players, rather than letting them roleplay them out, is the same type of thing.

[eidolon]

Damn fine post, Glyph.

[Critias]

Somehow, Mal still bosses Jayne around an awful lot.

[tisoz]

[Dog]

I agree with you 100%, Glyph. Call me a crying liberal. ;)

Here's what I don't get: Some folks are saying that you're not sticking to the rules because you don't roll some dice and then RP the results. Do you have to roll the dice for everything? Is it not just as valid to point out the applicable skill or attribute and expect the player to RP or react based on that? (Edit: how about pointing out the character description? The numbers should be reflecting that anyway.)

I mean, we both expect the player to respond "appropriately to the situation," right? The only thing that people are disagreeing on is how a GM is going to create the numbers to reflect what's appropriate.

One side is saying: "Their skill is this, your attribute is this. Act appropriately."

The other side is saying: "Their skill is this, your attribute is this. (Roll, roll, roll.) Okay, you have this many successes. Act appropriately."

How different is that? Personally, I'll take the first option 'cause it's easier.

Every GM is going to run into times when a character does something that the GM does not think is appropriate. So how to react?

Option one: "You can't do that, it's not in character. Do this instead."

Option two: "That doesn't seem to be in character, you sure? Okay, but when word gets out, people are gonna think differently about you."

A few months ago, I started a thread on character development that gathered a lot of great advice. One of the points made was about "freezing" a character. That is, deciding at character creation that he is brave/loud/rude/charming or whatever and feeling unable to change that over time.
Guys, the most basic principle of drama is that characters change. There is no reason that they have to stay brave/loud/rude/charming. If a player starts playing a character differently, then that character is changing. A good roleplayer will pursue that without abusing it. If they abuse it, well, then we're into a whole different discussion.

[mmu1]

[SL James]

[dog_xinu]

I have never been in your shoes with one character with leadership trying to rule the party. We hvae always decided whom the leader was. You were between a rock and a hard place. What I would do now is sit the two players down and tell them your thoughts on how the skill/ruling should go. See if they agree. See if some compromise on what should happen in the future. Most players will be willing to work this out.

I feel sorry for you and what you had to do. But that is life as a GM.
dx

[Dog]

[Syd]

SL James (who I agree with) raises the crux of the issue. The point to rolling dice is resolving conflicts. The GM could arbitrarily decide if a shot hits a bad guy, if the grenade does damage, or if you can see the sneaking adept. OR you can roll dice to determine the results of an uncertain situation. That's the game, and it's the same in SR4, SR3, D&D and HackMaster. We use social skill dice to do what our characters can do (that we cannot) just like we use Pistols, Athletics or Stealth.

One PC can shoot another, or use superior strength to man-handle another, or Stealth by another. Why are social skills this fuzzy special case?

[caramel frappucc...]

[tisoz]

[caramel frappucc...]

[tisoz]

[Glyph]

I have a problem with someone's character essentially being overridden by either another player or the GM. I think that someone with a Willpower of 3 should still be able to play his own character, and not have to sleep with, grovel to, or loan money to the characters with higher social skills all of the time.


But the other problem that I have with the use of social skills is how some people seem to think that they can convince anyone to do anything, if the dice roll is high enough. That flies in the face of realism. I may, personally, only have a Willpower of, say, 4 or so, in Shadowrun terms. But there are still things that other people cannot change about me. A drug dealer with Negotiations: 15 would still not be able to get me to try cocaine. A gay porn star with a Charisma of 12 and the "Good Looking and Knows It" Edge would still not be able to convince me to sleep with him. A brilliant political debator might be able to win an argument with me and reduce me to stuttering and stammering, but he would still never, ever get me to vote Republican.

Heck, look at the rules. A runner with lots and lots of successes at negotiation still can't get the Johnson to give them more money than his hard limit for hiring runners. So I don't think negotiation can get a guard to commit suicide, a lesbian to change her sexual orientation for you, or any of the other more extreme examples that have been given.

