It would mostly depend on what skill was being used. Negotiation goes without saying, that's two people haggling over price and if the NPC gets the better of the PC, then that's how it goes.

With Coercion I would typically (assuming the NPC succeeded) apply some strain and tell the player, "you feel this person is definitely someone you don't want to mess with". If he still wanted to start something, I'd maybe assign him a setback die or two to illustrate that he's scared of the NPC, or maybe make him roll a Fear check - whatever seemed most appropriate.

For Deception checks I try to roleplay the results. If an NPC makes his Deception check I speak his lines in a straightforward, reasonable tone; if he failed it, I throw in lots of hesitation, flickering eyes, nervous gestures and the like. I never tell my players they have to believe or disbelieve.

Charm is a little trickier. Just a couple of weeks ago I had my group's bounty hunter do a personal job for his guild handler, one he wasn't supposed to tell anyone else in the guild about. A fellow NPC hunter wanted to know what all the fuss was about and made a Charm check. She was a Falleen with the Charmer specialization, so she crushed his Cool pretty effectively (several successes and a Triumph). I told the player "she seems very trustworthy and helpful", to which he replied, "Do I have to tell her what's going on?". I answered, "you don't have to tell her anything, but you think she's on the level". He wound up giving her some insight into the situation and had her tag along for the investigation.

So the short version being, let the skill check be a guideline for how to convey the situation to your players, but let them make the actual decision themselves.

should an npc's social skills "control" a character? nope. (i can think of 1 exception, see coercion below)

should an npc's social skills be rolled and have an impact on the game? definitely.

krieger22 has some examples of this.

if an npc successfully charms the players, portray him in a way that increases the chances of the players liking him.

on a successfull coercion roll, make the threats seem bigger then they might actually be, to make the players more likely to submit to them. if a character is tortured i would actually rule that information was revealed on a success.

made a deception roll for the npc? well, this one's easy... .deceive the players.

an npc's leadership could affect players too.

negotiation seems straightforward.

if npc's fail social checks you can convey that information as well. "you feel like he's not telling the whole truth." "he seems to try a little too hard to be liked. a typical salesman." "he claimes you have no way out, gesturing at his troops, but so far his mooks haven't been a challenge. it's not really intimidating. you could probably take them."

the social skills of an npc can shape the game in numerous ways. they can actually have grave consequences. trust the wrong npc and you're ******.

I've had cases where an NPC was using Charm on a PC, and I let the player know that this wasn't intended to force their hand about how to behave, but that the Charm check represented their character's impressions toward the NPC. The player was a good roleplayer and we have trust so he roleplayed accordingly. I wasn't forcing his character to do something the player was insistent about not doing or anything.

Yeah. The PCs use their social rolls vs. NPCs and vice versa. I'd make the role, and then inform the player of the result to their character, then the player role plays that however she wants. It doesn't come up nearly as often as players influencing NPCs, but it helps.

A sort of half example, but awesome, was when I had my fallen jedi nemesis, who came across the mask of darth Nihilus and became possessed by the long dead Sith lord. Sora and Nihilus, or Darth Ravenous as they were calling their combined selves, were mostly using force powers to torment the players - most especially the jedi exile Sora grew up with. I'd roll manipulation and fear attemps vs. the players - pass or fail they'd get the scene, but if they passed I told them their character became aware of the deception. When our bounty-chased smuggler failed her fear check, became paranoid everyone was working for the Black Sun and out to get her, she abandoned her friends and ran from the temple. A few turns later she passed her check and returned, but my players are good enough to play along with such things.

In my games, I allow NPCs to use their social skills and talents on PC's, but I have the PC's make the roll as a "save", reversing the dice as difficulty. For example, the PCs were going up against a pirate captain and crew. After a couple of rounds of combat, the PCs at wittled their opponents down to just the captain. The captain attempted to make a deal with the party for freedom for a promised stack of credits. The party made a roll against his Negotiation, and failed, so the deal seemed like a good idea.

Then they shot him down anyway.

Long story short, dice are helpful, by my players are going to do what they want.

Then they shot him down anyway.

Then why did you roll in the first place?

That's the whole issue of this discussion. If the pirate captain has successfully bested them on the Negotiation roll but they can still do whatever they want anyway, then the roll has no effect and is pointless.

Broadly speaking, a group needs to make one of two rulings on this sort of thing:

1. Our group will not allow things like NPC social skills to influence player character behaviour. No matter how many dice an NPC has in social skills, it is still always up to the players to choose whatever their characters will do. In other words, we just don't bother with NPC social rolls against PCs since we've agreed never to be bound by the results.

