PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Variant Social Rules



Quellian-dyrae
2011-06-30, 09:22 PM
I know I'm not the only one who has some issues with the social skills. Even ignoring Diplomancy shenanigans, I know that in my games, at least, social checks more-or-less amount to, "Did the check beat Sense Motive? Okay, the NPC will react in a more-or-less beneficial way." I'm trying to come up with a somewhat crunchier system for social checks.

I don't think this system is quite finished. I'm probably going to need to go in and add at least a few rules about interacting with magic, there may be some options I'm missing, and I think I'll probably need to clean up and maybe do more detail work on certain core rules of the system, but I believe I have enough set for a solid start, at the least.

What I'm aiming for here is a system where social actions do have enough merit that a character skilled in them can actually exert influence, but I wanted to avoid the situation where social checks basically let you take control of NPCs or even PCs (assuming PCs aren't deemed immune). And I wanted there to be some degree of mechanical density and tactical options in play, so a negotiation, debate, or interrogation could feasibly work as a challenging encounter.

Any advice and suggestions about how to better accomplish this, things I might have missed, things I need to clarify, or really anything that improve the system are, as always, incredibly welcome!

Social Stats:

Integrity: A character's Integrity is the difficulty of influencing it through nonmagical means. It functions as the DC of checks for many social actions. Integrity is equal to 10 + its level + its highest mental ability score modifier OR base Will save modifier. Integrity can also be magically improved as if it were a skill.

Credibility: A character's Credibility represents how long a character can get others to pay a mind to its social actions. Characters begin conversations with Credibility equal to their Charisma scores. Every time a character rolls lower than the subject's Integrity on a social check, it loses a number of points of Credibility equal to the number of points it failed by. If a character's Credibility falls to 0, it can no longer attempt social checks in the current conversation or encounter. Note that checks that are not pit against Integrity do not potentially lower Credibility (including if Integrity is replaced by some other stat).

Conversations:

A conversation is a social encounter. It begins as soon as a character attempts to use a social action, and ends when everyone involved in the conversation decides they no longer wish to use social actions (or, due to Credibility loss, they become unable to). During this time, new characters might join a conversation, and those involved might drop out of it.

Statements: A statement is anything the characters says or insinuates that it uses to perform a social action. The actual phrasing of a statement (that is, what is said in-character) is in many ways like the battle map and move actions of a combat encounter. Just as a character with a sword cannot attack a foe thirty feet away, and receives a bonus for attacking a flanked foe, likewise is a character who says "What lovely weather we're having today," unable to use that statement to threaten an enemy (or, well, at least without adding something like "until I use my high-level druidic magic to center a raging thunderstorm and a tornado directly upon your head").

Sense Motive actions don't always require statements; if what has been said by others might prompt or display a reaction, a character can use Sense Motive actions off of such statements.

Additionally, what is said can have an impact on how successful the statement is. The DM should assign a bonus or penalty to social actions based on that. Several things can drive this sort of modifier - relevance to the discussion, impressive or eloquent phrasing, providing supporting evidence, how well the statement relates to the motives of those the character is talking to, and so on. Providing individual modifiers for all these things would be an inherently unwieldy system. Rather, the DM should simply keep these things in mind when considering what was said, and determine if the statement stands out as particularly good or bad in any areas. Suggested modifiers are as follows:

{table]Modifier|Example
+10|The statement applies perfectly to the situation or the character - it presents flawless evidence, plays upon a key motivation, or is simply stunning in its phrasing and eloquence.
+5|The statement is highly appropriate for what the character wants to accomplish. It might make a very strong point, be something the subject really wants to hear, or play on something very important to the subject, for example.
+2|The statement is a cut above the average. It makes a good point, is quite believable, relates to the subject in some manner, or calls back to something the subject itself said.
+0|The statement is not particularly impressive, but does what it sets out to do.
-5|The statement isn't very convincing. It might be something the subject does not wish to believe, or be contradicted by existing evidence, or simply not be that important to the subject.
-10|The statement is really pretty poor. It might be something the subject refuses to believe, or just incredibly difficult to believe, or phrased in a way that makes the subject resistant to the statement as a whole.
-20|The statement is about as bad as it can be while still potentially being viable. In some way, the statement is just the sort of thing the subject would generally reject out of hand. While it does technically work (it isn't irrelevant to the conversation or the subject), it might simply be too ludicrous to accept, contradict the core of the subject's beliefs or personality, or just incredibly boorishly presented.[/table]

In any case, a statement must be relevant to work at all. A claim that the subject can see is patently false, or an offer of something the character does not desire, or a threat to something it does not care about, automatically fails. However, the speaker should still roll its check (generally with a penalty, although not always a -20 one; in this case, the penalty should be -5 for a statement that is simply ineffective, -10 if the statement is ineffective and makes the character seem particularly dense or foolish, and -20 if the statement is ineffective and completely ludicrous as well) to determine if it loses Credibility for the statement, and if so, how much.

