From the other thread:



We handle it like that: We use skill checks if something is in doubt - when a player is not sure his or her PC would do something or not when asked or influenced by another PC - but there's some ooc control too - the social control of "You're not allowed to ruin someone's fun".

With NPCs it's the same, or very similar - they too get to roll against PCs, with similar checks and balances.

I use the same checks as I would for an NPC (although there's usually the bonus for being an ally). I will roll for making *suggestions* to other PCs - his idea sounds good, he seems like he knows what he's doing, he sounds like he's lying, etc. Then I let the PCs react as they wish.

Ideally, I'd have them roll and I'd also roll for NPC trying to influence a PC, but more often than not, the player will still insist that their PC won't get fooled.
Except when playing Dying Earth RPG, because NPCs fooling PCs (or PCs fooling PCs) is essential to the game.

Sometimes, I try to work around this by being more subtle about it: instead of saying that "you accept to do what he says" I'll try to have the NPC be sympathetic to the PC/Player and just say things such as "he seems like someone you can trust".

But I think that the problem Glyph expressed goes further than just "how to solve PC-PC interaction". It's also about the boundaries of the social skills.
If you want to shoot someone you roll. If you want to shoot someone far, you roll with negative modifier. If you want to shoot someone who's outside your weapon's range, you can't roll. The rules simple.
But with social skills, there are no physical hard limits. And the problem is that you can't even use common sense or your experience to judge what you can or can't do because the highest possible dice pool in Real Life is much inferior to the highest possible one in Shadowrun...

One option is for the GM to give the player false information as to what is going on. THen the player may agree to it. But that may only work in certain situations.

I was thinking about this thread for a bit and thought it might be useful to list the social skills in the game and their uses:

Ettiquette: Primarily to know what to do and not to do, and to ask delicate questions. <In my game the dice roll indicates how well recieved the PC is by contacts and other NPCs he may be trying to curry favor. Also on how to blend in at like say a biker bar.

Negotiation: Will adjust payment for services (the initial off is the base_. Not that both sides should have their limits and either the PC's or NPC's can state that they wont accept the final payment if they so choose.

Con: To convince trick someone to do something that may or may not be benificial to them. For PC's this is used to determine GM advice on the con, and finally roleplaying will be a dice modifier on the NPC's Perception check to notice the con. For NPC to PC this is harder, as the Players out of character knowledge may be more than the PC's (which is why in these situations limiting the information, or giving disinformation to the PC's is the best way to handle it).

Leadership: PC (or NPC) to PC---Mainly tactics, a PC will never be able to order another PC around (except with mind control spells or psychotropic IC).
PC using on an NPC---would only work on allies. Again, mostly in a tactical situation.

This is actually a question I have been debating, should PCs roll social interaction or not? I think it should be a special event. Not a minor thing either.

For example a more stringent GM would insist that Vera and Dartha roll opposing tests. Since Vera had killed Bunker in the bathroom of the airport and was wondering where he disappeared to. However, Vera did tell part of the truth "He's in the bathroom." But "Dexter took him" is a lie.

Where do you draw the line? Vera furthermore continued by informing Jane (an NPC) that when Dexter and she took him into the bathroom Bunker took a cyanide pill. In reality Vera simply gave him a lethal dose of anti-venom. Vera knows that Jane wants the simple answer, not the reality that to be protected he had to be killed.

This is further compounded in my mind that Vera rolls about 27 dice for most social rolls.

I let the players decide how their PCs react to other PCs. If a player truly has no idea, and has no idea because it's a conflict between the player's desires and what's IC for the character, I still let the player decide, but give out karma if the player decides in favour of IC and/or decides to use his IC skills to help decide.

At my table, nobody rolls nothing. PCs lack the power to affect each other.

When I used to MuSH, Muck, IRC et al and the players didn't know each other, it was different. I find that online games suffer from the internet dickwad theory
http://www.pennyarcademerch.com/pat070381.html

For those games I would have them roll. However, when I found a player combating or controlling other players socially(or physically)... We strongly invited them to leave. Tension between characters is always welcome, but everyone gets to play.

Funny thing is, I just broke up a in person game because *all* of the decisions came down to one of two people. Including what color the other characters would wear.

