PDA

View Full Version : My character would never do that - loosing control



Siegel
2011-12-23, 03:47 AM
Hello playground and merry christmas to all of you

First example:
Being a DM is hard. You have this great campaign in an awesome city that you spend 3 weeks creating. You have this cool DaVinci-Code like plot with the churches of pelor and erathis and maped out the two main temples.
After the first session the PCs have killed the two main priests of erathis and destroyed the beautifull glass windows of pelors temple. The NPCs would have been important to the plot and the windows would have contained important clues.
In short, the PCs have destroyed valuable parts of the setting and completly wracked your campaign plans and changed everything that you cared and planed for.

You accept that, heartbroken that all your work was done for nothing.

Next session a local noble and politician wants to influence the fighter to go against one of the other noble houses in the city. Because this is a drama-rich situation you use the social system of the RPG you are playing.
The noble wins the argument/duel of wits/whatever and now has the PC convinced to do what he wants.
The noble is kind of a bad dude and none of the players like him. The fighters player than goes: But my character would never work with this ahole even though we just had a completly fair social encounter and the rules dictate what has happend.
The player now has parts of his plan for his character destroyed. He probarly spend a day or two creating that character.

Question : Is it okay for the PCs to destroy main parts of the setting and the GMs work but the GM can't influence the behaviour of the PCs using valid rules?
Is it okay to dictate characters opinion/behaviour in such a way?
What do you think about loosing some of your "freedom" to a GM like that?

Second example:
We are playing Shadowrun. Alpha the team leader, Beta the troll-samurai and Gamma the Dronedecker are making a plan for a run.
Alpha is a new player but he has a cool plan for the run. He made his knowledge:tactis (or whatever, sorry i'm not familiar with the shadowrun rules - it's just an example) roles and failed. The GM described his analyses that is mostly right but has a big failure in it.
Beta is a veteran first edition shadowrun player and has more runs under his belt than charop has broken characters in 3.5. He imideatly knows the plan is wrong and will get them killed. Maybe his Troll knows some of that too but he is optimised for combat, not for thinking or talking. Alpha on the other hand has spend a lot of points in talky skills.
They have an RP argument about it and Beta doesn't back down. Alpha is getting annoyed and asks the GM if he can use his characters social skills to make Beta follow the plan.
Now Betas player is really getting angry because he knows he will lose that contest and than has to do like Alphas player wants. He looses control of his character. "That is not what Beta would do!" he yells.

Let's look at that from a movie standpoint. We would have a bit of back and forth between Alpha and Beta but then we would have a closeup of Alpha how gives an amazing speech about his plan and then Beta would follow that (maybe a bit grumpy), conviced by Alphas arguments. Why doesn't that happen in RPGs?

Can PCs use rules to influence other players characters? Is it bad form to use social rules against other players to make them follow your plan? OF course, this would mean that other players besides the groups face would have to invest in social skills or be bossed around by his charming personality (but he won't have enough combat skills to stop them from killing him)

In short:

When is it okay for you to loose control of your character?
Can the GM take it away?
Can players take it away?
Can GMs take it away using legitimate rules?
Can players take it away using legitimate rules?

GnomeWorks
2011-12-23, 03:57 AM
The moment a GM dictates my character's actions, unless validated by in-game phenomena (such as domination or similar) or I have given the GM express permission to do so, I walk.

Taking control of another player's character is not, IMO, ever acceptable.


Can PCs use rules to influence other players characters?

Again, unless there is a reason like domination is in effect, or permission explicitly granted: no.

Siegel
2011-12-23, 04:37 AM
Again, unless there is a reason like domination is in effect, or permission explicitly granted: no.

What about a real good and sucesfull Bluff,Diplomacy,Indimidate,whatever roll?

Edit: You are okay with your character getting essentialy mind-raped but not with him being conviced by (reasonable) argument?

Xiander
2011-12-23, 05:13 AM
What about a real good and sucesfull Bluff,Diplomacy,Indimidate,whatever roll?

Edit: You are okay with your character getting essentialy mind-raped but not with him being conviced by (reasonable) argument?

There is a tendency to downplay the rules when it comes to player characters discussing things. At lest there is in most groups i have ever been in. The reason being that every player wants to play his own character, and that is hard to do if the one player who put max ranks into social skills is constantly using dice to dictate your actions. Personally I think this is fine, since players should be encouraged to actually role-play arguments rather than just duke them out on dicerolls.

Now, the game-master wanting to influence the players is a slightly different thing. I personally believe that players have to take diplomacy rolls and the likes seriously. That said, diplomacy is not brainwashing. The Duke in your example should not be able to make the player his slave with diplomacy, but he might talk the pc into seeing things from his point of view, or he might bluff him into believing that his plan is something different whet it is. If the player refuses to act on these rolls, that is metagaming.


Which brings us to a slightly different discussion, namely how much metagaming should be allowed and when?
Is Beta allowed to metagame in order to save the team from disaster even though his character has no way of knowing they are heading towards disaster? Is the fighter allowed to metagame to avoid playing into the villains hands?
The rules say no to both, but the rules are not always the final arbiter. Ultimately this is a matter for the GM and the gamin group to decide on a case to case basis. In my mind Metagaming to make the game better is okay, metagaming for any other reason is not.
Applying this logic to your examples, I can have some sympathy for beta who metagames to avoid the party being blown apart (I do however dislike the idea of a plot which punishes the players harshly if they are unable to plan for everything, but that is a different discussion). So far as meta is just trying to avoid a TPK I can have sympathy, completely ignoring the fact that alpha is a very diplomatic character and the leader of the team, is a problem for me though.

The fighter who refuses to act in favor of the evil duke, I have much less sympathy for. If the duke made a good roll and had a sensible argument the character should act on this, otherwise the game stops being a role-playing-game and becomes a contest of some sort instead.

On a sidenote, rolling a die and saying the the result are so high that the player now believes that the villain is the good guy is rather poor GMing. So is presenting a lord as a ruthless, morally questionable scoundrel and then expecting the players to work with him because of a diceroll. You have to serve the plot in the right way, to make the fighter bite the hook.

TheCountAlucard
2011-12-23, 05:41 AM
On a related note, Exalted has a social combat system that interacts a little oddly with some of these scenarios.

Essentially, social combat is pulled out whenever someone attempts to do one of three things: compel behavior, affect a person's feelings and opinions toward something, or change a person's motivation.

The ways of doing this are divided into two categories: natural mental influence, and unnatural mental influence. Natural mental influence is generally exerted in the form of arguments, persuasion, questioning, commanding, et cetera, where unnatural mental influence implies that there are supernatural powers at work behind it.

Either way, whatever kind of mental influence is being levied at you, it has to get through your mental defenses first; you can choose to ignore their words, or refute their attempts with counterarguments. Even if they breach those defenses, you have the option of spending a Willpower point to unconvince yourself, as it were (or sometimes more, if it's unnatural mental influence).

Against natural mental influence attempts, there will come a point where you're just not going to be persuaded by the other person anymore without a severe change in their tack; this is represented in-system by the fact that once you've spent two Willpower in the course of a scene resisting someone's natural mental influence, you no longer need to spend Willpower to resist.

Unnatural mental influence, on the other hand, is harder to shake off; oftentimes it costs more to resist, and it continues to be just as much of a drain on your mental reserves an hour into the argument as it was at the start.

However, even the strongest mental influence cannot force a character to act against his motivation, or carry out suicidal acts, unless his will is broken.

As such, it's awfully-hard to affect a player character when the player doesn't want to be affected; if the NPC's attempts are really getting to you, you can easily resist his efforts long enough to roll initiative. :smallamused:

Volthawk
2011-12-23, 05:46 AM
As such, it's awfully-hard to affect a player character when the player doesn't want to be affected; if the NPC's attempts are really getting to you, you can easily resist his efforts long enough to roll initiative. :smallamused:

Ah yes, the mental defence of combative Exalts - their Join Battle roll :smalltongue:

The_Snark
2011-12-23, 05:56 AM
Edit: You are okay with your character getting essentialy mind-raped but not with him being conviced by (reasonable) argument?

I think he's okay with it in the same sense that he'd be okay with his character getting killed in a fight. It is not a desirable outcome, but it's a known and acceptable risk of playing the game. It's an in-game violation of the character, and if/when he comes to his senses he will see it as such.

Talking to someone, though, is quite different. You don't normally expect someone to make you do something you really don't want to do just by talking. There are people IRL who are good at making you change your mind, through personal charisma or well-reasoned arguments or just by bamboozling you into going along with it... but I think most of us would be irritated at being told "This guy is really persuasive, you all go along with whatever he says" without at least being shown how he's persuasive.

Unfortunately, most DMs are not charismatic enough to actually pull this off if the players don't want to cooperate.

The same holds true for players using social skills; wouldn't you (as the DM) be annoyed if the party bard tried to badger NPCs into doing whatever he wants and then justify it with Diplomacy rolls in the high 30s?

Social systems in RPGs need to be very careful to account for this sort of thing. D&D's social system isn't. The designers minimize the impact by making Diplomacy and Intimidate applicable only to NPCs, but it's still not very good. It's a halfhearted appendix tacked on to a dungeon crawl game.

For an example of a social system that puts a little more effort into it, I will point to the game Exalted. The social combat system in this game is deeply flawed, but one of the things it gets right is that it gives the player the option to reject unwanted influence by expending Willpower (a replenishable but very valuable resource). Therefore, you are rewarded for playing along with people with good social skills, but if it feels too wrong then you have a way out. If you run out of Willpower, then you may find your character being forced to do things they don't want to do... but in order to run you completely out of Willpower, an enemy has to either employ unnatural mental influence (essentially mind control, though it's more like Saruman's voice from the Lord of the Rings than a D&D Dominate spell) or persist in attacking you socially for several encounters without giving you any chance to regain Willpower. Generally, this involves captivity and torture and/or brainwashing, since otherwise you'll probably walk away/start a fight/give in and compromise before it gets to that point.

Most iterations of FATE include a system of social conflict that handles this issue by making the consequences of losing flexible. If the enemy inflicts enough social stress (damage) on you, then you'll take a consequence, which is generally Bad. But you have a say in defining exactly what the consequence is. Maybe the sleazy duke from your example makes a snide joke at the expense of the fighter, and he takes a Consequence of "embarrassed" or "too angry to think straight" or something like that. Eventually the loser is going to have to offer a concession, but he will have a say in exactly what it is. Possibly the fighter still thinks it's a terrible idea, but everybody is going along with it and he doesn't want to make a scene. Or maybe he just storms out in a huff and makes an enemy of the noble, that's a loss too in a way.

And the fact that it's a "fight" with back-and-forth "attacks" rather than a flat d20 roll means that the players and GM have a chance to see the arguments that are supposedly convincing them, rather than being informed that they've been convinced.

I suppose my answer is: if you are interested in making social skills an important part of the game, and especially if you are interested in using them against the PCs, find a game with a better social system than D&D.

Darkomn
2011-12-23, 07:32 AM
Hello playground and merry christmas to all of you
The fighters player than goes: But my character would never work with this ahole...

That right there is where the problem is, its not that your his character would never do whatever its that he would never want his character to do it, in the same way anyone would want their character to get stabbed or miss an easy attack, or whatever. If being strong willed and being savvy enough to know what everyone's motivations are then surly whatever system you are using allowed you the chance to build that into your characters mechanics. When something like that happens you have to pretend like that is what your character WOULD do. If you metagame and change your characters actions based on what you as a player would do then having not experienced an argument with someone who's charisma score would put in with the worlds best public speakers?con-men/orators then your the one making your character act contrary to his personality.

That said bluff/diplomacy/speech isn't the same as composion/hypnosis/magic in the same way that putting a gun in someones mouth and taking a standard attack action isn't that same thing. The GM should add appropriate modifiers based on the characters background and opinion.

Tyndmyr
2011-12-23, 07:54 AM
The moment a GM dictates my character's actions, unless validated by in-game phenomena (such as domination or similar) or I have given the GM express permission to do so, I walk.

Taking control of another player's character is not, IMO, ever acceptable.

Again, unless there is a reason like domination is in effect, or permission explicitly granted: no.

This. The DM is also well within his rights to put rules in place like "no char discussion of rules as such" or other metagame talk limiters...but if you're forcing me to play my char stupid because you don't feel I have enough mental stats to use basic tactics...I'll probably just roll a caster with ludicrous int and break the game harder, making it a point to tell you that your melee chumps are also too dumb to use tactics.

gkathellar
2011-12-23, 08:44 AM
What about a real good and sucesfull Bluff,Diplomacy,Indimidate,whatever roll?

Edit: You are okay with your character getting essentialy mind-raped but not with him being conviced by (reasonable) argument?

There's no practical difference. As the DM, you can assign arbitrarily high skill bonuses to a character — and whether you actually did or not is irrelevant. The fact that you can is what's most important.

And ... honestly, here's the thing: the challenges a DM creates are meant to be overcome. The players are supposed to win, and the DM is a facilitator to this end, and as a result a facilitator to player agency. And when a DM uses things like social skills against the players, it's an implicitly statement of opposition to the players and their agency.

Tyndmyr
2011-12-23, 09:04 AM
There's no practical difference. As the DM, you can assign arbitrarily high skill bonuses to a character — and whether you actually did or not is irrelevant. The fact that you can is what's most important.

Er, Diplomacy, per RAW, does not work on players.

Any DM using it as a substitute for mind control is Doing It Wrong(tm).

elpollo
2011-12-23, 09:17 AM
*Snip*

Truly this one is wise in the ways of things.

I'm never quite sure why people are fine with their characters influencing NPCs with social rolls, but not alright with the opposite happening. I can't imagine anyone getting away with saying "You can't cast fireball on my character, catching on fire is not something he'd doooo" and expecting people to treat them as having magic resistance. If you want a character with the ability to resist mental coercion then spend some of your experience points on making such a character (and as The_Snark said, perhaps don't rely on the D20 diplomacy system). I suspect this all stems from people using the diplomacy check as a binary "His system of beliefs completely changes, and he is now your dearest ally/he doesn't buy it, and now he hates you for trying" thing on NPCs, but in that case I suggest the problem should be with how you treat diplomacy rather than the fact it is being used on your characters.



but if you're forcing me to play my char stupid because you don't feel I have enough mental stats to use basic tactics...

But if you're forcing me to play my character as rubbish in combat because I've got no points in Weaponry...

I realise that there is a bit of an arbitrary line between one who would be able to come up with and organise an intelligent, well timed raid and one who wouldn't, but there's an equally arbitrary (although better defined by most systems) line between one who could punch a sword through a dragon's hide and one who couldn't. I don't see why having an idea of a plan you want to organise and rolling to see if you're successful is any worse than having an idea of a sword you want to embed in someone's skull and rolling - in both cases there are many things that could go wrong, so surely people with more investment into applicable skills should succeed more often.

Tyndmyr
2011-12-23, 09:28 AM
But if you're forcing me to play my character as rubbish in combat because I've got no points in Weaponry...

I realise that there is a bit of an arbitrary line between one who would be able to come up with and organise an intelligent, well timed raid and one who wouldn't, but there's an equally arbitrary (although better defined by most systems) line between one who could punch a sword through a dragon's hide and one who couldn't. I don't see why having an idea of a plan you want to organise and rolling to see if you're successful is any worse than having an idea of a sword you want to embed in someone's skull and rolling - in both cases there are many things that could go wrong, so surely people with more investment into applicable skills should succeed more often.

Nah, there's system rules for that. If you wanted a game with complex social rules, you probably should have selected one.

