Influencing PCs (and players)
 

This thread arises out of a discussion in the THS forums. Please see http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=27 for my initial question and Vicky's response.

I then answer like this, which is where this thread's discussion can pick up:

Helpful yes, but it acknowledges the same issues I was concerned about--and doesn't really provide a solution. I think, sometimes, simply relying on how the GM portrays an NPC ISN'T the best solution for the simple fact that I am NOT an attractive, charismatic female to whom all my players are attracted and willing to listen to. I think sometimes, you have to take a purely narrative and game mechanical approach to this kind of thing.

---

Picking up from there, I think this is a humorous, yet completely serious topic and concern. Not every GM is a skilled improv actor and/or particularly good at acting out NPC actions. Fortunately, there's no requirement in this hobby that you be able to do these things. On the other hand, it presents a problem when you want to have a seriously charismatic NPC (with talents, Empathy, and all kinds of other advantages) interact with the PCs. What if YOU, the GM, slip up and the PCs get immediately suspicuous, even if the NPC would never have screwed up like that? (Let's face it, if we were that smooth, would we be hanging around playing RPGs with our friends? :-) ) I kid, I kid.

At any rate, I think that there are times when it's appropriate to slip out of character as GM, use a bit of the ol' narrative, and roll some dice. After all, this isn't fundamentally different from an NPC wizard using a Mind Control skill on a PC. If the PC fails his Will roll, the wizard gets to make him do stuff. Most players won't complain about that. I see no reason why the same can't be done for the talented social operator NPC -- "You like this person--they are extremely trustworthy...etc"

A good, mature roleplaying group could handle this, and separate the PC knowledge from the obvious player suspicion.

Thoughts? This is very much a Social Engineering issue, so I'm curious to hear from Bill and Kromm if they are around.

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

What's wrong with the existing rule? IME it works and doesn't totally dictate player choice.

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

There is information on this in Social Engineering.

The one method that I like to use is the Influence skill vs. Will/Influence skill roll and if the pc fails their margin of failure is a penalty to all actions pertaining to that the NPC was trying to get the pc to do if they go against the results of the roll.

This way the pc gets to keep their power of choice but there is a mechanical penalty if they don't role-play what the dice (and their character attributes) have dictated.

And I do disagree with you on a point. Social skills are not the same as magic. I don't care how beautiful a person is or how persuasive, they doesn't control my will. They may influence it but I still have a choice. A magic spell like Charm takes that choice away.

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

No need to reference Social Engineering here. That is the Basic Set rule being discussed (that the OP apparently doesn't like).

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

My players are probably a mature roleplaying group; few of them are under 40. I can't claim to be a brilliant actor (I've had players who were, so I can see the difference), but my players are willing to make the effort to react to my acting in a way that includes narrative cues I'm not good enough to convey.

I don't treat Influence rolls, or social skills, as equivalent to Mind Control. Loss of volitional control of one's actions is not part of the normal range of human experience; it's a sign either of psychopathology (which the player controls by choosing to buy a mental disadvantage with a self-control roll) or of paranormal forces (superpowers, psi, divine intervention, brain implants). And players are there to play their characters, not to have the GM dictate what actions their characters will perform.

Bill Stoddard

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

I guess this is really a metagame issue. And I'm hopeful I'm worried about a non-issue. After all, if a player decides his PC hauls off and shoots an NPC for the crime of being socially astute and/or charismatic, said PC has lots bigger problems in the end.

Still, would you apply the penalty to ANY skill roll in such an instance? If a very charming NPC makes a Diplomacy check vs an PC, should their Guns skill be penalized because the NPC is silver-tongued?

Volitional control is very sacred, and social skills are not magic...it just seems a might one-sided that PCs have carte blanche, while NPCs can be placated with a good set of Reaction Roll mods!

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

If the PC's reaction to a good, convincing talk was to immediately shoot? Sure, it represents hesitation on the first shot caused by all that influence. After the first shot, I'd either remove the penalty, or reduce it very, very rapidly (e.g. halve each roll, until -0).

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

The test of applying the penalty has to be whether it makes sense. That's going to require some judgment calls.

As to PC/NPC comparisons, it isn't automatic that NPCs can be placated. If the cops find tortured children chained to your basement wall, it isn't going to make any difference that you have Very Beautiful, Voice, and Charisma +4; you're going to get a Bad reaction, at best. And it's not likely that you'll be able to change that with any sort of Influence skill. Admittedly that's an extreme case, but the GM is perfectly in order to decree that NPCs won't be influenced in some minor matter if there's good reason for them not to be (like it's their job to do it a certain way). And this applies the more strongly to important NPCs whose actions are shaping the entire storyline—because such NPCs can be assumed to have conscious purposes for their actions.

Now, what I might well be willing to say is "she looks really attractive to you" or "he scares the hell out of you" or "you're not sure how to answer what she just said." That is, I'm willing to describe the emotional state that results from an NPC's actions or attributes. But the player gets to decide how their character acts on that emotional state.

Player characters have free will. But narratively important NPCs can have free will too.

Bill Stoddard

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

If the PC wants to shoot the NPC (or presumably anybody the NPC asks him not shoot at).
Not true.
The GM can always say "This vizir reacts at Poor, regardless" or "The gang members react at -5 to the PCs, and can't get better than Neutral regardless." Or even (and more typically, IME), "You are ambushed by goblins. You are partially surprised. They Attack! You are Stunned! Roll Will!"

