I recently had a philosophical discussion about Social Skills with a player. To summarize it, the payer feels that in most circumstances a Social Skills Check is binding on the NPC, but not binding on the player. For instance is engaged in selling an item to a vendor if the dice result is in favor of the player the NPC cannot say "no", while if the price is too low for the player they can just walk away. After much discussion the player agreed that there was good role playing value in occasionally going into a store and walking out wondering, "Why did I buy this antique Geonosian vevuzela?"

In general I can understand the premise that the PCs are the hero's of the game, and are not subject to many of the limitations that NPCs labor under. However, when the NPC successfully Charms the PCs into believeing "x", they need to accept that they now believe "x".

If anyone else has had to deal with this dynamic I would welcome any information on how it worked out for you.

This is a comparable topic with some interesting advice on the matter:

In the specific incidence of trying to convince the PCs of the veracity of something, I think it is best to not have the NPC check at all unless the PCs say "I want to tell if he's lying." Then have the NPC roll (hidden) a Deception check, but let the players roll the difficulty dice. Then tell them whether or not they believe it, interpreting the narrative results.

As for convincing the PCs to go along with something via Charm or Negotiation, I'd follow a similar tack. If they choose to resist, then the NPC rolls a Charm or Negotiation check as appropriate. Since truth isn't at question here, just roll openly. The PCs should be willing to play along as long as you, the GM, aren't unreasonable. And in the event they do buy that antique Geonosian vuvuzela, perhaps there is some significance to it rather than just being "here, let me drain your credits real quick" e.g. the vuvuzela is actually not Geonosian, and is a royal doohickey from an alien culture in desperate need of the macguffin to restore their regent to power. Chaos would subsequently ensue.

Setback is another important thing to use in these situations. You are the final arbiter, but I would suggest asking the PCs for recommendations about Setback or Boost for the checks.

Also, it can help if you don't treat the Charm, Deception etc checks as brainwash.

e.g.: A PC goes to a costumer in the cantina to ask about something. The costumer tells him to shove his questions up to his whatever organ it has for emptying. The PC can attempt to Decept him (your boss told me you help me, you don't want to disobey him, do you?) Charm him (please, you are my only hope), Negotiate him (I pay your next round if you help me), Coerce him (i beat the **** out of you if you don't help me). Then don't give him the answer, but alter the attitude of the costumer (Sure, why didn't you start with this?! / Fiiiiine I'll help you... / That's what I'm talking about! / Fine, I'll answer you then fock off!) , so they would enter the conversation with the PC, thus resulting in the answer at some point.

I usually don't let social check for attempt that would go against the very nature of the NPC, thus rather say you can't do that or try another approach (or Impossible check rules kick in). You can do that. Just because the NPC has 1R1P Cool, it doesn't mean they can be convinced to trade their shop for some junk. If the question is unrealistic, tone it down.

I have gone on records many times with my players that Social Skills are not mind control. The NPC will still react accordingly.. If you succeed in a charm check, you came across as charming, but Darth Vader will still Force Choke you for ruining his day.

This comes up often at our table when a player tries to coerce an NPCs that clearly react poorly to being threatened. They usually respond with violence.

1 hour ago, kaosoe said:

I have gone on records many times with my players that Social Skills are not mind control. The NPC will still react accordingly.. If you succeed in a charm check, you came across as charming, but Darth Vader will still Force Choke you for ruining his day.

This comes up often at our table when a player tries to coerce an NPCs that clearly react poorly to being threatened. They usually respond with violence.

Exactly. Treat the NPCs as if they were PCs in regard of the outcome.

13 hours ago, Rimsen said:

Exactly. Treat the NPCs as if they were PCs in regard of the outcome.

This.

In other words, be sure that every NPC in your game (or at least every NPC the PC's will get into Social checks with) has their own motivations / goals and let them act accordingly.
That always makes it easier for me. (In addition to making it alot easier to roleplay them).

The fact of Player's walking away from a trade still remains, but if it was due to a failed check and they just walk away I'd either use the failures/disadvantages for something related biting them later on (maybe they've angered the trader or broke somekind of protocol while bartering?) or remember the result and if they try to buy the same thing later make it harder using the result (unless it's far away or a good time later - no going to a different trader in the same town / station).

I also always tend to play out negotiations adding deals on the side according to what result was rolled (Success on Negotiation for Fuel, with advantages? The Fuel doesn't get magically cheaper apart from a small discount, but suddenly the Refueling Station agrees to throw in the recharging of the ship for free or on a fail they suddenly charge for recharging the ship etc.)

All replies much appreciated!