I feel like a hypocrite (CHA skills and RP)

[Numion]

Correct - the DM should never compel an action from a player character (magical spells not-withstanding). I'm not arguing for that. I'm just stating there are ways to use the social skills to affect things. Then again, I use far more complex versions of these skills in my campaign.

I generally agree, but what about plain ole torture? I've never had NPCs torture PCs, but if it ever happened - a little torch to the groin - might make an exception to "players decide what PC does".

 

[Bagpuss]

Torture, Insanity, Fear (common in CoC for example) are several examples I can think of where the player should probably not have full control of their character. Never say, never.

Drunk or Drugged PCs are another case although this is really "modern magic".

 

[buzz]

Torture, Insanity, Fear (common in CoC for example) are several examples I can think of where the player should probably not have full control of their character. Never say, never.

This is where you want to bust out Dramatic Conflicts from Spycraft 2.0.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I generally agree, but what about plain ole torture? I've never had NPCs torture PCs, but if it ever happened - a little torch to the groin - might make an exception to "players decide what PC does".

I would consider this quite hypocritical. People can and do resist torture, and the idea that "plain old torture" is automaticly effective but a person can simply decide not to be attracted to someone or metagame a suspicious nature against all in game logic is, imho, silly.

I agree with Kae that a player who simply decides to be immune to the same options they depend on is guilty of bad roleplaying, and wouild hold it against them in certain bennies. For all the talk of "if the DM can tell you what your character does you might as well be reading a book" I gotta say if you controll your character like a puppet with no influence from the social world he's interacting in, you might as well be playing Risk. There is a middle ground for players and DMs who trust each other and are willing to make the game work.

In that exact situation, I think the optimal solution would have been for the PC to ask the npcs to go to a different bar with him, or even for them to suggest a different bar as they recognized the reason he was resisting.

 

[Cor Azer]

I tend to think this is strongly tied into the trustworthiness of both player and DM - if as a player I trust my DM not to be an asshat, then I don't mind him directing a few actions of mine, after all there are thousands of little actions everyone performs every day that ultimately, don't really matter in the Grand Scheme(TM).

For instance, I was upfront with the players in my PbeM game that I would frequently direct their characters to keep the game moving, rather than waiting for the

I do think the best way of using NPC social skills against PCs however, is to do the roll, and then present information in a way that makes the outcome more likely (but certainly not forcing it).

And yes, if you live by the sword (you want to roll to haggle the price), you die by the sword (you can't opt to not sell it if you don't get the result you wanted).

 

[Aaron L]

Actually, I'm not so sure how many people really do resist torture, outside of heroic fiction.

If someone wants you to talk, and they take pliers and fire to your genitals, or in some other way make uncontrollably weep and curl into a ball from the pain, you WILL talk, it doesn't matter how tough you think you are.*

Torture is a definite saving throw situation, something where self preservation instinct takes over, but since this game is, after all, based more on heroic fiction than real life, a save should dictate the outcome. Save vs Coercion. Isn't there a method for devising save DCs vs torture out there somewhere? There should be if there isn't.


But the DM informing you of what actions your character takes based on the skill rolls of an NPC, with no magic or other supernatural mind influencing force involved, is bad business. I'd look at the DM and say "no, I don't go with the girls."


*from someone who knows pain very well.

 

[maggot]

You must be meeting different people to me. Every day I see people randomize their actions based on how mood, energetic/tired they are feeling, time of day, health, what people around them have been doing/saying, and simple impulse. Even the most consistent people. That's the interesting thing about human beings.

I don't meet people who randomize their actions. My boss doesn't call me into his office, flip a coin, get tails and then decide to chew me out (unfortunately, heads would have meant he gave me a raise). Extreme example, but I have played (shortly) with players who have actually decided their behavior in a similar way. That kind of randomization I reject.

Using the skill system to influence PCs the same as NPCs, I'm all for. Some people suggested XP penalties for those PCs that behave out of character. My experience is this is even less well received than temporarily dictating a character's action based on the game world. Telling a player that the DM knows how to play his character better is a huge slap in the face and will provoke arguments, bad feelings, and yes people leaving your game. IME.

And those that say if the DM ever once dicates a character's actions based on the game world is removing all decisions from the character are overreacting. No one said "all the time". If the supermodels invite you for a drink (yes, I know not this case), and the DM says you go, you still decide the rest of the conversation. You still get up and leave when one mentions a price (or take it or whatever).