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

Yes. Reaction rolls are mostly for stories where the GM wants an NPC's role to be variable depending on what the PCs try. They aren't for set-piece encounters like orcs attacking the PCs as a plot device, cops arresting them as a plot device, or a princess giving them a reward as a plot device. In those situations, the NPCs are very roughly on a par with the PCs, doing what they have resolved to do. Reaction rolls aren't made (any more than they would be for PCs), and Influence skills may well suffer penalties for inappropriateness. The main difference is that PCs suffer penalties if NPCs use Influence skills on them successfully, while NPCs mostly just stop doing the action the PCs would be penalized at (because, well, it's unlikely to work, and they know that).

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

I like to roll reactions for these, out of pure nerddom, to see if their opinion can be changed. The difference between a gun ho cop kicking in your door, or his buddy wishing they'd just knock. Also it determines how tight the cuffs are.

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

I don't really like the "successful influence attempts penalize opposed rolls" mechanic.

For example, suppose the Smooth-Talking Gorgeous Babe is trying to charm her way out of being arrested, and let's also suppose she's not willing to fight or flee the cops. Well, if the arresting officer is a PC, nothing stops him from going through with the arrest. Sure, if she struggled, she could claim that he's at a -7 (or whatever he lost by) to grapple her, but no roll is needed to cuff an unresisting subject, so the mechanic doesn't come into play - and my credibility meter bottoms out when I try to imagine a cop earnestly trying to cuff the STGB, but flailing about helplessly like a Keystone Cop because of his huge minus.

The only thing I think can handle this sort of thing well is metagaming (in the sense of telling players when an influence attempt is made on their PCs, and what the results were) and having players willing to respect the results of influence attempts with their roleplaying choices, even when the resulting choice is disadvantageous ("whaddya mean you let her go!?"). I'm in a group that does this and we mostly haven't had problems with it.

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

OTOH, he might get -7 and screw up protocol somehow, giving an opportunity to maybe (depending on further events) let her off on a technicality. It doesn't need to have immediate results.

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

I don't conceal roll results in my games. I expect my players to be aware of the mechanics and meta as well as roleplay. As such? NPC uses Influence skill on PC, quick contest occurs, NPC wins by 5. PC takes a 5 point penalty on any/every roll that runs counter to what the NPC wants the PC to do until the player goes along with it or the situation changes enough that its' no longer relevant. The player is quite aware that they are taking a penalty, the size of the penalty and that I will apply the penalty ruthlessly. I do this to NPCs as well, mind, in those cases where they aren't subject to reaction rolls and for much the same reason. Typically, players go along with the influence unless they think it is important to do otherwise.

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

The problem with Influencing the PCs seeming silly is that people are leaving out the bit where the GM exercises a little judgment when deciding where the penalty applies . . . it isn't a blanket penalty to everything the person who succeeded at the Influence roll doesn't want the person he inluenced to do! To paraphrase the rule, "The GM should apply the margin as a modifier to appropriate rolls – be creative!"

In the cop example upthread, the GM would have to be uncreative and using epicly poor judgment to have the modifier apply to a roll to restrain the NPC. That doesn't even make sense. This mechanic addresses social influence, not combat and physicality. What about applying a penalty to the officer's roll against something like Law (Police) to avoid making a gross procedural error that will see the NPC released at the station – or the cop's self-control roll for Lecherousness, if he has it, to avoid making a really bad error? Or just to his Per roll to notice evidence sitting right there on the car seat, or another NPC sneaking up on him? As the GM, I'd probably make a secret Law (Police) roll at -7, and if it failed, have the first words from his supervisor be "We need to talk . . ." as the NPC smiles and walks out scot-free. That, or have the thuggish NPC he didn't notice (Per-7) beat him with Stealth, Taser him, and leave him on the roadside.

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

Several very good ideas here, what with the creative use of penalties from a missed roll and pre-set reaction.

An idea I am going to put on the table:

Pre-Set Reactions: Instead of rolling the results, you simply pick the base number. The Princess is generally happy with the PCs, so she starts with Reaction 12 and bestows her thanks in the form of jewelry and sincere thanks to everyone...except for two guys. She's got an Intolerance towards oaffish buffoons who think they are far better than they really are, so the guy who has been acting the oaffish buffoon only gets an 8 -- she grudgingly gives him the reward everyone else gets and quickly moves on to the next guy, muttering thanks as she puts room between the idiot and herself...and the next guy is that dashing +6 Reaction guy with the dreamy Voice as well (another +2), giving him a Net 20, and she shyly smiles at him, gives him _twice_ the thanks, and suggests that he should come visit her in the courtyard before the band of adventurers leave. If that results in ribbing from the other heroes or something a little less chaste than a talk in the courtyard, or both!, kind of depends on the nature of your campaign. ;)

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

TBH This is coming up in a campaign of mine... and I handle it by presenting the NPC exactly as the players expect the NPC to be... Why NOT make them likable, friendly and even helpful? Even if it's to dump them in the pool later? PCs only know what you let them... so let the wool slowly be pulled over their eyes over time, and eventually, they won't know why they were betrayed... Even the most paranoid player will eventually give in.

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

Because sometimes they're supposed to be intimidating, sexy, or charismatic demagogues.

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

I would certainly apply to any interrogation roll to keep her from immediately asking for a lawyer. And of course, the shoddy evidence collection would hurt the prosecutions case.

To say nothing of the roll the jury will end up making to decide if she is guilty or not.

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

Would also make it easy to convince the cops that she was forced into this by her boyfriend. So she walks and another patsy goes away.

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

The jury would be a different sex appeal roll.

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

And if there are straight women or gay men on the jury, it's not going to work and might even make their opinion of her worse.

Bill Stoddard

Re: Influencing PCs (and players)
 

If it works on one person it gives a hung jury. For minorish crimes a retrial is often not worth the cost/effort.