Making the punchy chars unable to reliably formulate plans makes them even more second fiddle to the smart ones(casters, etc). And if this isn't a rule you implemented until AFTER char creation...you've done a bad thing that'll probably annoy the player of the non-smart char. It's no different than saying "oh, sometimes casting makes your head explode" midgame to the guy who is playing a wizard. It's bad form to change the rules midway through the game.

GlasgowPhill
2011-12-23, 09:28 AM
Most of the time I'd have my players give me enough background that I know how they'd be convinced of things so that you can give explanation of how they've been socially worked over to make it more sensible that they've gone along with the diplomancer's plan.

In L5R you've had Bayushi Badgai subtly imply that he has (faked or not) evidence about Daidoji Hiro's ancestor who shamefully was part of the Kolat and plotted against the Emperor and unless he goes along with Badgai's plan where he's won the contested social roll he might be able to ensure the evidence is left somewhere someone may find it.

In Shadowrun Face Alpha wins the social roll against Samurai Beta, Alpha reminds Beta of the time when he helped Beta pay off his gambling debts or that Beta's license for his wired reflexes is piggybacked off the fake ID that he got for him and that cyberware removal can be pretty painful etc (depending on the personalities of those involved)

It's a bit of a joint thing though I've always thought and it's partly up to the player as well to come up with some reason that's been used to convince them unless they want someone else to come up with something for them.

elpollo
2011-12-23, 09:52 AM
Nah, there's system rules for that. If you wanted a game with complex social rules, you probably should have selected one.

Making the punchy chars unable to reliably formulate plans makes them even more second fiddle to the smart ones(casters, etc). And if this isn't a rule you implemented until AFTER char creation...you've done a bad thing that'll probably annoy the player of the non-smart char. It's no different than saying "oh, sometimes casting makes your head explode" midgame to the guy who is playing a wizard. It's bad form to change the rules midway through the game.

There are no rules for playing chess in many games either, but I don't think you'd be out of line to tell someone that their low intelligence character isn't able to beat Kasparov, regardless of their real life chess playing capabilities. It certainly sucks to find out that a character you made can't do something that you thought they would be able to do, but it can be solved on learning that your real life abilities shouldn't really be transferrable to your character by rebuilding your character to someone who can.

edit - hell, I'll just reply to your next post.

Jay R
2011-12-23, 09:54 AM
And ... honestly, here's the thing: the challenges a DM creates are meant to be overcome. The players are supposed to win, and the DM is a facilitator to this end, and as a result a facilitator to player agency. And when a DM uses things like social skills against the players, it's an implicitly statement of opposition to the players and their agency.

You're making one statement, and acting on it like it was a very different statement.

"[T]he challenges a DM creates are meant to be overcome. The players are supposed to win..." Yes, the characters should usually win. And yes, the encounters that players must overcome should be possible - someday.

That doesn't mean there aren't encounters that cannot be beaten with a frontal assault today. And it doesn't mean that you can beat up any monster on the first day you hear of its existence. If you decide to sass the king in his court, and wind up in a dungeon, then the DM didn't build an unfair encounter; you chose a losing strategy.

Sometimes the most persuasive person convinces the group to do something stupid. Demanding that your character be immune to that is no different than demanding he be immune to sword thrusts.

And very often, the DM knows that you will not be able to assault the castle, but will be able to break out of the dungeon inside it. He's trying to get you to the only place from which the encounter can be beaten.

It might help you to consider a Bluff or Diplomacy roll to be a very low-level Charm Person, but the fact is still this: every single person in the real world can sometimes be talked into an action he hadn't planned to do, and your character is no exception.

Taking no social skills and expecting to be immune to fast-talking is the same as taking no armor and expecting to be immune to swords.

Tyndmyr
2011-12-23, 10:02 AM
There are no rules for playing chess in many games either, but I don't think you'd be out of line to tell someone that their low intelligence character isn't able to beat Kasparov, regardless of their real life chess playing capabilities. It certainly sucks to find out that a character you made can't do something that you thought they would be able to do, but it can be solved on learning that your real life abilities shouldn't really be transferrable to your character by rebuilding your character to someone who can.

edit - I perhaps have not really addressed your point, so I'll edit it a bit more of a response.

If you have a game in which the playing of chess is a skill of notable importance, you should either sort out the rules used for resolving this in advance or just default to chesses rules. Or not play a game that is so chess focused.

Diplomacy is not mind control. That's why it is not subject to mind blank etc(with the exception of fanaticism, per epic skills). Treating it as if it were is ridiculous. It leads to the practice of regarding people trying to convince you of something as hostile and stabbing them.

NichG
2011-12-23, 10:06 AM
I dislike this form of control both as a GM and as a player. Dominate I'm more okay with, though it'd get annoying if its a frequent thing and I feel it'd be unacceptable if used as a way of NPCs obtaining persistent obedience from PCs.

As a GM, if I take control like that it essentially means I'm down one player for the duration, and the players are what give life and unpredictability to the game. If they happen to destroy my BBEG at random without realizing, then thats 1 part my failing to make a robust BBEG and 1 part a funny memory for everyone at the table. I shrug and move things along - there's always more stories until you die or become gods. PCs destroy setting details and clues, I either let them struggle a bit with lacking them or reintroduce the clues a different way to move things at a reasonable pace. Maybe give heavy-handed out of character hints with the thin justification of 'you guys are a bright lot, here, this is something you figured out'. But if they still choose not to bite, thats their choice.

I think its a lot more fun anyways to try to manipulate the players into pursuing stuff or doing things 'legit' (that is, by actually successfully tricking or baiting them). It doesn't always work (nor should it - if they spot it and avoid the temptation, thats a victory), but its fun when it does and the player realizes it (or the other PCs realize it and then realize they have to convince the guy not to do the power grab). And its a lot more memorable than 'This guy is really persuasive. If you fail this roll, you agree with him and do as he suggests.'

Xiander
2011-12-23, 10:12 AM
I am surprised to see most people treat the first situation as controlling the players character. How is using diplomacy to convince someone to work for you equal mind control?

Earthwalker
2011-12-23, 10:14 AM
This is always an oddity.
I generally play my mental stats. I have long since given up the idea other people do (or even have to).
I once posted on a thead here and was told,
"expecting people playing DnD to play thier mental stats is just silly, you want a fighter with 18 str and 8 cha, or he is no good as a fighter. Having to take a 14 in cha to be effective and not a wall flower is going to kill his chance to be an effective fighter" Which I have to agree with, I on't like it but it makes sense.
With DnD mental stats (if they aren't used) are kind of pointless really so why do we have them.

Tactics the skill (in shadowrun) has a use other then showing your character knows tactics, it can give a game benifit (more so if linked to the battletac system). You can use an action (simple I think) to issue orders to improve your sides effectivness (I think it gave bonus initative)
So does not having tactics mean that you can not think tactically ? I would say no. If you have an int of 1 (the lowest possible int) should you play your character like a tactical genius ? Again if your mental stats don't effect how you play thats your choice. I don't like seeing int 1, cha 1 genius poets that always know how to act becuase the player is smart.

gkathellar
2011-12-23, 10:21 AM
"[T]he challenges a DM creates are meant to be overcome. The players are supposed to win..." Yes, the characters should usually win. And yes, the encounters that players must overcome should be possible - someday.

That doesn't mean there aren't encounters that cannot be beaten with a frontal assault today. And it doesn't mean that you can beat up any monster on the first day you hear of its existence. If you decide to sass the king in his court, and wind up in a dungeon, then the DM didn't build an unfair encounter; you chose a losing strategy.

Sometimes the most persuasive person convinces the group to do something stupid. Demanding that your character be immune to that is no different than demanding he be immune to sword thrusts.

This is a false equivalency. If the player does something foolish and the DM reacts to it, that's one thing. If the DM goes out of his way to impose failure on a character, that's another entirely.

Moreover, saying, "You believe the noble because he made his bluff check or whatever" is terrible storytelling and overt railroading. It is going out of your way to tell the players that they are doing something solely because you want them to do it, and not because it's consistent with their own motivations as either players or characters. It ruins any element of suspense or surprise (bad storytelling) and removes agency on a fiat scale by saying, "now you believe this" (railroading).


It might help you to consider a Bluff or Diplomacy roll to be a very low-level Charm Person, but the fact is still this: every single person in the real world can sometimes be talked into an action he hadn't planned to do, and your character is no exception.

Realism, however, has no bearing on the behavioral relationships between a player and a DM. The fact is that removing agency in this fashion (even with Charm Person) is frustrating and plays against type for most players.


Taking no social skills and expecting to be immune to fast-talking is the same as taking no armor and expecting to be immune to swords.

While not a false comparison in every system, it almost certainly is in D&D where:
a) expenditure in non-combat resources is often inversely proportional to necessary combat resources, especially for melee characters,
b) the social skill system is completely awful,
c) at least one mental statistic is a dump stat for almost every character — implying that if you actually roleplayed to fit your statistical needs, most warriors would be drooling, unobservant loudmouths and most casters would pick best two out of three.

Analytica
2011-12-23, 10:22 AM
As a player, if I know another PC - or an NPC - is very charismatic and has good social skills, I will interpret their arguments more favourably. That is, even if there are flaws in how the player or DM presents the argument - because the player or DM does not have stellar Charisma or social skills OOC - I will try to think of how a very socially capable individual, whom I emotionally was impressed by, would have phrased the same argument. This doesn't mean that I will ignore flaws in the argument, or my character's personality, but it will affect how I receive it. I do the same when LARPing, in order to confirm the other player's choice of a charismatic character in the shared game-world reality we create.

Vice versa, a good argument from a low-Charisma character may still convince me, but I will be much more inclined to find faults in it or simply not take in the presentation of the argument fully. I feel DMs should do the same with NPCs, and this in my opinion is why you shouldn't use Charisma as a dump stat unless you're fine with not being listened to as much.

gkathellar
2011-12-23, 10:23 AM
I am surprised to see most people treat the first situation as controlling the players character. How is using diplomacy to convince someone to work for you equal mind control?

Because the DM is already in a position of power, which they are granted under the assumption that they will use it indirectly. When they use it directly, it becomes fundamentally abusive — and we have a term for this: "railroading."

Seatbelt
2011-12-23, 10:26 AM
You can use social skills to influence what a character knows (so mostly just bluff). But you cannot use social skills to influence what a character does. At least in my games.

So examples... the party rogue uses bluff to convince a PC that someone else stole the player's gold, even though everyone at the table saw him make the slight of hand check to steal the coin purse.

The local priest (under my control) bluffs the party in to thinking he's not responsible for raising the dead.

But it is not ok for the party rogue to use diplomacy on the PC he just robbed, to convince him that the rogue really needs the gold more anyway and the PC should let him have it.

It is not ok for the local priest to use diplomacy to convince the PCs to not turn him in to the local paladin because of his crimes.

In the last two examples those conversations can happen. If the rogue is convincing IRL the PC will let him have it, and if I am convincing IRL the party will leave the priest alone. But skill checks can't influence players in that way.

Tyndmyr
2011-12-23, 10:29 AM
I am surprised to see most people treat the first situation as controlling the players character. How is using diplomacy to convince someone to work for you equal mind control?

It's WORSE. There are defenses against mind control.

This leads to out of control diplomancy abuse and other weird places. In short, whoever has the highest diplomacy mod can convince everyone else to work for him. This leads to a particularly unfun game. It also means that some classes, like fighter, cease to be viable.


Moreover, saying, "You believe the noble because he made his bluff check or whatever" is terrible storytelling and overt railroading.

Yes. A better choice is to just tell them "his story sounds fairly plausible" or "you don't see anything wrong with his story" instead. Let them determine how much to trust him instead. A player who knows he's bad at determining if people are lying may factor that into his decision, but it leads to much more interesting places in general.

Xiander
2011-12-23, 10:38 AM
Because the DM is already in a position of power, which they are granted under the assumption that they will use it indirectly. When they use it directly, it becomes fundamentally abusive — and we have a term for this: "railroading."

I have to disagree with the notion that employing social skills against the players necessarily equals railroading.

If the GM rolls a dice, checks the result and says: "You now want to help the Evil duke, because he made his Diplomacy check." That's railroading.

If the GM has the duke explain that doing one simple job for him will result in generous rewards and protection from any legal repercussions of the job, then makes a bluff roll, lets the player roll sense motive, and tells the player that the duke seems honest enough (because he rolled a good bluff and you rolled a bad sense motive). That is using the system in a rather fair way.

Insisting that the player takes the job is bad form, but so is refusing to take a job from a duke because he has ruthless streak and a German sounding name.

gkathellar
2011-12-23, 10:40 AM
You can use social skills to influence what a character knows (so mostly just bluff). But you cannot use social skills to influence what a character does. At least in my games.

A better choice is to just tell them "his story sounds fairly plausible" or "you don't see anything wrong with his story" instead. Let them determine how much to trust him instead. A player who knows he's bad at determining if people are lying may factor that into his decision, but it leads to much more interesting places in general.

This, I think, is really the ideal approach. It maintains player agency in theory by allowing the player to decide on their own course of action, but also allows maintains the importance of character skills by using them to determine the information the player has access to.

gkathellar
2011-12-23, 10:46 AM
If the GM rolls a dice, checks the result and says: "You now want to help the Evil duke, because he made his Diplomacy check." That's railroading.

If the GM has the duke explain that doing one simple job for him will result in generous rewards and protection from any legal repercussions of the job, then makes a bluff roll, lets the player roll sense motive, and tells the player that the duke seems honest enough (because he rolled a good bluff and you rolled a bad sense motive). That is using the system in a rather fair way.

I agree entirely. The OP's first example was a case of poor form on the DM's part, because he was trying to tell the player "I passed diplomacy, you must comply." A less heavy-handed approach may be acceptable.


Insisting that the player takes the job is bad form, but so is refusing to take a job from a duke because he has ruthless streak and a German sounding name.

Depends on the characters. A paladin or other strongly ethical character might refuse to work for such a man, for example. Bear in mind that in the OP's first example, all of the characters actively disliked the duke in question — even if they believed him, they might not have listened to him simply because they had decided he was kind of a jerk.

elpollo
2011-12-23, 10:52 AM
This is what happens when I do other things between posts.


If you have a game in which the playing of chess is a skill of notable importance, you should either sort out the rules used for resolving this in advance or just default to chesses rules. Or not play a game that is so chess focused.

Except due to the assumed freedom of roleplaying games it is very difficult to know what you're going to need rules for. Ultimately this can be solved with a plain attribute check (such as an intelligence check to play chess or to make and carry out a battle plan), introducing a new skill that nobody has any points in, or, as you said, carrying out the activity as a player rather than a character. However, since the DM is unlikely to be Kasparov, and the player is unlikely to share his character's level of chess expertise, I'm unsure as to why this would be the natural choice rather than, say, the skill check (incidentally this is why I like giving a few free skill points exclusively for profession/knowledge/crafting skills in D20 systems, as otherwise you're too hard pressed to put those points in profession(grandmaster)). My first time playing D&D was with only the PHB - we ended up having an aerial battle which we had no rules for. Again, I think our decision to shanghai up some rules of our own was a better solution than taking to the skies on giant birds of prey.



Diplomacy is not mind control. That's why it is not subject to mind blank etc(with the exception of fanaticism, per epic skills). Treating it as if it were is ridiculous. It leads to the practice of regarding people trying to convince you of something as hostile and stabbing them.

