Jump to content


Breaking a cardinal RPG rule: player can't automatically disregard social influence

  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#21 Gallows



  • Members
  • 1,621 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 02:40 PM

Plus it adds tension to social conflicts when you can't just take a success and disregard a failure. It would be like disregarding getting hit in combat when you use an active defence. Even among players I expect them to honour the outcome of a check. If two players duke it out in some sort of social contest to settle a dispute, they have to honour the result. Of course checks among players should be accepted at the table in the first place and common sense should be applied by the GM. Just like you can't convince the emperor to stand down and give you his seat, you shouldn't be able to convince another PC to do something against his nature.

#22 Souppilgrim



  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 23 August 2014 - 11:01 AM

The general idea of this thread is a very important one to rpg's imho.  It's not talked about nearly enough except in cases of groups that have played games with explicit rules for it (a minority).


From my experience the average joe, that plays d&d/pathfinder finds these ideas absolutely heretical.  You could play a very high charisma character but if you dont roleplay like the best thespian in the world it might as well be a below average stat....and vice versa.  An extremely good actor/roleplayer can go for a low stat because he'll just rp out of anything.


It bothers me to no end.  I want the shy player to be able to play the most expert diplomat you've ever seen.


I'm still searching for the best system to codify some of this however.  Cheers to the posters in this thread.

  • Emirikol likes this

#23 Emirikol


    ~Ĉiam subskribi antaŭ-nup kun Fimir

  • Members
  • 5,117 posts

Posted 23 August 2014 - 11:44 AM

That's why it is important for d20 players to step out of that fog and try game systems with hard core social systems.  Typically, social anything gets dismissed in the D&D/pathfinder realm simply because it is focused on killing monsters in a dungeon with NPCs just being there to either:

a) sell stuff to you and tell you to go kill something in a dungeon, b) give you a quest to go kill something in a dungeon


The experience point systems for D&D/PF are specifically written so that you ONLY get x.p. for killing monsters.  ANything else is listed as "optional."  It is "optional." The encounter system is designed to facilitate combat and nothing else.  All challenges are based on hit points and damage. The class systems are developed (especially 4e) towards 100% combat orientation. The skill systems are pass/fail, developed as a token-remnant to AD&D1e Thief skills with no consequences for failure (except HIT POINT DAMAGE).



The simplicity of WFRP3's "influence" system is that it isn't hardcore (although some of the autistic socially-spaztic' players try to play it like a hardcore RULE like it's flakkn' D&D or something designed to be maximized, optimized, abused and twinked).  It allows you to use the outcomes to "influence" rather than having to argue the D&D-retards' arguments that it is MIND-CONTROL to have a social influence or 'shame' used upon you.  Oh gods it is personal to the D&D crowd, as if their rights have been infringed upon.


This moronic paralysis that players here even get about the social rules not being perfect, and hence unusable, makes me want to commit a few of us to an asylum to relax a little..and stop acting like the cliche socially-inept, rigid grognard, math-elite D&D crowd.


[edit: people interested in something that's still in print might want to check out FATE:  "

Stress Tracks

Every PC has two different stress tracks. The physical stress track deals with physical harm, and the mental stress track mitigates mental harm. The more boxes in a stress track, the more resilient the character is in that regard. By default, a character has two boxes in each stress track."










Edited by Emirikol, 23 August 2014 - 12:02 PM.

#24 ElCommi



  • Members
  • 108 posts

Posted 24 August 2014 - 03:54 AM

I tend to try make my players take the influence as a given - although my group are usually really good at taking it on the chin -(barring one event where a haggle failed - I don't think he bought the item. But it was a ridiculous price - conversely the other PC in the same session bought a Superior Sling for 1 1/2 gold...)
I don't have Lure of Power (yet- it's been put away as an xmas gift >.<), but when it comes to social encounters I will tend to allow the group one roll to avoid the influence.
So I'd roll it, tell them how the story unfolds and how they're likely to be influenced. IF they don't like it - they can roll a "Resist X" check at greater difficulty.
This way, if they still fail it's not an edict from on high, but their own rolls that caused the situation. I tend to try avoid rolling too much outside of combat as I feel the narrative benefits more from having the players roll.

#25 valvorik



  • Members
  • 2,011 posts

Posted 25 August 2014 - 09:37 AM

The general idea of this thread is a very important one to rpg's imho.  It's not talked about nearly enough except in cases of groups that have played games with explicit rules for it (a minority).




I'm still searching for the best system to codify some of this however.  Cheers to the posters in this thread.


In a Wicked Age is a great simple low-prep game that focuses on shared creative authority and narration and makes absolutely clear, it's now you roleplay and how you roll that counts - you can get just as far with biting words as with a knife, it's a fiction and it's all about what kind of character and action you want to see in it, knife fights or social actions so stinging suicide results.  I've seen games where daring a treasonous power grabber to kill you in front of witnesses during a time of truce and thus discredit themselves was a winning move and others where slaughtering foes in a carefully laid trap was the winning move.  The choice was in the style of play and whether the dice supported success.

© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS