Forum

cheeplives · Sat 28 Nov 2020, 09:44

So you can use Persuasion as a slow action in combat to try to talk your way out of a situation, which is awesome. But if you succeed, the opponent can decide to give up or just attack anyways, pretty much negating the successful use of a player's roll.

There either should be a penalty to someone basically ignoring the success of a Persuasion check in combat or the Persuading character should get some kind of bonus (to defend? Initiative bump? A bonus fast action?) if thwir opponents basically just say "yah, no" to their successful action.

Fenhorn · Sat 28 Nov 2020, 10:08

Sometimes, you can make things go your way without resorting to violence. Instead, you trick or convince your opponents without drawing your weapon. This might even be possible in the midst of combat, if the Referee judges it plausible. For non-violent conflicts, use the PERSUASION skill.

"For non-violent conflicts"
A conflict situation can involve other situations than hack'n'slash or shot'em'up situations. In those non-violent conflict situations, a persuasion attempt may be useful.

It can be rather pointless to try to talk to someone that is shooting at you, yes, but there might be situations even in a shooting conflict when a persuasion attempt is workable. A successful persuasion in those cases gives the persuaded a choice, to continue the shooting or to accept whatever the persuasion gives him. It is the Referee that controls the NPCs and he should decide their actions and responses logically.

cheeplives · Sat 28 Nov 2020, 18:15

Disagree, the example in the book even has the character trying to stop a combat before it starts. By allowing a successful skill check to just be ignored by the gm (or other players, as noted in Betting Persuaded) you disincentivise the Persuade option. The fact that the options on a successful Persuade are acquiesce or immediately attack makes a Successful Persuade way too risky to try. Imagine that on a successful Ranged attack the opponent had the option to completely ignore damage and instead take cover immediately... This is the same kind of setup. You negate the success achieved with no upside for the player.

Maybe at least force Stress damage to ignore the successful Persuade? I know in powered by the apocalypse games when players or npcs refuse a successful persuade result the persuading character at least gets an XP. I just think success should be be, you know, successful.

Fenhorn · Sat 28 Nov 2020, 18:35

Disagree, the example in the book even has the character trying to stop a combat before it starts. By allowing a successful skill check to just be ignored by the gm (or other players, as noted in Betting Persuaded). The fact that the options on a successful Persuade are acquiesce or immediately attack makes a Successful Persuade way too risky to try. Imagine that on a successful Ranged attack the opponent had the option to completely ignore damage and instead flee combat... This is the same kind of setup. You negate the success achieved with no upside for the player.

Maybe at least force Stress damage to ignore the successful Persuade? I know in powered by the apocalypse games when players or npcs refuse a successful persuade result the persuading character at least gets an XP. I just think success should be be, you know, successful.

I also said that there might be situations even in shooting conflict where a persuasion attempt may be viable. Regarding the NPCs. The Referee is suppose to roleplay them according to whatever agenda they have. If the Referee thinks that a players persuasion attempt is something that the persuaded NPC could go for, he should play the NPC accordingly. It is a roleplaying game after.

Most situations in a combat conflict it will be pointless to persuade someone, but there might be situations in a combat where persuasion attempts can be done. In the example, Kasia got a momentum where she could us it. The Referee in the example decided that it is not in the marauders best interest to "back off". Maybe if Kasia would have said something else the Referee might have agreed. But he said no, so now he must attack Kasia. Who knows, maybe Kasia has a friend that is on Overwatch nearby at the direction of the barn.

cheeplives · Sat 28 Nov 2020, 18:43

I get all of the "maybe" situations and understand the Gm has to play to agendas, but negating a successful roll mechanically bothers me. If there's no way to Persuade them, then don't allow the roll. In the Kasia example, if the marauder was out for blood no matter what pleas came from their pretty, the Gm let the player waste their action and put themselves in a disadvantaged position in a battle with a Successful roll. If immediately being attacked is a Successful use of Persuade in combat, what is a failure or a mishap?

Fenhorn · Sat 28 Nov 2020, 18:53

It is up to to the Referee to roleplay the NPC according to whatever agenda that NPC has. If the Referee decides that to attack is better than to accept the persuasion terms then he will let the NPC attack with his next action.