I'm not claiming it should be mind control any more than me making a convincing argument here and you changing your mind is mind control. I'm not suggesting that if you approach a BBEG with the intent to kill and he rolls a 20 on his diplomacy check then you should join his side - only that if you are set on killing him and are informed as a player that "Hey, he beat your DC by a fair margin, he's pretty convincing" then it's surely more in character to then listen to his offer. If the BBEG then suggests that you join forces and destroy the world together then you're going to have such a huge circumstance modifier that it's going to fail. If he suggests you let him go and instead go save the children, since the king wants him alive and if he dies a demon will claim his soul forever, then (despite you wanting to kill him right now to end his evil once and for all) a successful diplomacy roll (likely, with favourable modifiers stacking up) is not forcing your character to do something he wouldn't - it's influencing his attitude to the situation (much like when you convince a clerk it's in his interests to let you through to see the company head without needing an appointment).



This leads to out of control diplomancy abuse and other weird places. In short, whoever has the highest diplomacy mod can convince everyone else to work for him. This leads to a particularly unfun game. It also means that some classes, like fighter, cease to be viable.

I think the lesson is "Don't play with jerks" more than anything. A powerful character can say "Do this or I kill you" - removing the effects of diplomacy on PCs does not remove the jerk's ability to be a jerk.



Moreover, saying, "You believe the noble because he made his bluff check or whatever" is terrible storytelling and overt railroading. It is going out of your way to tell the players that they are doing something solely because you want them to do it, and not because it's consistent with their own motivations as either players or characters. It ruins any element of suspense or surprise (bad storytelling) and removes agency on a fiat scale by saying, "now you believe this" (railroading).

A player going to meet a noble, having a convincing argument for why they should work for him to save the kingdom set out, then blindly refusing to listen for no reason other than because a diplomacy check was made is good storytelling now? Why would you completely disregard dice rolls, introduced to roleplaying games as a mechanism of resolving conflict and advancing the story, as a mechanism of resolving conflicts and advancing the story (although I would guess it's due to previous bad experience - see my "Don't play with jerks" response to Tyndmyr [summary: Don't play with jerks])?

Tyndmyr
2011-12-23, 10:58 AM
Insisting that the player takes the job is bad form, but so is refusing to take a job from a duke because he has ruthless streak and a German sounding name.

Er, for plenty of chars, that is a perfectly logical course of action.

Epallo...as the GM, you should probably know if your game is going to have notable social components to it. That's a pretty basic decision. I can't think of a game I DMed in which I didn't have at least a rough idea of how social a game it was going to be beforehand.


If he suggests you let him go and instead go save the children, since the king wants him alive and if he dies a demon will claim his soul forever

Er...he can claim all that if he wants, yes. He can speak as a free action. Then I get to decide what to do about it. That's how it should work. Not "he says this stuff, and since he rolled diplomacy, you have to do it".

gkathellar
2011-12-23, 11:08 AM
A player going to meet a noble, having a convincing argument for why they should work for him to save the kingdom set out, then blindly refusing to listen for no reason other than because a diplomacy check was made is good storytelling now?

Huhwhuh? That's not what I said at all. And I said it several times. But here, let me try again: Telling your players what to do is bad form. It removes the "social" aspect of the social storytelling that constitutes most tabletop RPGs. There is nothing wrong with using mechanics to affect character behavior — but "affect" is not "control." Use diplomacy to say the argument is compelling. Use bluff to say the characters can't see anything wrong with the argument. Don't use either to tell the player what to do.

Tabletop Roleplaying Games are (generally) dependent on a social contract wherein the GM creates a world, and players are free to act within it through the medium of their characters. Controlling the flow of information to manipulate players is expected; removing control of character motivations and choices is a violation of your contract.

lesser_minion
2011-12-23, 01:06 PM
The answer is roughly, "when that's what the player signed up for". If your character has undergone imperial conditioning, then the DM is well within her rights to impose a veto if you want to burn down a village.

However, if, as a player, you are denied control of your character, in what way are you still playing the game as opposed to spectating?

Being reduced to a spectator is not inherently a bad thing: it's unreasonable to expect to win all the time, and it's unreasonable to expect to be constantly in the spotlight.

However, you don't want to be a spectator all the time, and it's generally assumed that there's a good reason for it. It's also widely held that "the DM's campaign will come apart at the seams otherwise" is never a good enough reason.

With the noble and the fighter, the DM is well within her rights to break out her favourite variant of the Hidden Projectile Rulebook Technique. If the social system really does allow players to be persuaded like that, then it is what the players signed up for, and the fighter's player has no one to blame but himself. However, I wouldn't be surprised had these social rules been written by Byron Hall or a game designer of comparable talent.

In the second example, there was a player dispute, and the GM was asked to mediate. I don't think she made a good call here, especially given that it blatantly favoured one player over another, but I think she has a point: from what you've said, the troll's player does appear to be doing something unreasonable.

Cerlis
2011-12-23, 02:09 PM
The two situations arent comparable. (Dm ruining player, and player ruining DM)

Main reason, because players dont know all the Dm's machinations. Its the difference between Involuntary manslaughter, and homicide. It wasnt on purpose (unless they cheated, or figured it out and did it on purpose. That is referred to as *******ry)

The second reason is because The DM has the option of convicing the player that his character believes this and that. That this NPC seems very persuasive, or like he is telling the honest truth (Successful diplomacy or bluff checK). And the Player has a responsibility to honestly ask himself if his character where faced with such a persuasive person that for all they can tell DO mean what they say...how would they react.

This follows a few rules.
Players Decide what their characters would do
DMs decide what they will face.
Dm is responsible for presenting challenges well.
Players are responsible for trying to play their part (to whatever degree of seriousness is required by the group)
And finally.
In the real world you can go against what someone says even if you believe them and fear they might be right. And you can disbelieve and be paranoid about someone who is honest, telling the truth and believe what they say.

I dont get why people believe just cus Someone succeeds on a bluff check or diplomacy check (and thus being believable) their mind is taken over and they have to do what the person wants. You can believe a lie, and disbelieve the truth.

Even Dominated people have a good chance of sticking to their core beliefs and not doing anything they wouldnt do. Charmed people even more so. And we are suppose to act like a persuasive argument mind controls me?

nuh uh.

nyarlathotep
2011-12-23, 02:28 PM
What about a real good and sucesfull Bluff,Diplomacy,Indimidate,whatever roll?

Edit: You are okay with your character getting essentialy mind-raped but not with him being conviced by (reasonable) argument?

In D&D specifically diplomacy cannot be used on PCs period, intimidate only works for 1 minute regardless, and bluff should be rolled in secret and if it succeeds that just means the player thinks he is telling the truth. Most other systems I have played have similar rules (M&M, Dark Heresy etc.). It is okay for you to say that a magical influence has taken control away from my character because it is an accepted part of the game, but it is not okay for you to tell me how I react to an argument. It is especially not okay for you to just say "he succeeded his diplomacy roll" without telling me what he actually said. Make the argument try to convince me to do something through roleplaying.

Tyndmyr
2011-12-23, 02:32 PM
The two situations arent comparable. (Dm ruining player, and player ruining DM)

Main reason, because players dont know all the Dm's machinations. Its the difference between Involuntary manslaughter, and homicide. It wasnt on purpose (unless they cheated, or figured it out and did it on purpose. That is referred to as *******ry)

Also, a DM has effectively infinite NPCs. If one of your NPCs is somehow constrained a bit by a diplomacy check...it's not that big of a deal. You have other options. If a PC is constrained by a diplomacy check...he has no other chars. Just the one.

So, it's worse in multiple ways. Much like a PC killing an NPC is not equivalently good for the game as an NPC killing a PC, neither should you expect equivalently good results from diplomacy.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-12-23, 02:44 PM
Like I said in another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12415590&postcount=4), most games include the Axiom of Player Autonomy: "Players get to decide what their characters do when the character would have volition to make a choice." It is an unwritten rule in most RPGs and Players expect to be able to make these decisions themselves. If this is not the case, then you'd better tell them before the game starts since it is a rule they need to know -- just like HP, hit bonuses, and skill points.

Additionally, get your balky Players to read Burlew's excellent article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) about not being a jerk while playing. It is good general practice, IMHO.

Now, back to the core concern -- Players wrecking DM plans. This is what Players do and you need to figure out how to cope with it. Part of this means not designing campaigns where the destruction of campaign elements (e.g. priests and windows) does not derail the campaign. Personally, I like to punish Players who casually destroy things: if they killed a priest for no reason, then the clue he was supposed to give only shows up after it is too late. The hazard with this petty revenge is that your Players will accuse you of hiding the ball -- how were we supposed to know that killing this Priest would cause terrible things down the line? -- which makes for unhappy Players and therefore a bad game. So use this carefully.

Bottom Line
- If you want to run a game where Player decisions are defined by mechanical interaction, make sure everyone knows this from the outset. They will not assume this to be the case by default.

- Don't design campaigns which come apart if things don't go a certain way. Villains that must escape, contracts that must be taken and clues that must be found are all bad ideas in campaign design. Never rely on them and use them sparingly at most.

Thinker
2011-12-23, 06:03 PM
I don't think you should ever restrict the players' options for their characters. Domination and the like should only ever be used on NPCs. The same goes for skills that influence social actions. Similarly, if the players want to destroy the environment and completely ruin the GM's setup, they should be allowed to.

theflyingkitty
2011-12-23, 08:08 PM
For the first scenario, you could have placed the clues elsewhere instead, such as tapestries, sculptures, the designs of the tiles of the floor, paintings, etc. Surely one could have painted an important figure in front of those paintings. And for the NPC's, change to different ones. OK, if it was that important head priest who died, well maybe there was someone in the shadows even MORE important pulling the strings... then make him WAY tougher to kill.

In the past few months of research and paying attention to these forums, asking questions, etc. as well as years doing writing style rp online, and RL tabletop gaming... I've learned this:

1) One's character is ones property. It is a part of one's self. (Legally, actually) A DM of any sort should never take control of that character in any way that would change the character itself. (With some Exceptions [ *1 ])

2) We work very hard on our stories, our worlds, ideas, concepts. But why do we do them? Why do we create them? A DM creates for the players. You're making this whole thing for them. If it's not fun for them, why do it? You could have full control of your own world and just go write a novella.

3) **** happens. You're players don't know what you have planned, so you should not expect them to always do what you want. However, you're the DM. You're that crafty bugger who's place it is to keep track of everything. You're the creative one who created this world. Surely you can fix it without them knowing.


4) Talk to them about it. If you have a player who you know is going out of his way to annoy you and break your toys on purpose, talk with him. If they're wreaking too much havock for you to keep up with, let them know that you're a newer DM and ask them nicely to work with you for a while. Often times, they'll actually be pretty cool about it and give you valuable feedback.

*1 - Things such as possession or things they do to themselves. Example 1: An evil caster takes over the mind of a party member temporarily, causing him to fight his allies. Example 2: A cursed sword on occasion causes the wielder to do evil acts without his knowing. Example 3: The character does something dumb like threaten a high level baddie or tries to jump off a cliff and thinks it'll be ok.

Might I ask how they managed to tear up the church?

theflyingkitty
2011-12-23, 08:26 PM
PS - I've been waiting quite a few sessions to steal one of my players favorite toys (a wooden garden gnome). But you see, I couldn't just snatch it up plainly cause it wouldn't fit with the story. I've had to wait until he was fully unconscious and somewhat sent to a pocket dimension for a bit of time. Is that why I made that plot? Nope. But it worked out well. :)

Darkomn
2011-12-23, 08:56 PM
theflyingkitty I think you are looking at things the wrong way, a player DOESN'T have unlimited control over his character. Rules, all rules, exist to reduce freedoms, in the hypothetical RPG "state of nature" each player has unlimited control over what their character does says and believes. The problem with this is that every game would just degenerate into something like this:
Player 1: "Ha you can't touch me, I brought my attack dog with a built-in force field."
Player 2: "Well I brought my dinosaur... who eats force field dogs."

In a perfect world we could play an RPG without any rules, whenever something happened a player would balance their characters awesome with that of every other character, and if their fighter type was a total BA at stabbing people with pointy pieces of metal they might not also make him Da Bomb when it comes to persuasion and if another player's character (this time the dm's) was Da Bomb at persuasion they would take it apon them self to allow the words of that character to hold more sway over them because even though the other player might not be Da Bomb when it comes to talking (and that is the sterotype when it comes to RPG players right?) his character is and also it wouldn't be fair to be both really good at fighting and a mental fortress.

Thats why in the real world we have to play RPGs with rules. Some rules govern how well a character is at stabbing people with pointy pieces of metal, some govern what happens when characters talk to each other, and some govern balancing out the overall awesomeness of each player's characters so that the person who is the best at one thing isn't also the best at everything else. Saying that a GM should never tell a player what his character does is like saying that a GM should never kill a character in combat, a good GM would always try to balance the challenge in combat by sending in the appropriate number and difficulty of monsters and balance the challenge of social interactions by adding or subtracting the appropriate circumstance modifiers. Every time a character is killed by solder number 3648 is a failure on the part of the GM (unless thats what he or she wanted to happen to fit the story) but saying the GM is strictly not allowed to have a character die and ignoble death would ruin the game.

kaomera
2011-12-23, 09:48 PM
Question : Is it okay for the PCs to destroy main parts of the setting and the GMs work but the GM can't influence the behaviour of the PCs using valid rules?
Is it okay to dictate characters opinion/behaviour in such a way?
What do you think about loosing some of your "freedom" to a GM like that?
''My character would never do that'' is basically equivalent to ''it's what my character would do'', and neither is an excuse to be a jerk. However, in this sense, the campaign should not be given greater weight that any player's character - it's just the GM's character, in essence. IMO: The player's job is to have their character do interesting things, the GM's job is to react to those things in interesting ways, and to prompt the players to action when they fail to act themselves.

If the players are being senselessly destructive there are two good ways of dealing with it. You should definitely prevent them from feeling that they can be wantonly destructive without there being any consequences. A big part of the GM's job revolves around handing out interesting consequences to the PCs actions. It's fairly obvious that no-one at the table should have their character take an action if they are not willing to accept the consequences of that action. But it's equally true that no-one at the table should have their character take an action unless everyone is willing to accept the consequences of that action.

So the (arbitrarily) first option is simply to confront the players with the consequences of their actions, and see if they back down or not. Point out that since it's your job to keep things interesting, you are pretty much required to make whatever the PCs are wantonly destroying important at some future point in the game in a way that will cause the characters to either suffer or to have to struggle. Be prepared to back this up - once you put it on the table backing off and deciding that it's not that important after all is cheating.

The other option (and you can go with this one first, if you prefer) is to ask the players what happens next. Sure, you had something cool in mind, but if the players have an even better idea, why not go with that instead? Again, be prepared to accept any idea that doesn't ruin the game for you and that the players honestly seem interested in. But if the players just shrug, if they really are just destroying stuff because they can, then tell them that they're being bad, boring players. Would they want to play with a bad, boring GM? Threaten them that you will report their behavior to the Player Credit Agency and their dice will start refusing to roll well for them. If they really don't care, then you probably want to be playing with a different group, anyway.

When is it okay for you to loose control of your character?
Can the GM take it away?
Can players take it away?
Can GMs take it away using legitimate rules?
Can players take it away using legitimate rules?
Back in my 1e days we had two simple rules:

''The players get to say what their characters do and who they are.''
''If it didn't happen at the table it doesn't count.''

There was, however, an addendum to the first rule: If the player wasn't and hadn't said something about the character, then the DM could fill in the blanks. Ideally that probably ought to be ''offer to fill in the blanks'', but in practice it was used rather sparingly that never actually came up. What it was mainly used for was filling in unimportant / uninteresting time in the campaign and establishing plot hooks. If the Fighter had nothing better to do during down-time (while the Magic-User fiddled with some captured artifact or something), it could be assumed that he made a tour of the Duchy; here's all the interesting things he encountered / heard of. That sort of thing, generally.

