Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: do as I say, not as you think...
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
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 donīt like. I can deal with that. Do it to often, or if I (not my character) really donīt like the way it is done, and I will search for ways to ...rectify... the situation.

As was said, itīs 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
QUOTE (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?

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.

QUOTE
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?

No... Hell no.

QUOTE
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.

I would be very much inclined to agree with that because, 1) it makes sense, 2) it's just better role-playing.

QUOTE
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...


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.

QUOTE (Critias)

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.

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.
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.gif
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 Steel Rat
QUOTE (mmu1)
...the GM or the other players have no business making a character do something the player doesn't want to do - ever.

QUOTE (Spotlight)
...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.


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]
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
QUOTE (The Stainless Steel Rat)
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.

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.
SL James
QUOTE (mmu1 @ Dec 2 2005, 12:38 PM)
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.

You forgot "dying" because unless they're me, most people would rather not have their characters get killed, but sometimes it happens.

QUOTE
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.

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.
mmu1
QUOTE (SL James)
QUOTE (mmu1 @ Dec 2 2005, 12:38 PM)
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.

You forgot "dying" because unless they're me, most people would rather not have their characters get killed, but sometimes it happens.

QUOTE
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.

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.

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.
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
QUOTE (Dog)
(shrug)
I wouldn't let a PC influence another PC with a social skill.  Just me.

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."
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
QUOTE (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.

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.
caramel frappuccino
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
QUOTE (caramel frappuccino)
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.

Allow them to roll? Sure. If they ask. But then they're asking me to play their character, in some small way. I don't like it.

More likely, if a good player is playing a really smart character, he'll say something like "I'll study the blueprints for hours to find the route that takes us past the fewest sensors."
And I, not wanting to draw maps with the sort of detail that his character can make use of, will say "Okay, so you're pretty sure you've got the best route picked out. But you're not sure if there are any modifications, since these blueprints are six months old, and there's no accounting for the human element on these plans." Then, I'd adjust my planned challenges for sneaking into the place based on the character's choice to study the plans, and the player's choice to prepare in a characteristic way.

Or something like that.

If they were doing something stupid, and they had a stupid character, I'd reward them. If they were playing a smart character, I'd probably just tell them it's stupid.
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).
fistandantilus4.0
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
QUOTE (mmu1 @ Dec 2 2005, 12:38 PM)
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.

I felt the need to quote this because the way the rules are written succeeding with a Leadership roll is as effective as succeeding with a mind control spell. No, PCs do not like having other PCs (or anyone for that matter) using Control Thoughts or Influence on them, but it can happen. If the GM allows these type PC on PC spells, they should allow PC on PC use of social skills. And they should allow the repercussions that follow when the target PC is not being influenced.

QUOTE (mmu1)
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.

I think he meant more like the outcome of a combat roll was the PC dying. The PC probably does not want to do that either.

QUOTE (Glyph)
Leadership can make people look to you for guidance, but that doesn't mean you can command a stranger 'Kneel!" and roll for it

Think in a situation like you are presented at a royal court or at a religious ceremony. In both situations people are compelled to kneel or bow or all kinds of things. Not doing it takes quite the force of will.
mmu1
QUOTE (SL James @ Dec 2 2005, 08:07 PM)
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?


Right... Because being forced to do something, and having something happen to you are the same exact thing. sarcastic.gif
Critias
QUOTE (mmu1)
QUOTE (SL James @ Dec 2 2005, 08:07 PM)
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?


Right... Because being forced to do something, and having something happen to you are the same exact thing. sarcastic.gif

But that's just it -- someone rolling a skill (be it Pistols or Leadership) is them "having something happen to you" if you look at it one way (a bullet enters your face, or orders enter your ear) and they're also both "being forced to do something (bleed and die, or follow an order).

How is one skill able to be used on a PC within the rules of the game (using target number modifiers for visibility, range, cover, stats for armor, weapon, ammo, and an active skill) when another skill is magically unavailable for PC-to-PC use without that character's express permission (using rules for street reputation, differences in attributes and abilities, situational modifiers as per the chart, and an active skill).

Ignoring a social roll against another PC is on par with ignoring any other roll in the game, I'd say. Someone paid skill points for it, let 'em fucking use it.
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 frappuccino
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
QUOTE (Glyph)
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?

Evidently if the smooth talking face overcame those stiff TN modifiers and succeeded, she would. Maybe she thinks he is the one. It is a consequence of losing. It is going to effect the character just like losing any other dice roll will.

QUOTE (Glyph)
  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?

At that instant the suit reminded him of a reason he needs to survive the confrontation? He lost the roll. What would make the character respond a bit differently? Find that motivation and roleplay it.

QUOTE (Glyph)
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.

Sometimes that is referred to as a character arc or character development.

QUOTE (Glyph)
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.

Have you even looked at the rules? There should be no more arguement about social skills than your straightforward examples.

