Social Skills (PC vs NPC)

[Saeros]

A discussion started on another thread regarding what social skills / feats / abilities used by NPCs should be applied to PCs (i.e.: Can a NPC Temptress use Binding Contract against a PC). Some posters raised an issue that it's not like sorcery, so the PC should be able to make up their own mind (Free Will approach), while others suggested that a well role-played character will take the NPCs effects into account (Method Acting approach).

There was the implication that a social game construct (ability/feat/skill) did not carry the same weight as a magical construct (sorcery / outsider) and therefore the PCs could choose to ignore the construct, but that NPCs could not if the PCs applied it to them. Part of this was based on the fact that the PCs are the heroes and as such could not be influenced. My playing group has always operated under the agreed upon assumption that the rules of the game apply to both the PCs and the NPCs (What’s Good for the Goose approach).

When a sorcerer casts a spell on a PC, there is no actual magic taking place. What is happening is there is a game rule that is applied to the PCs actions. If the PC was hypnotized, the player would be expected to play his character in the manner the sorcerer dictates. A game construct (magic spell) is applied to another game construct (Player Character). How is this different from a social construct (Binding Contract) being applied?

Now if your player doesn't want to play his character the way the construct has been applied to him what do you do? If the PC says 'I don't want my character to be hypnotized, so I am going to ignore that', then the whole game collapses because the game is a social contract between the players, including the GM, to stay within a certain framework, and rules are created to define that framework. So is it any different when a PC says 'My character would never be scared by a Menacing Aura, so I ignore it.' or 'My character wouldn't watch the Temptress dancing and not notice someone sneaking around, so I ignore it'. Would the players accept the GM saying 'The NPC ignores your ability/ magic because I don't think he/she would want to do that’?

Built into the framework of the game are rules for adjudicating what your character, or NPC, will do - Saving Throws; Skill Checks; Opposed Checks; Attack Rolls; etc. that are based on the properties of your character, and the properties of your opponent. A social check should carry the same game weight as any other game construct, and there are rules for adjudicating those as well. Of course, your gaming contract within your gaming group may be different. But I believe the foundation of the gaming contract must be that the rules apply equally to everyone.

 

[Demetrio]

I agree.

Many players dislike the idea of being coerced into playing their character a certain way. Hence the rather extreme views on Pendragon's opposed trait system. Some folk like it, others hate it.

But you make an excellent point. Combat and magical effects cannot be ignored by the player saying 'No my soldier's too good a swordsman to be disarmed' or 'No my barbarian would never succumb to hypnotism, his will is too strong.'

Yet other reactions, which in life would often be instinctive and beyond one's control, are ones that many (most?) players want control of. They want their to decide how their character responds emotionally and will kick against anything that goes against that. This seems to be very deep rooted, and I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Neither do I say the 'method acting' approach where one rp's the dice rolls for social interactions is necessarily superior. I suspect because we cannot control our immediate emotional reactions in real life, we like to be able to do so for our characters.

 

[Vortigern]

Obviously I am of the 'method' approach more than not. Basically I feel that if you don't enforce the rules for social stats evenly, for/by/against PC/NPC, all alike... you ultimately end up invalidating and devalueing the social stats in general. You make them pointless to have effectively. Or at least... not as worthwhile as something else, depending. So I have often advocated either rigid enforcement, removal, or reduced cost as what I see as the three viable options.

 

[Clovenhoof]

First off, I think you are, among other things, also referring to some of my posts (because I have made several comparisons with Sorcery), and you may have misunderstood my point. Please refer to the Binding Contract thread for a clarification.

As for the matter at hand, note that some RPG systems differentiate between different types of NPCs. There are "mooks" or "extras" which serve only as fillers or fodder, and are fully subject to game rule mechanisms. And there are "Wild Cards" (to quote the Savage Worlds term), which comprises all PCs and important NPCs. Wildcards are immune to certain rules that apply to mooks. PC wildcards do what the players want, and NPC wildcards do what the GM wants.

 

[Saeros]

I don't have any experience with Savage Worlds, but the concept of "mooks' vs. "non-mooks" is one I am familiar with. I handle that in my game through level and class. The mooks are going to be low level and hence not have much in the way of abilities, so their influence on the PCs, through any of the games constructs (combat; magic; social; etc) is going to be inconsequential. Most of the population in my game is made up of commoners, who the PCs certainly should hold the upper hand over, even at first level. The mooks, are all between 1st and 3rd level, and have a character class, and the non-mooks can be of any level. So any NPC influence on the PCs will be limited to the "Wildcards / non-Mooks" on a practical basis as they will be the only NPCs with enough ability to possibly succeed applying a construct to the PCs.

