In what circumstances would a PC resist a Charm test? Especially given the guidelines on p 233, NPCs and Social Interaction Tests , which read to me to actively discourage GMs from using NPC Social skills to force PC reactions.

In some cases, however, it might be very appropriate and useful. For instance, if a player suspects that an NPC is lying to his character, the GM may make a Deceive test for the NPC, opposed by the Acolyte’s Scrutiny skill. Even if the player does not suspect the deception (some GMs develop a very good poker face), the GM may call for an Opposed test to determine whether or not the Acolyte suspects.

NPC can use social skills. The first part of the paragraph is about meta-powergamers (people who establish their characters super-witty and play them that way even though you only need to look at their character sheet to see that said characters are dumb like a brick - this is just an example).

In some cases, however, it might be very appropriate and useful. For instance, if a player suspects that an NPC is lying to his character, the GM may make a Deceive test for the NPC, opposed by the Acolyte’s Scrutiny skill. Even if the player does not suspect the deception (some GMs develop a very good poker face), the GM may call for an Opposed test to determine whether or not the Acolyte suspects.

NPC can use social skills. The first part of the paragraph is about meta-powergamers (people who establish their characters super-witty and play them that way even though you only need to look at their character sheet to see that said characters are dumb like a brick - this is just an example).

I think you and I are reading different paragraphs.

Normally, NPCs do not make Social skill tests. Many players do not

enjoy having their characters’ actions decided by a roll of the dice.

If a player has established his Acolyte as a tough and no-nonsense

Arbitrator, he may not like a poor roll to result in his character

being intimidated by a strung-out underhive scum. In some cases,

however, it might be very appropriate and useful. For instance, if a

player suspects that an NPC is lying to his character, the GM may

make a Deceive test for the NPC, opposed by the Acolyte’s Scrutiny

skill. Even if the player does not suspect the deception (some GMs

develop a very good poker face), the GM may call for an Opposed

test to determine whether or not the Acolyte suspects. Different

groups may have different preferences when it comes to NPCs

using Social skills, and GMs and players should work together to

figure out what works best for them. The success or failure of the

test determines the change to the NPC’s Disposition based on his

Personality. The NPC’s Personality also provides a guide for the GM

to determine the NPC’s reaction, whether a snappy comeback for a

Clever character, or a subtle threat for a Confident NPC.

Speaking for myself and my group, outside of deceive vs scrutiny (which is its own class of social interaction, I would argue), we never have NPCs roll social skills against PCs. Because of that, the whole second clause of the Hiveborn's bonus thing is totally useless to me and my group.

^I think Charm also heavily depends on a roll instead of actual roleplaying. I mean, I don't want to see my GM trying to seduce me even though he would only play an NPC . Just let's make it a roll and go with the result, shall we?

LuciusT:

Yeah, that's the paragraph. I was referring to the "tough and no-nonsense Arbitrator" as a possible meta-powergamer: a player who established his Arbitrator as "though and no-nonsense" with a Toughness of 21, Intelligence of 25 and Willpower of 27 - because he needed his XP and good characteristic scores for Weapon Skill and Strength, but he wants to slip past all that annoying opposed Charm, Deceive, Intimidate and Command tests with a "My character is though and no-nonsense, so he won't listen to it and that's it!".

In our groups some of the most memorable and funny events have come from PCs being charmed, seduced and manipulated by NPCs. Everyone around the table knows what's going on, but the poor character doesn't and it can be alot of fun to just go with the flow.

I find the whole "No my character is immune to seduction" to be very immature, and destructive to a good plot. It limits the oppositions arsenal to one of pure violence (because trickery and manipulation is doomed to failure).

You might as well argue that your heroic arbitrator just doesn't get shot. After all, it's no fun to let a poor roll have you fail your dodge...

LuciusT:

Yeah, that's the paragraph. I was referring to the "tough and no-nonsense Arbitrator" as a possible meta-powergamer: a player who established his Arbitrator as "though and no-nonsense" with a Toughness of 21, Intelligence of 25 and Willpower of 27 - because he needed his XP and good characteristic scores for Weapon Skill and Strength, but he wants to slip past all that annoying opposed Charm, Deceive, Intimidate and Command tests with a "My character is though and no-nonsense, so he won't listen to it and that's it!".

... but the guideline says exactly the opposite of your interpretation. The guideline is saying that you don't roll Intimidate against the tough, no nonsense Arbitrator because that's the kind of character your player is playing and it isn't right to have some strung out underhive scum intimidate him.

Normally, NPCs do not make Social skill tests

... but the guideline says exactly the opposite of your interpretation. The guideline is saying that you don't roll Intimidate against the tough, no nonsense Arbitrator because that's the kind of character your player is playing and it isn't right to have some strung out underhive scum intimidate him.

Normally , NPCs do not make Social skill tests

And then you have the other cases, the "not-normally" ones, when they do. Since everyone has a different idea about what "normally" should mean (Like does it refer to random encounters only or to special plot events too?) this sentence doesn't really have the substance to grow bigger than a recommendation (or at least that's how I see it). It is not a hard-core rule you must abide like how to make skill tests. Your GM either minds it or not - and the Hiver bonus is there for the later.

So, it's a bonus if the GM uses rules that game itself defines as optional. That makes it a fairly poor bonus, IMO.