QUOTE (Glyph)
I think that social skills and high Charisma should be accounted for when roleplaying - otherwise why waste points on either -

This is a better solution? One that is going to cut down on subjectiveness, minimize arguements and not make social skills and charisma a waste of points? (I can hear it now, "Be sure to put 2 or 3 points in that stuff if you plan on using it.")
Dog
I agree with you 100%, Glyph. Call me a crying liberal. wink.gif

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
QUOTE (Critias)
QUOTE (mmu1 @ Dec 3 2005, 02:09 AM)
QUOTE (SL James @ Dec 2 2005, 08:07 PM)
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?


Right... Because being forced to do something, and having something happen to you are the same exact thing. sarcastic.gif

But that's just it -- someone rolling a skill (be it Pistols or Leadership) is them "having something happen to you" if you look at it one way (a bullet enters your face, or orders enter your ear) and they're also both "being forced to do something (bleed and die, or follow an order).

How is one skill able to be used on a PC within the rules of the game (using target number modifiers for visibility, range, cover, stats for armor, weapon, ammo, and an active skill) when another skill is magically unavailable for PC-to-PC use without that character's express permission (using rules for street reputation, differences in attributes and abilities, situational modifiers as per the chart, and an active skill).

Ignoring a social roll against another PC is on par with ignoring any other roll in the game, I'd say. Someone paid skill points for it, let 'em fucking use it.

I feel there is a distinction between having something happen to a character (gets hit by a bullet, pushed out a window, etc.) and forcing a player to have his character act in a certain way.

Though, for all the excitement, I'm not sure we're actually in disagreement, since I never said that a good player shouldn't consider adjusting his actions if another PC uses a social skill on them - just that I think ultimately, it's strictly up to the player how he'll RP his character's reaction to it.
SL James
QUOTE (Dog @ Dec 3 2005, 09:01 AM)
I agree with you 100%, Glyph.  Call me a crying liberal. wink.gif

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.

That's a pretty significant mischaracterization given the fact that I've said I prefer to RP than roll dice. Rolling dice is to settle things once and for all, particularly when there is OOC conflict about the tests. The way you write it, I'll be rolling dice for my PC more often than the rigger or decker (posibly even combined). But it is fair because it is the most simple, reliable, and impartial judge of a result. Moreover, it is the only thing everyone I play with will agree upon 100% of the time.

In discussing social skills with other people along with their related adept abilities, my favorite argument is the following: A social adept with high skills, kinesics 3 and some IA dice can, with more likelihood and freqency than anyone else, convince your average security guard to take the pistol he's aiming at the PC, turn it around, stick the barrel in his mouth, and blow his brains out all over the hallway. "But under the rules, it would be a TN of 13" they say, with 8-10 dice to roll plus karma. It's not common, but it's possible. In part it is a result of the fairly limited situational modifiers table. But, even I say, it should be closed to 20-24+ under a combat situation where you don't have an exchange, you blurt out 3 words in an action before you shoot them yourself.

So, of course, cries of Oh noes! Social adepts are too powerful arise in a chorus from people who have no qualms about the fact that were it pistols no one would blink an eye. And that is, at it's heart, a problem with social skills. There is, to my knowledge, no other group of skills which is so disliked when using the dice mechanics of SR3 as much as social skills (with the exception of times when they help, of course). Once you start using characters with social skills in the 6+ range, most everyone will have exceeded their capacity to wing it, especially when pitting two high skill/attr characters at each other because they know more than the player about what to say or do, and what not to say or do. Part of it is because you can't shoot your teammates or the GM or drive them off the road (much as we all might want to at times), but dammit I think that I can have a normal exchange between our characters (RP! RP!) without having to get the dice involved. Ever. That would be great, but not all players are created equally, and I have seen and have had to break out dice because the character with Negotiation 6 was being outwitted by someone of inferior stats in RP. Does it happen IRL? Yes. Is it "realistic" to have it occur? Yes. But to both, it happens once in a while. But when it happens consistently, there is at some point a problem that dice can solve and RP can explain after the fact.

And then you get situations which bring us to the first post. Under the circumstances, the commander was role-playing his position and character in giving orders (as commanders do) and had the stats to back him up. When the subordinate refused to follow the order, one has to question whether the player was role-playing the situation correctly (the third party should mind his own business), and from what I can tell, he didn't. And that's when dice are broken out, because there is a conflict which at its heart is a conflict between RP, and rather than devolve into an OOC argument, it's just more fair to both sides to roll the dice and suck it up. Otherwise it just drags the whole game down for no good reason over something the players are incapable of or unwilling to accept that this is SR, their characters are not themselves, and that the game is not real life, it is an abstraction of real life with a integral mechanic for handling conflicts without players beating the shit out of each other.

Oh, noes... I'm too smart/clever/realistic to roll social skills because I'm always the greatest role-player in the world.

Bullshit.

You have a conflict? You have a mechanic to resolve it? Just use it, RP the consequences, and move on before some sniper caps you both for arguing in the middle of a firefight. So it's not fair. Neither is being shot in the brain by a ganger who made a lucky roll, but someone who refused to follow either dice test is getting kicked out of my group.
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
QUOTE (SL James)
[That's a pretty significant mischaracterization given the fact that I've said I prefer to RP than roll dice. Rolling dice is to settle things once and for all, particularly when there is OOC conflict about the tests. The way you write it, I'll be rolling dice for my PC more often than the rigger or decker (posibly even combined). But it is fair because it is the most simple, reliable, and impartial judge of a result. Moreover, it is the only thing everyone I play with will agree upon 100% of the time.