[caramel frappucc...]

[SL James]

[ShadowDragon8685]

Because if you can use Social skills to dictate another character's actions, it ceases to be a Role-Playing Game for the victim, and becomes an excercise in futility. He might as well not play, because his character has become an NPC under the command of another player.

[SL James]

He might as well not play if his character can or does die, too. At least social tests aren't quite as permanent.

Seriously, I cannot for a second see any legitimate rationale here.

[ShadowDragon8685]

There's a difference. When he's getting killed, he's role-playing his character. Comparing combat and social tests is a strawman argument. Combat and social skills are not the same thing.

When he's being ordered around by another PC, he's not in control of his character. He is not role-playing his character, he's managing the character sheet of another player's NPC cohort.

[Glyph]

I wasn't claiming any high-and-mighty principles with my example about myself. I have vices and biases that are just as intractible. Nearly everyone that I know reasonably well is the same way, too. People can influence each other in lots of ways, but things like core principles and security beliefs are a lot different. That's not to say that even things like that can't change, but they won't change 180% just because you meet someone who is good at fast-talking.

As far as arbitrary limits to social skills go, the rules already have one, which I already mentioned. The rest of it should be common sense - social skills are limited in what they do, simply by their descriptions if nothing else. And when have I ever said that you "can't" use social skills on another PC? I recommended that overruling how a PC responds to the use of that social skill is a bad idea, and I gave specific reasons, which were a lot less nebulous than "because".

[TheNarrator]

Social skills allow you to influence people, not take control of them. This applies to NPCs as well as PCs. There's limitations to what you can make somebody do, and if the GM isn't imposing limitations based on reasonableness, then he's not very good. And I agree that it's completely shitty to be taking control of someone's character away from them (except through mind control)... this is a game, after all.

That said, the example given in the original post seems like a completely reasonable use of the Leadership skill. The guy convinced the soldier under his command that obeying orders was a good idea, and unless those orders were "shoot yourself in the head" or something equally outrageous, I think that's perfectly reasonable. Now, if the soldier had a reason for not following orders that outweighs the reasons for doing the order (backed up by the commander's Leadership abilities) and the player decides the character is still not going to do it... well, that's part of Role Playing, too. Some soldiers get scared, freeze up, and don't do shit. But it needs to be because of the character, and not because the player didn't feel like doing it.

Do leaders get people to do crazy things? Yes. Cult leaders and dictators and all sorts of charismatic types get large groups of people to do things that seem insane or horrible to the outside world. But it takes time and is usually a slow, gradual process from the initial ideology to "let's kill all the minorities and let me marry all your children".

I'd say that one Leadership test could let you get a cowering soldier moving again or convince a group of people that a plan or idea has some merit. (Within reason. "We should attack the enemy tanks with silverware" is never going to sound rational.) It won't let you turn that group of people into your ultra-loyal minions who'll carry out your orders without thinking... even boot camp doesn't accomplish that. Nor will a single Etiquette test let you convince a girl to have sex with you who normally would have no intention of doing so. Not only will changing people's minds about a deep-rooted opinion impose situational modifiers, but influencing a person to any larger degree than "you want to give me 5% off on this gun" would take time. Quite possibly a lot of time, if the change required is great.

That's my 0.02 :nuyen: on the issue. You don't take away somebody's free will just by talking pretty. You can give them lots of reasons why they should use their free will to do what you want, and be damned convincing, but until you cast "Control Thoughts" they still have a choice. (And that choice should have consequences, if the reasons include things like "I'll have you court-martialled for disobeying orders," or "I'll shoot you if you don't.")

[ShadowDragon8685]

Even if it's Dikoted armor-piercing silverware sized for Great Dragons? :)

[Dog]

Queary: Anybody used a social skill to influence another player-character positively? Like bolstering a weaker-willed character in the face of fear with a motivating pep-talk? Just curious.

