John Harper, I was wondering what the scope of social obstacles are.
As in, when the players face a particularly smooth talker, who insists they stay at the table and play cards. Can you ask the players to make a resistance roll? And if they fail are they bound to the result burning wheel style?
Do the rules assume that anyone can be swayed eventually (multiple clocks) or can the GM say that it’s an impossible task.
So here is how I think something like that could happen. The Slide needs to get Count Orlof to leave the card game and come with him so he can be ambushed by the party. The Slide rolls to sway Orlof to follow him, but his highest result is a 3. As the GM you could say that the Count is so smooth that the Slide kept talking at the table far longer than he should have. If there was some critical time window for this ambush, the GM could say the opportunity for the ambush has passed. Now the Slide could resist that by saying he sees right through his Orlof’s stall tactics and gets up and leaves once it’s clear Orlof isn’t coming. He would make an resistance roll (probably insight, but maybe resolve, depending on how the Slide describes his resistance), take between 0-5 stress, and leave the table with time to attempt more actions to set up the ambush (perhaps they could set off a fire alarm, or have someone come in with an urgent message the for Orlof). As the GM, you threatened the Slide with the consequences of his failed action roll (in this case, a missed opportunity), but he resisted those consequences so they didn’t come to pass.
There are two key difference between this scenario and what you proposed. First, it’s the consequences of a failed ACTION roll that could keep the PC at the table longer than he wanted to be (which yes, I agree is totally allowed by the rules). Second you can’t fail a resistance roll. If the PC makes a roll to resist the consequences than he always succeeds, it’s just a matter of how stressful it was to resist.
As to your second point, the GM can always say something is impossible. It’s true that some things simply can’t be done, and it’s possible that swaying some NPC or another is one of those things. However, on page 27 of the QS you can see a list of bad habits, and the last one is “Saying no”. I suggest reading the whole list, but the gist of that paragraph is that saying no is boring, and it’s better to offer a hard devils bargain that they have to agree to in order to even attempt the roll, or start some kind of LTP clock. So while you can say no, be wary of saying no too often.
Say the PCs want to get a Bluecoat to kill his partner (for whatever reason), who is also his best friend. If the PCs asked if they could make a sway action roll to accomplish this feat I would say no. Obviously you can’t just talk to a guy and convince him to kill his good friend. However I would let them start a long term project clock to plant evidence that the Bluecoat’s wife is having an affair. When they complete that clock I’d start another clock to convince the Bluecoat that his partner is his wife’s lover. When that clock is completed I’d let them start another clock to kick the bluecoat while he’s down, make his life a living hell through various petty means so that he’s in the frame of mind to kill his friend. Once all those clocks are filled (and there is a suitably long time frame, a couple weeks), they can attempt to sway the bluecoat to kill his friend because he’s now receptive to the idea.
This was a very specific example, but the idea being that by applying the right pressure it’s possible to sway someone to an idea that at first seems unthinkable. It just doesn’t have to be easy.
Could you give a little more detail in the example you cite? What’s at risk? What do the PCs risk losing depending on whether they stay or leave?
Some things are just impossible. Say, a regular ol’ human-being punching down a brick building.
But for most things, as Mark basically pointed out already, I try to avoid saying no unless there’s just no chance it will work (I say ‘try’ because it was a bad habit of mine until not terribly long ago). No is an uncreative and boring way to complicate a situation.
If your instinct is that the player’s actions shouldn’t be enough to sway someone, instead of going straight to ‘this can’t be done,’ consider the answer ‘yes, but-‘ which is a perfectly good way to extend or complicate a scene without invalidating the character’s actions (and more importantly, the player’s plans). People can demotivate pretty quickly when you put up roadblocks, especially roadblocks that seem designed to thwart their character’s specific abilities – a Slide that is told an NPC cannot be swayed with social actions is basically written out of the game (or at least, may interpret it as such).
You can always use a clock to make things like this harder. ‘Yes, but the NPC runs into an old friend from the war, on the way out. He has a sword on his hip and looks to be a decorated veteran. Start a clock, and mark X ticks. This is going to take some doing.’