2. Our group treats NPC social rolls against PCs like any other game mechanic. As such, if an NPC bests a PC in a social roll, the PC must behave accordingly within the bounds of the roll results. It is probably still up to the player precisely how his character behaves (i.e. the fine details are probably still his to decide); but he may only choose to act within the bounds the dice have dictated. For instance, if an NPC successfully bests a PC on a Coercion roll then the PC is, in fact, coerced. This means that the player must play the character as such and have him agree to do (more or less) what he was successfully coerced into doing. The precise details are probably open to interpretation; but the player cannot choose to have his character simply refuse - that would be outside the bounds of play.

So in a situation like you describe you really need to choose one of the following:

1. The pirate captain might offer to bargain, but there is no point in actually rolling Negotiation. This is because the players can still choose to do whatever they wish - their actions are entirely their own to decide.

2. If the pirate captain tries to bargain, then a Negotiation roll will be made, modified by whatever factors are appropriate (including, perhaps, the reluctance of these particular PCs to agree to such things - thereby making the roll harder for the captain). When the dice are tallied, all characters are bound by the results. This means, for example, that if the captain successfully rolls Negotiation in an attempt to buy his freedom, the PCs must let him go (provided the captain actually gives them the credits). They can't just "shoot him down anyway" - that would be outside the bounds of play.

Lunewolf72, on 29 Apr 2015 - 10:55 AM, said:

Then they shot him down anyway.

Then why did you roll in the first place?

That's the whole issue of this discussion. If the pirate captain has successfully bested them on the Negotiation roll but they can still do whatever they want anyway, then the roll has no effect and is pointless.

Lol. My only excuse was that I was new to the system and thought that my players would honor the dice rolls. It was definitely a learning experience and something that after the session I spoke with the players about.

In the end I was always sure to get their agreement to follow what you outlined:

Broadly speaking, a group needs to make one of two rulings on this sort of thing:

1. Our group will not allow things like NPC social skills to influence player character behaviour. No matter how many dice an NPC has in social skills, it is still always up to the players to choose whatever their characters will do. In other words, we just don't bother with NPC social rolls against PCs since we've agreed never to be bound by the results.

2. Our group treats NPC social rolls against PCs like any other game mechanic. As such, if an NPC bests a PC in a social roll, the PC must behave accordingly within the bounds of the roll results. It is probably still up to the player precisely how his character behaves (i.e. the fine details are probably still his to decide); but he may only choose to act within the bounds the dice have dictated. For instance, if an NPC successfully bests a PC on a Coercion roll then the PC is, in fact, coerced. This means that the player must play the character as such and have him agree to do (more or less) what he was successfully coerced into doing. The precise details are probably open to interpretation; but the player cannot choose to have his character simply refuse - that would be outside the bounds of play.

I just wish the discussion had happened before they gunned down the Pirate Captain. I had put a lot of work into making a long-running villain, who did not make it past their first meeting.

I just wish the discussion had happened before they gunned down the Pirate Captain. I had put a lot of work into making a long-running villain, who did not make it past their first meeting.

Ah, but did they ever find the body? Mad cyborg pirate captain sounds just about right.

Then they shot him down anyway.

Then why did you roll in the first place?

That's the whole issue of this discussion. If the pirate captain has successfully bested them on the Negotiation roll but they can still do whatever they want anyway, then the roll has no effect and is pointless.

Broadly speaking, a group needs to make one of two rulings on this sort of thing:

1. Our group will not allow things like NPC social skills to influence player character behaviour. No matter how many dice an NPC has in social skills, it is still always up to the players to choose whatever their characters will do. In other words, we just don't bother with NPC social rolls against PCs since we've agreed never to be bound by the results.

2. Our group treats NPC social rolls against PCs like any other game mechanic. As such, if an NPC bests a PC in a social roll, the PC must behave accordingly within the bounds of the roll results. It is probably still up to the player precisely how his character behaves (i.e. the fine details are probably still his to decide); but he may only choose to act within the bounds the dice have dictated. For instance, if an NPC successfully bests a PC on a Coercion roll then the PC is, in fact, coerced. This means that the player must play the character as such and have him agree to do (more or less) what he was successfully coerced into doing. The precise details are probably open to interpretation; but the player cannot choose to have his character simply refuse - that would be outside the bounds of play.

So in a situation like you describe you really need to choose one of the following:

1. The pirate captain might offer to bargain, but there is no point in actually rolling Negotiation. This is because the players can still choose to do whatever they wish - their actions are entirely their own to decide.