[brohopcp]

Yes

One of my characters was "motivated" by intimidation to work harder and complete some tech on time. The gm also ruled it helped the B/R TN because after the motivation, my PC concentrated harder.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Did it also 'motivate' you to build the bit of tech with a complimentary 1/2 Kg of C12?

[SL James]

[PoorHobo]

In this instance the GM railroaded his player. Did you ask the player OOC why he chose to disobey? People obey orders in the millitary for 2 reasons, they believe in the order given or the fear the reprisal more than the order. In this case the player had a reason he dissobeyed ans you should have done at least a little investigating instead of just railroading him into accepting whatever order given.

Players gave their own motivations. In thsi case it was a minor infraction on the DM's part but look at this scenario,

PC1 "I tell PC2 to kiil his family and give me all of his money"
PC2 "Hell no"
GM "well we have a mechaninc for resolving in game disputes, roll"
PC1 "well I have a charisma of 6, and a skill of 6 and his willpower is 2, I also burn 1 karma pool to buy a success"
GM "well sorry PC2, you killl your family and give PC1 all your money"
PC2 "Fine, whatever, I shoot PC1 for making me do all that, I have a skill of 6 a reaction of 5 and he has no armor so...."
GM "Not so fast, your metagaming now, you were convinced in game that you should do it so you have no in game reason to hate him"

[Critias]

Right. Because, y'know, "kill your family and give me all of your money" is what all the grown ups in the room are talking about.

[ShadowDragon8685]

"Kill your family and give me all your money'

"Follow my seemingly suicidal orders. Trust me." (Reason A: Because I know more than you do. Reason B: And what I know is that I want you to die so that's one less way to split the :nuyen: .)

No difference. Either way, you're taking away another player's character.

[PoorHobo]

[Glyph]

[SL James]

Am I alone in having seen The Godfather Part II?

[eidolon]

I can't think of a scene that would elucidate your point (been a looong time, and it wasn't as good as the first, IMO, so I brain dumped it), but...

Are you attempting to say that because a Mafia footsoldier type was afraid of a Don, then PC's should be able to use social skills on one another?

(It's just conjecture as to your point, mind you, not an attempt at starting a nuke war. Of course, if your post were less obtuse... :P)

[SL James]

I was thinking more along the lines of the part where Tom Hagen talked Frank Pentangeli into killing himself.

[eidolon]

Ah. But in such a case, aren't there most likely other factors involved? Previously existing depression, mental instability, a weak personality to begin with, external fears?

Unless a person has all of those things, and in droves, you're going to be fairly hard pressed to convince them to just up and kill themself. Even if you could, it would take more than one roll, if you get me.

[tisoz]

[PoorHobo]

True, You and others who advocated using social skills on players have made a few valid arguments, "If I can shoot a PC then why can't I get him to do me a favor, he put skills into combat, mine into face skills"

Its really a strong selling point. The thing I remain unconvinced about is that the GM sets the target number, an arbitrary number based on facts that he will never fully have. Convincing someone to shoot their parent who repeatedly raped by them probably isn't too hard to do (for shadowrunners, anyways, who are mostly predisposed towards violence) but for someone who has a deep meanigful relationship with them it realistically should be impossible, even for NPC's. It boils down to that the GM inserts himself as someone who knows more about the character than the player does. Like I said earlier the GM should've done some investigating, asked him ooc why he refused that order, if the PC2 can't give a valid response then the GM tells him that PC1 is really laying the pressure on you and fell compelled to do it, if you don't I will consider it metagaming. Something like that.

My second objection, and is actually less so supported by the rules, is that Shadowrun is really meant to be a PvE (party/player vs enviroment) and that the rules while not dissallowing PvP were not written with it in mind.

But I do have a qestion(s), to those who are kosher with what the GM did. It has so far been agreed that using pistiols or mind control are not considered railroading or taking control of someone else's character and should be allowed, with this I agree too. Mind control and pistols are aggressive acts and are usually dealt with lethally in return. Should not Face skills be dealt with in the same way? Do face skills get to be the freebie? If someone has a high enough leadership/ettiquete skill to get something they want from other PC's shouldn't this be the same as using pistols or mind controll?

