D&D General "I roll Persuasion."

[Maxperson]

okay so you may be that 1 in a million iron will no one can change you, and also so skilled and smart that no one can lie to you manipulate you or trick you. I will assume that this is 100% with out question true.
DO you honestly believe the same is true for most people?

I didn't say the bolded part. Nobody can sell me something I don't want, but that doesn't meant that I can't be lied to or tricked/manipulated. I'm not going to fall for a scam, but for minor things I trust those I know and care about, which has bit me a number of times.

In game terms, I've had NPCs lie to the PCs and/or try to trick/manipulate them. Sometimes the PCs attempt to scrutinize and insight is used. Other times it sounds so reasonable that they just accept what they were told as the truth.

The key there is that agency is preserved. No matter how an insight roll turns out, the player is free to have his PC believe or not believe what the NPC said. A failed roll is just going to get a "you can't tell" from me. It's not going to get a "You believe him."

DO you honestly believe (remember the above we are assuming you are 100% immune to any influence of others) that most people can not be talked into thinking they want something that they not only have no need for, but will not use and don't really want? Like the joke about exercise equipment never used except to fold laundry, or shoes that someone buys and can't walk in when they get home?

The joke about exercise equipment is because people lie to themselves about using it. It's not because some salesman talked them into something that the didn't want. They think that they will use it if it's at home. As for the shoes, if they bought based on appearance and didn't try them out, that's on them. They liked the shoes based on looks and bought them without knowing if they were going to work.

 

[Manbearcat]

If a social conflict system (or any system) is actually well-and-explicitly designed around intent/goal-resolution, then a GM appending a rules/resolution-driven "and" or a complication which feels like it nullifies the intent/goal of your fairly won conflict...then the problem is either (a) with the GM (not following procedures or rules) or (b) with the player's cognitive framework not onboarding what intent/goal-resolution entails.

To bring in a few "D&D-likes":

* Like if I'm running Torchbearer and we're in a Convince conflict and your side wins...but its my right to get a compromise out of your side because of your Disposition loss...well, I can demand something from you or change the fiction in certain ways...but that way cannot overturn the intent/goal of the conflict. It must honor it...full_stop.

* If I'm running Stonetop, your job as a player is to suss out an NPC Instinct and then use that as leverage to press or entice that NPC, and say what you want them to do. If they have reason to resist (that reason could be the fiction accrued in play to date or that your request "doesn't play ball with their Instinct"), we go to the dice. The result spread is as follows:

10+ they either do as you want or reveal the easiest way to convince them.

7-9 they reveal something you can do to convince them, though it’ll likely be costly, tricky, or distasteful.

Ultimately, if play yields that we're in agreement and all issues are resolved (you've convinced them or paid their cost), they're going to do what you want them to do. They aren't going to do something "what you want them to do - adjacent" and they certainly aren't going to do "what you want them to do yet in a way that undermines the point of having them do what you want to do in the first place."

This isn't like "Wish" in Traditional D&D. The GM can't just Calvinball their way into ultimately screwing you over via some grotesque parsing/interpretation of your stated Wish. There is the intersection of deeply constraining rules and principles that underwrite compromises in Torchbearer and there is the same thing happening with Persuade in Stonetop (and AW and DW) which GM's not only must abide by...but are encouraged to abide by (because the games deliver on the goods if you do abide by them and they break down if you do not...soooooooooo...abide by them!). The "convinced them" or "paid their cost" provisions in Stonetop don't come without constraint and best practices. There are a host of constraints on what those might be (and certainly chief among them being "they cannot violate the point/intent/goal of what you want them to do." Now in Stonetop, the GM is principally constrained to be a fan of the characters...but that doesn't entail "curating play so that the players are basically cosplaying/LARPing their preconceptions of their PC." Its quite the opposite (its about you and I and everyone finding out about your character through play rather than mapping a preconception onto play). Play is meant to be a crucible for finding out who you are (about your relationship to your Instinct.to the people of Stoneop and its neighbors and the mythology/to your playbook). So, any given Persuade move might yield you having to prioritize one thing over another and, in that process, reveal who you are (what hills you will die on and where you will compromise).

---

As is, 5e's Social Interaction module (clearly cribbed from Apocalypse World) is actually quite a good piece of design (I said it was my favorite 8 years ago or whatever, and it remains that today). Its got a Pictionary element to it where you're trying to suss out NPC needs/nature and then use that as leverage downstream to "solve the puzzle." Its just that the BIFTs component of the game is far too discrete and lacking in sufficient bite (but, it was intentionally designed to be that way).

 

[Maxperson]

Ok... ummm... not really seeing how that changes anything. Are you not seeing a difference between being empowered to create rulings and being empowered to change the fiction on a whim?

