Can adversaries use charm, negotiate, coercion or any social skills to any effect against the player`s characters in your game? What about talents like Biggest Fan or other talents that will affect how a player has to roleplay his or her character?

I know this wouldn`t fly in some games, but in a narrative game, die rolls and the mechanics are supposed to affect or influence how you roleplay. Right?

How do your players feel about game mechanics and dice affecting how they roleplay their characters and the choices they make to a certain degree?

Some Rivals and Nemeses have those skills so theoretically yes they could use them against the PCs.

I would never roll dice and tell a PC how they should behave. Of course they have to go against a NPCs skills and talents, but I let their conduct determine where the chips fall. I will tell them if they are engaging in behavior contrary to their Morality if applicable, or other behaviors that will likely result in some kind of catastrophic consequence, but they make the decision.

I would absolutely roll dice to determine outcomes. This is less telling a PC how to behave, and more showing PCs what the character is presenting.

Conveying more "this guy is very earnest and believeable" rather than "you believe him and cannot not believe him."

By that same token, I wouldn't interpret a PC roll as telling an NPC how to behave either. The world breaks down in weird ways when the mechanics become the setting.

I disagree with 2P51, (I think, not sure exactly what he's saying). We use them all the time in our game. In many ways it's no more defining of RP as failing a similar check to on an NPC, particularly in regards to Negotiate. If I flop a Negotiation, my character slipped up - maybe he lost track of the conversation, maybe he slipped up on his evaluation of the product, I can always pick one - but in the end I payed more than I could have with a better roll.

I generally try and have the PCs roll social rolls they'd be affected by (at least if it's a targeted effect). Even if the diepool is the same, somehow it feels easier to go along with the effect you rolled, than the one the GM rolled.

I think one of the tricks is not to take away player agency while running a social check against them. If a charming NPC is trying to get something out of the players, and make a good throw on the roll, you still let the PCs decide how they react to it. But to completely ignore a die roll that says "You find them charming and likeable" is as inappropriate in my opinion as ignoring a die roll that says "the blaster bolt hit you in the chest". We can't just talk it out, because a lot of my NPCs are far more charming fast talkers then I, your humble GM, is.

What I am saying is I'm not going to roll dice and tell a PC how to behave. The OP asked if a NPC makes a roll am I going to force a PCs response. The OP is referring to a NPC being able to use social skills actively against a PC, the dice mechanics in the end don't really work like that anyway as anything becomes contested/opposed etc, but I am not going to roll a Charm check and tell the PC they have no interest in still going after the bounty they were after or something of that nature. I don't feel like skills in Star Wars should be used like Charm and Fear spells in D&D is all.

Do the NPCs use social skills on the players? Absolutely - what would be the point of the Nobody's Fool talent, if they couldn't?

I'm with Kas.

Avoid "You totally agree to do what this guy says."

But "She makes some good points that make a lot of sense." is ok.

I would absolutely roll dice to determine outcomes. This is less telling a PC how to behave, and more showing PCs what the character is presenting.

Conveying more "this guy is very earnest and believeable" rather than "you believe him and cannot not believe him."

By that same token, I wouldn't interpret a PC roll as telling an NPC how to behave either. The world breaks down in weird ways when the mechanics become the setting.

I agree with this.

The game uses the dice as a narrative and RPG aid, my personal opinion is rolling dice to force PCs to choose, or not, a course of action isn't an aid. To me if I am using a NPC any 'Charming' thing I tell the players should be charming on its face and the details should sway, or not, the players decisions. I actually have a story and a presentation, I don't just say the NPC uses Charm. If you just say the NPC is charming you, roll your dice, you may come up with a narrative explanation on the back end but its the dice making the decisions, not the PCS, just doesn't strike me as fun. To me if you roll dice in this kind of a way you're inserting a mechanical function into something that should already be a RP situation and doesn't need the dice.

The way I prefer to run any social checks I make also is to have the PCs talk to the NPC. Tell their story, or lie, or one liner, or whatever. Depending on how clever their line of questioning or proposal is, I may choose to toss them a boost die, the flip side of their presentation sucks, they may get a setback. That's RPing imo, rolling dice and inventing a story on the back side of the roll is to mechanical for my tastes.

Also, I never said there aren't skills and talents that would let a GM do that, I just don't. Pretty sure there is a thread or two on these forums about what some of us think are not so great aspects of the game we alter, ignore, or pan. To each their own.

There is no one way of doing this that is correct for every group. This should be discussed at the table early on and agreed upon as part of the social contract.

At our table, we occasionally have these rolls. I do dictate the character's reaction to the roll, but the player determines the response. So I will say, "he makes a good argument that convinces you." The player then takes that and runs with it.

That said, I rarely make those rolls. It usually only comes up if an NPC is pressed in some way and they have a compelling interest to sway (or lie to or intimidate) the PCs. Usually the flow of the narrative does all the work for me.