We didn't have any social skills in place, and when I DMed I always wanted any influence directed at the PCs (including magical stuff) to be voluntarily accepted by the player in question - I figured I had enough to do as a DM without trying to run a PC as well. So in that case it became a case of simply asking. Usually, though, it was easier to use trickery / deception / illusion. As DM I am responsible for informing the players of what the characters see / hear / sense, so if that's being messed with there's really no room for argument, and I'm not really explicitly usurping control of the character. (Actually I probably kind of was, but the players knew it was a possibility as they often used the same tactics against the NPCs / monsters. I think to a certain extent they respected the fact that I was willing to have ''my'' NPCs fall for their tricks even when I knew what was actually up.)

Oracle_Hunter
2011-12-23, 09:55 PM
theflyingkitty I think you are looking at things the wrong way, a player DOESN'T have unlimited control over his character. Rules, all rules, exist to reduce freedoms, in the hypothetical RPG "state of nature" each player has unlimited control over what their character does says and believes. The problem with this is that every game would just degenerate into something like this:
Player 1: "Ha you can't touch me, I brought my attack dog with a built-in force field."
Player 2: "Well I brought my dinosaur... who eats force field dogs."
Did someone just make a State of Nature argument? I love those things! :smallbiggrin:
Truth be told, the above is the State of Nature for Imagination -- the child's form of roleplaying. But this is no game, for there is no way to break out of this stalemate. Besides, a game has -- by definition -- rules, whether you're playing Chess or Calvinball.

Now, this problem shows you the very first step that any RPG must take: a way to resolve conflicting narration. One does not go from the State of Nature to GURPS in one step -- rules are created for reasons. Nor should we immediately throw up our hands in a Rosseauean fashion and say "the world is not perfect, so to hell with it!"; instead, we make rules for purposes.

Resolving narrative conflicts is therefore the root of all rulemaking and must be kept in mind when declaring rules for things. After all, there is no pressing need to roll to see if a PC has had breakfast this morning -- who opposes this breakfast-having? -- but many early RPGs blindly included rules for such things.

To the issue at hand. A study of created RPGs will reveal that the vast majority of them are at least friendly to the Axiom of Player Autonomy -- as is indeed 4e. A deeper justification for this axiom is that game of Imagination: it is assumed that you had the ability to invent and do things if there was no opposition from the other players. It would be odd indeed if one player of Imagination said "I'm going to sit down" and another said "no, you're going to stand at attention!" Between co-equal players, such behavior would seem bossy at the very least, and certainly not within the spirit of the exercise.
In short, we do not have rules in RPGs because the world is imperfect, but rather to resolve conflicts in narration. Where is the conflict when a Player declares that his character will do or will not do a thing?

Winds
2011-12-23, 09:57 PM
Quite a lot of it boils down to the style used. In the Players-mess-with-GM bit, I would not put together anything like that without them knowing. When my turn at bat for GMing came, I made it clear that there was only one plot for them to follow. It was a plot that no adventurer in town for the reason adventurers were there would refuse. The thing is, you have to make sure they know whats happening so they don't screw it up by mistake. The best thing when they do such a thing on purpose, let them bite the consequences. If you start attacking NPCs meant to be part of the quest, congratulations! You have now switched teams, and all NPCs will react accordingly. This means that your would-be allies are against you and your enemies have no real reason to take you in.

In short, a DM can and should bind players with the rope given if they set out to trip you up.

In the player convinced version, there are always ways to convince the party to perform the correct action. If your group is willing to put the metagame aside and 'fall for' the trickster, then you can do that...sparingly. The better way is to make it clear, in character and out, that this is the best choice for now. In my case, an insane NPC who wasn't really on anyone's side and therefore did both what the villain and what the players asked. Both in and out of character, they didn't want to trust him, but had no other options.

In short, the best way to get the party on the hook is to build a situation where this is clearly better than anything the party could do and learn on their own power. Still, to avoid accusations of railroading, it's a good idea to have the consequences of going off the beaten path. In my campaign's case, the NPC is their only lead. Not following his lead means they only meet the villain on his own terms.



All things shortened, there's a reason that RAW forbids social rolls from being used in PvP. They can and should be allowed to use Sense Motive or whatever version exists in your system, but telling them they're convinced in character is much easier when you can keep them from doubting the situation in the first place.

Jerthanis
2011-12-24, 04:43 AM
As a player though, you do have some responsibility to allow your character to be tricked or convinced every now and then without you as a player being tricked or convinced. Your PC isn't as genre savvy as you are, and a lot of the time you've played with a DM multiple times before, or are familiar with the source material the DM is using as inspiration.

So if you're basically not trusting the ship captain because you know your DM loves disreputable sailors and captive at sea / marooned situations, or you refuse to look into the mirror because you know your DM loves mirrors of opposition or other types of cursed mirrors... or even if you just suspect based on the description when your character has no particular reason to suspect...

If that's the case, you're within your rights to ask for some justification or even to ask for them if there's any argument that could possibly convince them and if not, why there isn't.

Wholesale taking a character and saying, "You must make camp here" or "you don't insult the baron" or "You walk into the middle of the room and fall in a pit trap" without confirmation and permission is way out of line though.

cattoy
2011-12-24, 05:44 AM
OP - I think part of the problem is that you are letting your players use you as a punching bag.

You have infinite resources and infinite power. In D&D, gods are real and wield real power, both indirectly and directly.

If PCs decide to murder priests and desecrate temples, curse them. Make them blind, deaf, mute, or just dead. If you let PCs just walk all over the servants and holy places of gods with no consequences, then the players will figure out, correctly, that they can get away with anything and not suffer for it. You can't fault them for feeling like they are the center of the game universe and that the game world revolves around them.

Because, essentially, they're right.

If GODS are impotent in your world, how can you expect mere nobles to exert any influence over your PCs?

Seriously.

Your players are free to have their PCs act in any way they want.

You are free to let them suffer as much as you want for poor judgement.

$0.02

olthar
2011-12-24, 11:54 AM
Question : Is it okay for the PCs to destroy main parts of the setting and the GMs work but the GM can't influence the behaviour of the PCs using valid rules?
A != B


Is it okay to dictate characters opinion/behaviour in such a way?
What do you think about loosing some of your "freedom" to a GM like that?
No. The PCs are playing the characters and you are playing everyone else. There hare hundreds if not thousands of different ways that you can influence the PCs by playing everyone else without dictating to the PCs that their characters must do x.

The first and easiest thing that comes to mind with your example is that the players must have pissed off the churches by killing priests and destroying valuable artwork. Now they have an entire church hierarchy saying "You are going to do x or we will kill you." And they're probably saying that after sticking the characters in the church dungeon for a day or so trying to decide whether they want to kill them or not.

As for taking character control away. Short of magical domination the PCs play the PCs and the DM plays everything else. And, to be honest, when I GM'd I usually avoided spells like dominate person because I didn't like taking away a player's ability to act while trying to kill them. If I were to want to cast a save or die at the party I'd use something like baleful polymorph rather than dominate simply because it took the player's control away.


Can PCs use rules to influence other players characters? Is it bad form to use social rules against other players to make them follow your plan? OF course, this would mean that other players besides the groups face would have to invest in social skills or be bossed around by his charming personality (but he won't have enough combat skills to stop them from killing him)

In short:

When is it okay for you to loose control of your character?
Can the GM take it away?
Can players take it away?
Can GMs take it away using legitimate rules?
Can players take it away using legitimate rules?
No. Once you start allowing social rules to influence character decisions, then everyone must roll up a face just so they can act independently. PCs play one character and that is it. If they can't convince the others that doing one thing is the best for the group, then too bad. This is an area where it relies on the roleplaying abilities of the players involved. Let them play it.

togapika
2011-12-24, 01:06 PM
Die rolls by other players never influence other players

SowZ
2011-12-24, 01:49 PM
If you want to convince my characger by reasonable argument, then convince him by reasonalbe argument. He may not be convinced. Or maybe he is convinced the one arguing is correct in his opinion but doesn't have enough motivation to help him anyway.

Social rules are for NPCs. If you, as a DM, feel like the PCs not following your plot equates to destroying your work as a GM you are railroading your players. Your job as a GM is not to create a story for your players. If you find yourself making a DeVinci Code style plot, you are probably more like writing a story than creating an interactive world. The players should drive the story. If the PCs are enjoying what they are doing, you are suceeding! Why feel the need to 'get them back on track?' Your goal is the enjoyment of the players whilst giving them the tools to, (and then helping them to,) create a good story. If you are controlling your PCs actions directly? That is a step beyond normal railroading.

If a DM told me, "Your character is convinced." I would say, "No he isn't." If the DM insisted, I would insist as well. If the DM continued to persist, I would finish out the session and then have a long talk with the DM. If the DM wasn't accepting the criticism, I'm out for good.

bloodtide
2011-12-24, 02:08 PM
Question : Is it okay for the PCs to destroy main parts of the setting and the GMs work but the GM can't influence the behaviour of the PCs using valid rules?
Is it okay to dictate characters opinion/behaviour in such a way?
What do you think about loosing some of your "freedom" to a GM like that?

When is it okay for you to loose control of your character?
Can the GM take it away?
Can players take it away?
Can GMs take it away using legitimate rules?
Can players take it away using legitimate rules?

1.Yes, a PC should be free to destroy a setting. The player should have total freedom without limits. It's wrong for a DM to say 'oh you just can't cut down that tree because'. But a DM is free to do things within the setting, like fix the windows, for example, or bring the dead guys back to life(they are priests in a temple, after all)

2.It's always a bad idea to force things. To tell a player 'you must do this or must not do that just because' is wrong.

3.Everyone hates to loose freedom. The trick for a RPG is to make a player 'loose' freedom but not know it. So, for example, if a human character was walking through town past some elves and the DM said ''Oh your character hates elves, you must hate them" that is wrong. But if the character has a background chosen by the player that includes hatred for elves, then the DM can change a foe into an elf to use that.

4.In general, a player should never loose control of a character.

5.No.

6.No.

7.In most cases, it's possible. But it's never a good idea.

8.Yes, it's possible. But only to NPCs.

rubycona
2011-12-24, 04:01 PM
1. The players can destroy the setting. That's the way the game works - the DM creates the world/setting, and the players do with it what they will. If they decide to be jerks and destroy what is obviously meant to be the story, then they have no right to complain if there's nothing but goblin slaying for the day.

2. The extent of control a GM (and for that matter, other players) can take over PCs is limited to the following - "You believe s/he's telling the truth / lying," "you find such-and-such charming and friendly," "you feel so-and-so is trustworthy/untrustworthy," etc. What the PCs do with this information is up to them. It's basically the same thing as failing a will save - the PCs don't realize it's an illusion, even though it's obviously an illusion because you had them roll a save for it. They act fooled by the illusion, and that's fair.

horseboy
2011-12-24, 07:42 PM
Personally I blame the alignment system in example 1. People are so scared of repercussions of not picking the alignment labeled option they think they're about to get a double whammy.
Argument two is bad roleplaying. If you don't have the crunch to back up "My character would never..." then you're character would.
I'll let go for the DM for short hand in things like cutscenes. "They huge Majesty of the complex fills you with awe," "His shot splinters the rock next to your hand. You momentary let go, only to grab the next rung," type things.
To not let my character be influenced by other PC's, again falls under Role Playing. If they're playing someone who's good at talking, well, you don't have to agree with someone to be talked into doing it. I'd go along, all the while grumbling "Why did I let you guys talk me into this," or "Have I mentioned in the last five minutes what a stupid plan this is?" Unless I've taken counter-measures like some sort of "stubborn," "Ornery," or "Dwarf" status. Then I can be as obstinate as I want to be.

Edit: As to destroying things, yeah that happens. Players can do whatever they're willing to accept the consequences for. You want to kill a bunch of priests of Pelor, fine, but guess who has two thumbs and every paladin in the area (including that shinny Epic guy) gunning for them? That guy! Don't be that guy!

Knaight
2011-12-24, 08:18 PM
When is it okay for you to loose control of your character?
Can the GM take it away?
Can players take it away?
Can GMs take it away using legitimate rules?
Can players take it away using legitimate rules?

All of these depend on the system to some extent. That said, speaking broadly within a framework that assumes one GM, one PC per player, and limited indirect control over non PC elements (in short, traditional role playing games):

1) When is it okay for you to loose control of your character?
I'm assuming that this refers to losing control of their decisions, and not the results of their actions, exact sensory perceptions, or similar. Under that assumption, basically never - unless there are specific rules built in that people have agreed on, such as the mind control spells in D&D. Even then, I personally find it distasteful unless there is an explicit opt in component.

2) Can the GM take it away?
The closest to this that is at all acceptable is time skipping up to scenes, or starting in a position that assumes that some actions have been taken. Just taking control of a character mid game is a pretty major violation of the traditional social contract

3) Can players take it away?
Not directly.

4) Can GMs take it away using legitimate rules?
Yes. That said, the legitimate ruels tend to come in two forms. The first is magical compulsion or similar, which I have already expressed my distaste of. The other is explicit opt in social combat. For instance, Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits can force character action - but the player knows what is at stake for everyone involved, and has to opt in to putting their character taking the action they don't want on the line.

5)Can players take it away using legitimate rules?
See answer four.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-12-24, 08:36 PM
I'll let go for the DM for short hand in things like cutscenes. "They huge Majesty of the complex fills you with awe," "His shot splinters the rock next to your hand. You momentary let go, only to grab the next rung," type things.
A pet peeve and a mandatory link (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1168) :smallbiggrin:

As a matter of taste, I try not to describe the feelings of PCs in my narrations unless there is a magical effect causing it. This allows the Players more autonomy and highlights when things are getting weird :smallcool:

horseboy
2011-12-24, 08:48 PM
A pet peeve and a mandatory link (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1168) :smallbiggrin:

As a matter of taste, I try not to describe the feelings of PCs in my narrations unless there is a magical effect causing it. This allows the Players more autonomy and highlights when things are getting weird :smallcool:
I know, but I've got monsters to kill and stuff to take. Short cuts are acceptable. :smallamused:

Knaight
2011-12-24, 08:55 PM
As a matter of taste, I try not to describe the feelings of PCs in my narrations unless there is a magical effect causing it. This allows the Players more autonomy and highlights when things are getting weird :smallcool:

I consider it a useful tool in very limited amounts - and even then, will usually use more passive descriptions, such as "awe inspiring" in lieu of actually describing emotions. Still, there are a handful of cases where it is valuable, often in regards to painting scenes differently for different characters given known differences in their perceptions.

Coidzor
2011-12-25, 12:52 AM
Players hate losing control of their character because they have to listen to the GM drone on about things they don't care about more often than not and they're directly competing with the DM and one another for a chance to do things or speak.

Therefore, it is in the game's best interest to disregard or have a prior agreement as a group about social interaction to prevent players from being 'diplomanced' by one another. Further, the GM should always think very, very carefully before strongarming the players, as it breaks immersion in many, many cases.

So, in short, don't let players use social skills against one another. If they're going to have an OOC tiff, then keep it OOC and resolve it as an OOC game issue.

If one is the GM, only use mind control powers against players sparingly as a general rule.