[Critias]

Using social skills on someone -- skills like negotiation and etiquette -- if done right, are nothing like punching someone in the face, when it comes to repurcussion time. How many people know they're being conned in the middle of the con?

I'm sorry if allowing the use of social skills on other PCs puts some amazing strain on your GMs ability to tell "possible" from "impossible." I'm sorry if your GM thinks that's hard (compared to running the entire world). I'm sorry if you don't trust your GM to handle that kind of pressure. I'm sorry if your GM can't tell the difference between "Hey, I'm kind of tight on cash right now, how about you handle dinner this time, and I'll pick up the tab next time," compared to "Drive home, kill your family, and -- oh, I almost forgot -- give me all your money before you leave."

But I think those are problems with your GMs, not with the social rules.

[tisoz]

[toturi]

Leadership and Negotiation are the 2 skills that can most easily influence other PCs. Other social skills either do not produce the kind of results that these 2 do or that they do so with greater TN mods.

[Dog]

[SL James]

[TheHappyAnarchis...]

I think what is being said here is that social skills need to be effective. However, you need to be realistic about things.

Just like their are a good deal of modifiers for being blindfolded suffering from tear gas and hanging upside down swinging and hitting a target, there should be similar for convincing someone to do something crazy, like the decker with the face. Of course, there are consequences. They may think you are the one, but if they find out they weren't they could tear your entire reputation to shreds and leave you hanging. Don't piss off anyone that you don't have to. Street Sams, Deckers, Mages and Faces are all extremely dangerous.

As for convincing someone to kill their family and give you all their money, not only do you have target numbers in the 20+ range, but it is an extended roll. You can convince them bit by bit that they want to. Or that they will be saved by your cult or whatever.

In the case shown, this is how I would handle it.
Roll dice, if he has reasons for disobeying orders, they would apply as a modifier and he needs to tell the GM, in private if necessary. If he failed, then he was convinced that it is better to follow orders than not to. He may bring up the issue after the combat, or the mission, but he will follow orders in the meantime. If the leadership role fails, he disobeys. At that point, it is up to the commander. Many will have the offender arrested. Shooting them usually isn't an option except in the most extreme of cases.

[eidolon]

[Dog]

Why is he so angry about this?

[eidolon]

Not sure. Bad day, maybe? (Gorb knows I just had one.)

[dog_xinu]

Well on a slightly similar topic. In my game I have become the defacto leader. Why? it is sure as hell not because I have leadership nor any charima based skills. I am gun bunnie. Err I am a street sammie that speciallized in shooting pistols. I am good at that. Based on the skills on the piece of paper (character sheet) I am not a good leader. Well I was able to heard the cats (I mean my shadow running group) into the mission and into a positive direction.

Why was I able to do this? two reasons. first off I can be an Alpha personality. I rather others lead but will not let the situation fail. second is that I am the only person that has played shadowrun prior to this group getting together a few weeks ago. most dont understand how to run a runner. Not talking game mechanics but what do "we" do... Out of six of us, I was able to get more info in a short period of time (game time 5-6 hours, RL 1 hour maybe) than the other 5 combined. Why is because I acted like a runner and did what we are suppose to do. Good news is that the (some) of the other players were watching me and what I was doing and were taking notes. With some coaching they could be good runners too.

now back to my point before I got sidetracked. Leadership/charimas skills/etiquette is not needed to control the PCs. It should always be in RolePlaying.

just my humble alpha oriented opinion...
dx

[hyzmarca]

[Dog]

I think we're just repeating ourselves now. Hyzmarca, can you illustrate an example that's not so... extreme?

And do you think there's a middle ground there somewhere? What I mean is, RPing is not method acting.

I don't think anyone has suggested that we ignore a character's social skills in favor of the player's. Can you quote me anything that suggests someone has said that? Help me understand where you're coming from.