Effects of Social Actions: Mundane social influence does not allow characters to control those they are speaking to. Even the most skilled speaker has absolutely zero ability to force a subject to do what it wishes. However, a successful social action means a choice or reaction must be made. A successful social check does not take control of a character away from its player; rather, it forces the player to make a choice about how its character will react, and then follow through with that choice. This of course means that a master manipulator has to be able to do two things - incite a response, and predict how a character will respond.

Targeting Social Actions: To target someone with a social action, it must be able to hear you. There is a -10 penalty on social actions if you do not speak the same language as the subject. You cannot use social actions on beings without a language, except through magic and abilities (such as Wild Empathy) that allows communication.

Social Groups: When multiple people have similar goals for a conversation, they form a social group. This is automatic - their mutual support of the same goal means they are perceived as a unified group, even if they had never met before that point. Members of a social group have a single pool of Credibility equal to the highest Credibility in the group.

At the DM's discretion, large, organized groups may possess greater social capabilities than the sum of their parts, to represent large councils, organizations, mobs, and the like.

Additionally, a group can choose a leader. This doesn't require any active decision on the part of the members; they might simply naturally defer to the best speaker among them. It isn't automatic, however. If the group does so, each member may substitute the leader's Charisma modifier for its own on any Charisma-based skill checks made during the conversation. Additionally, every member of the group uses the leader's Integrity stat. This does give the leader a certain degree of control over how the group directs the conversation. The leader may veto any social action made by a member of its group. The statement is still made, but a skill check is not, so it cannot cause any social effect (or cause the group to lose Credibility). The leader must choose to veto before any bonuses or penalties are assigned.

Social Actions:

There are eight social actions, each of which can be used with any of the four social skills to cause various effects. Different social skills tend to have more or less value with different social actions; these are rated by the asterisks by each skill for that action (so * means it is the weakest skill for that action, ** means it's average, and *** means it's the strongest).

Some social actions are used in response to other social actions. Some can even respond to these responses. Responding to a social action functions normally, but responding to other responses costs 2 Credibility per previous response.

Claim: During a conversation, you can make a statement that presents reasoning to do something and backs up future social actions. Roll a skill check with your chosen social skill. If your check is higher than the highest Integrity score involved in the conversation (not counting your own or those of others in your social group), your claim stands. At a minimum, this means that the claim provides solid reasoning to follow courses of action that the claim supports; if characters involved in the conversation are open to the proscribed course of action, accumulating a certain number of successful claims (chosen by the DM, or the player in the case of a PC, depending on how much convincing they require) is considered a sufficiently persuasive argument to convince them to follow through. Even if the characters involved are not inherently open to the course of action that the claim supports, standing claims that support or refute other statements can be called upon by any character in the conversation to provide bonuses or inflict penalties on such statements, depending on the skill used:

Bluff***: The claim provides a +2 bonus or imposes a -2 penalty on supported or refuted statements.

Diplomacy**: The claim reduces any Credibility loss by 3 on supported statements.

Intimidate**: The claim increases any Credibility loss by 3 on refuted statements.

Sense Motive*: You gain one Credibility any time a statement supported by your claim succeeds.

Distract: As a swift action, you use your social skills to gain an advantage over a single opponent. You and your opponent must be able to see and hear one another clearly. Roll a skill check with your chosen social skill. If you beat the opponent's Integrity, you cause an effect based on the social skill used:

Bluff*: The target is distracted, and loses its Dexterity bonus to AC against you for one round.

Diplomacy**: The target becomes doubtful about fighting you, and is treated as sickened for one round.

Intimidate**: The target becomes demoralized, and is treated as shaken for one round.

Sense Motive***: You get a sense of what the target is going to do next. The target must declare its actions for its next turn immediately. It loses any actions it no longer wishes to perform when the time comes.

