I've been puzzling over this too much and would prefer someone else's opinion.

"Chem Geld: a variety of chemical and surgical treatments have rendered you immune to temptations of the flesh. Seduction attempts against you automatically fail, and the Difficulty of all Charm tests made against you increase by one step [ a Challenging (+0) Test becomes Difficult (-10) and so on ]. When you take this talent you gain one Insanity Point." ( Dark Heresy , pg. 113)

A PC can take this talent, but how exactly does charming or persuading a PC work? Since the Player Character is being controlled by the Player, does a successful Charm test wrest control of the Player Character from the Player? That by a simple roll of the dice, the Player must give up the actions of his character? I could understand if a character is possessed by a daemon or has sorcery done to him to influence his actions, but can a beginning rank cleric (who is skilled in Charm) take control of another player's character just by a simple roll?

Also, has there been any time when an NPC has succeeded in seducing a PC? If a player is smart, any person attempting to seduce them is either:

1. Wants money (which the acolyte probably won't give; players are notorious cheapskates)
2. Wants a favor (which the acolyte will become suspicious; why go through more "honest" ways to ask?)

It appears to me that this Talent is only useful to NPCs, since it is much more likely that a PC will use Charm or seduction on an NPC than vice-versa. Is this true, or am I being obtuse?

I see no reason why the PCs should be immune to non-combat effects. A player can't say "No, I don't!" when you tell him he takes 7 wounds from a bullet, so why should he be allowed to protest when you say "The charming young lady persuades you to invest your savings in her pyramid scheme"?

I understand that players might grumble about "loss of control", but it's really the same as if they fail a Pinning or Fear test: The players MUST then do something given. Even if they don't want to.

Just because the Player knows that the woman is a schemer, and knows it's best to hold on to his cash, does not mean that the Character knows this. If you're playing a weak-willed sucker for a pretty face, then PLAY that character. If the player refuses to ROLEPLAY, then give him no XP for that session

Edit: Mind you, there is no "taking control" of someones character here. Read how the Charm skill actually works. It's more a subtle way to change someones mind on a subject, or to make them agree to something they would normally not agree to (such as forking over cash). If the "something" is something dangerous or something the character REALLY does not want to do, give them a bonus on the WP check to resist.

Darth Smeg said:

Moreover, for the purposes of a western-style RPG, the player is the character. The entire point of an RPG is to be immersive; the player makes the decisions and the dice are merely a random number generator so that there's an ever-present element of chance. Taking away control from decision-making is anathema to immersion; it is called railroading, and while it may be used by other GMs, I choose not to use it. And depriving the PCs XP simply because the characters fall off the tracks is probably the last thing I would do. If anything, I would try to rewrite or make a new adventure to suit their (now) current problems.

So, coupled with the fact that immersion is key, and decision-making is wholly up to the characters, I believe that the Chem Geld talent is mechanically useless for player characters, since any Charm test against a player character is made against the player. It appears the talent is more useful for roleplaying reasons and not for mechanical reasons.

Just as railroading is derided, so is metagaming. Yes, the player may very well be so paranoid to think that anyone trying to charm them or otherwise pump them for favors by being nice is something to be avoided, but to openly behave against it (in a way that is unnatural to their character) is another thing.

Personally, I use charm to limit the amount of information a player is able to even discern from a conversation. Effectively, they are relying on the GM to come up with judgements about how they should interact with PCs, and I try to depict NPCs that charm as genuinely caring/helpful. Chem geld as a talent would pretty much allow them to see through that and view things much more objectively.

KommissarK said:

All interaction skills are opposed, regardless of whether its a player or NPC using them. Just as the GM rolls a contested WP check versus player character's Charm, a PC would roll WP versus an NPC's Charm.

Recently had a game where a Tzeentchian casino was conspiring to keep the acolytes inside by offering huge payouts (i started with 11 and ended up with 6000 or so TG!). Only 2 characters were unaffected and they were outside at the time, and despite all the players knowing what was happening, we all failed our WP tests so had to roll with it. It wasn't untill the 2 characters outside got into a fight and one of them was screaming down our comm beads for backup that we began to snap out of it and head outside.

PCs are not immune to non-combat affects, as mentioned earlier, is a very good rule to apply.

Kasatka said:

My problem stems from the fact that a NPC cleric could fleece a group of acolytes of their thrones with only a dice roll. A load of hard work, and because the DM rolled a 01 for a charm test with a high-ranking cleric, the acolytes loose everything to a 'charity' they've never heard of. It simply does not sound like good roleplaying to me.

jabberwoky said:

It sounds like perfectly good ROLEplaying to me. If you play a weak-willed sucker, expect to lose your money to smooth charlatans (which includes religious missionaries of any kind). That's perfectly in-character.

