Starting out, Player versus Player?

[Murkglow]

I'm not sure why people automatically assume when I say they shouldn't be immune to interactions that NPCs are going to "make them jump through a loop" as if interaction skills are some form of mind control taking willpower out of the character. All I would ask of a player who failed an interaction check is to roleplay as if they're character was acting appropriately to the situation nothing more (I hardly think this is "rollplay" in fact I consider this an actual instance of having to "roleplay", ie actually acting like your character instead of acting like a player in a game doing whatever they like in spite of whatever is influencing their character).

[Quiver]

I'm not sure why people automatically assume when I say they shouldn't be immune to interactions that NPCs are going to "make them jump through a loop" as if interaction skills are some form of mind control taking willpower out of the character. All I would ask of a player who failed an interaction check is to roleplay as if they're character was acting appropriately to the situation nothing more (I hardly think this is "rollplay" in fact I consider this an actual instance of having to "roleplay", ie actually acting like your character instead of acting like a player in a game doing whatever they like in spite of whatever is influencing their character).

It was more a way of speaking (that car cost me an arm!) then literaly mindcontrol. Though in DnD, there's the DC to turn someone trying to kill you into a friend willing to risk his life for you.... pretty extreme.

Another problem is how binary interaction can be. The thing with +3 insight will never win against the +20 (twice PL for skills? i dont have the book with me) in deception that a trickster will have. In Dnd, a lvl 10 fighter will still have only +1 in sense motive thanks to his amazing 12 wis, but that's all, while the thief have 16, possibly more in bluff.

I don't see why you couldn't have just said. All I would ask of a player {who failed an interaction check} is to roleplay as if they're character was acting appropriately to the situation nothing more . Just remove the bold part and that's i work. The rolls are there when you need confirmation to know if the other seems to be lying or not, or for the generic NPCs that i didn't write a full background/personnality to them.

" acting like a player in a game doing whatever they like in spite of whatever is influencing their character" Now you're the one exagerating. =p

[Murkglow]

Like I said if you want to remove dice rolls from the game entirely that's fine with me. However if the PCs want to roll vs an NPC to confuse, lie, persuade, or otherwise change how they act, I don't see the argument why NPCs can't do the same back. Oh and just because the PC character has a bad insight/sense motive (whatever game we're talking about here) doesn't mean anything to me. They get away with bad stats like that because they don't have to roll (or it doesn't matter what they roll the player can still just do whatever they want). If it was actually important to them then they would make those skills a priority (and in M&M it's really no excuse since you can buy skills up however you choose, unlike D&D where your options are more limited/restricted).

[Quiver]

Like I said if you want to remove dice rolls from the game entirely that's fine with me. However if the PCs want to roll vs an NPC to confuse, lie, persuade, or otherwise change how they act, I don't see the argument why NPCs can't do the same back. Oh and just because the PC character has a bad insight/sense motive (whatever game we're talking about here) doesn't mean anything to me. They get away with bad stats like that because they don't have to roll (or it doesn't matter what they roll the player can still just do whatever they want). If it was actually important to them then they would make those skills an actual priority (and in M&M it's really no excuse since you can buy skills up freely, unlike D&D where your options are limited).

The players have been planning/playing for hours, they get the feeling how the character will react. Same with major or recurrent NPCs, as a GM, you have a good feel how they should realisticaly react. The 5 random thugs that can be wiped in one area attack or the 3rd bank guard that you introduce for the first time, not so much.

Exemple with the thugs being intimidated by Daredevil. I won't have a full background explaining that the 2nd thug just can't be intimidated because Daredevil caused his wife's death, while the 3rd one is a wuss and will gladly take the first excuse not the fight, the 4th one being an undercover cop that will actually help him if scared enough. It's easier to just roll dices and then explain what happens. (and if they interrogate the fleeing thug or have a mind reader, they'll know exactly why it worked/didnt work.)

As for making it a skill priority, in DnD it's covered that options are limited. In MM, it doesn't always make sense thematically. Take The Thing. He'd probably fall for "he went that way!" from a thug but even if Dr. Doom tries to convince him, it won't work. He'd have to use reverse psychologic (in wich case, the GM can just actually use it) But mechanicaly, with his +3, he won't fall for the thug who misdirect him, but will probably believe everything Dr. Doom said. To make him resist Dr. Doom's attempt, he'd have to invest so much in insight he'd be a walking lie detector.

[savijmuhdrox]

You just the check secretly and assuming the player doesn't clearly know it's not a baby, it goes like this. You just let the player decide if he'll want to save the baby or not. If he asks for insight, tell him that the Joker is euqally likely to tosing a decoy to escape then he is to actually throw a real baby for giggles. For perceptions, pretend to make a new secret check and adds a few details. "There seems a be a small shape in the basket he threw, but you don't see well. Could be a baby or a big chihuahua" Or "You don't see anything new but you hear some people gasps/yell as they see the possible baby being thrown."

