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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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 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.")

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

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.

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.

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

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"

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.

"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 .)

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

Am I alone in having seen The Godfather Part II?

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... )

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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is he so angry about this?

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

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

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

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

just my humble alpha oriented opinion...
dx

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oi. This is a mess.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ding ding ding.

Someone finally fucking gets it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hyzmarca: thanks for the explanation.

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

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

Enjoy your game.