> how do you handle a) social action cards, and/or b) rolling social initiative?

This topic is near and dear to my heart.

Social action initiative doesn't typically need to be rolled unless there is a timing or stressful situation. What does need to be accounted for however is this: You need to track how many influences are achieved over a total number of attempts. Those attempts may be tracked in rounds, or maybe where you don't really call it rounds..and instead just total attempts during the conversation.

To INFLUENCE a person, you use a social action (or perform a stunt using fellowship). There are three types of checks: Single check (e.g. a social character making a single, appropriate action where the GM thinks it's perfect for a single check), Duel of Wits (multple checks required, where the person doesn't want to tell you something or 'do' something that you tell them to do), non-social characters attempting something (almost always multiple checks).

A guideline for multiple checks: it takes a number of achieved "Influences" equal to the opponent's WP score over a particular total number of attempts. I usually give a person 2 possible attempts more than the WP score unless it is just plain difficult. NOTE: Influences does NOT equal successes. Each action card (or perform stunt) can influence a person ONE time each round..unless you the GM determine that it should do additional (such as outstanding roleplaying or a comet rolled..or something like that)

Unless you are going to have the NPC "socially fight back", then just have the player roll these rolls sequentially in rapid fashion. It doesn't have to take all dang day long to make 5 rolls. Just roll them and find out if you succeeded.

Single roll pass/fail is also good if the player has a specific action card at the perfect time, and it seems perfect to just roll one time. Example: Berating an incompetant peasant doesn't need to be attempted multiple times. If it fits and the NPC would give in, then make it happen!

Modifiers:
Specializations: Look at the Charm/guile/leadership/intimidate skill specializations. Ask yourself which category is applicable at the time: E.g. seduce, bribe, whatever to get information out of the cook about Lord Aschaffenberg. Other players who have Charm/Guile/whatever trained may assist. If they don't, they cannot assist without having good cause.

Easier/Harder: The check will be easier/harder depending on what you the GM want. Realize this: if you're only going to do "single checks", that is one roll succeed or fail like in D&D/Pathfinder, don't even bother to roll. Just tell the PC the information.

My rule is: any social check warrants a social character being the one to shine. Why? because this game ENCOURAGES people to play things other than combat-monkeys and they should be rewarded for playing a character that can solve problems outside of combat and players who play combat-monkeys should be at a SEVERE disadvantage in social situations. My favorite example is the troll-slayer with a fellowship of 2. The player, inevitably fresh from a D&D campaign where a pass-fail situation means "pushing the win button" for all PCs, thinks that his trollslayer is going to go up and hit on the bar maid to get lucky. Guess what happens next? He gets STRESS added to him, fails miserably, and not only fails to gather any useful information, but quickly puts the party's opportunity to gather such information in jeopardy because of his stupidity.

What about the PLAYER making a good speech? Yea, I've seen this. You get some 'expert' player, again fresh from D&D/Pathfinder/SW where they think that if they "roleplay real good" they are going to get a freebie in influencing an NPC. YES, this should be encouraged, but although they may be granted a single white bonus for good roleplay at your discretion, I highly suggest that you would only do this if they actually have something useful to say (or information, or a relationship already with the NPC or their family). This would be the same way that you would treat a person describing their attempt at scaling a sheer cliff with a Climb check, or attempting a finishing move against a gobling in a Combat round. My point here is, try to keep things equal across the board for the SOCIAL characters so they shine in their own right, just like a combat character would shine in their realm.

What if the PC Fails? Then the opponent will simply be done talking to the PC until the GM deems it possible to talk again later or unless the person is tortured or something extreme. It may be not until the next day, or next dinner, or whatever.

How many PCs can attempt at the same time? Only one person makes the attempt. Should you go round robin having each character attempt to seduce the cook to tell the story of Lord Aschaffenberg which would result in TWENTY dice rolls being required? No. The cook is going to say, "I already told your friend there that I don't know anything." Done.

Help your Agent character shine with his Social actions. Do the same for players who specialize in other non-combat things too. This way, you'll really bring out the strength of this system. That strength is: there's more than one way to skin a cat.

jh
(again, I'll probably cross-post this to the board)

Great post Emirikol!