2. If the pirate captain tries to bargain, then a Negotiation roll will be made, modified by whatever factors are appropriate (including, perhaps, the reluctance of these particular PCs to agree to such things - thereby making the roll harder for the captain). When the dice are tallied, all characters are bound by the results. This means, for example, that if the captain successfully rolls Negotiation in an attempt to buy his freedom, the PCs must let him go (provided the captain actually gives them the credits). They can't just "shoot him down anyway" - that would be outside the bounds of play.

i'll speak even more broadly and claim that a middle gound is probably the best way to go.

ignoring npc's social skills seems to be a terrible choice in my opinion. if an npc has great presence and charm skill, and you choose to ignore that ingame, you fail to fully utilise that npc. sure, you could assume the npc is always charming and present them that way. but in my view that's what dice are for. if there's an interesting result in the npc failing to use their charm, roll. there's no difference between npc's and characters there. in both cases success and failure can advance the story in an interesting way. whenever that is the case, use dice. it's what they are for.

on the other hand, forcing players to act a certain way is usually a recipe for distaster (at least outside of combat. in combat it's a bit different). apart from mind control "this is not the phat loot you are looking for", players should always retain freedom to act as they wish. you can use the rolls made to shape the way they see things, but in the end it's always up to them to decide what to do. that's what players are for.

in the example with the pirate captain above, if i had nothing written down on how the captain acts when defeated, i might have rolled for negotiation and on a successful roll the captain would have told the players about a hidden stash they cannot possibly find without his help. now the players have a choice. choices produce enjoyable roleplaying. binding the players by the roll seems totally inappropriate in such a situation. the better the npc rolls, the better he bargains. that's all there should be to it.

Yes!

Just not very often...

Give a listen to the social episode of the order 66 podcast.

What they suggest there is to have the pc roll the dice. So when a npc tries to use a talent o. A PC you build the pool with the pcs defense in green and yellow and the talent in red purple. That way when the player picks up the dice they are agreeing to the outcome.

Give a listen to the social episode of the order 66 podcast.

What they suggest there is to have the pc roll the dice. So when a npc tries to use a talent o. A PC you build the pool with the pcs defense in green and yellow and the talent in red purple. That way when the player picks up the dice they are agreeing to the outcome.

I totally agree with this...see above...but what happens when the player refuses to roll the dice? It's happened a few times to me.

Give a listen to the social episode of the order 66 podcast.

What they suggest there is to have the pc roll the dice. So when a npc tries to use a talent o. A PC you build the pool with the pcs defense in green and yellow and the talent in red purple. That way when the player picks up the dice they are agreeing to the outcome.

I totally agree with this...see above...but what happens when the player refuses to roll the dice? It's happened a few times to me.

Then they are refusing to play the game...

i'll speak even more broadly and claim that a middle gound is probably the best way to go.

ignoring npc's social skills seems to be a terrible choice in my opinion. if an npc has great presence and charm skill, and you choose to ignore that ingame, you fail to fully utilise that npc. sure, you could assume the npc is always charming and present them that way. but in my view that's what dice are for. if there's an interesting result in the npc failing to use their charm, roll.

Based on this and earlier comments I gather that your approach is something like the following:

1. Have the NPC make whatever social roll is appropriate to the situation.

2. Adjust the way you portray the NPC according to the results. For instance, you (playing the NPC) will act more or less charming depending on how well the Charm skill roll turned out.

3. Let the players act however they wish, regardless of the dice.

This is arguably better than totally ignoring NPC skills when it comes to interactions with PCs; but it still means that the dice rolls have almost no real effect. At most they become a rough suggestion on how you might flavour your performance of the NPC in this scene.

Yet it's still up to you (the GM) to, for example, charm the players (not their characters). This is something you may or may not be skilled at doing (and your personal skill may not be at all representative of the NPC's skill). Likewise, it's still entirely up to the players to decide what their characters will do (and the degree to which the GM does or does not succeed in influencing them may not be at all representative of how the NPC would have affected the PCs).

in the example with the pirate captain above, if i had nothing written down on how the captain acts when defeated, i might have rolled for negotiation and on a successful roll the captain would have told the players about a hidden stash they cannot possibly find without his help. now the players have a choice. choices produce enjoyable roleplaying. binding the players by the roll seems totally inappropriate in such a situation. the better the npc rolls, the better he bargains. that's all there should be to it.

This is what I'm getting at. What do you mean by the phrase "the better he bargains" if not "the more the PCs are, in fact, swayed to agree with him"? That's what "bargaining better" means - successfully convincing your opponent to make concessions in your favour. And that's what a successful Negotiation roll is supposed to represent - your opponent actually agreeing to terms more in your favour.