I only brought up the issue of sorcery as a comparision against the social constructs of the game. Very few players would refuse to play their character as influenced by a spell, but many of those same players, when a social construct is applied, balk, and say their character would never do that.

Clovenhoof's clarification in the other thread is dead on. The game rules used to adjudicate any construct have to be fair to the PCs. They have to have a reasonable chance to avoid or survive the effects whether it is a social, magical, or combat construct.

My questions in this thread are these: How many of us treat the social constructs with equality in how they apply to the PCs? What do you do of the player balks at the application of the construct?

 

[kintire]

Many players dislike the idea of being coerced into playing their character a certain way. Hence the rather extreme views on Pendragon's opposed trait system. Some folk like it, others hate it.

But you make an excellent point. Combat and magical effects cannot be ignored by the player saying 'No my soldier's too good a swordsman to be disarmed' or 'No my barbarian would never succumb to hypnotism, his will is too strong.'

These are not the opposite positions you seem to be suggesting. The Pendragon opposed traits, and the various attempts to define what a character is like, such as the high living rule, are completely different from effects applied to that character externally. To suggest that the player should define a character's personality is not to demand immunity to mind influencing effects. It is perfectly possible to be hotly opposed to rolled character traits and be quite happy with Binding Contract... I am in exactly that position.

 

[Apple]

Level 8 Tempress, 18 CHR, skill focus, negotiator, bluff synergy, class bonus, ranks = +26 diplomacy.

Level 20 Barbarian, 12 CHR = +1 diplomacy.

Temptress: "Tonight, when you're on guard duty, slaughter the rest of your adventuring companions in their sleep, then give me all their worldly possession, then kill yourself. I'll give you a kiss on the forehead for doing it."

*rolls some dice*

Barbarian: "Yes mistress." *stab* *stab* *stab* "Here's all of our items mistress. I'll kill myself now mistress." *stab*

Now, this is a little extreme, but basically this is what it boils down to. Not only does it not really make any sense, nor model what diplomacy or a contract is about but it's obviously pretty bad for the game and could not be what is intended.

Social skills are there to let you do, get away with or get others to do things that, while they don't really want to, they also don't really oppose. The problem of course with using this on PCs is that the PC is the final arbiter on what their character does or does not oppose doing. If the DM insists on telling the PCs how they think, then you may as well skip the middle man and just play solo without all those other people getting in the way of the story.

The way I see Binding contract specifically is that it has the benefit of making people not forget about what they've agreed to and bugger off and do other things. If you look at intimidate for instance it only works for about 5 minutes after you leave before the person's resolve returns. Likewise with diplomacy, once you've left the room, the person may turn their attention to other matters and forget about what they agreed to or at least not make it a priority. Binding Contract however is in fact no more binding than any other diplomacy roll, just the urge to complete it is far more pressing and not immediately forgotten.

"I need to pay the night's cut to the guild master now and I really want to stop at the bar and have an ale, but the temptress wanted me to steal something for her... well... I guess the guild master won't be too angry if I'm a bit late."

 

[Magister_Ordo_Lyrae]

I think social issues, whether they be skills, abilities or spells need to handled by a GM somewhat delicately. When at all possible the GM should let the PC think they are acting in their own interest (whether this is by rolling in secret and letting Characters "know" what their perceptions are) or making it seem that by helping this NPC it is in their best interests with more overt suggestion seems the best method. Certainly in the example above I think it seems unreasonable because it causes the PC to act against his interests with regards to both the party and himself. This is not something most people would agree to no matter how tempting their tempter was. When a character is affected by these social abilities were the GM should make it as reasonable as possible for the characters to act as they should due to this social contract.

If a character disagrees however I think a will save may be appropriate under certain situations. A character however should rarely be asked to act against himself or those he is personally loyal to without some (false) justification (i.e. your liege lord is out to get you for whatever reason). This however should be used sparingly as PCs who are routinely deceived will start acting in a paranoid manner (i.e. killing all NPCs see KoDT for examples). Mind you this comes from someone who rarely GMs and is mostly a PC.