Meanwhile, here's what I picture, where player 1's character has the high charisma, but the players themselves are on an equal footing:

Player 1: "Come on man! Let's take the job!"
Player 2: "I think it's too dangerous."
Player 1: "I got three words for you... um... (OOC) what'd be three words that'd do the trick?"
Player 2: (OOC)"All Expenses Paid?"
Player 1: "okay, thanks (IC) I got three words for you, All. Expenses. Paid."
Player 2: (IC)"....fine, I'm in."

Notice how the players are cooperating. Say it with me: "Play-ers...Co-op-er-at-ing." (My apologies for the smart assedness of this last bit. It's getting frustrating when people start talking "correct" and "incorrect" about this stuff.)

I'm not exactly sure what metagaming means. It sounds to me a lot like ditching out on the rules when necessary to make a good story. If so, then I gotta say I'm all for it.

[Critias]

The problem is that you shouldn't always ditch out on the rules to "make a good story." If you're going to run a game where that happens, make sure everyone knows ahead of time. You're playing a role playing game, and one with rules -- the assumption should always be the rules will be followed, not the other way around.

And where the rules cover something -- like bossing people around via social interaction -- why not use them?

It's not like "rules" and "good story" are mutually exclusive concepts. If they were, not a one of us would have ever purchased an RPG book. We'd all sit around campfires, or something, instead, to tell stories together. Rules are a framework for a story -- there's room in a good game for both.

[hyzmarca]

The term metagaming refers to using OOC knowledge and abilities to make IC decisions, particulary when the character doesn't have that knowledge or abilities being exploited.

The classic example is players spending hours real time discussing tactics between supposedly three second combat turns. A little metagaming is unavoidable but when it gets out of hand you might as well go statless.

[tisoz]

[Critias]

And those rules rely on one person giving orders, and everyone else following thing (there are, in fact, penalties applied for when a group tries to have more than one person using SUT to benefit them at the same time).

[ShadowDragon8685]

Oi. This is a mess.

I don't get it. D&D nerds would riot on the suggestion that a Bard could use his Diplomacy to get the Wisdom 6 half-orc to do what he wanted when the orc didn't want to. And rightly so. Yet half of you guys are rioting at the thought that he coulden't.

Okay, so... Yeesh. No, you CANNOT use Social skills to influence another character's actions. That's not a mechanical thing. Influencing their mechanics, yes. You can Intimidate the shit out of him, and the DM will crank his TNs up into the nether regions. You can yell something heroicly encouraging (or mercinarily encouraging,) to counteract someone else's intimidation.

But when you start taking away his right to play his character, you've relegated him to the role of NPC. At which point, he's perfectly justified in rolling up a CHA 1 gun bunny who has the compulsion flaw "tries to kill everyone who tries to use fancy talk on him."

Simply put, this is one of those instances in which mechanics should give way in favor of everyone having fun. It's NOT fun when you're not in charge of your character, unless you specifically signed up for a military game. In which case, it's still your character, but you're a lot more likely to wind up hung/shot for ignoring orders than following them.

Simply put, the Face does not have the right to take other people's character sheets from them. CAN he use his skills against other players? YES. It's called "Through NPCs." When twenty gangers who were skillfully talked and bribed by the Face to show up and beat the shit out of the other guy happen, then the Face is having his day. When fabricated evidence of child molestation spurned on by a few silken words wind up landing the other character the "Hung out to Dry" flaw, then the Face is having his day. When a Mafia Hitman is waiting in his flop because the Face convinced the Don that the other player was sleeping with his daughter, then the Face is having his day.

NOT when you can use your dice to force that character to charge the guns or jump off a cliff against his will. That's not the Face having his day, that's you having your day ruining another player's day. (Of course, all of this is that, too, but this is an even more transparant and frustrating form of jackassery. A guy has a chance to fight off twenty gangers, a Mafia Hitman, and to prove his innocence to his old contacts.)