Divert: As a swift action, you use your social skills to gain a brief advantage over your opponents. All opponents who can clearly see and hear you can potentially be affected. Roll a skill check with your chosen social skill. Each opponent with an Integrity lower than your check result suffers an effect based on the social skill used:

Bluff*: For one round, affected opponents do not count as observers for purposes of determining if you or your allies can hide.

Diplomacy**: For one round, any affected opponent who performs a hostile action that targets or includes you provokes an attack of opportunity from anyone threatening it.

Intimidate**: For one round, any affected opponent who performs a hostile action that does not target or include you provokes an attack of opportunity from anyone threatening it.

Sense Motive***: Choose an action. The action must be at least somewhat specific ("cast an offensive spell" is okay, but merely "cast a spell" is not, likewise "approach" or "charge" is okay, but merely "move" is not). Any time any affected opponent performs that action, it provokes an attack of opportunity from anyone threatening it.

Incite: During a conversation, you can make a statement that provokes a reaction. Choose one or more people or groups involved in the conversation to incite; your statement must be relevant to all subjects. Roll a skill check with your chosen social skill. Each subject with an Integrity lower than your check result must make some sort of decision regarding your statement. It must follow through with any decisions it makes as a result in the future, as much as doing so is relevant (so if it agrees to meet you in three days, it can't just change its mind - the character's player decides how it reacts, but this decision is set in stone once made). However, significant changes in situation (such as if the character learns you are planning to ambush it, or you reneging on your side of a deal) allow the character to change its course, and open-ended decisions only last for a maximum duration equal to the speaker's skill ranks in days (minimum one day). The social skill used determines what sort of choice the subject must make.

If the subject does not make the decision you want, you can attempt to Incite them again later in the conversation, but doing so automatically causes the previous attempt to be Broken. You also take a -4 penalty on the new attempt, or a -2 penalty if you use a different social skill.

Bluff**: The subject must immediately choose to either believe or disbelieve your statement, wholly and fully. It may not seek additional information or deliberation - it must choose, now, to act as if it takes your statement as completely true or completely false.

Diplomacy**: The subject must immediately choose to either accept or reject any offer or deal presented as part of the statement, wholly and fully. It may not take further consideration or make further negotiations.

Intimidate***: The subject must choose to either take an immediate course of action you choose (such as answering a question, confessing to a crime, giving you something, etc), or somehow end the conversation - by attacking, fleeing, backing down, breaking down, storming off, or the like. The latter choice must always be in a direct and emotional way, clear to everyone who can see it - it can't simply snicker and walk away or otherwise maintain its composure. This effect is by its nature immediate, and generally only lasts for a maximum of one round per Intimidate rank. The character could even return to the conversation thereafter - although its Credibility is automatically treated as 0.

Sense Motive*: The subject's player must decide how it would respond to a course of action you choose (typically a successful Incite of another type, but this can also be used to gather more tactical information). Alternately, you can learn a motivation or intention the subject has. That decision is binding when and if the situation comes up, following the normal rules for Incite.

Influence: During a conversation, you can make a statement that strengthens or weakens another character's social capabilities. Choose a single person or led social group involved in the conversation. Roll a skill check with your chosen social skill. If your check is higher than the subject's Integrity, you can cause a bonus or penalty on certain social stats for the duration of the conversation. The exact modifier depends on the social skill used:

Bluff***: The subject gets a +2 bonus or -2 penalty (your choice) on social checks for the rest of the conversation.

Diplomacy**: The subject gets a +2 bonus or -2 penalty (your choice) to Integrity for the rest of the conversation.

Intimidate*: The subject gets a +2 bonus or -2 penalty (your choice) to Credibility for the rest of the conversation.

Sense Motive**: You gain a +3 bonus on all social checks against the subject for the rest of the conversation.

Portray: Whenever a character uses Sense Motive to try and learn something about you (typically using the Incite or Portray actions), you may replace your Integrity with the result of a social skill check (note that doing so means that the character will not lose Credibility if it fails its Sense Motive check). If your skill check beats that of the character, not only does its attempt fail, but you gain an additional advantage based on the social skill used:

Bluff**: Whatever the subject was trying to learn, you provide whatever information you wish to provide.

Diplomacy***: You may take an immediate social action of your choice that affects only the subject, or convey a short message to the subject.

Intimidate*: The subject only gets a sense of a strong emotion of your choice. This in no way influences the subject, but most people will modify their social tact accordingly.

