Influencing PCs (and players)

[apoc527]

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.

[sir_pudding]

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

[Pagan]

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.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Pagan

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.

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

Originally Posted by B359

This does not mean that NPCs cannot influence PCs! When an NPC
makes a successful Influence roll against a PC, the GM should apply the
NPC’s margin of victory as a bonus or penalty (as appropriate) to the
PC’s die rolls when dealing with that NPC.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by apoc527

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?

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.

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

[apoc527]

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!

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by apoc527

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?

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).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by apoc527

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!

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

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by apoc527

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?

If the PC wants to shoot the NPC (or presumably anybody the NPC asks him not shoot at).

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!

Not true.

Originally Posted by B495

Certain NPCs might have reaction
modifiers (mostly bad) worked out in
advance. For instance, a street gang
might have a -5 reaction to anybody.
Predetermined reaction penalties
sometimes come with a “best-case”
reaction.

Originally Posted by B559

When the PCs meet an NPC whose
reaction to them is not predetermined,
the GM can opt to make a
“reaction roll” on 3d.

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!"

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

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!"

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).