Influencing PCs (and players)

[Fwibos]

Originally Posted by Kromm

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).

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.

[jbalsle]

Originally Posted by Kromm

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).

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. ;)

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by apoc527

Thoughts?

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.

[Kromm]

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.

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by Kromm

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 . . .

Exactly.

I was in a hot and heavy discussion of influence skills on another forum, where some posters very earnestly asserted that such abilities were in effect unstoppable magic powers, and that a successful roll on such a skill automatically compelled any NPC to bend over. (Sometimes, in their snickering fashion, apparently literally.)

[Lamech]

Originally Posted by Kromm

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.

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.

[dcarson]

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.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Lamech

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.

The jury would be a different sex appeal roll.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

The jury would be a different sex appeal roll.

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

[Desthro]

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.