In discussing social skills with other people along with their related adept abilities, my favorite argument is the following: A social adept with high skills, kinesics 3 and some IA dice can, with more likelihood and freqency than anyone else, convince your average security guard to take the pistol he's aiming at the PC, turn it around, stick the barrel in his mouth, and blow his brains out all over the hallway. "But under the rules, it would be a TN of 13" they say, with 8-10 dice to roll plus karma. It's not common, but it's possible. In part it is a result of the fairly limited situational modifiers table. But, even I say, it should be closed to 20-24+ under a combat situation where you don't have an exchange, you blurt out 3 words in an action before you shoot them yourself.

So, of course, cries of Oh noes! Social adepts are too powerful arise in a chorus from people who have no qualms about the fact that were it pistols no one would blink an eye. And that is, at it's heart, a problem with social skills. There is, to my knowledge, no other group of skills which is so disliked when using the dice mechanics of SR3 as much as social skills (with the exception of times when they help, of course). Once you start using characters with social skills in the 6+ range, most everyone will have exceeded their capacity to wing it, especially when pitting two high skill/attr characters at each other because they know more than the player about what to say or do, and what not to say or do. Part of it is because you can't shoot your teammates or the GM or drive them off the road (much as we all might want to at times), but dammit I think that I can have a normal exchange between our characters (RP! RP!) without having to get the dice involved. Ever. That would be great, but not all players are created equally, and I have seen and have had to break out dice because the character with Negotiation 6 was being outwitted by someone of inferior stats in RP. Does it happen IRL? Yes. Is it "realistic" to have it occur? Yes. But to both, it happens once in a while. But when it happens consistently, there is at some point a problem that dice can solve and RP can explain after the fact.

And then you get situations which bring us to the first post. Under the circumstances, the commander was role-playing his position and character in giving orders (as commanders do) and had the stats to back him up. When the subordinate refused to follow the order, one has to question whether the player was role-playing the situation correctly (the third party should mind his own business), and from what I can tell, he didn't. And that's when dice are broken out, because there is a conflict which at its heart is a conflict between RP, and rather than devolve into an OOC argument, it's just more fair to both sides to roll the dice and suck it up. Otherwise it just drags the whole game down for no good reason over something the players are incapable of or unwilling to accept that this is SR, their characters are not themselves, and that the game is not real life, it is an abstraction of real life with a integral mechanic for handling conflicts without players beating the shit out of each other.

Oh, noes... I'm too smart/clever/realistic to roll social skills because I'm always the greatest role-player in the world.

Bullshit.

You have a conflict? You have a mechanic to resolve it? Just use it, RP the consequences, and move on before some sniper caps you both for arguing in the middle of a firefight. So it's not fair. Neither is being shot in the brain by a ganger who made a lucky roll, but someone who refused to follow either dice test is getting kicked out of my group.

Relax. Take what I said as an opinion. I hear what you're saying, and I understand your position. I just disagree. I hope that's okay.

I don't know who you think I was mischaracterizing, anyway. I was responding to Glyph's comments and to the thread as a whole.

I'll ignore your sarcasm and vulgarities because you seem to be upset. But I'm hearing you loud and clear on why you like to play the way you do. That's fine by me. You needn't worry about ever having to kick me out of your group. smile.gif
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 frappuccino
QUOTE (tisoz)
QUOTE (Glyph)
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.

Have you even looked at the rules? There should be no more arguement about social skills than your straightforward examples.

Er, have you looked at the rules? The specific effects of a social skill roll are so largely influenced by GM discretion that arguments will inevitably result if he makes a bad call.

In any case, while I would mandate that the player needs to take the results of a social skill roll into consideration when deciding upon his character's actions, I would never dictate his actions for him. That's just, if you'll be so kind as to excuse my French, fucking retarded.
tisoz
QUOTE (caramel frappuccino)
QUOTE (tisoz)
QUOTE (Glyph)
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.

Have you even looked at the rules? There should be no more arguement about social skills than your straightforward examples.

Er, have you looked at the rules? The specific effects of a social skill roll are so largely influenced by GM discretion that arguments will inevitably result if he makes a bad call.

Maybe you need to point out the ambiguous part because it looks like a succeed/fail outcome to me. Maybe you are referring to the degree of success/failure?

QUOTE (Dog)
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.)

So if I have a skill of 1 or 8 I never need to roll? I just base the outcome on what someone with a that level skill should be able to do, either rarely accomplishing anything or always accomplishing something? That seems to be the problem here. The PC with Leadership used it. Another PC didn't like the probable outcome. They then rolled to settle the dipute, and there was much bitching and moaning.
caramel frappuccino
QUOTE (tisoz)
Maybe you need to point out the ambiguous part because it looks like a succeed/fail outcome to me.  Maybe you are referring to the degree of success/failure?

Indeed, that is what I was referring to. It is, if I'm not mistaken, what Glyph was referencing in his original post as well.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012