However, you would be unlikely to hand over ALL your cash, and you would be granted a WP test to oppose the Charm test in the first place. The more outrageous the claim (ie, the more cash), the higher your bonus to your resist-roll.

Darth Smeg said:

Exactly - A roleplaying game is a combination of player driven choices backed up by mechanical die rolling. You may choose your characters dispositions and personality, but their chance at succeeding at any action where failure could have negative results for them is ALWAYS handled by a die roll, otherwise you aren't playing a roleplaying game are you?

And if you look to other game systems, like Fate, you will see examples were you do not just have 1 tracker of "health" (like wounds and critical damage in DH), but several.

For example in Diaspora you have stress-tracks for Health, Social Composure and Wealth. You can take damage of different sort, and you can "attack" other characters with social or financial skills and cause damage to these tracks, just like you can hurt their health with fists and guns.

"Attacks" like these can be anything from a sharp remark in conversation to en extended smear campaign, and while they will leave your target alive, he can still be "taken out" and end up flipping burgers to cover debts or in self-imposed exile due to shame.

It works fine, and opens up for more ways to play a conflict filled game where not everything is settled by violence.

The Dark Heresy system is very combat-oriented, but that doesn't mean you should ignore what few tools you have to let the schemers and bribers get their 15 minutes in the sun.

I've got to agree with Darth Smeg and Kasaka here. A player that refuses to cooperate with the gm despite losing a contested charm vs willpower is metagaming and not roleplaying. For example, if the player has consistently played their pc as a womaniser, and then despite losing the contested roll then claims immunity from the wiles of an attractive femme-fatale without a really good in-character reason, then hit them in the xp.

I also think the reply that 'but it was sorcery' in the example earlier is irrelevant. A contested roll is a contested roll. Unless the character has Chem Geld, then they are subject to emotional manipulation, and 'hormones' just like everyone else.

Expecting a player to play in character is not railorading. That is not what the term means. Railroading is where there are no options and is usuallly reserved for discussions of plot. A charmed character needs to act accordingly, but what that action is is still up to the player.

And remind them that their wargaming tendencies have just wasted the plot hook you spent your time creating as well.

Interrogator Z

Zakalwe said:

Exactly. In my example of the casino tainted by tzeentch, my character failed is opposed WP roll. Now i could've chosen to minimize the damage to everyone by focusing on the free drinks the serving girls were handing out, or even the attractive serving girls, but as i was playing a scum who was the only person in the group that could effectively gamble (only by using sleight of hand to cheat i might add!) i decided to carry on with the big stakes games, even if it meant worse WP rolls in future. This was because it was characterful, and it was also entirely my choice - no railroading existed and nobody begrudged the Gm the situation.

I mean we later all got executed for revelling in a warp tainted cultist casino, but meh!

Correction: You got executed for reveling in a warp-tainted cultist casino and then allowing yourselves to be caught.

I have a strange feeling about this topicv.

How the player would react if a NPC doen't play the game when they succeed their roll.

They are crying because they haven't got the good ststs to endure seduction, but what would they say if their seduction roll was to be ignored by GM ?

Losing a contest roll is never a happy thing, but it is the very essence of Role Playing Game.

Yes you are a great bully fist fighter, mother ***** son of b***** capable to disemboled children with teeth, but yes this pretty girl (or boy) just have a hand on your big bloody heart… And yes you will do as suggest because your role is to be happy to give the seducer what he want.

If your player doesn't want to play find some other.

Or try as GM to show them if their roll are ignored during a scenario.

RPG are games where GM and players alike need to work together to live a story, with success, failure, glory or death…

Ask your player what should happen if a really hot girl or boy came at them offering anykind of physical or/and psychological relief for at first look nothing in return.

Don't be Hypocrites, any charming woman offering their talent to a man would find a all willing target.

Same in RPG, you can be seduce and make mistake in the sake of what you think is love.

Thebigjul said:

Yep as a GM years ago I used a female assassin in a TS/SI game to target a male operative who pissed off the wrong people 1 to many times. His PC had a "James Bond" like way with females. She made her Move, invited him up to his room, went into the bathroom, He got comfortable, putting his snubnose .357mag tucked in clothing, and was all happy to see her. She opened the bathroom door, saw him as a sitting duck, and pulled up her Micro-Uzi with suppressor and opened up on him, and well left the building leaving just her call card and and the shell casing behind as he was bleeding out in the bed.

After the game the player were all like, Damm u a&*&^QQ how could u do that to a PC. but by the next Session they figured out it was IC work and they understood, well I never could pull that again, as they avoided the "easy ladies".