The player could always just make the assumption that the Joker is lying and never reach for the fake baby. Maybe 1-2 sessions next, when the Joker escapes, this time he knows how the hero will reacts so he throw a real baby and make sure there's a camera filming the hero ignoring it. After all, that's why the hero always try to save it, even if there's 9 chances out of ten it's a decoy. It's just not worth it.
Alternatively, if the player always take care of the baby, after 2-3 times the villain escapes, when the player is very resolute to capturing him, you can let him spend a hero point to make the baby being a fake this time and that he knows it.

aaah.. okay. That helps a lot. There's a bunch of different options there.. and you tell the story in way to expand upon the players choices... AND the player can always spend a hero point to make the baby a bomb.. or a chihuahua.. because.. uhm.. there's too many chihuahuas.. and no one would notice one less.

Sounds like a lot of possibilities for branching stories.. how do you guys keep track of them all?

[Murkglow]

The players have been planning/playing for hours, they get the feeling how the character will react. Same with major or recurrent NPCs, as a GM, you have a good feel how they should realisticaly react. The 5 random thugs that can be wiped in one area attack or the 3rd bank guard that you introduce for the first time, not so much.

Sure they'll know how to react. So they should have no problems being able to act like their character was frightened (including perhaps their own backstory and reasoning as to why) when thug #2 manages to roll well on his intimidation check. Or why their character believes the thug when he explains why he was forced to work for the mob (either using persuasion or deception as appropriate).

Exemple with the thugs being intimidated by Daredevil. I won't have a full background explaining that the 2nd thug just can't be intimidated because Daredevil caused his wife's death, while the 3rd one is a wuss and will gladly take the first excuse not the fight, the 4th one being an undercover cop that will actually help him if scared enough. It's easier to just roll dices and then explain what happens. (and if they interrogate the fleeing thug or have a mind reader, they'll know exactly why it worked/didnt work.)

That's not really an argument. The same could be said in reverse. Just like it's easier to just roll dice to scare random thugs it's just as easy to roll dice back at DD and explain why DD was intimidated after the fact in turn.

As for making it a skill priority, in DnD it's covered that options are limited.

That doesn't excuse it. You can still have decent sense motive/insight in D&D for your level anyway.

In MM, it doesn't always make sense thematically. Take The Thing. He'd probably fall for "he went that way!" from a thug but even if Dr. Doom tries to convince him, it won't work. He'd have to use reverse psychologic (in wich case, the GM can just actually use it) But mechanicaly, with his +3, he won't fall for the thug who misdirect him, but will probably believe everything Dr. Doom said. To make him resist Dr. Doom's attempt, he'd have to invest so much in insight he'd be a walking lie detector.

Then either you're giving Dr. Doom too much deception for the game in question (just because you can have PL+10 deception doesn't mean you should/will) or Ben should fall for what he says (it's not like Doom hasn't talked Ben into doing things he shouldn't have before, you know the good old fashion "Reed is just using you Ben" or "I know how to turn you human again Ben" ect...).

[FuzzyBoots]

Perhaps we use something like the revised d20 Diplomacy rules to govern the idea that there are certain discrete modifiers in place involving relationships (more likely to believe one's brother than a stranger), plausibility ("He went thatta way!" works better than "I'm really your mother possessing your hated foe's body"), and such.

Another aspect to consider is longevity of the lie. The thug convincing The Thing that the criminal just ran by is an ephemeral Bluff check. So might the "Don't hit me! I'm trapped in his body!" trick. Mysterio convincing Daredevil that the child he's protecting is the Antichrist is more of a Skill Challenge with various bonuses from pre-arranged circumstances to gaslight him. Similarly, I think that Diplomacy checks are far too permanent in the game; once someone's an ally, they're allies no matter how you treat them.

^_^ So, if we look at Bluffs as more ephemeral without follow-up, it doesn't take much for a player to roleplay being fooled at first, and they've got reason to keep playing on if they keep missing their skill rolls until it becomes ingrained in them and Confirmation Bias starts making them help the lie along.

[Beleriphon]

I've always approached interaction skills vs a PC as one of the player being informed as to how believable the NPC would be. Cesar the GM, can have Joker use Bluff against Batman, played by Adam. Cesar rolls Joker's Bluff skill, and Adam rolls for Batman's Insight. If the Joker is telling the truth then Adam's roll is largely irrelevant sine any result will have Cesar respond "You get the impression that the Joker is telling the truth".

If the Joker is lying then Cesar will respond with one of the following: "You get the impression that the Joker is telling the truth" OR "You get the impression that the Joker is lying." Either on is going to depend on Cesar and Adam's rolls.

What Adam chooses to do at that point can vary on the situation. He can take Joker at face value, he can assume that even Joker appear to be truthful/lying he really is doing the opposite since Batman knows the Joker very well, or can continue on or make his own Bluff check to convince the Joker that he believed a lie.

The objective here is to make the player either aware or unsure of the NPCs intentions. How the player reacts is dependant on the rolls, but it should only ever inform the action and never dictate the action. This is why generally I wont bother using most interaction skills on players, unless the player spefically calls out wanting to attempt something against an NPC (detecting a lie for example) or its the combat application.