There, you’ve gotten him away from the table and closer to your goal, but not all the way there. Now you have the possibility that if the players don’t play their cards right, they may end up able to ambush the NPC, but having to do so in the presence of a skilled fighter.
I aim to make players complicit in binding their characters. Blades in the Dark is particularly well suited for this.
I would bind characters socially as a result of the player accepting a Devil’s Bargain, or as a complication on a roll. When the player finds out the NPC is a socially powerful character, and doesn’t take steps to avoid danger but instead risks exposure to those social abilities, then the sense of player choice is protected somewhat.
Yes, the player may temporarily lose ideal control of the character, but it is a consequence of a gamble the player made (instead of an imposed external disadvantage.)
And there’s always the resist roll, sure. Lots of tools to use for scaling social challenges in Blades, especially positioning and factors.
Thanks for the replies everyone. Shed some light on some of the mechanics and made me rethink some things. And now that i’ve gone over the rulebook some more perhaps I can ask a better question.
John Perich
So there’s a statue heist going down, you’ve chosen a social plan, which is a fancy party. You’ve sat down to discuss politics with Count Talkalot but you’ve got to get to the meet up point in 15 minutes. And as you go to get up to leave you face the obstacle of the count insisting that you stay.
So there’s a set obstacle, and you can choose your action to overcome it. Unless the count has a big advantage, he’s a really skilled socialite, so you’re going to have to make a preemptive resistance roll before you can try to move away from the table.
If the player chooses to not roll resistance, are the effects of an NPCs social skills binding? (if that’s the right word)
From the outset it would seem so, I mean, what’s the difference in the mechanics between a pair of handcuffs and Count Delays smooth talking.
Yeah, seems pretty clear. By making the PC roll to resist without a failed action roll you’re presenting the Count as a very socially tough opponent. Mechanically this is no different than a fight with a master swordsman. To showcase the opponents skill you can have the NPC slash a PC across the chest before the PC gets a chance to act. The PC can either resist this consequence or have a chest wound.
The interaction with the Count is the same. The Count is so mesmerizing or threatening or whatever that the request is mechanically indistinguishable from handcuffs (except the resistance roll would probably use a different stat).
Instead of “you can’t leave” maybe a better consequence would be “you can’t leave without everyone knowing that you insulted the Count, who would then be forced to destroy you in order to save face.” So the player still has freedom to act, but at a steep cost. By analogy: those handcuffs only lock you in place if you’re unwilling to chop off part of your hand.
Will Scott That is certainly a valid consequence, but I don’t know that it’s better. Both are fine, depending on what the GM wants to do. In both cases the player has the freedom to act, he can roll to resist. I actually really like the idea of this count who is so suave that him simply speaking can bamboozle a PC into making a critical error. This character with potentially no martial prowess or arcane ability can thwart the PCs simply by being a smooth operator. That’s the kind of thing the good guys do in shows like Leverage all the time, and what’s good for the goose..
Good conversation, everyone. This is indeed partially a stylistic choice — how effective is social pressure and charisma in your Duskwall? You can tune it to taste. (And remember the “Setting Precedents” idea from the text.)
Then use the techniques described here to bring it to life in the mechanics.
Looking back I think I was also a little bit unclear. I didn’t mean that the Count’s voice could keep a PC at the table against their will with magic or something. What I meant was that the PC was off-balance or distracted or didn’t want to go. Note that I’m separating the PC from the Player here. The player definitely wants to go and not miss this opportunity (just like a player doesn’t want this PC to get a chest wound in a sword fight), but his character has been bamboozled or tricked somehow. Unless of course he wants to resist.
But yeah, if you or your players chafe at the idea of losing control of your characters wits/actions in a social situation, do it a different way.
I usually ask the player: “Are you the type of character who fits in socially? Or do you miss social cues and expectations and people think you’re odd? I mean, you could totally ignore the Count’s charm and walk away, but that would be really weird.”
It’s both a chance to tune the mechanic being used, and also a chance to establish who the character is. Like, in the handcuffs example, you might ask “Can Ox really just snap the chain on the manacles with sheer strength? That would be crazy, but maybe you’re crazy strong.”
All those precedents add up over time and we have better ideas about position, consequences, and threat levels the longer we play together.