do as I say, not as you think..., leadership and PCs Options

[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?