BlueMax

This is a specific application - does the PC detect another PC lying? This should be rolled - always, if you have that option. Ideally, the roll is done secretly. Vera rolls her own dice (or you roll them on her behalf) and you roll on behalf of the other character to see if he notices the lie. If Vera succeeds, she can tell her story (or you tell it, since it'll be more convincing coming from you). If she fails, pass a note to the player indicating it's a lie. You can pass blank notes and such in general if you want to conceal from Vera if she was caught in her lie or not.

PCs lying to other PCs IS one of those interactions I strongly support rolls for, if feasible. PCs negotiating with each other over price or intimidating each other I generally don't permit rolling. PCs convincing each other I do, and then I will either add additional information on behalf of the winner, or simply say 'he seems to make a strong point' and let the player play it out.

Think of it like this - would you allow PCs to roll Unarmed Combat against another PC?

If the answer is yes, then you must allow Social Skills to be rolled against PCs.

- J.

Thats a clever way to shorten my response. And it also leaves plenty of field for those who feel differently.

/me applauds.

BlueMax

We pretty much don't do it.. it started as a rule in a D&D group we were in that you can't tell someone how to play his character. While SR has more extensive (and powerful) social skills, I think I'll let that rule stand, due to custom and to keep people happy. The Face/Wizard-Elf will have to rely on his own personal social skills (he's under the impression they're effective, others disagree.)

Magical abilities are a different story, but my players tend to react quite badly to mind control.

As a GM, I don't really need it; my players are fairly gullible, I generally just tell them what I want them to think. Much of my trouble comes from them believing even weak lies

For me it works that way: They can do it, if they want. BUT: Just like i do it with NPC's you cannot invoke "impossible" reactions through simple social skills. No matter how good your negotiation is, the Johnson will never pay more than his maximum alloted funds for the run (And if you have 10 net successes, so what?). Someone dedicated to his job will NEVER change the procedure for you. Someone who is not interested in sex, your gender, or is dedicated to staying faithful to his partner CANNOT be seduced. Et cetera...

So, the PC's all have this "out" too... if it fits with their character/background. No matter how high the lyer rolls against the dumb street samurai, if he is an paranoid dude who always checks everything and only believes what he has seen himself. Well then he doesn't HAVE to believe it, no matter how true it sounds.

That's what's called a logical fallacy. To each their own, though, which is the beauty of RPGs.

Some GMs do it, some don't. The first option doesn't necessarily bother me, if the GM keeps in mind what the social skills actually can do (like Warlordtheft listed), and sets reasonable limits (like Summerstorm laid out). Even so, it is a potential minefield, as the rules are very loosely defined, incomplete, and subjective. No one's going to bitch about getting a penalty for glare on their attack roll, or suffering a wound penalty to their dodge roll. But determining social modifiers is a lot trickier.

No, it isn't a logical fallacy. If you allow one set of skills to be rolled against PCs then you must allow the other. Unless you are willing to admit a bias (in which case it comes down to how your group operates). I've seen players almost come to blows because a GM was willing to allow one PC to attack another, but wasn't willing to let the defending PC use social skills to convince the other player against that course of action.

With regards to each their own, I personally allow PCs to use social skills against each other (same as I allow combat, magic, etc). However I am pretty good at cautioning my players against certain actions which helps (that and they know I'm a ruthless bastard). To ensure that a player acts in line with his character if he has been intimidated/lied to/manipulated socially , I explain the parameters of that interaction and let the player roleplay it out. He may not like it, but thats the way the cookie crumbles. If necessary, I'll go so far as to penalise karma or use cows but I haven't had to use either in recent memory.

- J.

Generally speaking, my players just roleplay out interactions and it hasn't caused issues. But sometimes there are hairy situations - such as when one PC lies to another and the player knows it but the character doesn't. Sometimes a PC wants to make a perception test to determine if that other PC was lying. So that's when the dice come out and I'll apply situational modifiers. My PCs are pretty mature and we've had no issues however.

I admit this isn't a one size fits all scenario -- you really need to guage your players and their maturity. I've played in some terribly immature groups so I'm very judicious about who plays in my games and the type of arguments/debates I'll entertain. But I had to go through all that crap to learn those lessons.

- J.