Sorry if this has been covered already, but the search function is clunky, at best.

Anyway, I was going over the rules as a refresher the other day when I noticed a discrepancy (or at least I think) in the rules for using social skills like Charm, Intimidate, etc.

When you read the description of each social skill in the Skills chapter, they essentially say "Make a Test to influence NPCs". The Command skill, for example, states that a successful Command Test indicates that NPCs under your authority follow your instuctions, where a failed Test means they misinterpret your orders or do nothing. Based on this, it seems that social skills are pretty simple; make the Test, and the NPC will react based on whether you succeed or fail.

However, in the Interaction section (p.230 of chapter VIII) they make it look like an NPC will do what the player wants 50% of the time, and that they must of at least Indifferent disposition. Also, this percentage will increase or decrease based on their disposition, so that a Devoted follower will obey your commands 70% of the time. The social skills are only used to change an NPC's disposition, thus increasing the chances that they would listen to the PC's, and the difficulty of the test is influenced by the NPC's current disposition.

So all of this leaves me confused. Which one is it? If an Acolyte wants to instruct the local militia to look into a local gang with the Command skill, does he simply do a test with a pass/fail outcome, or is there simply a chance that they'll do what he wants based on their current disposition (which could be improved with a Command Test)?

Furthermore, what skill would be most appropriate when the players are tying to convince an NPC of something? They're not lying, but the NPC simply doesn't believe them. How would they go about changing their mind?

Thanks for any input!

Very simple...wing it....

I never use those tables, I haven't even read them, I dislike them...

When player X wants to convince NPC Y of something I have them roll a Charm test after some roleplaying (if I make them test at all), if they succeed, they will.

I'll try to share how I use the social skills when I GM. This is probably not RAW, but it works good for all the groups I've played with. First of all, I ask myself "Will this be a good story in both the cases where the social test succeeds AND where the social test fails?" If the answer is NO, then I don't ask for a test at all, I just go with the the effect that gives a good story. It would for example be extremely boring if the adventure ran to a stop because the acolytes failed to charm the only source of information. Also, sometimes no test is needed for obvious reasons. Command tests with a group of Imperial Guard should be used for complex maneuvers or horribly dangerous orders.

If a test is needed I almost always use a straight test, rather than the attitude meter. I often change the effect based on degrees of successes/failures. a very good command test could give a morale bonus to the troops, while a very bad charm test could make your informant sell you out to your enemies later. Also, rememer that difficulty makes a lot of difference. For Decieve tests I often make them opposed checks against a Scrutiny that I roll hidden, so the players will not know if they have managed their trickery.

I have used the attitude meter a few times for somewhat important NPCs (or groups) that are going to hang around for a while. Most of the time It's more in the way than useful. Maybe use it as an indication of how easy or hard the difficulty should be, and maybe to give a bit of "inertia" to a characters attitude. A raging angry underhiver will not become your best friend only because you succeed on a Charm test.

As to your last question: Either a charm test to seem like a more reasonable/trustworthy person. Or an appropriate common/forbidden/scholastic lore test so convince the listener that the acolyte knows what she is talking about. This might of course require the listener to actually have the same lore, or at least a basic understanding about the subject. Or maybe an Intimidation or Command test if the acolytes flash an inquisitorial badge... Generally, support any (reasonable) ideas the players might have.

But once again: Ask yourself "will this be an interesting story both ways?" If only a succeeded test will give a good story, don't even bother rolling the dice.

Ok, I see. That's pretty much how I've been running it. It's mostly roleplaying, with a few tests thrown in using the simpler pass/fail method. I generally use the Disposition table as a guideline for how difficult the test should be. Makes sense- friendly, agreeable NPCs will be easier to deal with than angry, spiteful ones.

Thanks for clearing that up!

Mellon said:

That is some VERY useful information. I've actually had that happen to me yesterday when the game just stopped moving forward because the Acolytes failed to get the info they needed with their Inquiry Tests... Now I know not to put too much importance on tests and checks, especially if the whole game hinges on one or two rolls. >_>

johnnybleu said:

All GMs have done that at least once :-) My most remarkable case was a star wars RPG combat encounter where I wanted the heroes to have a stressfull moment and kick out a thermal detonator that someone threw into their spaceship as they took off after a heist. Of course everyone that tried failed the rather simple test...

johnnybleu said:

FWIW I make a point of ensuring this never happens... by making sure there are either making sure there is more than one way to discover the information, or making sure that the source of the information has their own reasons to want to reveal it. Ignoring the rolls is one thing, but if your players actually roleplay being (say, to pick an example at random) obnoxious and unpleasant, then personally I would never "fudge" that to allow an NPC to give them the information anyway. Indeed, I wouldn't even let them have it if they passed the roll, if their roleplaying indicated they failed badly.