I feel like a hypocrite (CHA skills and RP)

[kengar]

I've always been kind of irked by PC immunity to things like seduction and intimidiation. It seemed to be unfair that they could just choose to ignore some skills and abilities of NPCs (unless magic or drugs were involved).

So last night I'm playing a 1930's era game where my PC -a jazz musician- is trying to get some information about a book in a funny language (no, it's not CoC, so no demons were summoned in the process ). Long story short, I meet a couple professor types in a club and ask some questions. One of them acts like a jerk and I make him look like a fool: My character has a lame leg and he knocked me down. My PC then insulted him loudly for "hitting cripples" and left in a huff, knowing the other professor would probably try to make it up to me by helping.

Sure enough he does and I get the name of a linguist who might help. So far so good. The problem -for me as a player- came when the girls that were sitting with the professors invite me to come back into the club and drink with them. Now, at this point, I have no desire to go near the professor that knocked me down, and I have the information I need, so I decline (politely). The GM at this point rolls to see if they persuade me to come back and says "You go back in the bar with them."

The system is Savage Worlds, where your character has "bennies" that you use to reroll trait tests, so I burn 2 of my 3 total bennies "resisting" the persuasion, because I don't think I should have to go back into the bar with them. I eventually succeeded.

My problem is/was, I really felt that I shouldn't have had to roll that resistance. I had a perfectly valid reason -in character- to leave and no real reason to stay. And yet, in the past, I've often wished to use the same tool as a GM to nudge the plot in a given directiion. I didn't say anything to the GM, it's his game. And I used the rules (my bennies) to play how I wanted to, but I was still annoyed.

So now I feel like a hypocrite.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Wow, that sounds exactly like a character I played in a d20 Modern game. Jazz musician with a lame leg and everything! Does he play trumpet?

But, I think you're right to feel the way you do. Unless it's a magical effect or something along those lines, any time the DM takes control of my character without warning tends to detract from the game for me. That's why PCs are "immune" to bluff, intimidate, etc. The best rule is to let the players decide how they feel in those situations and the DM act accordingly.

 

[gizmo33]

This is one of the reasons why I'm skeptical about the usefulness of "plots" in a typical RPG - at least when it comes to railroading. I think the DM should let people play their characters. If you were inclined to do this kind of railroading before as a DM, maybe it helps to see it now as a player. IMO there are plenty of ways to motivate PCs without forcing their characters to do stuff. 99% of the game is in the hands of the DM, does it really need to be 100%?

That being said, if you wanted to use virtues and vices, I would be tempted to look at something like the Pendragon game system - maybe come up with a version of that for d20. It's less arbitrary than just deciding one day that you're going to make a PC do something. There are all kinds of temptations in the world, it seems very arbitrary to just decide to give some of them so much weight.

 

[bento]

That is a cunnumdrum - your GM obviously wanted the game to go in one direction while you felt compellled to take care of the business at hand.

I think you're right in taking the path you wanted your character to go in and it's too bad that you had to burn through some of your "bennies" to do so.

At that point of the game it would have been a good time to talk OOC and ask the GM if he can "reposition" the encounter later? If he continued to want to "railroad" you in one direction you should remind him that this is a game and not a novel he's writing.

 

[kengar]

He is, in fact, a trumpet player. His nickname is "Gabe" (for Gabriel).

If he had a lecherous nature, or alcoholic, or compulsive carousing, etc. I might have gone back in. As it was, he is a very non-combat kind of guy who'd just been slapped and insulted and wasn't feeling well-disposed towards staying.


EDIT: One of the issues I think is that this GM is sort of a novice. He has played RPGs for a long time (He and I have gamed together off & on for over 20 years), but he has rarely GM'd. He also likes to roll for things. A LOT! As a player and a GM, he's very much a powergamer in the number crunching (slightly min/max) sense. It's a crutch I've often seen new GMs use, when they aren't sure how to proceed. I personally try to avoid it when I GM if possible. It's his game though, and I know my style as GM and a player is different than his, so I try not to backseat GM.

 

[Stormborn]

In the OPs situation I do think that the GM was overstepping his/her bounds in forcing that. On the other hand I also think that its good to have a "Resistance" save or skill (like the one in Etherscope IIRC) that counters checks made on Diplomacy or Intimidation just like Sense Motive is the counter for Bluff. I also think this skill should always have circumstance modifiers, especially ones in the PCs favor if the player is determined not to do something. Anotehr solution would be to allow any social skill to also cover the opposition. If someone is trying to use Diplomacy to get you to do something you can either use Diplomacy to resist it politely or Intimidate to get them to shut-up or even just CHA to stick to your decisions.

