 do as I say, not as you think..., leadership and PCs |
  |
 Dec 2 2005, 11:56 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 611 Joined: 21-October 03 From: Yorkshire Toxic Zone Member No.: 5,752  |
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. |
 |
 
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 12:19 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 908 Joined: 31-March 05 From: Georgia Member No.: 7,270 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 12:26 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 12:40 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 611 Joined: 21-October 03 From: Yorkshire Toxic Zone Member No.: 5,752 |
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... |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 01:08 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,328 Joined: 28-November 05 From: Zuerich Member No.: 8,014 |
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.). |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 01:14 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 01:41 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 03:37 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 04:35 PM
Post
#9
|
|||||||||||
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
Absolutely. I agree with Critias 100% that anyone should be able to try to do anything in Shadowrun, between PCs, NPCs, or PC & NPC. One of the things that appeals to me most about SR is that it is a game that has very few absolutes. There is no reason I can see why you can't use the Leadership skill against another PC, and assuming you win, role-play out the consequences.
No... Hell no.
I would be very much inclined to agree with that because, 1) it makes sense, 2) it's just better role-playing.
I see no problem with using Leadership with other PCs, even (especially) if they're shadowrunners. You know why? Because if your PC doesn't want to be ordered around, and dice do have to be broken out to resolve the issue, there is an existing mechanic for it - It's called a Base TN of 16 (The target PC is Hostile and PC's order is disastrous to the Target PC's sensibilities). If a PC then manages to roll a 17 then it should stand to reason that the dice reflect that in spite of the circumstances the PC rolling Leadership managed to give an order than got through the other PC's skull. But also, if they don't want to allow Leadership to apply, then whenever that PC rolls SUT they don't get the bonus because SUT is giving orders. And if your players refuse to take orders from another runner, well, so be it. No dice (or init) for them. Consistency can be a bitch sometimes, but it happens.
As much as I agree with you, and as much as I am of the position that anything that has stats can be rolled against anyone or anything, I do see a significant disconnect simply because social skills in SR mean very little, even (close as I can tell) to the devs themselves. I also find this thread amusing because on Tuesday I just finished writing 20 pages of social skills rules (and that's without the examples or the situational modifier chart that's going to be much longer than SR3's or SR4's) for my own revisions to SR, and when all was said and done and I had written more on social skills in two days than AFAIK all has been written in SR ever, it struck me that there is a reason for that; mainly insofar as people either RP social skill tests out, or they just don't really give a damn. Of course, the problem with just roleplaying, which is what I prefer doing, is that I wrote 20 pages of rules because not everyone can roleplay social skills in the same manner than other skills are so easily abstracted. Shooting a gun, driving a car, casting a spell are all made better with good RP, but at their heart they do revolve around dice tests which can be summed up as "I shoot/drive/cast a spell at X" and people have no problem accepting that, but when it comes to social skills people tend to get bunched up unless it works in their favor (which usually means Face PCs wanting to exploit the fact that they can on paper out talk almost anyone), and like I said above, consistency has to be maintained once you accept that anyone can do anything to anyone else in SR. I play a Face (social adept, actually) and while I was going through the rules I faced the fact that no one bitches if a player who's never seen a real gun plays a pistols 9 PC who can do damn near anything in part because role-playing combat is actually really easy. Role-playing social skills is not, especially once you get PCs with Negotiation or Leadership skills at 5+ because role-playing a cutthroat negotiator is not that easy, and as much as I trust my own bullshitting skills and knowledge of conflict resolution, game theory and social engineering, my PC is rolling (depending on the skill) 7-10 dice with negative TN mods, and rolling in the teens is not uncommon (highest roll on Intimidation was 17, Negotiation was 23). Sometimes, it's just easier to roll dice when things become heated because 1) it saves time, and 2) it ultimately relies on your PC's skills in the given area, and not your own. I would be hard pressed to find someone (well, there is one guy) who never rolls for availability or contact info, or even SUT. But somehow it's okay to draw the line at giving one kind of order even after the PC won the test, while orders of another kind (SUT) are just followed without question? That's not exactly the spirit of fair play, more like the spirit of being an f-ing munchkin tool. In this particular instance, you won. By the very nature of the rules he follows the order. He can bitch about it, follow it loosely (or exactly, whichever would annoy the PC who gave the order), and will probably need to be compelled to follow another (more TN mods for Leader), but dammit he lost, you won. He has to follow the f-ing order. And it does matter because it is the same thing as if you shot him. He can't not take the wound. You rolled the dice. He rolled the dice. You fucking shot him! You need consistency, or otherwise you're playing Calvinball. And Calvinball SR sucks. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Dec 2 2005, 04:55 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 332 Joined: 19-September 05 From: Nashville, Tn Member No.: 7,761 |
