Hi there,

I have some questions regarding the persuasion of players or NPCs.

It is quite obvious that one should use charisma to convince someone of his ideas. What I don't get is how someone can resist these attempts. If you do a simple test the outcome is basically independent of the target itself.

Lets take a look on the religious prophet on page 87 from the "No Room in Hell" scenario. If a group of players gets in contact with one of these guys, isn't it as good as certain that the whole group gets converted to his religion due to its outstanding charisma and features?

Lets assume that two religious prophets meet up. In such a case the one whoever manages to get the first attempt to convert the other would just do so.

I can imagine using opposed tests to resist such attempts would be much more convenient. Which characteristic should be used in this case? Empathy (defensive social) for the one who tries to resist?

Another question: Is it allowed for players to use in game mechanics to persuade another player to force him/her to do as he pleases?

How do you handle these things?

Regards,

BigChiller

This (social interactions and checks) is a pretty common dilemma across many RPG systems. You want to have the social skills mean something but you don't want to deprive players of their agency and ability to make choices.

I will usually have the charisma of an NPC factored into the way I describe and present the NPC, whereas I might describe an average NPC as "this man appears trustworthy", I will describe charismatic NPCs like "this man is trustworthy", or if he's trying to convince the PCs of something and they judge his intentions (assuming the NPC wins the opposed test), "he is genuine and you believe him". It's subtle and the players will probably not pick up on it conciously, or if they do they will either take you at face value or they won't - either way you've planted the seed, at best it will subconsciously put them at ease around the NPC.

Conversely, very Charmismatic PCs can - in theory - cripple your ability to have NPCs act as you want, which can present major problems for your story. The solution there is just knowing that the NPCs should have a smallish range of possible outcomes to their social interactions (someone who is very hostile may, at best, only be persuaded to just rob you and tie you up instead of kill you, or if you're trying to barter for something the NPC will go no lower than 90% of the items actual value because he has a reality of his own to deal with), ya dig? And the PCs level of success (or failure) in the social test just moves the outcome along that outcome spectrum appropriately.

This (social interactions and checks) is a pretty common dilemma across many RPG systems.

I am completely new to RPGs so I am not familiar with these problems at all. However, I am about to host my first game tomorrow and therefore I want to solve this problem beforehand.

Conversely, very Charmismatic PCs can - in theory - cripple your ability to have NPCs act as you want, which can present major problems for your story. The solution there is just knowing that the NPCs should have a smallish range of possible outcomes to their social interactions [...]

This completely makes sense. Thank you very much for the explanation and for the example. I will stick on this idea.

I will usually have the charisma of an NPC factored into the way I describe and present the NPC, whereas I might describe an average NPC as "this man appears trustworthy", I will describe charismatic NPCs like "this man is trustworthy", or if he's trying to convince the PCs of something and they judge his intentions (assuming the NPC wins the opposed test), "he is genuine and you believe him".

So if I understand you correctly you do both, giving your players hints whether or not to trust the person they are facing so that they can choose to voluntarily believe or follow him and if (really only if) this person tries to convince the players you do an opposed test.

How do you run these opposed test? Charisma vs charisma or charisma ("attacker") vs empathy ("defender")?

This completely makes sense. Thank you very much for the explanation and for the example. I will stick on this idea.

So if I understand you correctly you do both, giving your players hints whether or not to trust the person they are facing so that they can choose to voluntarily believe or follow him and if (really only if) this person tries to convince the players you do an opposed test.

How do you run these opposed test? Charisma vs charisma or charisma ("attacker") vs empathy ("defender")?

I tell them how he appears in no uncertain terms because a high CHA includes an ability to know how to present yourself to your desire, so I wouldn't call it a hint; I just describe in no uncertain terms, and leave it to the PCs to make the determination if they're really that way based on their interactions and follow-up checks of they want to make them.

Yup. The opposed test is the Speaker's CHA vs. the Listener's EMP.

As a general rule, in any RPG, when it comes to social skills, I try to leave the dice behind as much as possible. If I can lie convincingly in character, or make an actual impassioned speech trying to convert the players to a particular way of thinking, I'll just do it. It resolves a lot of gamey mechanical issues and it promotes actual role-playing. If the players believe me, so much the better. This allows the players to retain their free will, and helps to obfuscate when they are being manipulated. (Hey guys! I know this NPC is lying because the DM rolled some dice just before saying that!)

If a player suspects I'm lying and wants to make a die roll to "make sure" then I'll pick an appropriate skill and have him roll it. Or I'll just roll behind my screen randomly to decide how obvious the NPC is. Note that I will do this even if the NPC is telling 100% truth, and just act like the roll was good enough.

There are really only two times I use social mechanics:

1) mind control. This does not include "converting" players through impassioned speech, but literal mind control effects.

2) the player spent points on social related skills (I'll let him use the stuff he paid for.)

I don't think it's fair to tell players that they have to think or act a certain way if there's not an actual magical/techno/something in play that would force him to change his behaviour. If there is such a thing in play, I explain that he has been affected by something forcing him to change his behaviour and then I offer him the choice of role-playing this forced mindset or giving me control of the character until it wears off.

If a pre-written scenario tells me that So-and-so is really charismatic and can "convince players to convert to XYZ" with a die roll, without any forced mind control being involved, I typically ignore and/or rewrite that aspect of the scenario.

As a new RPGer, this is a very important thing to keep in mind: the rules should never be a straightjacket. If something is confusing, or stupid, or otherwise not fun for you (and your group) then you should absolutely change it to suit your tastes. Even in a pre-made scenario, you should not feel compelled to play things as written just because.

Is it allowed for players to use in game mechanics to persuade another player to force him/her to do as he pleases?

As the DM/ZM/Etc, it is entirely your prerogative as to whether or not such things are allowed.

I prefer to disallow this sort of thing myself, as I find it can quickly lead to a lot of hurt feelings and general munchkinery. If the player has a mind control spell or something, so be it, but otherwise I tell people to just role-play their attempts to convince one another of something.