I assume you mean that if the captain rolled well then you (the GM) would try harder to present the terms in a way the players would find appealing. But since they're free to do whatever they want, what if they simply aren't swayed? What if the NPC rolls a great result that (according to the dice) crushes the PCs in the negotiation, but the players "shoot him down anyway"? Obviously the captain did not bargain well if he ended up dead, so the dice didn't really do anything.

I'm not claiming any particular way of handling such a situation is more "correct" than any other (it mostly comes down to the personal tastes of different gaming groups); but my point is that things like NPC social skills really won't matter when dealing with PCs unless a group agrees to let them matter. And doing so means biting the bullet of telling players things like, "Your character has been outmaneuvered in this negotiation. He has agreed to unfavourable terms whether you (the player) like it or not" or, "Your character has been thoroughly charmed by this NPC. At least for now, he likes her and trusts her and must behave accordingly whether you (the player) like it or not." Some groups are comfortable with this and some aren't; but I've never seen a "middle ground" approach that really has much effect on the game.

Give a listen to the social episode of the order 66 podcast.

What they suggest there is to have the pc roll the dice. So when a npc tries to use a talent o. A PC you build the pool with the pcs defense in green and yellow and the talent in red purple. That way when the player picks up the dice they are agreeing to the outcome.

I totally agree with this...see above...but what happens when the player refuses to roll the dice? It's happened a few times to me.

Then they are refusing to play the game...

Not necessarily. Apologies for using the word "refuse," I realize that is a bit too strong.

I rarely play "the GM card" and outright require a skill check from a player. I treat the dice as a social contract: once the player picks up the dice I gave him, it seals the deal. That said, my players seem to trust me, and they will generally just roll with a suggestion that I make.

So, if you find yourself in the position of offering a social check to your players, and if he chooses not to roll the dice, how would you proceed from there? I know what I would do, but just looking for opinions.

Here's a few alternatives that may work for other groups:

-----

Do it similar to the game Weapons of the Gods handles social rolls: Have NPC social rolls not directly influence PCs actions, but instead impose penalties to reinforce the roll results.

So say an NPC convinces the PC not to shoot them, the PC could still do it but with some difficulty upgrades or a higher difficulty (or both). You could liekwise use the carrot in addition to the stick by giving the PC a bonus to do the thing that the NPC wanted them to do.

This could be a good compromise for groups that don't want to give up any player control, but also want social mechanics to matter.

-----

Have NPC rolls influence PCs, but give the player an override at a cost. Maybe they have to pay strain to take an action that goes against the roll results, or maybe even flip a Destiny Point (the player is going against "Destiny" in this case).

Do it similar to the game Weapons of the Gods handles social rolls: Have NPC social rolls not directly influence PCs actions, but instead impose penalties to reinforce the roll results.

Basically how the Fear mechanic works, I like it.

Ah, but will you do the same thing for Rivals? If a PC succeeds a charm check on that guard, he get's a blue if he lets them pass, and a black on all the further rolls that day if he tells them to shove it anyway?

Ah, but will you do the same thing for Rivals? If a PC succeeds a charm check on that guard, he get's a blue if he lets them pass, and a black on all the further rolls that day if he tells them to shove it anyway?

Yes or no, depending on the group's social contract.

Here's a few alternatives that may work for other groups:

-----

Do it similar to the game Weapons of the Gods handles social rolls: Have NPC social rolls not directly influence PCs actions, but instead impose penalties to reinforce the roll results.

So say an NPC convinces the PC not to shoot them, the PC could still do it but with some difficulty upgrades or a higher difficulty (or both). You could liekwise use the carrot in addition to the stick by giving the PC a bonus to do the thing that the NPC wanted them to do.

This could be a good compromise for groups that don't want to give up any player control, but also want social mechanics to matter.

-----

Have NPC rolls influence PCs, but give the player an override at a cost. Maybe they have to pay strain to take an action that goes against the roll results, or maybe even flip a Destiny Point (the player is going against "Destiny" in this case).

thats a great way to run it, mental note taken.

Here's a few alternatives that may work for other groups:

-----

Do it similar to the game Weapons of the Gods handles social rolls: Have NPC social rolls not directly influence PCs actions, but instead impose penalties to reinforce the roll results.

Far horizons talk about using setback dice in social encounters and taking strain as results of social skills.

Here's a few alternatives that may work for other groups:

-----

Do it similar to the game Weapons of the Gods handles social rolls: Have NPC social rolls not directly influence PCs actions, but instead impose penalties to reinforce the roll results.