TildeSee
2011-12-26, 02:36 AM
Hello playground and merry christmas to all of you

First example:
Being a DM is hard. You have this great campaign in an awesome city that you spend 3 weeks creating. You have this cool DaVinci-Code like plot with the churches of pelor and erathis and maped out the two main temples.
After the first session the PCs have killed the two main priests of erathis and destroyed the beautifull glass windows of pelors temple. The NPCs would have been important to the plot and the windows would have contained important clues.
In short, the PCs have destroyed valuable parts of the setting and completly wracked your campaign plans and changed everything that you cared and planed for.


Kay, first off, in this hypothetical example, why hasn't there been some conversation about what kind of game you're running? That you have some kind of grand, DaVinci-Code-like plot and destroying and killing willy nilly might be a bad idea? I always start with a pitch, before folk make characters. If they aren't interested in that kind of campaign and would rather hack and slash, well, then someone else can DM until I have a new pitch, or I just pitch something else.

Also, I don't do huge elaborate planning until around the 3rd session. I just have basic plans and simple hooks. once folk have bought the premise and I know what direction they're running with it, only then do I start coming up with the elaborate. If they **** up after that, I let them live with the consequences of destroying valuable clues. In that specific case, players would then have to go through diaries and scholars to find incomplete clues. Good luck, suckers!


Next session a local noble and politician wants to influence the fighter to go against one of the other noble houses in the city. Because this is a drama-rich situation you use the social system of the RPG you are playing.
The noble wins the argument/duel of wits/whatever and now has the PC convinced to do what he wants.
The noble is kind of a bad dude and none of the players like him. The fighters player than goes: But my character would never work with this ahole even though we just had a completly fair social encounter and the rules dictate what has happend.
The player now has parts of his plan for his character destroyed. He probarly spend a day or two creating that character.


At which point I say to the player, "Well, if you'd never go along with it, why the crap did you engage at all with the social conflict? The second you agreed to roll dice, you said that you could be convinced to go along with the stakes." And then we set the game aside until everyone is on the same page again, because obviously there is a bigger failure. Like, why the hell did we play a game with social conflict resolution when we weren't all on board with it.

The rest of your post can all be solved by setting aside a game that has rules you don't want to play with, and actually having these social contract discussions with your group rather than trying to beat it into them with "But my character!"/"But the rules!" If folk are going back and forth like that, you have bigger problems, and if folk can't agree on how they want to play at all, then they probably shouldn't be playing together.

Now, to read the rest of the thread :D

Edit: and now I'm reminded why I stay far, far away from this forum. Maybe back again in another year. Fingers crossed :D

dps
2011-12-26, 08:10 PM
However, if, as a player, you are denied control of your character, in what way are you still playing the game as opposed to spectating?

I think that's really the crux of the matter. If a character is forced to act in a manner in which the player doesn't want the character to act by the mechanics of the system (as opposed to being forced into tough choices by the circumstances), then that player is in effect no longer a player, just a bystander at the game table.

gkathellar
2011-12-26, 08:34 PM
I think that's really the crux of the matter. If a character is forced to act in a manner in which the player doesn't want the character to act by the mechanics of the system (as opposed to being forced into tough choices by the circumstances), then that player is in effect no longer a player, just a bystander at the game table.

Or worse yet, a facilitator for someone else who is actually controlling their character. Which makes them into an unpaid intern.

theflyingkitty
2011-12-28, 07:19 PM
Oh, no.

One's character is one's intellectual copyright. However, by playing the character in a set world, puts that character within the rules to that set world.

Mainly pointing out that if a DM starts "taking back" things or trying to railroad their players, the players will rebel. You just gotta pull up your britches and think of other ways to achieve your means.

Vacant
2011-12-28, 07:59 PM
In the first example, the problem is with the character of the noble; if his charisma/diplomacy rolls are such that the party is convinced to work with him, there shouldn't be any reason why the party wouldn't want to work with him; a guy with a high charisma and diplomacy skill, jerk or not, shouldn't come off as a jerk. The rolls represent the fact that what he says makes the players want to work with him. I'm not saying the DM has to pull off a Winston Churchill rousing speech or anything, just that the players shouldn't think the charismatic guy who's skilled at diplomacy is a jackass because he shouldn't behave like one. The only reasons a player has not to want to work with an NPC who makes those rolls, if that character is played properly, is either A) metagaming because the player knows he's a bad guy or B) a pre-conceived bias on the part of the character (a character who hates all nobility, for example, wouldn't want to work with a nobleman) which should be included as a circumstance bonus or penalty. In the case of A, this is a no-no on the part of the player, in my opinion. In the case of B, if the roll succeeds despite the circumstance modifier, the noble should signify himself as different in some way and convince the character that he isn't like other nobles/his villainous reputation comes from cruel, unfounded slander/etc.

In the Shadowrun example, it's more ambiguous, but I'd say it comes down to why the character wouldn't do it. If the troll's personality is a stubborn, pig-headed bully who always has to be in charge, then it would be out of character for him to listen to Alpha, regardless of how good the roll is. If Beta's a mostly agreeable character who tends to follow rather than lead, why (besides his metagame knowledge which, again, I think is a no-no) wouldn't he follow Alpha if Alpha gave a good explanation. Just as "it was convincing, you do it," without any back-up isn't a good reason, neither is "my character would never do that" without any back-up.

Tyndmyr
2011-12-29, 08:55 AM
In the first example, the problem is with the character of the noble; if his charisma/diplomacy rolls are such that the party is convinced to work with him, there shouldn't be any reason why the party wouldn't want to work with him; a guy with a high charisma and diplomacy skill, jerk or not, shouldn't come off as a jerk. The rolls represent the fact that what he says makes the players want to work with him. I'm not saying the DM has to pull off a Winston Churchill rousing speech or anything, just that the players shouldn't think the charismatic guy who's skilled at diplomacy is a jackass because he shouldn't behave like one. The only reasons a player has not to want to work with an NPC who makes those rolls, if that character is played properly, is either A) metagaming because the player knows he's a bad guy or B) a pre-conceived bias on the part of the character (a character who hates all nobility, for example, wouldn't want to work with a nobleman) which should be included as a circumstance bonus or penalty. In the case of A, this is a no-no on the part of the player, in my opinion. In the case of B, if the roll succeeds despite the circumstance modifier, the noble should signify himself as different in some way and convince the character that he isn't like other nobles/his villainous reputation comes from cruel, unfounded slander/etc.

No. Diplomacy does not work on players, so this justification is out.

No roll is necessary. You don't need to make the actions match the roll, you need to make the actions convincing to the player. If you want him to be perceived as not a jackass, have him act convincingly nice. If you can do this, a roll is entirely superfluous. If you cannot, or will not, a roll will not make it better.

Savannah
2011-12-30, 04:42 AM
You accept that, heartbroken that all your work was done for nothing.

I'm just going to leave this here (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots).


The player now has parts of his plan for his character destroyed. He probarly spend a day or two creating that character.

Aaaand I'm going to leave this here (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html). (Yes, I realize Oracle Hunter already linked it, but I'd pulled up the link before I finished reading the thread.)

Also, just because I "only" spent a day or two creating a character doesn't mean that you're justified in trampling my character concept.


Question : Is it okay for the PCs to destroy main parts of the setting and the GMs work but the GM can't influence the behaviour of the PCs using valid rules?

See, here's the thing. As a DM, I have a whole world to work with. As a player, I have a single character. Players destroying parts of my world? I have natural consequences (ranging from murder charges to pissed off gods). DM takes control of my character? ....well, I can quit. You're valuing the DM's work over the players', but ignoring the fact that the DM has far more to work with.

Now, I am fine with charm, dominate, cause fear, etc, even though those do influence a player's character, but only because they are short-term and can be escaped via clear mechanical methods.


Is it okay to dictate characters opinion/behaviour in such a way?

Nope. If you want the PCs to do what you tell them to, write a novel.


What do you think about loosing some of your "freedom" to a GM like that?

Happens once, we talk. Happens twice, we talk. Happens three times, I walk. Sole exception is if the game system has a structured way that I can choose to get into a social conflict (note the "choose" there -- if I choose to risk my freedom of choice, then I will take whatever the outcome is).


Let's look at that from a movie standpoint. We would have a bit of back and forth between Alpha and Beta but then we would have a closeup of Alpha how gives an amazing speech about his plan and then Beta would follow that (maybe a bit grumpy), conviced by Alphas arguments. Why doesn't that happen in RPGs?

It does happen. I've been the Beta in that situation -- just recently, actually. I grumbled and went along with it, or rather my character grumbled and went along with it -- I understood why it would work better for immersion, group cohesion, and other metagame concerns if my character backed down, so I had her back down. The thing is, you have to have the right mix of characters and players (helps that I also trust the Alpha's player) and have players who are willing to find another way for their character to react.


Can PCs use rules to influence other players characters?

Depends on the rules and the group. Have I rolled Bluff and/or Sense Motive against other PCs to determine if they're they catch me in a lie/they're telling the truth? Yes. Is it something I'd do in every group? No. Have I rolled Diplomacy and told another player how their character will act? Hell no. Charm person and similar? That falls under PvP.


Is it bad form to use social rules against other players to make them follow your plan?

Yes. They're there to play and have fun as much as I am. Acting like my fun is more important than theirs ("you will follow my plan because I say so!") is highly disrespectful of my friends.

horseboy
2011-12-30, 03:58 PM
I'm just going to leave this here (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots).

I...I...I...I agreed with an Alexandrian article?!
:smallconfused::smalleek:
BLACK IS UP, WHITE IS LEFT AND THE APPLE DID SPECK PEWPEW!


A lot of it depends on the scale of "freedom" lost. After all if the GM were that good then they'd actually be paid to be an actor or writer.

Thinker
2011-12-30, 05:22 PM
I...I...I...I agreed with an Alexandrian article?!
:smallconfused::smalleek:
BLACK IS UP, WHITE IS LEFT AND THE APPLE DID SPECK PEWPEW!


A lot of it depends on the scale of "freedom" lost. After all if the GM were that good then they'd actually be paid to be an actor or writer.

In Justin's defense, he is a paid writer and an actor.

Grac
2012-01-01, 08:21 AM
Because the DM is already in a position of power, which they are granted under the assumption that they will use it indirectly. When they use it directly, it becomes fundamentally abusive — and we have a term for this: "railroading."

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Railroading is forcing the players to take a specific path in the story, keeping them on rails, as it were. A railroaded game, in this sense, is like Final Fantasy: You fight monsters and opponents, foil plots, succumb to disaster, but the story always moves on in one direction with no changes.

A character getting into an argument with another character, and upon resolution of this argument in a manner consistent with the games mechanics for social interaction, this is not railroading. This is not railroading is done between NPC's when the DM is at home, between games, seeing how the game world evolves, this is not railroading when between two PC's to decide which course of action to take, and it is not railroading when the roll of the dice, or whatever method the game uses to decide things, comes up in any way between a PC and an NPC.

Even more, in a purely sandbox game with no plot, where the characters can go and do what they like, interact with anything in whatever way, then it is more likely that they would come into 'social combat' situations where they can lose, but which are not railroaded purely because there are no rails to keep them on!

This whole thread has been talking about the use of the Diplomacy skill to be a mundane form of charm person, but that is a strawman worthy of the most pathetic 13 year old troll. We all know that isn't how Diplomacy is meant to be used, and I am sure most people saying this nonsense would never use the skill in that manner as a PC influencing an NPC. At the same time, this very site has a popular alternative Diplomacy skill use rules set.

This whole thing comes down to accurately and consistently PRing your character, taking into account that due to the many complexities of people, that the character may not always seem consistent. People have brought up the idea of 'you can't play an effective fighter without 18 int' which is just absurd and childish. 10-11 in the narrow sense, and 8-13 in the broad sense are the values that we can expect a 'normal' person to have in any given stat. If we assume a fighter with a +0 bonus in D&D and no formal training (let this equate to no skill ranks) then this may mean that they do not regularly come up with brilliant plans, and they often fall to brilliant plans. But not everyone is brilliant, most are average or below, and therefore come up with solid, if basic and predictable tactics regularly and lose to similarly solid, basic, and predictable tactics. If you are playing a D&D game where a character with a total +0 in their tactics roll is the one giving orders to the rest of the party, then you've chosen to play in a party that will utilise rather unimaginative tactics, unless you ignore mental stats except for their impact on skillpoints, saves, and spells per day!

Thinker
2012-01-01, 09:55 AM
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Railroading is forcing the players to take a specific path in the story, keeping them on rails, as it were. A railroaded game, in this sense, is like Final Fantasy: You fight monsters and opponents, foil plots, succumb to disaster, but the story always moves on in one direction with no changes.
The terminology might not correctly describe this situation, but it is very close.


A character getting into an argument with another character, and upon resolution of this argument in a manner consistent with the games mechanics for social interaction, this is not railroading. This is not railroading is done between NPC's when the DM is at home, between games, seeing how the game world evolves, this is not railroading when between two PC's to decide which course of action to take, and it is not railroading when the roll of the dice, or whatever method the game uses to decide things, comes up in any way between a PC and an NPC.
It may not be railroading, but it sucks just as much for the player who is told that they can't play their character how they want. The principle is the same. Player choice is irrelevant.


Even more, in a purely sandbox game with no plot, where the characters can go and do what they like, interact with anything in whatever way, then it is more likely that they would come into 'social combat' situations where they can lose, but which are not railroaded purely because there are no rails to keep them on!
Social combat and its ilk is only ever used to take meaningful choice away from the players. It doesn't matter if there's no plot to advance from it. Social combat never adds anything to the game except frustration.


This whole thread has been talking about the use of the Diplomacy skill to be a mundane form of charm person, but that is a strawman worthy of the most pathetic 13 year old troll. We all know that isn't how Diplomacy is meant to be used, and I am sure most people saying this nonsense would never use the skill in that manner as a PC influencing an NPC. At the same time, this very site has a popular alternative Diplomacy skill use rules set.
It doesn't have to be diplomacy. Any time that the GM (or anyone else) takes away control of a character from the player, it is frustrating and boring for the players. The GM already gets to play the rest of the world; they don't need to play the PC's as well. Even something "minor" such as believing a practiced liar or seeing through a plot should be up to the players, not the dice. Social skills are a bad idea.

Deepbluediver
2012-01-01, 10:08 AM
It seems like we have an issue here between Meta-gaming and roleplaying.

The way that I saw this issue handledwhen it came up was that if a player can use the "because I say so" excuse, then that gives the DM free reign to do pretty much the same. I.E. if you try pulling something like "my character would never do that", the DM counters with "every action you've taken up until this point indicates that this is exactly what your character would do, and if he starts acting strangley now, people are going to wonder what's wrong with you".

Personally, I've luckily not been in too many games where the players seem to be fighting the DM rather than the monsters, but in that case I would say you have 2 options; scrap the whole social-interaction dynamic, and give the players what they want: a giant evil dragon to fight. Save the drama-heavy campaign for a group that isn't going to shiskebab every NPC they come across.
The second option is to try and "force" the players back onto the story path. Those broken windows where a well-loved local landmark, and no one in the entire city will have anything better than an unfriendly attitude toward the PCs until they manage to get them fixed (either via magic or gold).
That noble they refused to work with is pissed, and is now sending groups of assassins after them. At some point, he should seek a second meeting, dropping hints that they seem to have made powerful enemies, and he can provide protection for them.
If the group decides to go all rambo on the NPC, then his son/daughter/intelligent pet ferret will declare a vendetta against said players. It get worse though. OTHER nobels are now helping out on the vendetta because even if they didn't like your plot important NPC, you can't have people just going around killing nobles; imagine the chaos that would bring! Basically, you're sending a message: if you ACT like rampaging lunatics, expect to get treated like rampaging lunatics.