Indeed, there's nothing wrong with that method (2P51) - I know plenty of people who use it to great effect. Unfortunately it doesn't work that well for me, because I have a hard time speaking in character voice (both as NPC and PC, though more as the former), and are often the characters are more capable than I am. In addition, I find it more difficult, particularly with checks like Coercion, because it's impossible to put the players in the environmental situation the characters are in (nor would I want to, these are my friends!)

When I do these such social encounters either direction, I typically run the conversation for a bit, or at least make sure all the basic information is out there before the roll goes down. The roll isn't really about what's said - it's about how it's said. And if you have a good group of players, they'll take the result and work it into how their character reacts to the information/request presented. Because the characters are under variable stresses, distractions and influences the players are not, and those need some consideration.

It hasn't come up yet but I'm pretty sure I would never need to use NPC skills to control a PC. At most there would be some other effect riding on the result. For example, if an NPC wanted to Charm a PC at a social gathering, the contest would be more of a "Charm-Off", where the loser loses face with the host, rather than the PC having to succumb to the wayward wiles of a seductive Sullustan.

The only active NPC social skill situation used against a PC I can fathom is they're captured and being tortured. Then I might have them give up the captain's secret whisky stash, but that's about it. Really though like I said before that ends up being an opposed kind of roll Coercion to Coercion or Resilience or whatever. It also isn't totally what the OP is referring to imo either when they forcing how a PC roleplays their character.

It's happens occasionally in my campaign. Several players actually requested more rolls like this to bring some of their talents into play like "Nobody's Fool."

That leads right into the portions of the game I'm not a big fan of discussion. Not a big fan of the 'setback removal' talents. Nobody's Fool is better and not the same thing, but at the point I am crafting the scenario just so the player can get use out of the talent it starts to become a tail wagging the dog situation I think. Again, to each their own.

I typically try to make the PC roll as much as possible using the NPC's skill as the difficulty. It's worked out for me so far.

What I am saying is I'm not going to roll dice and tell a PC how to behave. The OP asked if a NPC makes a roll am I going to force a PCs response. The OP is referring to a NPC being able to use social skills actively against a PC, the dice mechanics in the end don't really work like that anyway as anything becomes contested/opposed etc, but I am not going to roll a Charm check and tell the PC they have no interest in still going after the bounty they were after or something of that nature. I don't feel like skills in Star Wars should be used like Charm and Fear spells in D&D is all.

The only active NPC social skill situation used against a PC I can fathom is they're captured and being tortured. Then I might have them give up the captain's secret whisky stash, but that's about it. Really though like I said before that ends up being an opposed kind of roll Coercion to Coercion or Resilience or whatever. It also isn't totally what the OP is referring to imo either when they forcing how a PC roleplays their character.

I`m not directly talking about forcing the PC`s hand, I am talking about game mechanics that affect rp in interaction with npc`s.

Obligation tells you that you are very stressed out about your oblig this session if your number comes up, so that is part of the game mechanics and it influences rp and character behaviour.

But what about in the middle of a game session when characters run into charming twi`lek dancers or threatening wookie gladiators(or the other way around)?

Is it so bad if a PC has to base a little rp on social skill results then, or talents, just like I have to as a gm? And what about deceit and lying?

If an NPC celeberty has the Biggest Fan talent, can`t that npc use it and one PC suddenly remembers how big of a fanboy he was of the npc as a child(or something)?

Can`t it be fun to go with the flow of the dice sometimes too? "Oh, am I charmed? That`s fun. I`ll rp the hell out of that!" Maybe not if the game is about winning and powergaming to you, but otherwise, if it`s about telling a fun or interesting story?

If you get hit by a blaster, you get hit by a blaster, if you are strained by harsh invironment or a scary situation you can`t say "no, I`m not, this character doesn`t care about that stuff". So why should he or she be imune to charm, lying or threats?

Not directly force the rp, but at least affect the way you rp... Guess you could use light side points or take strain or something to ignore. I don`t know.

I don`t have one correct answer, I guess there isn`t one, but I am kind of fascinated by narrative game mechanics these days and letting characters tune rp to social mechanics as well as others, since that makes for interesting story elements.

What I am saying is I'm not going to roll dice and tell a PC how to behave. The OP asked if a NPC makes a roll am I going to force a PCs response. The OP is referring to a NPC being able to use social skills actively against a PC, the dice mechanics in the end don't really work like that anyway as anything becomes contested/opposed etc, but I am not going to roll a Charm check and tell the PC they have no interest in still going after the bounty they were after or something of that nature. I don't feel like skills in Star Wars should be used like Charm and Fear spells in D&D is all.

The only active NPC social skill situation used against a PC I can fathom is they're captured and being tortured. Then I might have them give up the captain's secret whisky stash, but that's about it. Really though like I said before that ends up being an opposed kind of roll Coercion to Coercion or Resilience or whatever. It also isn't totally what the OP is referring to imo either when they forcing how a PC roleplays their character.

I`m not directly talking about forcing the PC`s hand, I am talking about game mechanics that affect rp in interaction with npc`s.

