Do you guys succed in your Social checks using heartfelt irrational

Dude GM doesn't let any of my successes succeed, especially when they succeed by more than 10.

Chick DM has let as many fights end in "hey dude let's stop fighting" as have ended in scorched blaster holes.

>>50671029
Burning Wheel actually differentiates between the two with them being different skills.

My most recent character is only good at the emotional one, and awful at logic. But she's a woman, so it is to be expected.

>player fails a diplomacy roll
>they go on to spend the next twenty minutes trying to logic the NPC into doing what they want anyways
>when the GM pushes back/doesn't give them what they want, they either whine or just keep fucking pushing and pushing
OR even worse
>they don't even try to roll in the first place


Players who do this should be fucking shot.

>>50671029

You might represent them with different skills, but honestly my thinking is that the "emotional appeal" versus "logical appeal" is really fluff on top of the binary success/fail of "social action".

Like, if someone makes a Knowledge check it doesn't matter if they learned that fact reading a book or through practical experience of the topic. The fact is that they know it and how they got the knowledge is a flavourful description. Same deal here.

Someone who sits you down and runs through logical arguments for their point of view is rolling Diplomacy, just like someone who's making an appeal to your sense of human decency and asking for your sympathy. Someone who tries to use bad logic to convince you of something kind of shady is using Bluff, same as somebody trying to appeal to your baser irrational instincts.

>>50671029
Depends on the character I'm playing, the character to whom (s)he's talking, and the situation in which they find themselves.

>Does your GM differentiate between the two?
Not usually.

>>50671029
https://youtu.be/zG39Yn2KX8s

Don't do this to me OP. Ninjas are chopping Onions again.

>>50671029
I design NPCs to be more resistant or less to the aggressive social skill or to the emphatic one.

Honesty shouldn't be ignored in calculating how effective your attempt to coerce an NPC is--but at the same time, certain NPCs should not give half a shit about emotions whereas certain ones might be more sensitive.

>>50672315
Not to mention that people are more responsive to certain appeals at different times. Though at that point you're asking a lot of a GM.

>>50672356
In Fate Core hacking, this is easily done via Aspects and changing the skill list. Not a huge hurdle if you're willing to use descriptors to give someone bonus or malus given the NPC's Aspects.

Interestingly, the system's default skill list is ridden with social skills but I feel all this does is confuse the player on whether they're deceiving, provoking, empathizing, building rapport, or doing something else.

In the end, I'm trying to make a point that diversifying social skills too much doesn't add to a system but rather harms its clarity.

>>50672356
Eh, coming up with some modifiers on the fly isn't that much to ask. Some bonuses for arguments particularly appealing to the person you're talking to have been par for the course in the games I've been in.

>>50672445
Sounds very reasonable

Is discovering the "appeal" for an argument part of dice-throwing and a skill or is it more meta-knowledge at work?

>>50672445
I'm more referring to the "at different times" thing. The GM keeping the personalities of different NPCs in mind is quite fine and dandy, but keeping track of the emotional state of every NPC and how they respond differently to their emotions is where I think it becomes unreasonable.

Like, a player can do that, since they've just gotta think about one particular character for a whole campaign. And if you're writing a novel or what have you then you should definitely do that for every character. But that's just way too much for your standard game master.

>>50672505
It's generally about things that have become apparent during play, like the behavior and statements of the NPC in question and things players have deduced from them. Usually not dice-rolls, because "I roll to figure out what would appeal to him, now I roll to appeal to him with it" would feel kind of...clunky, I guess, even if it would make sense. I'd say it's mostly about paying attention to the world, NPCs, the GM' descriptions of things and such. Mind you, the bonuses won't be large enough to overshadow actual character skill, meaning that someone who's good at formulating arguments and such can't outshine social characters even with a socially inept character. They're a meaningful but relatively minor reward of sorts for paying attention and putting some thought into what you're saying and who yu're saying it to.

>>50671029
Op, yo shoildc resly get a keynord app

>>50671029
A little bit of both and differentiation of end result is significant.

A successful emotional appeal to the king for reinforcements in Tiny Nowhere Village to save it from bandits will likely result in a token gesture of a few men while a logic based argument would likely give an entire squad.

Modifiers change based upon how a PC is approaching a social challenge.

It's never really come up as a consideration, and thankfully so. We do live in an era that glorifies logic and rationale above all, while considering emotion and intuition to be, at best, something you pretend to consider before throwing it out for being 'irrational' and doing things based on your precious logic anyway.

It's an understandable position to go with the more calm, more objective option, sure, but I can't say I'd ever trust someone who ignores essentially half of the experience of being human at nearly all times.

>>50672163
this.

>>50671029
>facts
>mattering

>>50671029
>not using both at once