Sense Motive**: You act as if you had succeeded the appropriate Sense Motive action against the subject.

Surprise: In certain situations, characters can roll a social skill check to gain a surprise round. Any opponent whose Integrity is less than the check result cannot act during the surprise round. The skill used varies based on the situation as follows:

Bluff**: You attack opponents who do not believe you are a threat (feigning friendship, playing dead, apparently unarmed or helpless, etc).

Diplomacy**: You attack opponents who are aware of you but not prepared for immediate attack (during conversation, just as they enter the room, etc).

Intimidate**: You attack opponents who are busy doing something else (talking to others, disarming a trap, climbing a wall, etc).

Sense Motive**: You attack opponents who failed to gain a surprise round against you (you detected their ambush, they failed their own Surprise action, ect).

Retort: During a conversation, you can negate the effect of a successful social action. To do so, roll a check with a chosen social skill against the Integrity of the character who imposed the social action. If your check succeeds, you end any social influence the effect causes, and cause a secondary effect as follows:

Bluff**: You also end any one Claim that supported the statement.

Diplomacy*: You impose a -3 penalty on the original speaker's next social skill check.

Intimidate***: You reduce the original speaker's Credibility by one per point you succeed by.

Sense Motive**: You immediately learn whether the statement was in any way a deception (whether an outright lie, something the speaker wasn't sure about, ommitting important information, etc).

Extended Example:

An adventuring party is meeting with the king to discuss the possibility of sending an army to support a neighboring kingdom under attacked by a warlord. The king has asked his general to be present for the discussion, and the Court will also be present. The DM has determined that the king is potentially willing to aid his neighbors, but won't be too easy to convince - other social actions aside, though, four successful Claims will be sufficient. The general is more concerned about his troops, and the DM determines he won't be directly open to the war, but three Claims will at least get him to stop arguing directly. The Court doesn't want to deal with the hassle of a war and will be strictly undermining the PCs.

The PCs are all tenth level. They include a Paladin with max ranks in Diplomacy and Sense Motive, a Rogue with max ranks in Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive, a Swordsage with max ranks in Bluff and Sense Motive, and a Sorcerer with max ranks in Bluff. The Paladin has 18 Cha and 14 Wis; the Rogue has 14 Cha and 12 Wis; the Swordsage has 8 Cha and 18 Wis; the Sorcerer has 22 Cha and 8 Wis. They make up a single social group and have deemed the Sorcerer their leader. As a result, they have 22 Credibility, an Integrity of 27, and may substitute the sorcerer's Cha modifier for their own on social checks.

The king is a twelfth level Aristocrat. He has max ranks in Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive, and 16 Cha and Wis. His Credibility is 16, and his Integrity is 29.

The general is a tenth level Warblade. He has max ranks in Diplomacy and Intimidate, with a 12 Wis and 10 Cha. His Credibility is 10, and his Integrity is 23.

The court is a social group, of varying aristocrats. The DM determines as a group they have a +15 bonus on any social check, 20 Credibility, and an Integrity of 25.

The paladin begins with a description of the atrocities being committed on the neighboring kingdom by the warlord, an appeal to the king's good nature. The king is Lawful Neutral, so the DM rules that while it's a perfectly valid tact, it isn't really worth a bonus. The paladin declares the statement as a Claim, and makes a Diplomacy check at +19, rolling a 32 total. That beats the highest Integrity, so the claim stands.

The Court immediately Retorts that, as bad as that may be, their king has his own people to be concerned with. Rolling a Bluff check at +15, they get a 23 total, failing to beat the paladin's Integrity of 27 by 4 points. The Court loses four Credibility, lowering them to 16, and the paladin's Claim stands.

The rogue immediately capitalizes, scoffing at the Court's self-centered remarks, building on the paladin's claim in an Influence attempt. Rolling Intimidate at +19, she gets a 27, and imposes a -2 penalty on the Court's Credibility, reducing it to 14.

The king questions the logistics of sending the army to assist the other kingdom's war - not a social action, merely driving the conversation, but the DM pays close attention to the answer, since a good one could earn a bonus.

