Fria Ligans forum

Well, successful Persuasion only leads to more combat if (a) the GM decides to have the NPCs do that or (b) someone tries to persuade PCs, forgetting that players can't be persuaded. Personally, I read the rule as applying only to that second case; I would always give players success in persuading NPCs. That rule is certainly odd & it's a good point, Persuasion is one of the ways we reduce the body count.

That only accounts for a case where one side or another is actively trying (and able!) to persuade the other side to give up. In my experience, this rarely happens at the table; once the fight is on the bloodlust takes over. If the enemy starts to withdraw players will sometimes let them go. In all other cases they tend to always fight to the bitter end (whoever's bitter end that might be).

To the other point: players maybe can't be persuaded, but characters and players are not the same -- or shouldn't be, anyway. This especially applies to PC vs PC contests.

I took it that the rationale for this rule is that player's can't be persuaded, so they get given this stark option. But NPCs shouldn't take the fight option, in my mind.

But yes, reality at the table is all fights become fights to the death, because in RPG world if your piece of paper dies, you just make a new piece of paper.

But if you build a system that incentivizes the use of non-violent resolution or the use of carefully applied violence/force of fire to allow for the Persuasion check to be more useful might be a good add. Imagine a small force of PCs against a larger force of NPCs. The PCs have better arms, but are outnumbered. Generally, the Persuasion check to avoid a fight might be hard to pull off, but if the PCs manage to pin down a large section of the OpFor with suppression and damage the Persuasion skill might become more useful.

If you give the players tools that allows them to mechanically influence the game, they will use it. In combat, there's no tools to de-escalate or end something without wholesale slaughter, so that's what you get. If you build a system that allows the PC's actions (or failures) to force a different outcome, you have created a way for players to engage the game differently. Sure, some will go for "kill 'em all, so we can loot 'em all", but many others will appreciate both the verisimilitude as well as the option to find solutions that might stave off "making a new sheet of paper".

But this is veering off of "Ammo" discussion, so maybe this needs to move elsewhere. I just liked the idea of Suppression having an effect on Persuasion

I think this is possible with just a tweak to the CUF rolls. Two rounds of no successes and the NPC bugs out, or something like that.

It's also possible to just make NPCs behave rationally. Players, however....

Disengaging, withdrawing, ought to be a decision made when it's clear you can't achieve your goals without unacceptable losses. The problem in an RPG context is that losses are meaningless and the basic game paradigm is "kill the monster to get the loot." There is no reward in withdrawing: no win, no loot. And if your piece of paper dies, you make a new piece of paper who says, "whose is all this cool gear?" and then takes it over.

I think the only solution is to subject players to electric shock when their characters are hit, with a baseball bat to the kneecap if your character dies. But I find this discourages participation for some reason, not sure why.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's tough to make dice checks model that kind of decision, because it's not really a matter of CUF. This is just an RPG problem, which like metagaming is really about norms around your table.

One thing the FL games have going for them is that XP is not based on kills. A certain amount of loot-goblinism goes with the setting. But there's not a lot of merit to killing for killing's sake. I think you have to reinforce this through RP... give NPCs connections that will take vengeance personally. Make communities shun them. The ostracisms will continue until morale improves.

(even with that important change that the FL XP system uses, I think a lot of people just come to RP from a D&D baseline, no matter what. I've been experiencing that with other systems that are even further from any sort of D&D heritage. People without a lot of RP experience leap right into it. People from big D&D backgrounds have more trouble wrapping their heads around another paradigm)

But honestly, it's a world where life is cheap, and if someone's escapism that makes the game fun for them is they want to get in lots of gunfights, I'm sure not going to stop them -- as long as it's not ruining anyone else's fun. But "live by the sword, die by the sword" definitely will apply, sooner or later.

Ammo dice.

"Oh, there's 33 pages on the discussion on ammo dice... I wonder what has sparked this long discussion"

*opens page 33... sees nothing but a discussion about persuasion*

"Ah... that explains it".

Ha. Probably 30 pages is still about ammo dice and their various implications and so on though.