Opposing persuade/deception/etc.

[Baeron Gredlocke]

My PC's are getting a lot of mileage out of their significant persaude and deception skills. This is a good thing, and supports the current campaign fairly well.

I'm wondering how other people have handled opposed rolls against these skills?

For instance, let's say a character is making a deception roll to bluff his way past a guard. Do you set a high difficulty representing whatever circumstances are in place, or do you give the guard an opposed skill check against (say) his intelligence, or streetwise or something?

A specific case from our game: one of the PC's was trying to scare an NPC into compliance. I allowed the PC to make a check against persuasion + str (per the core book)

In this situation, the NPC was being persuaded to go against his employers, who are scary people in their own right. The NPC needs a roll to determine who he's more afraid of- the PC in question or his employers. In this case, I ginned up kind of a "strawman" intimidate check for the NPC's employer and had the PC make an opposed roll against it.

How do others handle this sort of situation?

 

[Jame Rowe]

I would say roll the character's Int (always Int) + (one of) persuade, carouse, streetwise, diplomacy or deception.

If resisting interrogation, then perhaps Endurance + persuade, carouse or deception.

 

[alex_greene]

You can mix up your opposed skills for interesting effect.

Consider Social + Persuade vs. Social + Deception. The NPC is trying to sell you something you don't want; you, in turn, tell the vendor that you're just going to call your friends and bring them along - but oh, damn, your comm's out of money. But wait! There was a public comm booth just down the road. You won't be but a moment ... *runs away like hell*

How about Social + Interrogation (from Mercenary) vs. Social + Persuade? The hard-assed cop is leaning over the poor PC, threatening all manner of legal troubles. Suddenly the PC realises why he's leaning on him - the PC knows a Contact who knows someone who's in with the Ine Givar, and the PC remembers how, last time he met that particular Contact, certain harsh words and bullets were exchanged. The PC leans forward, says "Let's cut to the chase, shall we? I just figured out what you want, and I now believe I can give it to you. And it's a lot bigger than I am, so shall we cut a deal? Turn me loose, and I'll give you the biggest bust of your career. What do you say?"

It looks as if Bribery skill has now been subsumed into Persuade skill, and possibly Admin skill by the looks of things, because you can use Persuade for virtually any opposed check to sneak a guard a couple of crates of Ligonian brandy to turn a blind eye to some midnight shenanigans round the back of Warehouse 18 ...

 

[CosmicGamer]

You can mix up your opposed skills for interesting effect.

Consider Social + Persuade vs. Social + Deception. The NPC is trying to sell you something you don't want; you, in turn, tell the vendor that you're just going to call your friends and bring them along - but oh, damn, your comm's out of money. But wait! There was a public comm booth just down the road. You won't be but a moment ... *runs away like hell*

If the salesman 'wins' the roll, do you get caught in a deception, feel guilty and go ahead and buy the product?

Once you've made the decision to try and run, I feel that persuasion has already failed, other than persuading you not to run.

I don't like this 'unrelated' opposed roll. Why shouldn't the salesman be able to use their own deception skill to be able to detect your deception, or even counter it "Don't waste your time, that public booth is out of commission."

Essentially, I'm saying that if a character doesn't want to buy something, I think it would be more interesting for the salesman's persuasiveness and the characters attempt to avoid them to be role played and not rolled.

In the example above, even if the salesperson believes your comm isn't working, they can offer you the use of their comm so you don't have to waste your valuable time and money down at the corner. This isn't persuasiveness or deception, just good salesmanship knowing that you don't let a sale walk away and have time to change their mind.

Can I come up with anything?

Lets get crazy here for a moment and do Social + Persuade vs. End+ Athletics(End).

The NPC is trying to sell you something you don't want; you hold your breath until they give up trying.

How about in the middle of combat you do a Social + Persuade vs Dex + GunCombat to see if the gunman can be persuaded to not shoot?

The more I think about it, I don't believe the ability to persuade someone should be 'opposed' by someones gun skill, deception, or even persuasion skill. It should be how persuasive you are vs how difficult the person is to persuade which can be based on circumstances and personalities and not just skills and characteristics.

If a player roll plays that their character is a vegetarian, do you think the outcome of a meat vender's persuasion should be based on opposing deception, streetwise or any other skills and characteristics?

 

[Mongoose Gar]

One rule I experimented with during an early draft: Use the opponent's statistic as the total Effect needed to get past. So, if you're trying to bluff past a doorman, you need to keep rolling, say, Social Standing + Deception until your total Effect exceeds the doorman's Intelligence. You've got three rolls; you fail if your Effect is zero or less after a roll, or if you fail to complete the task in three rolls, or if you can't justify any of your rolls with roleplaying. Each roll represents a new line of attack for your argument.

 

[alex_greene]

You can mix up your opposed skills for interesting effect.

Consider Social + Persuade vs. Social + Deception. The NPC is trying to sell you something you don't want; you, in turn, tell the vendor that you're just going to call your friends and bring them along - but oh, damn, your comm's out of money. But wait! There was a public comm booth just down the road. You won't be but a moment ... *runs away like hell*

I don't like this 'unrelated' opposed roll. Why shouldn't the salesman be able to use their own deception skill to be able to detect your deception, or even counter it "Don't waste your time, that public booth is out of commission."

Can I come up with anything?

Lets get crazy here for a moment and do Social + Persuade vs. End+ Athletics(End).

The NPC is trying to sell you something you don't want; you hold your breath until they give up trying.

Essentially, I'm saying that if a character doesn't want to buy something, I think it would be more interesting for the salesman's persuasiveness and the characters attempt to avoid them to be role played and not rolled.

In the example above, even if the salesperson believes your comm isn't working, they can offer you the use of their comm so you don't have to waste your valuable time and money down at the corner. This isn't persuasiveness or deception, just good salesmanship knowing that you don't let a sale walk away and have time to change their mind.