EDIT (having seen other replies now): Flaws/Character Traits are another good way to handle this that modify the PCs reaction. If a PC had something like Compulsive Carousing then I agree that the GM could say "due to a decision you made a character creation you do X" or if the PC had Stubborn the GM could say "you have chosen a course and stick with it, inspite of the tempting offer." Overall, however, I think those of us who have primarilly played d20 are unused to games with mechanics that affect how a PC makes decisions. Nothing wrong with them, if you know what you are getting into when you start.

 

[delericho]

But, I think you're right to feel the way you do. Unless it's a magical effect or something along those lines, any time the DM takes control of my character without warning tends to detract from the game for me.

I agree. Short of the use of magic or other mind control, I will never take control over a PC against the wishes of the player, and I expect the same in return from the DMs I play with.

There is a flip side to it, of course, in that players should have their characters behave in-character, even when doing so is not necessarily the optimal course of action. But that doesn't apply in the situation described here.

 

[Michael Morris]

The big balancing factor I use to offset PC social skill immunity is that marquee NPC's share this immunity. A marquee NPC is any I've spent a good time developing the personality of. In other words social skills can manipulate the spear chuckers but the main villain? No way in Hell.

That said I don't do total immunity to the social skills. I have players roll diplomacy and I expect them to play to the quality of their roll (anyone can have a bad day). I do the same for NPC's. Players still roll sense motive to determine if NPC's are lying to them and the NPC's get their bluff because, let's be honest here, only the DM knows if the NPC is lying.

I secretly roll diplomacy checks for the PC's to determine the initial demeanor of the NPC's they work with. I roll no matter how well or poorly the characters role-play the situation for two reasons. One, not doing this penalizes wallflower players (y'know, the shy or soft spoken types). Two, randomizing NPC behaviors makes the game a little more unpredictable.

Some of my players slightly randomize their character's reactions. That's fine by me, but I don't ask them to.

The golden rule I use when using a roll to determine NPC course of is this -- if I'm comfortable playing either outcome of the die roll then let the die roll decide. However if I particularly want one set outcome then I'll play to it - why toss a die if you're going to do one specific thing anyway.

 

[Henry]

I've always been a fan of feeding the players misleading information if the NPC beats them in a social skill check. After all, it's the perception of their characters; whether they act on those perceptions are up to them. How many times in your life has your gut told you to do one thing, yet you did another, and it worked out better than you thought? Or vice versa, and you regretted your stupid choice?

NPC beats them on an Intimidate? "He tells you that bad consequences could result from your denying him what he wants. He exudes power and skill so much he looks like he would tear you a new bodily orifice without breaking a sweat."

NPC beats them in Diplomacy? "What he's saying DOES seem to make sense to you. No gaping logic holes immediately shout at you."

Bluff skill overcome? "You detect complete sincerity. He seems honestly concerned that this is happening."

Now, what if the situation is true? Is the NPC just bluffing, or IS he really a Fighter that's 6 levels higher than you, and could tear you a new one, or has the political clout to make you sorry you crossed him? Is the farmer really the nefarious werewolf, or is he really innocent? The choice is up to them, to act with or against their perceptions as they choose.

 

[kengar]

I've always been a fan of feeding the players misleading information if the NPC beats them in a social skill check. After all, it's the perception of their characters; whether they act on those perceptions are up to them. How many times in your life has your gut told you to do one thing, yet you did another, and it worked out better than you thought? Or vice versa, and you regretted your stupid choice?

NPC beats them on an Intimidate? "He tells you that bad consequences could result from your denying him what he wants. He exudes power and skill so much he looks like he would tear you a new bodily orifice without breaking a sweat."

NPC beats them in Diplomacy? "What he's saying DOES seem to make sense to you. No gaping logic holes immediately shout at you."

Bluff skill overcome? "You detect complete sincerity. He seems honestly concerned that this is happening."

Now, what if the situation is true? Is the NPC just bluffing, or IS he really a Fighter that's 6 levels higher than you, and could tear you a new one, or has the political clout to make you sorry you crossed him? Is the farmer really the nefarious werewolf, or is he really innocent? The choice is up to them, to act with or against their perceptions as they choose.

This is fairly close to how I GM it. Tell the player what their character sees, hears, perceives, but let them decide how to act.