I consider it perfectly valid to go tit-for-tat in this regard; if the players declare war on your story line, then declare war on the players. D&D is supposed to be fun for EVERYONE involved, and if they DM ain't happy, no one gonna be happy.

Part of any good campaign is knowing the group: ask your players ahead of time how they plan to RP they character. If they have a 3 page backstory written up, your probably in good territory. If they shrug and say "eh, whatever" then I would seriously condsider scrapping any conversation that takes longer than 5 minutes.

horseboy
2012-01-01, 12:09 PM
This whole thread has been talking about the use of the Diplomacy skill to be a mundane form of charm person, but that is a strawman worthy of the most pathetic 13 year old troll.

I used to be a forum troll, then I took an internet meme to the knee.


Social combat and its ilk is only ever used to take meaningful choice away from the players. It doesn't matter if there's no plot to advance from it. Social combat never adds anything to the game except frustration.

Know what else takes away player choice? Being dead from regular combat. Loosing a social combat is better because you don't have to roll up a different character. Not to mention bringing meaning to an otherwise dump stat, bringing consequences to Thog's 6 Charisma.


It doesn't have to be diplomacy. Any time that the GM (or anyone else) takes away control of a character from the player, it is frustrating and boring for the players. The GM already gets to play the rest of the world; they don't need to play the PC's as well. Even something "minor" such as believing a practiced liar or seeing through a plot should be up to the players, not the dice. Social skills are a bad idea.

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/8486/seductionchecks.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/341/seductionchecks.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

kaomera
2012-01-01, 05:32 PM
Social combat and its ilk is only ever used to take meaningful choice away from the players. It doesn't matter if there's no plot to advance from it. Social combat never adds anything to the game except frustration.

Know what else takes away player choice? Being dead from regular combat. Loosing a social combat is better because you don't have to roll up a different character.
Neither social conflict nor combat should b taking away player choice, or stripping those choices of their meaning. In either case you're gambling with the outcome of the conflict - and if you aren't prepared to accept either result then you should not be proceeding. I mostly agree with what I think horseboy is trying to say, but the issue isn't that combat removes as much player choice as social systems, it's that both should ought to be giving weight and meaning to the choices made. If they aren't then just don't go down that road, but rolling up a new character is definitely better than having to continue to play a character who is dealing with consequences you can't have any fun with.

Deepbluediver
2012-01-01, 05:52 PM
If you establish a set of rules at the start of the game; then you should follow those rules all the way through. If players want total control over their characters, then they should let the DM know before the game starts. But if this is the case, then the players can't also want to be able to control NPCs via the Diplomacy skill or other checks.

What if this situation was reversed? Suppose the DM has an NPC that disliked the characters, and was trying to get them thrown in jail for crimes either real or imagined. The PC's make some great roles during their attempt to convince the NPC that they aren't such bad people. Then the DM goes "ehhhh....the NPC doesn't believe you; you're getting thrown in jail anyway". It's basically the same thing the player was doing; ignoring the rolls and roleplay to get the result that they wanted.

I agree that skill checks should not be absolute, and players AND DMs shouldn't be trying to abuse the system to get characters to grossly violate their code of conduct. But if you have played out a situation where some one, (PC or NPC) is supposed to be affected one way or the other, then you need to stick with that line of reasoning.

kaomera
2012-01-01, 07:06 PM
If you establish a set of rules at the start of the game; then you should follow those rules all the way through. If players want total control over their characters, then they should let the DM know before the game starts. But if this is the case, then the players can't also want to be able to control NPCs via the Diplomacy skill or other checks.
Actually players can want that, and they often do. Few RPGs are really play fair when it comes to PC vs. NPC interactions, and some go so far as to specifically write NPCs out of some forms of action. I think that many players would consider an NPC with equal ''rights'' as a PC to be more of a DMPC. The trick is, as you say, to communicate what the situation is up front. You can let the system do that, or you can make a more active statement, but one way or the other a standard needs to be established.

Socratov
2012-01-02, 10:34 AM
true, players loathe railroading. All a players actually wants is combat, shopping for magic items, perhaps some social encounter, rinse and repeat.

the problem is: without some (tiny) bits of railroading, there is no governing plot, no great adventure, it's just a series of combats (unless you hvae a real crafty DM who really embodies the Xanatos Gambit (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit))

To be honest, I don't mind my DM taking control fo my character from time to time, on the condition it furthers the plot, my character or at least makes the session more interesting (but I may be extremely lenient with it). I can understand people beïng protective of their character, but to me the contract (not in a physical sense, bu tif you insist, even that can be arranged) you enter with your DM when you start play is the following:

1) this shall be palyed for fun, gits and shiggles, you name it. the moment it stop's beïng fun something must be done to ensure fun is to be made again.
2) The DM shall not actively seek out to screw the player over. if player feels screwed over, consult clause #4 first
3) the player willnot actively seek to screw the DM over by breaking balance or ruining the campaing. before determining guilt, consult clause #4.
4) **** happens. accept the fact that sometimes even the best made plans fail and that sometimes even the best written stories/plothooks require railroading or will simply fail. if aforementioned **** happens, count to 10, try to think of a way to solve the situation, and if need be, rewind the story/session
5) Be reasonable! a negociation (wheter repairing any of the above is a process in which no side can win (except when the balance of power is really ruined), and you will have to give leeway one way or another (as will your negociation partner).


yes i have had a few of them broken between my DM and me (from both sides). yet by adhering to #5 the campaign went well. As for the questions asked by the OP, the answer to all of them is "Only if it is reasonable..."

Siegel
2012-01-02, 01:54 PM
If a DM told me, "Your character is convinced." I would say, "No he isn't." If the DM insisted, I would insist as well. If the DM continued to persist, I would finish out the session and then have a long talk with the DM. If the DM wasn't accepting the criticism, I'm out for good.


"You failed that climbcheck and fall down the wall"
"No i don't"

"The Orc hits you for 7 points of damage"
"No he doesn't"



In D&D specifically diplomacy cannot be used on PCs period, intimidate only works for 1 minute regardless, and bluff should be rolled in secret and if it succeeds that just means the player thinks he is telling the truth. Most other systems I have played have similar rules (M&M, Dark Heresy etc.). It is okay for you to say that a magical influence has taken control away from my character because it is an accepted part of the game, but it is not okay for you to tell me how I react to an argument. It is especially not okay for you to just say "he succeeded his diplomacy roll" without telling me what he actually said. Make the argument try to convince me to do something through roleplaying.

MAybe using the lingua franca of RPGs wasn't such a good idea because diplomacy doesn't work that way. I don't play DND so i didn't knew.

So what is with all the Systems that have this kind of system? The Burning Wheel Games (Burning Wheel, Burning Empires, Mouse Guard), Freemarket or the FATE Games (mainly Dresden Files or Diaspora) or FreeMarket...
Are those bad systems because they take control away from you? Is the aded drama and conflict that is created a bad thing? Would you stop playing these games/won't start playing these games because you may not allways be able to make every decision that you would want to? Is the chance to influence NPCs in a cool and meaningfull way not worth the risk of getting influenced yourself?

nyarlathotep
2012-01-02, 05:21 PM
So what is with all the Systems that have this kind of system? The Burning Wheel Games (Burning Wheel, Burning Empires, Mouse Guard), Freemarket or the FATE Games (mainly Dresden Files or Diaspora) or FreeMarket...
Are those bad systems because they take control away from you? Is the aded drama and conflict that is created a bad thing? Would you stop playing these games/won't start playing these games because you may not allways be able to make every decision that you would want to? Is the chance to influence NPCs in a cool and meaningfull way not worth the risk of getting influenced yourself?

The idea is not in of itself bad and I would not refuse to pick up those game simply because of a social combat system. That being said with most of them it is still usually more engaging than just making one role and immediately convincing them. You should still be giving a reason why. To take this as an analogy when I attack someone I have to specify a weapon and in some cases abilities used in concert with it, I don't just roll an attack and declare someone dead. For social combat you need to explain the argument he is making and what reasons he gave that he was trustworthy, instead of just rolling one die and declaring a PC convinced. Even simply saying "I don't listen to the old geezer" and walking away should be just as effective in social combat as retreating is in physical combat; unless he has a physical way of forcing the PC to stay or has an especially biting single line (I have your son) there is no way to convince the PC.

Morithias
2012-01-02, 05:36 PM
The best advantage that I use in these types of settings is the disguise skill. The adventure paladin may not want to help the Duke, but I doubt he's going to say no to the "12 year old girl" who "wants to get the macguffin before the Duke does because she thinks he's going to do something evil with it".

Actually happened in a game, they wouldn't trust any of the nobles to do quests so I got a little girl to ask them.

She turned out to be the big bad. Needless to say they started accepting my plot points easier next time (it ended in a TPK cause the girl took the macguffin let them stay at her house, and kill them all in the night).

Siegel
2012-01-03, 09:35 AM
The idea is not in of itself bad and I would not refuse to pick up those game simply because of a social combat system. That being said with most of them it is still usually more engaging than just making one role and immediately convincing them. You should still be giving a reason why. To take this as an analogy when I attack someone I have to specify a weapon and in some cases abilities used in concert with it, I don't just roll an attack and declare someone dead. For social combat you need to explain the argument he is making and what reasons he gave that he was trustworthy, instead of just rolling one die and declaring a PC convinced. Even simply saying "I don't listen to the old geezer" and walking away should be just as effective in social combat as retreating is in physical combat; unless he has a physical way of forcing the PC to stay or has an especially biting single line (I have your son) there is no way to convince the PC.

No one said there shouldn't be roleplaying or at least explaining involved. Most social combat systems i am aware off require! you to roleplay out the point you are making or say what you are talking about.
Mouse Guard even makes it harder for you if you RP the same argument over and over and gives bonus dice for roleplaying out points in detail.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-03, 09:43 AM
If you establish a set of rules at the start of the game; then you should follow those rules all the way through. If players want total control over their characters, then they should let the DM know before the game starts. But if this is the case, then the players can't also want to be able to control NPCs via the Diplomacy skill or other checks.

That's exactly how diplomacy works by RAW. Probably RAI, too. It looks intentional.

Vacant
2012-01-03, 06:09 PM
No. Diplomacy does not work on players, so this justification is out.

No roll is necessary. You don't need to make the actions match the roll, you need to make the actions convincing to the player. If you want him to be perceived as not a jackass, have him act convincingly nice. If you can do this, a roll is entirely superfluous. If you cannot, or will not, a roll will not make it better.

True enough, I was just going along with the example in place, which involved a roll, iirc. In general, though, I agree; the players are going to think of the guy based on the way he acts.

SowZ
2012-01-03, 06:33 PM
"You failed that climbcheck and fall down the wall"
"No i don't"

"The Orc hits you for 7 points of damage"
"No he doesn't"



MAybe using the lingua franca of RPGs wasn't such a good idea because diplomacy doesn't work that way. I don't play DND so i didn't knew.

So what is with all the Systems that have this kind of system? The Burning Wheel Games (Burning Wheel, Burning Empires, Mouse Guard), Freemarket or the FATE Games (mainly Dresden Files or Diaspora) or FreeMarket...
Are those bad systems because they take control away from you? Is the aded drama and conflict that is created a bad thing? Would you stop playing these games/won't start playing these games because you may not allways be able to make every decision that you would want to? Is the chance to influence NPCs in a cool and meaningfull way not worth the risk of getting influenced yourself?

I refuse to roleplay my character with an emotion that I don't say he has. I am the character. The DM isn't. He has control over what happens to my character and the results of his attempts but short of mind controlling effects and fear rules no control over who he is as a person, what he attempts, or what he feels. If the DM tries to dictate that, I won't acknowledge it at first. If the DM is unwavering on this issue and will sometimes play my character for me I will play out the session by his rules and then leave for good.

The_Snark
2012-01-03, 07:35 PM
MAybe using the lingua franca of RPGs wasn't such a good idea because diplomacy doesn't work that way. I don't play DND so i didn't knew.

Could you try giving specific examples using systems you are familiar with? It might help us understand exactly what you're talking about, and why it appeals to you. What do your preferred social mechanics look like when they work well, as opposed to creating problems with the players?


"MAybe using the lingua franca of RPGs wasn't such a good idea because diplomacy doesn't work that way. I don't play DND so i didn't knew.

So what is with all the Systems that have this kind of system? The Burning Wheel Games (Burning Wheel, Burning Empires, Mouse Guard), Freemarket or the FATE Games (mainly Dresden Files or Diaspora) or FreeMarket...
Are those bad systems because they take control away from you? Is the aded drama and conflict that is created a bad thing? Would you stop playing these games/won't start playing these games because you may not allways be able to make every decision that you would want to? Is the chance to influence NPCs in a cool and meaningfull way not worth the risk of getting influenced yourself?

The thing is, most systems featuring social systems (that I've seen) are careful to allow the player to retain some measure of control. A good roll (or set of rolls, or whatever) by an enemy may restrict your options, but it shouldn't actually take control of your character away from you. Exalted gives the player a sort of veto power; it can be costly to resist, but if you absolutely don't want to be convinced of something, nothing short of brainwashing, torture or magical manipulation can do it. FATE's system of consequences lets the player have a bit of input when it comes to how his character is affected by social attacks. To use one of your examples: the unscrupulous noble who keeps succeeding on his social rolls but only annoys the fighter's player might inflict consequences like "Mulishly Angry", "Laughingstock of the Court", or "Blacklisted by the Locals" as the fighter's refusal becomes more and more unreasonable to the audience. If the GM in question wants to get the fighter to go along with the noble, he should offer arguments that appeal to the player - or at least arguments that the player thinks would appeal to his character. (Like offering a lot of money to a mercenary sort of fighter, or playing on a knight's sense of duty.) I haven't played Free Market or any of the Burning Wheel games, but given what I've heard about Burning Wheel I can't imagine it's as simple and crude as "I roll a die and my opponent is now convinced".

Off the top of my head, I don't recall ever playing a system that forces a character's actions in the way you describe. Typically, it's the player's job to decide what to do, and the dice determine whether it succeeds. If the dice determine what the player has to do...

... well. It is, I suppose, something that might occasionally appeal: a game in which we roll dice to influence one another, and then make up reasons why our characters would feel that way. I could see myself trying that sort of game as an experiment. But I certainly wouldn't want it to be the norm. Generally speaking, I prefer to be the one deciding what my character thinks and feels. I think this is the default assumption in RPGs, and you shouldn't change it without making this absolutely clear to everyone involved.

I don't feel like I'm losing out on much. I can still influence NPCs in cool and meaningful ways; I just have to do so in a way that appeals to the person controlling that character, whether it be the GM or another player. In return, I'll allow my character to be influenced if I think it fits my character (which does not always mean doing what's smart, because I like flawed characters). I suppose this sort of trust fails if you have players who don't like to knowingly let their characters make mistakes, but you know what? These players aren't going to enjoy having decisions forced on them by NPCs with high social stats.

It may be that your examples suffer from being too general and abridged. Could you try giving specific examples, using systems you're familiar with?

Deepbluediver
2012-01-03, 11:28 PM
It may be that your examples suffer from being too general and abridged. Could you try giving specific examples, using systems you're familiar with?

Here's an example of something directly from a campaign I was in, D&D 3.5.
First, a little background about the composition of our party and associated alignments:
Monk (me)- Lawful Good
Mage- True Nuetral
Temple Raider of Olidammara- Chaotic Good
Dragon Shaman- Chaotic Nuetral
Rogue- Chaotic How-exactly-do-you-define-"evil"?

Needless to say, when we stuck with doing things democratically, I frequently found myself outvoted.