[tisoz]

Your arguement seems to be there should not be any direct PC versus PC conflict, at least as long as it involves social skills. Odd that other PC conflict is usually tolerated.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Actually, it's not. But using social skills is even less tolerated, because it involves taking away control of someone else's character. For the same reason, anyone who tried possessing another PC would find that the other PC somehow had a Great Dragon's worth of Karma Pool with which to resist.

[tisoz]

A player who builds a combat monster and decides to bully another character does not take control of the character's sheet? They take it and mark off damage boxes or in the case of PC death, take the character sheet and destroy it. The next time they bully the other PC, the player is going to remember the detrimental effect from the previous time. Now you have the bullying character exerting social skills without the need of even buying social skills or making a roll.

[Dawnshadow]

[Critias]

Ding ding ding.

Someone finally fucking gets it.

[The Stainless St...]

Excerpt from a recent game (mostly on topic, NPC uses social skills on PC's)

The crew is hunting an enemy who has gone into hiding, and they find out that the target has a "regular girl" at a particular escort agency. They can't wait for the next visit from the target, so they decide to kidnap the prostitute and interrogate her back at the safehouse. The extraction is a relative cakewalk and everything goes entirely according to plan, except that during the drive home the hooker (who is an extremely high class girl, CHA 8, Good Looking and Knows It, et all) gives PC A some doe eyes, and goes to work on him a little...

GM: (rolls) she convinces you that she is not currently a threat and has no means of escape, and that it couldn't possibly hurt anything if you just loosened her wrist bonds a little.
PC A: (Grudgingly) OK, I'll loosen the bonds a little, but I tell her I'm watching her closely and will knock her out if she moves.

Now the funny part is that PCs B and C overheard this exchange, and are now convinced for some reason that she has mind-controlling powers that no man can possibly resist. When they get back to the safehouse PCs B and C are left in charge of her for a while, and they work out a system between each other to avoid her "Mind Control".

• Do not look directly at the hooker - in fact, put a bag over her head during the interrogation. Her good looks will not be able to help her if we can't see her.
• One of us wears earplugs at all times, so she can only attempt to control one of us at a time.
• Pre-determined hand signals - "If I start to believe/fall in love with/submit to her, I will tug on my ear like this...Shoot me in the leg if I do that."

I could have told them that there was a fairly large distinction between getting your captors to treat you with a little humanity and getting them to murder each other, but I just couldn't stop laughing.

[TheHappyAnarchis...]

Absolutely. Is swearing okay for emphasis on this forum? Don't know, so I have avoided it thus far.

Either way, SOCIAL SKILLS ARE NOT MIND CONTROL, just like Pistols is not instant turn someone into a zombie by shooting them in a part of their brain that will make them comatose.

There are limits. These limits apply whether you are a PC or an NPC.

If you are not roleplaying your character, then you will be given a warning. Second time, you will be given a penalty. Third time, you will become an NPC and shown the door.
It is harsh, but it is necessary if you want to be fair.

If you can give an in character reason for not doing what they say, you are within rights to not do what they say. At which point, the social character has their options, which if they are slick usually involve increasing levels of compromise over some time.

You can't say, hey you, run off into those guns and distract them and expect them to do it. Even with Leadership in a military game. The player has every reason to mutiny. There will be consequences.

On the other hand, if the guy who is the military unit's leader says, hang back and cover our rear, and the other player says no, I expect a reason better than I want to be in the action. Because your character has decided that they are willing to be arrested, thrown out of the unit, court martialed, shot or what have you in return for being on the front line, which they won't get to be anyways.

I enforce roleplaying and rollplaying. They are both necessary and both needed.

[Dog]

hyzmarca: thanks for the explanation.

However, I've run out of motivation to participate in this thread. As long as there are people who seriously believe that they can say what another group "should" or "shouldn't" be doing, there's really no value in discussion.

I expect there are some who will believe they've won something here. I think as long as someone is trying to win, everyone loses.

Enjoy your game.