The swordsage responds with her own question, of if logistics are the primary concern. To the DM, she indicates she's using a Sense Motive Incite to determine how the king will respond if they make a good Diplomacy incite, offering a plan that can get the army easily into the fray. She makes a Sense Motive check at +17, and the king decides to use a Sense Motive Portray to counter, asking what other concerns there might be and rolling Sense Motive at +18. The swordsage scores a 29 total, and the king gets a 31. The DM asks the swordsage's player if the party is prepared to offer anything to earn the kingdom's help. Not quite sure she wants to give up that information, she says she assumes there would be a number of concerns about sending one's army to war, and declares a Retort. Since this is a response to a response, she pays 2 Credibility, lowering the party to 20. Her Sense Motive result is a 25, failign by four. The party drops to 16 Credibility, and the swordsage has to give an answer. Not knowing of anything they have to offer the king, her player says they aren't.

The DM just nods, and makes a mental note that Incite attempts with offers are going to be carrying a hefty penalty against the king for the rest of the conversation.

"But with regards to your previous question, our analysis is that deploying the army should entail a minimal cost," the sorcerer confidently notes, another Claim - although in truth, none of the players have any idea what the cost would be. The sorcerer rolls a Bluff check at +19, and rolls a 38 total.

But the general isn't on board with that, and sternly points out that any long-term engagement carries a substantial cost, to say nothing of the lives at risk. Deeming the sorcerer had left them wide open to that one, the DM assigns a +5 bonus to his Intimidate check, bringing it to +18. But the general rolls a 4, getting a 22 and losing 5 Credibility, dropping to 5. The Claim stands, the sorcerer's apparent confidence in their completely false analysis winning out over the general's broad statement.

The rogue speaks up again, pointing out snidely that this isn't just a charity move either, that if the warlord conquers the neighboring kingdom, it will be this one next on the list, an Intimidate-based Incite aiming to get the king to agree to send troops! And one that the sorcerer, as group leader, vetoes, not quite ready to force the king's hand. The swordsage's player asks if she can use that statement for a Sense Motive Incite instead, to read the king's reaction. The DM okays it, and her Sense Motive comes in with a 31. The DM considers, and decides that the king wouldn't have been open to it yet.

The swordsage asks for another check, to see if the king is open to it. A roll of 35 gets a success, and the DM indicates that two more successful Claims will get the king to agree. He also tacks on that the king would be more likely to accept a successful Incite if they can score just one more successful Claim, or get the general and the Court out of the conversation.

And then the Court starts making noise about the livelihood of people, and taxes, and various other sundry hassles, going for am Intimidate Retort against the sorcerer's Claim. A roll of 24 fails to beat the party's Integrity though, and the Court loses another four Credibility, down to 10.

Now with a clear mechanical goal, the paladin points out that the long and short of it is that sending aid would benefit both kingdoms, and potentially lead to stronger alliances in the future, a new Claim. Once more using Diplomacy, the paladin gets a 29, just succeeding.

And, casting a sidelong look to the sorcerer's player and receiving a nod, the rogue immediately pipes up, "So can we please get on this before we all have an agry warlord breathing down our necks?" And scores a 35 on the Intimidate check to Incite.

A last ditch move, the Court challenges the rogue for showing such disrespect as a Retort. Their roll of 25 fails to beat the party's Integrity, so now the king has to choose, no further deliberation, accept or reject. Except that the DM already said that with three Claims an Incite would succeed, so the king nods in accord and commands the general to prepare their troops for war.

Wyntonian
2011-06-30, 10:35 PM
{Scrubbed}

Merk
2011-06-30, 10:36 PM
I like this quite a bit.

The rules are pretty clear, but could you maybe walk through an example of how this would work out in play?

Quellian-dyrae
2011-06-30, 10:42 PM
I like this quite a bit.

The rules are pretty clear, but could you maybe walk through an example of how this would work out in play?

Thanks! And yeah, I was thinking an extended example might be useful. I'll add one in.

elliott20
2011-07-01, 12:13 AM
This reminds me tremendously of the "duel of wits" mechanics in the burning wheel games. The basic idea is quite similar, each side has a cache of social hit points, based on their current situation, disposition, other mods, etc, and then each side perform rhetoric maneuvers to persuade each other. When they run out of their social hit points, they have been defeated for that social encounter. "defeat", by the way, doesn't necessarily mean they have completely changed their mind about something, but rather you have effectively won the audience over to your side, or at least persuaded the other guy that wasting any more time debating the issue with you is fruitless.

The thing that ties the whole mechanic together though, is the "statement of purpose". That is, what is the character trying to accomplish through this conflict? Each side gets to make one statement of purpose for this encounter.