But what if your character does not have Deception or Persuade? They'd suffer an untrained penalty if they tried. But if they have Persuade yet no Deception, or vice versa, they'd have to use the most appropriate skill.

And why try and substitute a physical skill for one where social acumen is called for? You would not use a Science skill where Athletics is called for, so the comparison you made is kind of absurd.

 

[CosmicGamer]

But what if your character does not have Deception or Persuade? They'd suffer an untrained penalty if they tried. But if they have Persuade yet no Deception, or vice versa, they'd have to use the most appropriate skill.

And why try and substitute a physical skill for one where social acumen is called for? You would not use a Science skill where Athletics is called for, so the comparison you made is kind of absurd.

It was my point to be absurd. Stretching the semi absurd substitution of skills and opposed checks to a more obvious one. I edited my post while you were writing this and added:

How about in the middle of combat you do a Social + Persuade vs Dex + GunCombat to see if the gunman can be persuaded to not shoot?

The more I think about it, I don't believe the ability to persuade someone should be 'opposed' by someones gun skill, deception, or even persuasion skill. It should be how persuasive you are vs how difficult the person is to persuade which can be based on circumstances and personalities and not just skills and characteristics.

If a player roll plays that their character is a vegetarian, do you think the outcome of a meat vender's persuasion should be based on opposing deception, streetwise or any other skills and characteristics?

Not having any of the required skills: "Yum, yum. Sell me your meat Kabob. You've convinced me to no longer be a vegetarian"

If a player comes up with a good role playing method of countering the persuasion, via the use of skills or other means, then the difficulty of the persuasion can be adjusted accordingly.

 

[CosmicGamer]

A specific case from our game: one of the PC's was trying to scare an NPC into compliance. I allowed the PC to make a check against persuasion + str (per the core book)

In this situation, the NPC was being persuaded to go against his employers, who are scary people in their own right. The NPC needs a roll to determine who he's more afraid of- the PC in question or his employers. In this case, I ginned up kind of a "strawman" intimidate check for the NPC's employer and had the PC make an opposed roll against it.

How do others handle this sort of situation?

As indicated, I'm not a big fan of taking the straight skill check from the book and now throwing off it's effectiveness by using an opposing skill check.

Lets say there isn't an opposing check. The PC fails to succeed with their Persuade/Intimidate check (lets say the result of the roll is a 7). Now using the opposing check allows the following: "My current boss is scary but I'm not easy to intimidate" (skill check roll result is a 6, but this is less than the 'opposing' 7) "so I'll go ahead and help these folks out even though I'm not afraid of them. "

In your case, it might be considered two related skill checks, maybe an odd type of task chain? Perhaps the effect of the first check, if successful, reduced by the effect of the second check, if successful.

The thug is intimidated, now what? Did they pretend to play along and give miss information that will lead you into a trap? Do they now swear loyalty and do anything you want? This is where the overall effect can come in.

 

[Baeron Gredlocke]

In your case, it might be considered two related skill checks, maybe an odd type of task chain? Perhaps the effect of the first check, if successful, reduced by the effect of the second check, if successful.

Okay, so not really an opposed check against the guys employers per se- The PC's effect produces a negative DM applied to a "hidden" persuade roll by the employer per the task chain table. That's actually very elegant, thank you!

 

[CosmicGamer]

In your case, it might be considered two related skill checks, maybe an odd type of task chain? Perhaps the effect of the first check, if successful, reduced by the effect of the second check, if successful.

Okay, so not really an opposed check against the guys employers per se- The PC's effect produces a negative DM applied to a "hidden" persuade roll by the employer per the task chain table. That's actually very elegant, thank you!

Your welcome.

 

[dayriff]

The purpose of rolling dice is to provide randomization of the result. I think one side rolling (the player) provides sufficient randomization. No need for both sides to roll. Resistance by a skilled opponent can be represented by a penalty on the roll.

 

[BP]

The purpose of rolling dice is to provide randomization of the result. I think one side rolling (the player) provides sufficient randomization. No need for both sides to roll. Resistance by a skilled opponent can be represented by a penalty on the roll.

This is how I would play these. I perfer to focus on roleplay vs. rollplay. IMHO, success roles are really only needed when there is a reasonable probability of failure/success, or the degree of success/failure is important.

So if a highly DMed player (i.e. notable higher skills/stats) is dealing with a salesman or average henchman, official, etc. then roleplay it - no dice needed unless the player really sucks at roleplaying (probably due to lack of effort) or is mostly playing because they love dice and lack the funds or transportation to gamble

Mind, I don't expect the player to roleplay at the level of their PC - just a reasonable effort at how they think such things can go - with suitable Ref prodding.

So - 'I'll give you 1 MCr for that BattleDress' won't fly, but 'That's nice BattleDress - sure wish my 1 MCr could cover it' might after some haggling...
and 'Let us through!' might be weak versus 'Quick - we've been ordered to the control room - it's that way, right?'

And, irregardless of dice, no amount of persuasion is gonna convince an alerted guard with pictures and orders - unless the PCs have made a concerted effort with disquises and counter stories...

 

[apoc527]

Aren't opposed checks in general determined by who has the higher Effect? In other words, if you both fail, nothing is accomplished. If one fails, but one succeeds, the winner is clear. If they both succeed, the higher Effect wins?

Thus, in this situation, the PC rolls and determines his Effect. How you modify this roll depends on circumstances and whatever else you include. (For example, if the guy is really fearing for his life at the hands of his employer, you might give a -2 DM to the PC.) Then, the "hidden" check by the guy's employer--perhaps also modified (-1 DM because the PCs are right in front of him and the employer presumably isn't). Higher positive Effect wins.