I suspect it has a lot to do with play style. In our games, it is almost always wrong to assume a love interest type NPC is anything more or other than a potential love interest. Of course, a good love interest will make life much more complicated for the smitten PC in various ways, hopefully mostly in ones both character and player can't readily foresee. But the love interest NPC in itself is not a threat or danger of any kind, it is just a vehicle for developing the personalities and priorities of player characters through role playing.

Even so, if a player of mine refused to accept the outcome of a dice roll because the player wasn't personally affected by it, or wouldn't be for meta reasons, I think it would be time for The Talk. You know, the Get With The Program or GTFO talk.

It's basically impossible to stop players from knowing stuff that is relevant to the behaviour of their characters, but which their characters couldn't possibly know. What isn't impossible, is for players to compartmentalise what they know and what their characters know, and have their characters act accordingly.

But GMs can make that more or less difficult. If the only reason a GM would ever introduce a love interest type NPC (or whatever), would be to screw with a player character, then I'd strongly suggest the GM was doing it wrong. Not because it's unreasonable to expect players to refrain from having their characters act on meta information, but because the blindingly obvious just isn't all that entertaining. Most things, especially NPC-shaped things, are more fun when the players don't see them coming.

In our last campaign, one love interest appeared to the players to be a way to add depth to the philosophical differences and prejudices of the party. Something they could role play to and off of regarding their inter-party conflicts. She wasn't the only love interest NPC introduced over the course of the campaign, but she was the primary "party banter/soundingboard" type NPC for a long time. Until she revealed herself to be the leader of a heretical cult and quite thoroughly devastated the lives of the characters and almost everyone they'd ever known.

I'm aiming higher in our current campaign. A whole pile of innocuous-seeming NPCs the party regularly interacts with in all manner of ways, are actually out to get them. And through them, the Inquisition. I'm still in the process of setting them up, and the party will have many more opportunities to at least grow legitimately suspect of individual NPCs. But at some point they either discover they're about to be consumed by a 'Stealer Cult, or they get consumed. Assuming everything goes horribly wrong, but they end up being consumed more or less at the same time, I suppose it's possible we could continue the campaign and just replace one set of overlords with another. But the characters will most definitely not be getting a free pass just because the players think it's gross to snog a 'Stealer.

jabberwoky said:

Sorry I'm a little late to the party but I'd like to weigh in.

PCs and Seduction/Charm: I have to disagree with some of the others here. Yes, you're right that in other situations, a character fails a roll and suffers for that failure. And, all things being equal, I expect the same from my players. But certain die rolls shouldn't get in the way of fun. Few people would confuse a failed WS test as important to the essence of their character. It doesn't generally affect one's conception of their character: you just missed. However, if I've made a character who is devoted to his duty, not easily distracted, and who has taken vows of abstinence (say), then it might not be fun to have the GM override a Player's choices, even when it is strongly suggested that in this one case at least, you should be strongly inclined to 'fall.'

Maybe I've been lucky, but in 99% of the cases where the DM might narrate a seduction-ish scene, we go along with it if he tells us that our characters are intrigued / enthralled: "Despite your current predicament, you find yourself drawn to the woman in the next cell. Perhaps you've been incarcerated for longer than you thought, or perhaps it's just the particular allure of her dark blue eyes and her begrimed face…" (PC goes along with NPC offer for the time being.)

The best way to manage the Charm/Seduction is

1. Not every seduction attempt should be 'negative' for the PCs. Even most uses of Charm are relatively benign: "I hand't realized this was your turf. Tell your boss we won't hawk our stimms in his territory again." If PCs suffer (majorly) every time they 'give in,' then I can't blame them for not going along for the ride. Sometimes seduction is not for an ulterior motive but just for its own sake.
2. Make the seduction convincing. Don't just say: "Someone's trying to seduce you: roll." You probably wouldn't let your PCs get away with this when they're trying to sway someone, so hold yourself to the same standard.
3. Don't penalize refusals to honour failed rolls. Instead, reward good roleplaying (with Fate points, XP, a free bonus to a future roll, whatever).

As for Chem Geld,we've experiemented with a system that makes Chem-Geld a lot more interesting to players. In addition to the stated bonuses, the GM might consider allowing a situational bonus (+10) to Perception-Based rolls involving a seduction or charm. For instance, if one of the characters is being seduced, the Chem-Gelded character's 'immunity' might leave them more objective and better able to assess the ulterior motives their enthralled comrade(s) miss. Likewise, if someone is Blathering, the Chem-Geld PC might get a bonus to Awareness to notice someone picking their pockets while the con man distracts the group.

Anything that plays up the Chem-Geld's creepy detachment, basically.

If a PC has Paranoia a certain level of such metagaming is okay (it's not metagaming anymore!)

firestorm said:

Naturally. Though that might not help with the result of the seduction roll so much as the consequences of failure.