Far horizons talk about using setback dice in social encounters and taking strain as results of social skills.

I love a good structured play social combat, its great fun narrating how minions etc get in the way and interrupt the nemesis or help them, or how the beefcake PC lets slip on the faces roll when he got some setback or despair. so entertaining.

i'll speak even more broadly and claim that a middle gound is probably the best way to go.

ignoring npc's social skills seems to be a terrible choice in my opinion. if an npc has great presence and charm skill, and you choose to ignore that ingame, you fail to fully utilise that npc. sure, you could assume the npc is always charming and present them that way. but in my view that's what dice are for. if there's an interesting result in the npc failing to use their charm, roll.

Based on this and earlier comments I gather that your approach is something like the following:

1. Have the NPC make whatever social roll is appropriate to the situation.

2. Adjust the way you portray the NPC according to the results. For instance, you (playing the NPC) will act more or less charming depending on how well the Charm skill roll turned out.

3. Let the players act however they wish, regardless of the dice.

This is arguably better than totally ignoring NPC skills when it comes to interactions with PCs; but it still means that the dice rolls have almost no real effect. At most they become a rough suggestion on how you might flavour your performance of the NPC in this scene.

Yet it's still up to you (the GM) to, for example, charm the players (not their characters). This is something you may or may not be skilled at doing (and your personal skill may not be at all representative of the NPC's skill). Likewise, it's still entirely up to the players to decide what their characters will do (and the degree to which the GM does or does not succeed in influencing them may not be at all representative of how the NPC would have affected the PCs).

in the example with the pirate captain above, if i had nothing written down on how the captain acts when defeated, i might have rolled for negotiation and on a successful roll the captain would have told the players about a hidden stash they cannot possibly find without his help. now the players have a choice. choices produce enjoyable roleplaying. binding the players by the roll seems totally inappropriate in such a situation. the better the npc rolls, the better he bargains. that's all there should be to it.

This is what I'm getting at. What do you mean by the phrase "the better he bargains" if not "the more the PCs are, in fact, swayed to agree with him"? That's what "bargaining better" means - successfully convincing your opponent to make concessions in your favour. And that's what a successful Negotiation roll is supposed to represent - your opponent actually agreeing to terms more in your favour.

I assume you mean that if the captain rolled well then you (the GM) would try harder to present the terms in a way the players would find appealing. But since they're free to do whatever they want, what if they simply aren't swayed? What if the NPC rolls a great result that (according to the dice) crushes the PCs in the negotiation, but the players "shoot him down anyway"? Obviously the captain did not bargain well if he ended up dead, so the dice didn't really do anything.

I'm not claiming any particular way of handling such a situation is more "correct" than any other (it mostly comes down to the personal tastes of different gaming groups); but my point is that things like NPC social skills really won't matter when dealing with PCs unless a group agrees to let them matter. And doing so means biting the bullet of telling players things like, "Your character has been outmaneuvered in this negotiation. He has agreed to unfavourable terms whether you (the player) like it or not" or, "Your character has been thoroughly charmed by this NPC. At least for now, he likes her and trusts her and must behave accordingly whether you (the player) like it or not." Some groups are comfortable with this and some aren't; but I've never seen a "middle ground" approach that really has much effect on the game.

you summed up my position very well. like i said, freedom for players is incredibly important in a roleplaying game. there are very few instances where i would force players to have their characters act a certain way.

if your players are more comfortable with dicerolls dictating their actions then by all means play that way. i prefer the players acting out their characters as they wish. i'm used to players that react to the way my npcs are portrayed, so i don't feel like the dice have almost no effect. in my example, imagine the following players:

an amoral scoundrel - would probably take up any offer presented

a bounty hunter with revenge issues towards the captain - wants the captain dead, no matter what

a idealistic rebel trooper, who - despite thinking the universe would be better of with the captain dead, might be enticed by the idea of getting their hands on some phat loot for the rebellion

how do you resolve that with 1 binding negotiation roll? who do you even roll against? (there'd be 3 different pools) create a "group pool"? how?

if you use my way a successful roll by the captain can have a number of interesting consequences. if the players like acting out their character's personalities a good offer should start some spirited discussion.

Just Coercion (and not always).

With Social skills we use to roleplay and if a NPC's has a really good "Negotiation" skill, I just told my players "Do you think that it's a good agreement"

You can do this if you have really giving and talented players who will play up an involuntary negative situation with zeal. Most players are focused on Winning though so in that case this gets shelved.