We where passing through what is undoubtedly the cities black-market section (people have more scars than skin; every item is priced at a 20% markup, the guards are better armed than we are, etc). A scruffy looking street-urchin accosts us, and leads us down a back-alley, where we meet a woman clad entirely in black leather with an eye-patch and enough daggers to start her own knife-shop. In other words, a neon-sign with MORAL AMBIGUITY AHEAD couldn't have made this more obvious.

She describes herself as the leader of a group of individuals who "play an active but behind-the-scenes role in city politics and sometimes do paid work of varying nature for distinguished individuals with a need for subtely". (I'm paraphrasing a little, but that was basically the gist of it)
Apparently our group has come to her attention, and she wants to recruit us for...something..., no details until we've passed her test (also unspecified at this point).

Now, I've been playing up the goody-two-shoes aspect of my character pretty hard, going so far as to refuse to deal lethal damage to anything sentient (everyone should have a chance at redemption, yada yada yada). I've let myself be drawn into an increasingly unpleasent situation because I'm playing a young, unwordly character, but there's only so far I can stretch my niaviety and still have it be believable. Some one had to say something, and if everyone else was fine and dandy, then it was going to be me!

Me:"So I would like some more information about you and your "organization", and the exact nature of your employment, please and thank you."
DM/Her: blah blah vague words with no meaning blah
Me: "Yes it's important and no I don't think it can wait."
DM/Her: blah blah snide remark questioning my intelligence blah
Me: "Thats not really at all helpful...in fact it almost sounds like you're purposefully being evasive."

She shifts her hands onto the hilts of a pair of daggers, I tighten my grip on my quarterstaff, we both attempt to look menacing, etc. At this point neither of us is backing down and we're either going to leave with a very pissed of thief/assassin angry with us (me specifically) or we're about to engage in battle with an unknown enemy on unfamiliar terrain.

The DM decides to have his NPC make an active attempt to persuade me to let the issue drop, since he obviously has some sort of plan here, and combat wasn't in it.
He rolls a Bluff check against my Sense-motive check. Now, as I said I was role-playing as a naive and unwordly character, so I had purposefully put zero points into "Sense motive". It didn't matter though, his roll of 14 beat my 8, withouth evening going into however big a Bluff bonus this shady character certainly had. The DM visibly breathes a sigh of relief
The DM, as his character, says something like "I wasn't exactly intending to recruit YOU, good monk; your companion here (indicating the rogue) probably has more the temprament that we are looking for. But surely you can understand that any set of skills may be employed in the service of righteousness, and it is the individual, not his tools, that determine good or evil. In fact, we work from the shadows only to avoid the corruption and beaurocracy that occasionally plague our fair city and impede true justice".

It's obviously clear that any employment we get is going to force me to make an aligment-check, but I've expressed my discontent, played the game, and lost the roll. So at this point, my monk is mollified. He's not happy with the situation, but he acknowledges that as an outsider he might not have a good grasp of the full picture, and he's willing to give our new "friend" a chance to prove herself. In fact, why is he being so suspicious? Didn't his mentor used to warn him about making snap-judgments about people just because of the way they look? Earning trust often starts with showing trust, and it certainly can't hurt to look into this a little further.

Did I lose control of my character? Yes, at least a little. Am I doing things that he would normally not do? Probably. How do I feel about this? Displeased would be an understatement.
Why am I going along with it? Because there are four other players at the table, plus the DM, and we all need to play this game together. It advances the storyline, wherever it takes us, and keeps things both civil and enjoyable.

DropsonExistanc
2012-01-04, 02:51 AM
This will probably be unpopular, but...

My experience is that the more social interaction rules are leaned on, the more stuff starts to fall through the holes. PnP RPs are social games, and it gets to a point where the simulation rules of the game are counter to the desired outcome: the fun of every player at the table. These are areas where good player/DM sense should arbitrate. Just like your parents always made you play nicely with the other kids in the neighbourhood, even though Timmy had imagined himself the Unstoppable Sword of Winning fair and square.

If the group and/or the DM are having trouble dealing with social interaction, then maybe the accumulated group maturity level isn't high enough for what the group wants to accomplish. In which case, they should look at running a different kind of game.

Everyone makes mistakes. Talk out expectations with the group. Talk about what could be better, what could be worse, where the lines are that shouldn't be crossed, and what the consequences are for crossing them. Then go forward with that knowledge for next time.

Like other posters have said, the DM has their whole world to work with the think up counters to what characters do. The players have one character. If the DM can't figure out a reasonable way around the problems the players create, maybe they should spend some time observing another DM, reading more, watching more movies, or whatnot.

Like I said, probably not the popular opinion :smalleek:

Deepbluediver
2012-01-04, 10:59 AM
This will probably be unpopular, but...

My experience is that the more social interaction rules are leaned on, the more stuff starts to fall through the holes. PnP RPs are social games, and it gets to a point where the simulation rules of the game are counter to the desired outcome: the fun of every player at the table. These are areas where good player/DM sense should arbitrate. Just like your parents always made you play nicely with the other kids in the neighbourhood, even though Timmy had imagined himself the Unstoppable Sword of Winning fair and square.


This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. What some players seem to forget is that the DM should be enjoying the game as well. It takes a certain kind of person to enjoy spending hours designing a unrealisticly maze-like city sewer system, but those kind of people are very important for the rest of us to get in all the dragon-slaying and treasure stealing we like.

It's important to remember that the DM has infinitely more power than you, and it's only by his (or her) polite nature that your characters aren't lying bloody and broken in a ditch somewhere. This doesn't mean you should suck up to the DM, or that you can't challenge them, but if they dump a dozen plot hooks in front of your face, ignoring them all and attempting to loot the king's castle, then burning it to the ground when you get caught doesn't do much for anyone but yourself.

Boci
2012-01-04, 04:36 PM
Did I lose control of my character? Yes, at least a little. Am I doing things that he would normally not do? Probably. How do I feel about this? Displeased would be an understatement.
Why am I going along with it? Because there are four other players at the table, plus the DM, and we all need to play this game together. It advances the storyline, wherever it takes us, and keeps things both civil and enjoyable.

Alternativly you could throw a book at your DM for putting your character in that situation without discussing it first. Its depends on the group though.

I've played in groups where it would have been acceptable for the player to say "You know my character is a goody two-shoes and yet you sprang a moral grey area on me without warning. Its your fault the plot has ground to a halt."

Tyndmyr
2012-01-04, 04:57 PM
Alternativly you could throw a book at your DM for putting your character in that situation without discussing it first. Its depends on the group though.

I've played in groups where it would have been acceptable for the player to say "You know my character is a goody two-shoes and yet you sprang a moral grey area on me without warning. Its your fault the plot has ground to a halt."

Hells yes. Now, tossing a morally grey area at a good char can result in conflict and fun times...but if you don't want that result...why are you doing something that will obviously lead to that?

Players are, as a group, really predictable. The brand new player who just wrote "crusader of good" in his alignment spot on his char sheet*...despite never having played the game before, it was pretty obvious how he was going to react to evilness. As a DM, you should have a somewhat decent idea how your players will react to things you throw at them. This sort of thing is highly predictable, just like putting arrow traps around every corner will result in painstaking search checks.

*Actually happened. In an evil party.

Siegel
2012-01-04, 06:33 PM
I've played in groups where it would have been acceptable for the player to say "You know my character is a goody two-shoes and yet you sprang a moral grey area on me without warning. Its your fault the plot has ground to a halt."

Oh come on.
The player made a choice and now he has to stick to it (or not).
Puting a neutral character in a situation where he has to choose between good and bad or an evil character in a situation where he is encouraged to deal with things in a good way is not mean GMing.

If there is a conflict at this point, deal with it. Find some way to resolve it (social combat, flip a coin, have an RP argument, role some dice, whatever) and move on.

A player halting play in that way is not aceptable either. That is like saying
"Why did you put a wall there when my character has no climb skill". Arguing about something that was created from the fiction and that the player is unhappy with? Still doesn't seem worth it to me.

The player beeing unhappy because he has to make a decision that is full of conflict and character definition/growth, shame on the GM for putting together something that is interesting.
When you create a character you build it to put him in danger, to feel conflict and exitement.

There are many ways this scene could have gone. You could have just left. Let your friends find some way to involve you. Go with them and at the end turn on them, together with the captain of the local guard. The problem there is (in my opinion) the need for partys to do stuff together. IF you have walked out you would have splitted the party. Most Systems/Storys/Tables/GMs don't handle that really good. It's for a meta-reason that you went with this plan and that is (in some ways) bad and not fullfilling.
In my mind having a rules/system reason why you agree with this is better than the meta reason.

Some character development is not in the hand of the player, the GM AND the system are also a part in it. And that is a good thing.

Boci
2012-01-04, 07:25 PM
Oh come on.
The player made a choice and now he has to stick to it (or not).

Precisely, and sticking with it means not trusting the shady figure. The DM should have had a contingency plan for this if he knew the character's alignment.



If there is a conflict at this point, deal with it.

"I am dealing with it. My character won't take a job from the obviously shady character. Deal with story teller, there is a whole world out there, you shouldn't have made the plot hinge on working for such a shady character when there was a lawful good character in the party."


A player halting play in that way is not aceptable either. That is like saying
"Why did you put a wall there when my character has no climb skill".

No that's completely different. A more appropriate (if more severe) example would be:
"Today we are going to kill Lord Evan"
"But my character likes Lord Evan"
"STOP HALTING PLAY"


The player beeing unhappy because he has to make a decision that is full of conflict and character definition/growth, shame on the GM for putting together something that is interesting.

No, shame on the GM for making the player choose between character consistency and keeping the plot going.



Some character development is not in the hand of the player, the GM AND the system are also a part in it. And that is a good thing.

No, events that promote character growth are often out of the characters hands, but character growth is always up to the player.

Deepbluediver
2012-01-04, 10:15 PM
Alternativly you could throw a book at your DM for putting your character in that situation without discussing it first. Its depends on the group though.

I've played in groups where it would have been acceptable for the player to say "You know my character is a goody two-shoes and yet you sprang a moral grey area on me without warning. Its your fault the plot has ground to a halt."
I'm sorry, but does your DM warn you about what kind of enemies you are going to encounter before you begin every play-session? Heaven forbid the story have some suspense and excitment and maybe a twist or two.


Precisely, and sticking with it means not trusting the shady figure. The DM should have had a contingency plan for this if he knew the character's alignment.

The DM's Contingency plan A was trying to use Roleplay and the games built-in social interaction mechanics to attempt to convince anyone who objected to go along with his plan. I'm sure contingency plan B involved either a fight or a chase, but it never came to that.


"I am dealing with it. My character won't take a job from the obviously shady character. Deal with story teller, there is a whole world out there, you shouldn't have made the plot hinge on working for such a shady character when there was a lawful good character in the party."

Ok, here's a little MORE background. We had just finished breaking into and consequently looting the spooky-haunted mansion on the cliffside, where I had had a staring role against a horde of skeletons as the only character with decent bludgeoning weapons.
We where also avoiding the mysterious ancient shrine because our parties "leader", the Dragon Shaman, had managed to piss off the entire sect of guardian-druids (don't ask) and the DM had already swung one ass-pull to keep us from being eaten by bears.
Our choices had been boiled down to:
1) hunting the escaped, invisible magical creature that some one had accidentaly let loose
2) investigating the locked-up-tight-no-one-home magic item shop
3) trying to discover if their was any truth to the rumors about some sort of monter hiding out in the nearby swamp
4) or seeking out a replacement for a missing magical trinket that was needed in the next day's ceremony (there was some sort of festival going on)

so as you can see, we where REALLY being railroaded here

Whatever we where doing at the time, I was sticking with my lawful-good character's promise to go along with the majority group-decision, and by group concensus this is where we ended up.
When we encountered a wicked looking NPC in a sketchy part of town, I let everyone know loudly and plainly that I wasn't going to just quietly sit back and let her corrupt us.
I figured that I had done a good job of setting the tone of all my current and future interactions with this NPC, and I trusted the DM to not force it further as an issue until it was good for the story.
I also suspected that he was trying to get the Rogue and the Temple Raider (who was the groups real newbie) more involved, since up until this point their hadn't been a good opportunity for them to really shine. For the sake of the group and the session, I was willing to let my character be convinced, and I invented a line of reasonning for him to supress his natural reaction so I could still be in character.

I think the whole incident played out very well, the rogue passed the test, and we ended up going off to do something else before the knife-lady asked us to help her hide any bodies. (FYI, there WAS monster in the swamp, of course; and it was a dragon) :smalltongue:

SowZ
2012-01-04, 11:18 PM
I'm sorry, but does your DM warn you about what kind of enemies you are going to encounter before you begin every play-session? Heaven forbid the story have some suspense and excitment and maybe a twist or two.


The DM's Contingency plan A was trying to use Roleplay and the games built-in social interaction mechanics to attempt to convince anyone who objected to go along with his plan. I'm sure contingency plan B involved either a fight or a chase, but it never came to that.

Ok, here's a little MORE background. We had just finished breaking into and consequently looting the spooky-haunted mansion on the cliffside, where I had had a staring role against a horde of skeletons as the only character with decent bludgeoning weapons.
We where also avoiding the mysterious ancient shrine because our parties "leader", the Dragon Shaman, had managed to piss off the entire sect of guardian-druids (don't ask) and the DM had already swung one ass-pull to keep us from being eaten by bears.
Our choices had been boiled down to:
1) hunting the escaped, invisible magical creature that some one had accidentaly let loose
2) investigating the locked-up-tight-no-one-home magic item shop
3) trying to discover if their was any truth to the rumors about some sort of monter hiding out in the nearby swamp
4) or seeking out a replacement for a missing magical trinket that was needed in the next day's ceremony (there was some sort of festival going on)

so as you can see, we where REALLY being railroaded here

Whatever we where doing at the time, I was sticking with my lawful-good character's promise to go along with the majority group-decision, and by group concensus this is where we ended up.
When we encountered a wicked looking NPC in a sketchy part of town, I let everyone know loudly and plainly that I wasn't going to just quietly sit back and let her corrupt us.
I figured that I had done a good job of setting the tone of all my current and future interactions with this NPC, and I trusted the DM to not force it further as an issue until it was good for the story.
I also suspected that he was trying to get the Rogue and the Temple Raider (who was the groups real newbie) more involved, since up until this point their hadn't been a good opportunity for them to really shine. For the sake of the group and the session, I was willing to let my character be convinced, and I invented a line of reasonning for him to supress his natural reaction so I could still be in character.

I think the whole incident played out very well, the rogue passed the test, and we ended up going off to do something else before the knife-lady asked us to help her hide any bodies. (FYI, there WAS monster in the swamp, of course; and it was a dragon) :smalltongue:

That is pretty much the definition of railroading, though. Some people don't mind railroading. But that is what happened.

Deepbluediver
2012-01-04, 11:36 PM
That is pretty much the definition of railroading, though. Some people don't mind railroading. But that is what happened.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something here, but you seem to be telling me that a DM should never have a plan for anything more than 30 seconds in advance. Can you describe a scenario that is NOT railroading?
The reason I spelled out all the other things we COULD have been doing is to show just how many options we had. There was at least half a dozen other major NPCs we could have been interacting with, but apparently going into the black-market involved a meeting with this particular character, and the DM didn't want to have us fight her just yet.
Because, y'know, D&D can occasionally be more complex than "kill monster take loot".

Maybe it would have come to violence if the rolls where reversed, or if some other player had challenged her the lie to convince us would have been different, but as it was we (unspokenly) agreed to let the outcome be determined, as with so many things in a d20 style game, by a dice roll.

