I feel like a hypocrite (CHA skills and RP)

[GoodKingJayIII]

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.

As someone else mentioned above, I forgot to note about "resistance." Basically, if there's a chance to save against the effect and I botched it, then characters are, of course, fair game.

 

[WayneLigon]

I'm of two minds about it. I don't like the GM taking control of my character, either. I also recognize that many times we as human beings are not in clear possession of all our faculties, especially where sexual attraction is concerned. Skilled con men Bluff normal people everyday; not old people who are declining, not stupid people, but normal everyday people who otherwise would not be fooled... are. To give a PC total immunity to a lot of the charisma-based skills seems to 'break' the world for me.

I look at the PC involved. In the example given, I'd say the GM made a bad call there: the character seems to have no motivation for wanting to be with the young ladies at the time. If the PC previously had been portrayed as a partier, womanizer, or that he was obesssively attraced to, say, blondes and one of the women was blonde, then I'd feel OK about saying 'They get you to go back into the club with them'. If the PC had only a Joe Average Smarts or Spirit and the women got a raise or more on their Persuation roll, I'd say that the character might accompany them inside against his better judgement, probably for a short time: they've managed to say something to him to get him to go along, and like as not they do this professionally. The addition of the professor (the characters goal) right there, though, would make that a really tough roll for them.

 

[buzz]

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."

I sold my copy of SW after getting about ten pages in, so I can't speak to whether or not the skill roll in question should be able to force your PC on a given coruse of action. From a general perspective, I think your GM is overstepping his bounds. Unless he's playing on a specific Flaw your PC has, he shouldn't be dictating anything. If he really does want to drive the plot in a specific direction, he should take a cue from games like M&M and simply offer you a Bennie in exchange for putting you into a given situation. E.g., "Dude, I have this really cool idea for a scene back at the bar. In exchange for a Bennie, can I just say you decide to go back with them? They are attractive ladies, after all."

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.

You're not a hypocrite. You're simply realizing that pre-planned plot is anathema to an enjoyable gaming experience, having just been on the receiving end. Now you know not to pull this sort of crap in your own games.

 

[sniffles]

I sold my copy of SW after getting about ten pages in, so I can't speak to whether or not the skill roll in question should be able to force your PC on a given coruse of action. From a general perspective, I think your GM is overstepping his bounds. Unless he's playing on a specific Flaw your PC has, he shouldn't be dictating anything. If he really does want to drive the plot in a specific direction, he should take a cue from games like M&M and simply offer you a Bennie in exchange for putting you into a given situation. E.g., "Dude, I have this really cool idea for a scene back at the bar. In exchange for a Bennie, can I just say you decide to go back with them? They are attractive ladies, after all."

The GM overstepped his bounds, IMHO. The only time the GM should ever be able to tell a player how their character behaves is if said character has been possessed or mind-controlled in some manner that the PC has no way of resisting. Even if kengar's PC did have a Flaw of lustfulness or something else that might have made him susceptible to seduction, it was still not the GM's call to dictate what kengar's PC would do.

I also feel that if the GM had a particular direction in which he wanted the plot to proceed, he should have found some other way to work with the players to move the plot in that direction. I would object to even being given some kind of incentive to go along with the GM's plans. The incentive should be the player's desire to play in his game, not some in-game reward or bribe.

 

[buzz]

The incentive should be the player's desire to play in his game, not some in-game reward or bribe.

Well, yeah, ideally there woulnd't even be a plot the GM was pushing towards. But, if you're going to play that kind of game, I can see meta-bribery as a better way to handle it, as the player can always say, "No."

The GM would probably have been better off putting the info the PC wanted in the hands of the ladies, thereby providing an in-game incentive to go with them. "They'll tell you what you want to know if you go have a drink. Otherwise, you'll need to find some other way to figure it out."

 

[helium3]

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.

Uhhh, intimidate I understand. But Bluff? Since when are PC's instantly able to see through even the most well thought out lie?

 

[DestroyYouAlot]

I'm of two minds: First, when it comes to a sane and sensible (i.e., useful and easy) application of social skills in d20, the answer is HERE in Rich Burlew's excellent alternate Diplomacy system. It's quick, easily balanced (risk vs. reward), and can easily be applied to any social skill in d20, and adapted to other systems without much difficulty.

On the other hand, however, a PC should never have their arm twisted. If a DM is going to use social skills against PCs, he needs to be prepared to tell them the result, and then let them run with it, or not. A good roleplayer is going to at least think about letting their character be manipulated (within reason), but they should never be forced into a course of action by anything short of a mental compulsion, whether magical, psionic, or hypnotic, unless it's a character flaw (like an addiction or phobia) that they fail a save or test against. And even in those cases, they should be given the discretion of just how they give in to what's controlling them.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I've always thought that the same rules should apply to PCs and NPCs. If the players don't like to have their characters influenced by social skills, I'm happy to do without them entirely, but if they want to use them they should expect to be on the receiving end once in a while.

The best way to deal with it that I've thought of is to let the players pick the DCs for influencing their characters. Of course this assumes that they will be honest in doing so.

 

[maggot]

I think it interesting that players want to be able to convince NPCs of things via dice rolls only ("I took 15 ranks in Diplomacy so my character should be able to convince this guy to help us regardless of whether I the player can come up with a compelling argument."). But at the same time, players want to disavow ability an NPC might have based on dice rolls ("I don't care if the girl has 15 ranks in Diplomacy, I'm not going.").

Players get upset whenever they lose control of a character. It doesn't matter if it is a social skill or a charm spell. I think the social skills should be used sparingly against PCs, but they should have some effect. (And yes, I know this is against D&D RAW.)

Reminds me of an old game where the players were bartering to sell an item using opposing diplomacy checks. The PCs lost by a large margin and the DM said that the players sold the item for a fraction of its cost. The players rebelled and said they would not sell. The game came to a halt, and eventually the DM gave in. Next time the players tried to sell the item the DM said the players were not bargaining in good faith and refused to roll bartering checks against them. And I think he had a point because if the players weren't going to stand by the roll of the dice, what was the point of rolling.

 

[kengar]

The haggling issue is one that I've often run into myself. PCs would come into town with something to sell (a magic sword, jewelry, whatever) and try to use CHA or Diplomacy to find the best price. Then they would turn around and -instead of selling- use that number to determine how much the item was worth for dividing the loot among themselves!

I told them that using these rolls to get a better price meant you were haggling to sell, and that you were assumed to be bargaining in good faith, and that if you wanted an appraisal, you could pay for one. They ignored this warning and soon found that the city's merchants wouldn't deal with them, or their characters were suffering CHA penalties in their dealings.

In the end, the decided that paying an appraisal fee was the way to go.