This rule is pretty much the same in all YZ games and it works. Sure, most persuasions occur out of combat where the stake is higher. But choosing to attack in a certain moment in a conflict situations can also be bad.

cheeplives · Sat 28 Nov 2020, 19:08

It is up to to the Referee to roleplay the NPC according to whatever agenda that NPC has. If the Referee decides that to attack is better than to accept the persuasion terms then he will let the NPC attack with his next action.

I understand that, but if the NPC is going to attack regardless, what is the point of letting the player roll? And you never answered my question on what happens on a Failure or Mishap.

In the book example, the GM had already decided that the Marauder could not be Persuaded. So if Kasia failed the roll, what would the outcome be? What if she rolled two ones? I bet the answer is "The Marauder Attacks"... so why allow the roll at all if you're going to be railroaded into the same answer. The player's actions MUST IMPACT THE GAME in some way... if there are situations where, no matter what, you can't climb the wall, do you let the player keep making Mobility checks? Do you allow it at all?
Or do you inform them of the futility and let them make meaningful choices. Allowing an option and making the Success condition THE SAME AS THE FAILURE CONDITION makes the optoin meaningless.

All I'm saying is allow some kind of "consolation prize" for a successful action that is treated basically like a failure. Apply stress to the Marauder for briefly seeing the humanity of another before launching into an attack. Give Kasia a free Fast action to leap into cover when she notices her pleas fall on deaf ears. Make the success MEAN SOMETHING.

Fenhorn · Sat 28 Nov 2020, 20:38

... but if the NPC is going to attack regardless, what is the point of letting the player roll? And you never answered my question on what happens on a Failure or Mishap.
...

(again) The GM (or referee in this game) controls the NPCs. He decides how each NPC reacts based on whatever agenda, motives, etc. that NPC have. The GM is not against the player or on their side, he is neutral and he should make this decision with that in mind.
What's the point you say, well, the player don't know the agenda, motive or personal goal (a player most likely only know the NPCs demeanor). Another marauder (not the one in the example) might not be so eager to fight and could be persuaded to leave.

When it comes to Mishaps, well, that is up to the GM to decide. In the example of Kasia (assuming here that she was in cover behind a rock or something), it could be so that she by mistake moves out of cover in the persuasion attempt. That would be worse than just failing a skill.

cheeplives · Sat 28 Nov 2020, 21:52

(again) The GM (or referee in this game) controls the NPCs. He decides how each NPC reacts based on whatever agenda, motives, etc. that NPC have. The GM is not against the player or on their side, he is neutral and he should make this decision with that in mind.

(again) The Referee controls the npcs and had them react accordingly, yes. If the npc isn't going to be affected by persuasion then the Referee has the npc act accordingly, I don't disagree with that either. BUT in that case, the players agency is removed. They can choose the persuade action and (this is important, you keep missing it) THE SUCCESSFUL ROLL AND FAILURE ROLL HAVE THE SAME OUTCOME. Either the rules need to account for that (i.e. A notice to Referees to communicate to the players when an action is not going to succeed) or some kind of mechanical benefit for trying something, succeeding, but still not getting exactly what you want because that doesn't fit the established fiction.
Success should mean something, even if it's not exactly what the player wanted. Either the Referee should not allow rolls that will never succeed (and should be explicitly stated in the rules) or the rules should put mechanical benefits so the players agency isn't completely removed.

Fenhorn · Sat 28 Nov 2020, 22:02

I had difficult reading that latest post, but sure I only allow these kind of persuasion rolls if there is a momentum that fits in the given situation, otherwise I just informs the player that the enemy isn't listening. For the example, we don't know what happened before the situation or anything else around these characters, but with the enemy inside a barn and the player behind some cover outside could very well be such a momentum.

The success and the failure doesn't have the same outcome. If the player succeeded with the persuasion attempt (assuming there that the GM have accepted the player's description of the skill roll), the enemy inside the barn either have to accept that or attack. If the players skill roll fails, he can do whatever he wants to inside that barn. Sure he can attack, but he can use any action he wants, even nothing if he wants to

Forum

Persuasion in Combat

Persuasion in Combat

Re: Persuasion in Combat

Re: Persuasion in Combat

Re: Persuasion in Combat

Re: Persuasion in Combat

Re: Persuasion in Combat

Re: Persuasion in Combat

Re: Persuasion in Combat

Re: Persuasion in Combat

Re: Persuasion in Combat

Who is online