Obligation tells you that you are very stressed out about your oblig this session if your number comes up, so that is part of the game mechanics and it influences rp and character behaviour.

But what about in the middle of a game session when characters run into charming twi`lek dancers or threatening wookie gladiators(or the other way around)?

Is it so bad if a PC has to base a little rp on social skill results then, or talents, just like I have to as a gm? And what about deceit and lying?

If an NPC celeberty has the Biggest Fan talent, can`t that npc use it and one PC suddenly remembers how big of a fanboy he was of the npc as a child(or something)?

Can`t it be fun to go with the flow of the dice sometimes too? "Oh, am I charmed? That`s fun. I`ll rp the hell out of that!" Maybe not if the game is about winning and powergaming to you, but otherwise, if it`s about telling a fun or interesting story?

If you get hit by a blaster, you get hit by a blaster, if you are strained by harsh invironment or a scary situation you can`t say "no, I`m not, this character doesn`t care about that stuff". So why should he or she be imune to charm, lying or threats?

Not directly force the rp, but at least affect the way you rp... Guess you could use light side points or take strain or something to ignore. I don`t know.

I don`t have one correct answer, I guess there isn`t one, but I am kind of fascinated by narrative game mechanics these days and letting characters tune rp to social mechanics as well as others, since that makes for interesting story elements.

I am not at any point stressing any sort of power gaming so I'm baffled by the bold line. I see no reason for a dice roll in order to tell an interesting story or have fun.

I also at no point said a player can't RP their character anyway they like, I said I wouldn't force them to. I said I don't do it that way and the reasons why, and I also finished off by saying, to each their own.

I am not at any point stressing any sort of power gaming so I'm baffled by the bold line. I see no reason for a dice roll in order to tell an interesting story or have fun.

I also at no point said a player can't RP their character anyway they like, I said I wouldn't force them to. I said I don't do it that way and the reasons why, and I also finished off by saying, to each their own.

That was in no way directed against you, It was a very general comment. But I can see how you might have thought so.. Sorry, man!

Only the part about not forcing the PC`s hand and that it wasn`t meant that way in the OP was to you.

We cool?.. Roll to see if we are cool?

I have lots of soak, I'll be fine...

Do the NPCs use social skills on the players? Absolutely - what would be the point of the Nobody's Fool talent, if they couldn't?

A very good point! I would be interested to hear other thoughts on this too.

I think it takes a certain amount of mutual trust between the GM and players to roleplay the PCs being affected by NPCs' use of social skills or talents. If there is no trust being exercised on either end, then you've got a bigger problem

Personally, I have found two strategies to be of great benefit. These strategies can be combined at will:

1) Give the player the "choice" of contributing to the scene by making his opposed Cool skill check against Lenny the Bothan OR letting Lenny's opposed Charm check happen to him and then contribute to the scene by responding appropriately.

2) Ask the player up front if he's cool running with the narrative results of this check that's about to happen. "Lenny wants to put the Charm on—are you cool running with the results of this check? You are Nobody's Fool , so the difficulty would be upgraded twice for Lenny!"

And if the response to either above is negative, then at least there are things like the strain threshold and setback dice so that the GM can simply narrate the basic effects of the skill/talent use and then inflict an appropriate amount of mechanical measures on a PC (or give them boons, depending on the results of the check).

Bottom line, this is a collaborative storytelling game. It says so on the opening page. If a group is willing to take that concept and run with it, awesome stuff can happen.

But if the GM and/or players are intent on controlling their own little slice of the game world, and not actually collaborating on the story, then there's only so many options available.

The absolute best way to handle it is when you think an NPC is about to make a social roll (when you get that first little tingle in your GM dice) just have them shoot the PC instead.

It's good enough for Han, so it's good enough for your game. Plus, they probably weren't about to say anything of interest anyway.

Bottom line, this is a collaborative storytelling game. It says so on the opening page. If a group is willing to take that concept and run with it, awesome stuff can happen.

You just hit the nail on the head.

Everyone here is agreeing that a social encounter should be collaborative, some rely on the dice to do this, others rely on pure Player ideas and in character conversations, yet others combine both in many caring ways. Good. Everyone is correct! it only becomes an issue if someone at the particular table is not enjoying themselves because they don't enjoy the method being used by the group.

I have players who struggle to come up with one liners, don't always contribute with convincing arguments or find it hard to explain the way in which their character interacts. I could never force them to succeed based on their personal debating skills or off the cuff creativity.... but given the dice roll results they can often use it for inspiration.

Others in our group are a lot more talkative, even if their particular PC is not! these players are the ones who will receive more boost/setback based on their ideas.

I try to get players to roll more of the dice too, since they are geared towards the rolling person being more likely to succeed, so if an NPC is trying to deceive them, ill often have the player roll a Discipline check, opposed to the NPC's Deception.

I tend to try and give players a chance of the spotlight each session to, as i know some of them may not step into the spotlight if not given the opportunity.

But this is just my group, and as i said, if everyone is comfortable with a groups methods then whats the problem.