What I'm talking about is very much DM fiat. Is there a difference between the uses of the fiat? Absolutely. Is one fiat and the other not? No. You claimed that the only DM fiat was mostly in the preparation prior to the adventure. It's not. Just as much is intended for use during game play, but it's a different use of the fiat.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As long as I can override the results of the combat if it would cause my character to do something he wouldn't do, I'm fine with whatever social combat rules you want to use. I know my character and what he would or would not do, and what he might do.

so back when 4e came out someone (that didn't like 4e) made a joke about not understanding what a martial power sources was...maybe a big green battery in the center of the universe (Green Lantern Refrence) and even though I liked 4e I thought that funny... and I want to repurpose it here...

if a new source book came out tomorrow where there is this big green power battery in the center of the universe, and it empowers people with aberent energy... this aberent energy allowed them to with 'honeyd words' (one of the powers they can have) apply the charmed condition to your character and have you do something as long as it was not out of character... BUT they had a bigger power, spend a power token thingy and they could change that to dominate and make you do something that your character would NOT normally do...
the word magic isn't used but it would not be hard to say it is implied... and there is a save (say 8+prof+cha mod)... and there were both monster NPCs, AND a PC class that could do this would that break your idea of the game?

Would it matter if the flavor text was "only the strongest wills trained to hone there craft could learn these" added to it?

 

[Reynard]

As long as I can override the results of the combat if it would cause my character to do something he wouldn't do, I'm fine with whatever social combat rules you want to use. I know my character and what he would or would not do, and what he might do.

In general I wouldn't use it for coerced behavior as often as I would for giving up info and winning or losing arguments.

 

[tetrasodium]

what in the monkeys paw wish type of DM do you play under!?!?!

I would think more of
Player: May I play a spell fire?
DM: No.
Player: Alright, may I be a dragon?

Player: May I play a spell fire?
DM: Yes, and that will make things more complex as you will make yourself a target even if you try to hide it

yeaaaaa that's not how fate works. I gave a short description of stress tracks & consequences earlier but I left out aspects & the fate fractal deliberately because they are deceptively deep & complex things that appear very simple, that apparent simplicity makes them easy ti misunderstand before even getting to the ways of using them to declare & compel with them.

• A player could spend a fate point & point out that the fancy tea party they are at should really be the kind of place where it would be trivial to acquire a cookie just by taking it off the plate they were already holding. In doing so the player wove into existence the cookie, the plate it was on,the fact that they were previously given the plate, & to be honest the fact that they were given the plate with cookies.
• The gm could also spend a fate point & declare that on the cookies have live cockroaches citing the aspect of exactly who is hosting the party
• The p;ayer or a different player could even spend a fate point to make their own character's cookie have live roaches causing their character to have trouble because of an aspect the character themselves has.
• Some of thosecould be accomplished without spending the fate point by spending an action or gain a fate point if it's a compel. Ignoring a compel requires you to spend a fate point rather than gain one

Bifts are what you get when aspects/compels/declarations are summarized & the listener thinks they understandthe whole iceberg based on the visible tip above the surface

 

[Maxperson]

so back when 4e came out someone (that didn't like 4e) made a joke about not understanding what a martial power sources was...maybe a big green battery in the center of the universe (Green Lantern Refrence) and even though I liked 4e I thought that funny... and I want to repurpose it here...

if a new source book came out tomorrow where there is this big green power battery in the center of the universe, and it empowers people with aberent energy... this aberent energy allowed them to with 'honeyd words' (one of the powers they can have) apply the charmed condition to your character and have you do something as long as it was not out of character... BUT they had a bigger power, spend a power token thingy and they could change that to dominate and make you do something that your character would NOT normally do...
the word magic isn't used but it would not be hard to say it is implied... and there is a save (say 8+prof+cha mod)... and there were both monster NPCs, AND a PC class that could do this would that break your idea of the game?

Would it matter if the flavor text was "only the strongest wills trained to hone there craft could learn these" added to it?

Something like that would be supernatural in origin, regardless of what they called it. One thing I remember from reading 4e is that they said that the martial power source wasn't magic in the traditional sense, which made it magic in an untraditional sense. It's how they justified give fighters supernaturally powerful abilities.

If it's supernatural, then it overcomes my objections. If it's not, then my objections remain.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

unless the weird NPC had magic

I’m not a huge fan of such magic either, but an NPC mechanically influencing the thoughts of my character against my will feels like mind control. That’s less of a problem if it is supposed to be actual mind control rather than a conversation.

In any case, whilst I agree that character’s skills should matter, actual social combat mechanics in my experience are disruptive and unnecessary. Playing social situations is the best part of RPGs and when the people get most deeply into their characters. Gamifying that tends to break the natural flow of the conversation and disrupt the immersion. Couple of simple skill rolls now and then is not too bad, but more than that will just get in the way of roleplaying.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It is very strange to me that people immediately leap to the worst possible interpretation. Why would "social combat" outcomes be any less genre and tone appropriate than any other outcome?

As somebody very opposed to the DM ever getting to dictate what my character thinks, I get the knee-jerk reaction. AND I think a social combat system in which that couldn't occur could be really fun. The critical thing is that there's a risk:reward system that is understood by the players.

 

[Azuresun]

IMO, players in an RPG should be able to handle losing a social contest and having to give up some thing or do some thing their character would rather not but was forced to. it happens all the time in the inspirational fiction.

I think the best systems are the ones that use carrot rather than stick--go along with this persuasion and you get some kind of compensation (plot-influencing currency, willpower points, etc). If social interaction is all punishment for the players for listening to people, that's when things degenerate. Essentially, if an NPC starts trying to get them to do something and they see dice come out, you need a solid reason for them not to jump to "I run away / clap my hands over my ears / punch them."