What is a state of purpose? think of it like the ante or stakes of a gamble. You have to put something on the line to get something else. i.e. it could be something like "persuade him to support me in my upcoming bid for the throne" or "humiliate him in such a way that he loses credibility in front of the court". If you can bring his social hit points to 0, it means you get just that to happen. (And conversely, if your social hit points go to 0, you're obligated by social contract to perform his statement of purpose)

Here's the kicker though, the opponent does not have to accept your wager. i.e. if your statement of purpose is "sell my sword for a slightly better price", and the merchant immediately shoots back with "have the adventurer relinquish all of his wealth to me and become my undying slave" as his statement of purpose, you are under no obligation to take it. After all, this is not mind control, you cannot engage someone in a debate if that person just doesn't want to have anything to do with you. So, part of the strategy in luring people into debating is that you have find something that they really want, and lure them in. But also, the ability to refuse a debate means that your social characters cannot just roll over anyone who doesn't have his social skills optimized up to 11.

i.e. John, a well seasoned orator, wants to enlist the help of a general in his coup against the king. The general has no intention of helping a traitor, and when John shows up, John tries to initiate a social conflict with the general, with his statement of purpose being that the general would turn coat and help him. The general, being a man of war, has very little training in these matters and knows he would lose. (and with the stakes being as such, he wouldn't want to) So instead of engaging him in the debate, he simply orders his men to have John arrested and thrown in jail instead of having to listen to him.

Quellian-dyrae
2011-07-01, 12:45 AM
This reminds me tremendously of the "duel of wits" mechanics in the burning wheel games. The basic idea is quite similar, each side has a cache of social hit points, based on their current situation, disposition, other mods, etc, and then each side perform rhetoric maneuvers to persuade each other. When they run out of their social hit points, they have been defeated for that social encounter. "defeat", by the way, doesn't necessarily mean they have completely changed their mind about something, but rather you have effectively won the audience over to your side, or at least persuaded the other guy that wasting any more time debating the issue with you is fruitless.

The thing that ties the whole mechanic together though, is the "statement of purpose". That is, what is the character trying to accomplish through this conflict? Each side gets to make one statement of purpose for this encounter.

What is a state of purpose? think of it like the ante or stakes of a gamble. You have to put something on the line to get something else. i.e. it could be something like "persuade him to support me in my upcoming bid for the throne" or "humiliate him in such a way that he loses credibility in front of the court". If you can bring his social hit points to 0, it means you get just that to happen. (And conversely, if your social hit points go to 0, you're obligated by social contract to perform his statement of purpose)

Here's the kicker though, the opponent does not have to accept your wager. i.e. if your statement of purpose is "sell my sword for a slightly better price", and the merchant immediately shoots back with "have the adventurer relinquish all of his wealth to me and become my undying slave" as his statement of purpose, you are under no obligation to take it. After all, this is not mind control, you cannot engage someone in a debate if that person just doesn't want to have anything to do with you. So, part of the strategy in luring people into debating is that you have find something that they really want, and lure them in. But also, the ability to refuse a debate means that your social characters cannot just roll over anyone who doesn't have his social skills optimized up to 11.

i.e. John, a well seasoned orator, wants to enlist the help of a general in his coup against the king. The general has no intention of helping a traitor, and when John shows up, John tries to initiate a social conflict with the general, with his statement of purpose being that the general would turn coat and help him. The general, being a man of war, has very little training in these matters and knows he would lose. (and with the stakes being as such, he wouldn't want to) So instead of engaging him in the debate, he simply orders his men to have John arrested and thrown in jail instead of having to listen to him.

Yeah, the notion that it isn't mind control is a big part of this system. I actually wouldn't want that kind of blatant refusal ability, though, since that just means social characters don't get to use their skills on the people they would work best on. I'm also not so much going for a "win a social challenge, have your way" sort of feel. More, it's supposed to be that if a social check succeeds, it means you now have to make a choice, and follow through with it. You still get to choose exactly how your character reacts, but it has to react. 'Course, this means the best manipulators have to be good not only at getting people to react, but also, predicting how they will react. Otherwise, yeah, you'll get pretty much the same response as your example. "Oh I have to decide how to react to your demand that I turn traitor huh? Well I suppose my response will be beating you to within an inch of your life and throwing you in the dungeons to await execution for treason."

Quellian-dyrae
2011-07-01, 02:24 AM
Okay, I streamlined the actions, added a few options I didn't have, and added a (long, but pretty thorough) example of play.