If you as a GM want players not to create combat monkeys, then it's not enough to tell them so. You have to construct the world in such a fashion, that a focus on the gentler arts is both relevant and rewarded.

I've been round and round on other game forums about this issue, and it seems other than Smallville and WFRP3, strength of a character in anything other than combat, is mostly done through simply "whomever is the loudest player is the social character" and that's the end of it. That's like saying whomever is the strongest player at the table is the fighter.

My post above could be simplified to this:

1. Not every NPC interaction requires a dice roll (most probably don't require much but role-play).
   
2. Only "influence" checks require rolls: There are three primary kinds: Single round (recommended for simplistic resolution or social characters only), multi-attempt to influence, and "duel of wits" multi-round.
   
3. Fighters beware: a low Fellowship character entering into the realm of trying to "influence" people is the danger equivalent of a social character entering into a combat without a sword. This is what makes WFRP more than just a combat game.

It's probably another good reason for the players to send their GM a list of which skills they are trained (and specialized) and if they have any social skills (who cares about the combat ones, everybody has those).

I keep thinking back to the ENVOY in Day late, shilling short and asking myself. Why does it seem like this character sucks eggs? Well, as a new gm to this system, I had no idea what the purpose of a social character even was beyond a "Call of Cthulhu" or LARP game

Anyways, a lot of this concept was born out of the "random skill roll" idea: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/63764-a-random-scenario-idea-bourne-of-random-skill-checks/

So many skills get forgotten - not just the social ones. Players work hard on their characters, so it's nice when we gms will actually tailor some ways to challenge them and use their skills.

It's also quite easy to use a players characteristics and skills without making any checks. Through pure role playing an NPC may react differently to a character with 2 fellowship compared to someone with 4. If the character has the charm skill it may be an even bigger difference. Even without checks, the importance of these social characteristics, skills, talents and actions can manifest itself.

So when a player approaches an NPC you can ask - what's your fellowship, charm and do you have any relevant social actions. Then simply use that as a base for the way the NPC reacts, without any checks.

A person with no social skills at all should feel out of place and be treated like a simpleton.

A person with low intelligence will often find himself in situations where other people try to trick him.

A person with low will power may be exploited by others and tricked into all kinds of shady deals.

A character with overall low social characteristics and no social skills, talents and cards should have a very hard time outside of combat.

Great thread. I have to keep this in mind in my future sessions.

I have done it to some degree: The party is all combat heavy (a tank, a berserker and an archer) with a mix of 2 and 3 for their will/int/fel. I make sure they keep needing things from NPCs that they really can't just intimidate or kill. Like supplies, transportation or extra manpower. Stuff that they need to be able to fight. Doing poorly at these social interactions might mean arriving late for battle, fatigued or outnumbered.

The characters might be great fighters, but if they cannot get other people to help, they will keep having a worse startingpoint in battle.

Thinking about it though, I have not been harsh enough with my players. They have been getting away with too easy social tests. Well not any more

By the way, one problem that strikes me in the comarison between combat and social interaction: When the party gets into combat, everyone is involved. The combat-heavy characters might be in front, but the social characters are also involved and very much at risk. In social situations, parties tend to have a "face" character who handles the social stuff while the rest hang back. How do you make social interactions risky for the combat characters as well?

Great great inputs I totally share about rpg social stat.

When a player with a low FEL start a brillant speech, maybe nobody is listening, like a child entering in a grow up discussion (makes him reckless ? Stress and soon or late problem with the local guard... Story complication)

Maybe he "thinks" about those fancy words, but high FEL of the npc makes him bables or just stay silent (frightened condition ? Stress until he's far away). Maybe they will laugh at him, using too-long-for-him words (stress, duel of the wits dangerous shame threshold !! )

Still I don't enjoy the Writes up or most social cards, far to be really effective (do i need to buy a card giving me a White dice when I succeed ? Isn't it a raw effect of that storytelling mechanic ?). There are some good ones to stare, exploit weakness, command but i find most of them just being an explanation of standard rule for seduce, bargain, lie, winning Smile etc.

In a sense we are downgrading those without social cards to give them more value.

I wouldn't find it very fair between a social character with cards and a social character without.