I didn't mind losing control of my character because it made things better (or smoother and easier at least) for the other 5 people in the room, and because even though I was playing a lawful-good character, his personality was such that he didn't need every single other person in the entire city to conform to his particular world view.

Demanding that your character always gets his way is, IMO, bad roleplaying, and selfish to boot.

SowZ
2012-01-05, 12:08 AM
I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something here, but you seem to be telling me that a DM should never have a plan for anything more than 30 seconds in advance. Can you describe a scenario that is NOT railroading?
The reason I spelled out all the other things we COULD have been doing is to show just how many options we had. There was at least half a dozen other major NPCs we could have been interacting with, but apparently going into the black-market involved a meeting with this particular character, and the DM didn't want to have us fight her just yet.
Because, y'know, D&D can occasionally be more complex than "kill monster take loot".

Maybe it would have come to violence if the rolls where reversed, or if some other player had challenged her the lie to convince us would have been different, but as it was we (unspokenly) agreed to let the outcome be determined, as with so many things in a d20 style game, by a dice roll.

I didn't mind losing control of my character because it made things better (or smoother and easier at least) for the other 5 people in the room, and because even though I was playing a lawful-good character, his personality was such that he didn't need every single other person in the entire city to conform to his particular world view.

Demanding that your character always gets his way is, IMO, bad roleplaying, and selfish to boot.

You are making a lot of assumptions about what I am implying based on one sentence.

Why would you say the whole, "DM should never have a plan thing?" I didn't even half imply that. But if a DM makes a plan and then forces a player to go along with that plan that is the definition of railroading. It wouldn't have been railroading if all the characters had been ready to go along with the black market guy. It wouldn't have been railroading if your character had refused to work with the criminal and the DM had let you do that. If you don't mind railroading that fine. I don't know a DM, (myself included,) who hasn't railroaded in one way or another. But that is what railroading is. And that is what happened.

Am I saying your DM is a bad or overly-restrictive DM? No. I'm not saying he isn't either. I just don't know. But what happened is something I would have talked to the GM afterwards about as something I don't appreciate. And yes, I usually prefer roleplay heavy games and understand D&D isn't all about killing. There is no reason to be so abrasive.

I don't demand my character get his way. I demand that my character act like my character and that I choose his emotions and opinions. Those can be influenced by others based on actions or arguments, but if the DM starts playing my character for me? That's a no go.

Deepbluediver
2012-01-05, 12:58 AM
You are making a lot of assumptions about what I am implying based on one sentence.

Why would you say the whole, "DM should never have a plan thing?" I didn't even half imply that. But if a DM makes a plan and then forces a player to go along with that plan that is the definition of railroading. It wouldn't have been railroading if all the characters had been ready to go along with the black market guy. It wouldn't have been railroading if your character had refused to work with the criminal and the DM had let you do that. If you don't mind railroading that fine. I don't know a DM, (myself included,) who hasn't railroaded in one way or another. But that is what railroading is. And that is what happened.

Am I saying your DM is a bad or overly-restrictive DM? No. I'm not saying he isn't either. I just don't know. But what happened is something I would have talked to the GM afterwards about as something I don't appreciate. And yes, I usually prefer roleplay heavy games and understand D&D isn't all about killing. There is no reason to be so abrasive.

I don't demand my character get his way. I demand that my character act like my character and that I choose his emotions and opinions. Those can be influenced by others based on actions or arguments, but if the DM starts playing my character for me? That's a no go.

Alright, I don't want a difference in our RPG philosophies to ruin the debate.
I confess that I don't have much experience outside of D&D 3.5 and maybe other systems balance the social aspects of RP better, but it seems to me like you are just gutting an entire section of the mechanics. What's the point of even having Sense motive, Diplomacy, or Bluff skills if virtually every conversation comes down to a meta-game decision anyhow? Even the Charisma statistic seems to be cheapened.

What basically happened was that the NPC lied to me, and I failed to pick up on the lie. What am I supposed to do here? Frankly, I think that it would have been more out of character for me to continue to totally distrust the NPC after my challenge has essentially been made, and met. I don't see the DM as railroading me; we left it up to a roll of the dice. If I had wanted to attack this NPC, and the DM said "you can't do that" I would agree that it was probably railroading, but that's nowhere near what happened. We roleplayed out a clash of personalities, and it ended in the DM's favor. At what point does character conscistency become bad sportsmanship?
What exactly would you have talked to the GM afterwards about?

If a DM wants to have his NPC's convince your characters of something, or get them to follow a particular path because thats where the story that has been prepped leads, what other tools are available to them? If your party goes left instead of right, and the DM decides to plunk an orc-army in your path to discourage you, is that any different? Where exaclty do we draw the line?

SowZ
2012-01-05, 01:35 AM
Alright, I don't want a difference in our RPG philosophies to ruin the debate.
I confess that I don't have much experience outside of D&D 3.5 and maybe other systems balance the social aspects of RP better, but it seems to me like you are just gutting an entire section of the mechanics. What's the point of even having Sense motive, Diplomacy, or Bluff skills if virtually every conversation comes down to a meta-game decision anyhow? Even the Charisma statistic seems to be cheapened.

What basically happened was that the NPC lied to me, and I failed to pick up on the lie. What am I supposed to do here? Frankly, I think that it would have been more out of character for me to continue to totally distrust the NPC after my challenge has essentially been made, and met. I don't see the DM as railroading me; we left it up to a roll of the dice. If I had wanted to attack this NPC, and the DM said "you can't do that" I would agree that it was probably railroading, but that's nowhere near what happened. We roleplayed out a clash of personalities, and it ended in the DM's favor. At what point does character conscistency become bad sportsmanship?
What exactly would you have talked to the GM afterwards about?

If a DM wants to have his NPC's convince your characters of something, or get them to follow a particular path because thats where the story that has been prepped leads, what other tools are available to them? If your party goes left instead of right, and the DM decides to plunk an orc-army in your path to discourage you, is that any different? Where exaclty do we draw the line?

I understood the event as you met a shady guy who tried to hire the party. You didn't want to join him. He rolled dimplomacy to convince you to work for him and so the DM said you were convinced.

Sense Motive and Bluff can be used on PCs, (to tell if the PCs are lying or to fool a PCs sense motive check,) no problem. But a PC shouldn't be convinced to take an action by a roll. Then they aren't playing their character anymore. Bluff doesn't convince a player to do something directly. If John bluffed that 'the best way to save the kingdom from (insert threat here) is to work for me' all that does is convince the character that John believes working for him will save the kingdom. It doesn't mean the PC needs to work for John.

A diplomacy check shouldn't change a characters mind against the players will. The player has complete control over the characters mind barring mind-affecting effects.

Your last paragraph is talking about railroading. If a player doesn't want to do something, how can we force him to do it anyway is an issue of railroading. My answer is that you shouldn't force him to. Circumstances may make it the only viable choice, but it should still be the characters choice.

DropsonExistanc
2012-01-05, 01:49 AM
But a PC shouldn't be convinced to take an action by a roll. Then they aren't playing their character anymore.
...
If John bluffed that 'the best way to save the kingdom from (insert threat here) is to work for me' all that does is convince the character that John believes working for him will save the kingdom. It doesn't mean the PC needs to work for John.

I think that this frames an issue of trust. In games I've played/GMed that ran well, the GM had trust that the players would conduct their characters in a manner consistent with the story, and the players had trust that the GM would present the story in a way that the players could act within. It's hard for me to imagine a set of rules that could completely replace this gentlemen's agreement.

In this case, the initial first impression of the shady quest-giver shouldn't be erased. It should be built upon, as in, "this shady guy seems to have a really good point. Maybe I shouldn't distrust him immediately."

I think another burden of trust on the GM is that they will be able to respond to what the players bring to the table, whether that be character build or character actions.

Then again, figuring out how to respond to my player characters' actions is one of the most fun parts of the game.

SowZ
2012-01-05, 02:13 AM
I think that this frames an issue of trust. In games I've played/GMed that ran well, the GM had trust that the players would conduct their characters in a manner consistent with the story, and the players had trust that the GM would present the story in a way that the players could act within. It's hard for me to imagine a set of rules that could completely replace this gentlemen's agreement.

In this case, the initial first impression of the shady quest-giver shouldn't be erased. It should be built upon, as in, "this shady guy seems to have a really good point. Maybe I shouldn't distrust him immediately."

I think another burden of trust on the GM is that they will be able to respond to what the players bring to the table, whether that be character build or character actions.

Then again, figuring out how to respond to my player characters' actions is one of the most fun parts of the game.

Yeah, for me too. And I take actions that aren't wise pretty often because of it. If a GM tried taking that away from me my enjoyment would be significantly hampered. If a character is responding to an NPCs charisma negatively because of meta knowledge, yeah, that is not playing the character all too well. But taking control over the character from the player is not the answer to this problem.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-05, 08:54 AM
I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something here, but you seem to be telling me that a DM should never have a plan for anything more than 30 seconds in advance. Can you describe a scenario that is NOT railroading?
The reason I spelled out all the other things we COULD have been doing is to show just how many options we had. There was at least half a dozen other major NPCs we could have been interacting with, but apparently going into the black-market involved a meeting with this particular character, and the DM didn't want to have us fight her just yet.
Because, y'know, D&D can occasionally be more complex than "kill monster take loot".

Y'know that "the DM didn't want to have us fight her just yet" doesn't make a game complex, right?

Deepbluediver
2012-01-05, 09:22 AM
I understood the event as you met a shady guy who tried to hire the party. You didn't want to join him. He rolled dimplomacy to convince you to work for him and so the DM said you were convinced.

Sense Motive and Bluff can be used on PCs, (to tell if the PCs are lying or to fool a PCs sense motive check,) no problem. But a PC shouldn't be convinced to take an action by a roll. Then they aren't playing their character anymore. Bluff doesn't convince a player to do something directly. If John bluffed that 'the best way to save the kingdom from (insert threat here) is to work for me' all that does is convince the character that John believes working for him will save the kingdom. It doesn't mean the PC needs to work for John.


The NPC was interested in meeting us, and dangled lots of vague suggestions; it was pointedly short on specifics.
I spelled out before that she(as the DM) used Bluff and I countered with Sense Motive, and I lost. So according to the game's rules, if she says "I am not a threat" then I'm supposed to believe her, right? Essentially, my attitude went from Hostile to Unfriendly or Nuetral, so it might mimic a diplomacy check, but I don't really see any other way that could have gone, without declaring that I was no longer adhering to the rules.

The only actions that I was convinced to do where "not attack" and "don't leave". And I still probably could have left, but that would be splitting up the party and is usually a big headache for everyone.

To me, railroading only comes up when the DM attempts to do anything by fiat. I hate playing games with double standards, and to me it's the exact same if a player says "my character would never do that" just to get out of trouble. If we can reduce a conflict to a reasonable set of rolls plus our appropriate modifiers, then it is acceptable to do so, and everyone involved should abide by the outcome.


In the OP, the post asked a series of questions:

When is it okay for you to loose control of your character?
Can the GM take it away?
Can players take it away?
Can GMs take it away using legitimate rules?
Can players take it away using legitimate rules?

Several posters seemed to respond along the lines of "OMG this is absolutely teh worst thing evah!!!1!" (ok, I might be exagerating just a tad)
You seem to fall on this side of the argument with your "...you shouldn't force him to. Circumstances may make it the only viable choice, but it should still be the characters choice" line.

My answers to these would be mostly: if the player is making it difficult for anyone else in the session to have meaningful advancement, (including the DM) and it propells the storyline, it is acceptable for the DM to force influence on the characters. Afterall, if you're character is really as suspicious and distrustful as you claim, than certainly you've put lots of ranks in Sense Motive, and over the course of play time, the rolls should bear you out. I would worry more about player-vs-player influence, and if one character is trying to strongarm the rest then the DM should take measures to stop this. Again, it's situational, but you need to consider what is best for the game overall, not what any one player wants at that moment.

I would say that relying on a roll of the dice to assist your roleplaying can help to increase conscistency, because otherwise players only ever seem to accentuate the aspects of their character that benefit them most. Suppose you don't want your character to be employed by a particular noble that DM has been hinting might be evil. Maybe it was good storytelling, or it get's monotonous if every single shiny-faced friendly ends up stabbing you in the back, or the DM just wants you to be a little supicious.
You claim that no matter what he says or does, you will never work for or trust him; you're basically turning something that was supposed to be a simple job offer into a defining character trait. A few hours later, you've gotten involved with a different noble, and this one wants to reward you with treasure or magic items because you've saved his heir/magic crown/kingdom/whatever. How many players would stick to their distrustworthy nature and deny the treasure? Suppose the DM says (via his new NPC) "I'll compensate you all for your efforts with some gold, except for you, distrustworthy player, because I know you would never except it and it would be an insult to tempt you". How many players would complain that they just got screwed?

I would agree that a DM needs to match the campaign to the players as best he can, and if you are planning a really role-play heavy session then check with the players first to make sure the party doesn't consist of Thrug Gatecrasher the barbarian, Galinda the kleptomaniac rogue, and the elf mage Tim Burnitalltotheground. Remember though, that building a campaign can take weeks of time, and sometimes a DM needs to try and run with what he's got on hand.

If you want your toon to be incredibly distrustful of all nobles (or whatever else is going on), then for this to have a real and believeable effect on your social interactions you need to establish this trait early and reinforce it often. The moment anyone suggests going to see any noble NPC for help at all, your character should be rolling his eyes and muttering things like "yeah, cause THAT will happen". Maybe even come up with something clever like "I think this is a GREAT idea; while we're at it, why don't we just ask the party thief to hold onto all our gold for us?"
Essentially, the players need to be a little accomodating as well, and if the DM is doing his very best to move the story along, you shouldn't be allowed to whip momentum-stopping moments out of nowhere.

Boci
2012-01-05, 12:29 PM
My answers to these would be mostly: if the player is making it difficult for anyone else in the session to have meaningful advancement, (including the DM) and it propells the storyline, it is acceptable for the DM to force influence on the characters.

The rule "don't solve an OOC problem with IC action" applies here as well, so it is not acceptable. The situation needs an OOC discussion, not removal of a character's free will.


Afterall, if you're character is really as suspicious and distrustful as you claim, than certainly you've put lots of ranks in Sense Motive, and over the course of play time, the rolls should bear you out.

No, not at all. Ranks in sense motive makes me good at reading people. I don't need to be good at reading people to be suspicious of them*. The DM cannot change this. He can tell me that there is no reason for my character to be warym he can demand to know why my character doesn't trust him and insist OOC that I abait if I cannot justify my chracter's actions, but at no point should he tell me that I do trust an NPC.

* = Take me for example. I'm often paranoid around new people (not in the clinical sense) and I'm rubbish at reading others.

GungHo
2012-01-05, 01:48 PM
Epallo...as the GM, you should probably know if your game is going to have notable social components to it. That's a pretty basic decision. I can't think of a game I DMed in which I didn't have at least a rough idea of how social a game it was going to be beforehand.
I've run into it, but only with newish people to the group/visitors, or when the players showed up with a completely different mood from what I'd anticipated.

Generally my guys are sociopaths and want to run around like bulls in a china factory, but if one of them watched a show like Homeland or something, they'll come in and say "hey, what do you think about..." and then I'll re-tool a bit.


That is pretty much the definition of railroading, though. Some people don't mind railroading. But that is what happened.
Depends on the railroading/railroader. I've been railroaded a few times where the guy doing it was so good that we had no idea that we were playing Starfox instead of Elite until afterwords.