It's this absolute "you are trying to hose me DM, I get to choose all my character's actions" attitude that gets in the way. My physics example was bad, but what about social mores. What about the character that wants to walk down the street naked. Just not done you say. The player says, oh yes I can. Or the player that wants to wander the dungeon singing "Hit me with your best shot" backwards for no reason. Can the DM stop that because (1) it is silly and (2) the song or style does not exist in the pseudo middle age setting?

 

[schporto]

Playing a bit of devil's advocate here...
So, most folks seem to be completely against the DM every making any decisions for their character. Fairly strong feelings on this point.
Do you tell the DM that you get dressed when your PC wakes up? Or does he spend the day walking around naked and unarmored?
When you cross the street do you say "I look both ways" or does the DM roll an attack by that fast moving horse cart?
Yes these are foolish examples, but the point is you have given up some freedom of your character. Those little things you don't really want to worry about, you expect to gloss over. Because this might be harmful, you are unwilling to give up that control.
That said I'm not a fan of taking away players abilities to make decisions. But I think using a diplomacy against a character is fine, as long as it is not 'final answer'. In other words, the NPC rolls a good diplomacy against the character. The DM should say "You character really thinks this is a good idea, the NPC seems like a really nice guy, definately the sort that you should help." The player can walk away with a "but this is more important", but not an OOC "ohh that's probably a trap" (IC would be fine, with a sense motive check).
Shrug. I think its mostly a trust issue between players and DMs.
-cpd

 

[shilsen]

I don't meet people who randomize their actions. My boss doesn't call me into his office, flip a coin, get tails and then decide to chew me out (unfortunately, heads would have meant he gave me a raise). Extreme example, but I have played (shortly) with players who have actually decided their behavior in a similar way. That kind of randomization I reject.

As long as the player is randomizing the action and not the PC, I don't have a problem with it. Since the player doesn't actually experience the moods of the PC, for a particularly impulsive and mercurial PC, I think that's just fine.

Using the skill system to influence PCs the same as NPCs, I'm all for. Some people suggested XP penalties for those PCs that behave out of character. My experience is this is even less well received than temporarily dictating a character's action based on the game world. Telling a player that the DM knows how to play his character better is a huge slap in the face and will provoke arguments, bad feelings, and yes people leaving your game. IME.

I think you're right about the second bit.

And those that say if the DM ever once dicates a character's actions based on the game world is removing all decisions from the character are overreacting. No one said "all the time". If the supermodels invite you for a drink (yes, I know not this case), and the DM says you go, you still decide the rest of the conversation. You still get up and leave when one mentions a price (or take it or whatever).

I see your point, but I'd rather, as a DM, just ask the player if he doesn't think it would be in character for his PC to go along. If he seriously doesn't think so, it doesn't bother me.

It's this absolute "you are trying to hose me DM, I get to choose all my character's actions" attitude that gets in the way. My physics example was bad, but what about social mores. What about the character that wants to walk down the street naked. Just not done you say. The player says, oh yes I can.

Why would you say the character can't do that? Why not just apply the appropriate repercussions for his actions? That's what I would prefer to do.

Or the player that wants to wander the dungeon singing "Hit me with your best shot" backwards for no reason. Can the DM stop that because (1) it is silly and (2) the song or style does not exist in the pseudo middle age setting?

Again, I think it's better to just apply the repercussions of the PC's choice (warning everything within earshot). Is it impossible to create a PC who would do silly things?

As for the song or style not existing in the pseudo middle age setting, D&D is chock full of things that are out of place in a medieval setting (which the core D&D setting hardly is) or a renaissance setting or any historical setting. Anachronism in D&D, IMNSHO< is absolutely built into the core rules. But that's a debate for another day.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Actually, I'm not so sure how many people really do resist torture, outside of heroic fiction.

If someone wants you to talk, and they take pliers and fire to your genitals, or in some other way make uncontrollably weep and curl into a ball from the pain, you WILL talk, it doesn't matter how tough you think you are.*

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/06/18/torture_1/index.html

Capitalizing "will" and giving a graphic image with your opinion doesn't make it fact. I have yet to see comments from people who actually study torture and it results come to the same conclusions.