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: |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 05:25 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 06:38 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 07:11 PM
Post
#13
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 257 Joined: 25-May 05 Member No.: 7,414 |
The PC was never forced. Make the roll and be clear about the results of the roll. The player still has the right to go against the roll, but doing so would come out of the Role-Playing portion of his Karma reward. [edit] Wait, Critias said almost exactly the same thing above. I have added nothing to this thread. I deserve your shame and ridicule.[/edit] This post has been edited by The Stainless Steel Rat: Dec 2 2005, 07:13 PM |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 2 2005, 07:18 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 07:19 PM
Post
#15
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
I didn't say the PC was forced. The second paragraph is just my opinion on the issue of using social skills vs. PCs in general, not on how you handled it in your game. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 2 2005, 07:22 PM
Post
#16
|
|||||
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
You forgot "dying" because unless they're me, most people would rather not have their characters get killed, but sometimes it happens.
You know, I'd support that argument more if it wasn't the basic fallback position of the worst min-maxer I've ever known (he's a good gamer, but he's still a min-maxer). You know, I'm only going to follow the "logical" outcome when it suits me and the rules are stupid and I know better, but if there's a logic flaw that I can drive an RV of Doom through, then so be it. I'll exploit that logic flaw, while in the same breath insist that I be allowed to break the rules (or ignore them) because they aren't realistic or logical. You can't have it both ways because it messes with consistency (plus it's just pathetic, to be perfectly honest), and consistency is your buddy when you're playing a game that has a whole mechanism set up to abstract actions using dice. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 2 2005, 07:47 PM
Post
#17
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
So just because you know someone who uses a similar argument to try to have it both ways, it means that I somehow automatically fall into the same category? Yeah, that's great logic, right there... You're not even making assumptions about me based on incomplete information - your're falling back on imaginary information... As for the dying bit... That's simply not a consistent analogy. Being forced to have a character commit suicide would be - and I'd agree that's also something a player should never be forced to do. Just as I'd say no one should ever force a player to have his character jump out of a window, but you won't find me arguing that having gravity happen to someone is unfair. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Dec 3 2005, 12:04 AM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 12:07 AM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
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? |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 12:49 AM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 7-February 03 Member No.: 4,025 |
(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. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 01:10 AM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 45 Joined: 31-March 05 From: Seattle Member No.: 7,269 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 01:14 AM
Post
#22
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 45 Joined: 31-March 05 From: Seattle Member No.: 7,269 |
What if one PC lied/fast-talked to the other? "No Mr Very Touchy Troll, the Johnson didn't just insult your mother. Honest. There's no need to go ape-shit." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2005, 01:24 AM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 7-February 03 Member No.: 4,025 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 01:34 AM
Post
#24
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 7-February 03 Member No.: 4,025 |
First paragraph: I agree, but as a GM, I prefer to sort out what the character knows (or beleives) along with that player's character, without resorting to dice rolls. Second para: I agree, so I sometimes don't resort to dice rolls for a PC to determine if an NPC is lying. Third para: I agree, I hate that too, but a good player won't always wait for me to roll some dice to figure what his character perceives or thinks. Fourth para: I agree, control thoughts is a nasty thing to use. I avoid it, and I would use only with careful consideration for the player. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2005, 01:58 AM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 21-October 05 From: In a Starbucks™ café near you Member No.: 7,870 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th April 2024 - 06:49 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.