Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Gamemasters' Lounge => Topic started by: Gustovness on <04-14-13/1947:49>
-
Hey guys, I was wondering if it was fair game for someone who is trying to be intimidated to con his way out? Can I roll them as opposed tests to each other?
-
My thoughts are that the intimadation roll is made as normal, and then if it failed, the CON roll to fake being intimidated.
I could see this as an opposed roll in a more cinematic rules-light game. The smart-mouth talking the leg-breaker into letting him go. Suspect that the situational modifieres would not be on the Face's side though.
-
Opposed? I'd rule no.
You can't smooth talk your way out of being scared.
"When some wild-eyed, eight-foot-tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head up against the barroom wall, looks you crooked in the eye, and asks you if you paid your dues - you just stare that big sucker right back in the eye, and you remember what ol' Jack Burton always says at a time like that:
'Have you paid your dues, Jack?'
Yessir, the check is in the mail."
-- Jack Burton
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
My thoughts are that the intimadation roll is made as normal, and then if it failed, the CON roll to fake being intimidated.
I'd go with Black on this one.
-
My thoughts are that the intimadation roll is made as normal, and then if it failed, the CON roll to fake being intimidated.
I'd go with Black on this one.
I agree, but I'd add a penalty to the dice pool to con depending on HOW successful the intimidation went. If you blinked when the troll barked at you, you might be able to get away a white lie. If you jumped a foot when that happened though, far less believable. I'd say the dice pool should be reduced by the number of hits the intimidation trumped you/him.
Question: Is this for NPC's? I didn't think your could use Intimidate against PC's.
-
You can, if you do it right and your players are happy to play along.
GM decribes burly Troll aka Bubber making suggestive threats against Player Character 'Twitchy the Rat Shaman' if Twitchy doesn't cough up the paydata.
Gm rolls, player rolls, player losses desicively.
Gm "A Bubber towers over Twitchy, his eyes fall of barely controlled rage, Twitchy cannot help but feel intimidated by the immediate threats...
Good Player "Twitchy thinks about the trouble his team mates will give him for letting the team down, as he slowly reaches into his rags and pulls out the chip containing the pay data while looking for the nearest exit" Hey Gm, I want to make a perception test for the nearest exit, maybe I can make a run for it" (<-- Note, the player describes his actions, the player is empowered to describe how he acts and can even try and give himself an out)
Not so Good Player "Twitchy sneers at the Troll. He would never feel intimidated by scum like him and he would never, ever, let down his teammates..."
At least, my players all fit the Good Player scenario and have been seduced, intimidated etc all for good fun. See my write up of Dream Chipper sometime. That Cleo chipper seduced two of the team before the third player came through. Even afterwards, the seduced player characters were talking about feeling bad about taking the chip of Cleo.
-
Question: Is this for NPC's? I didn't think your could use Intimidate against PC's.
???
Why on Earth not?
The Player and the Player Character are not the same person. While, ideally, the GM would be able to invoke the proper level of emotional impact on the Player, the Character can certainly be Intimidated when the Player is not.
If the Player is a military combat veteran who holds several black belts, and the Character is a 98lb Decker who still lives with his mom, why the heck should the Decker be unfazed by a Troll mashing the PC's Vespa against his forehead like an empty beer can?
The Player is an actor, playing a role. The GM is their director. If the GM says "You're really intimidated!" then thy should act accordingly (and also apply the appropriate penalties).
-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate
PS - Ack. Ninja'd by Black.
-
Question: Is this for NPC's? I didn't think your could use Intimidate against PC's.
As with nearly any other system, it's not that there are actually different rules for those skills against PC's - it's just that wise GM's handle them differently. Use the result to explain the character's emotional reaction, but let the player act it out as makes sense for their character.
-
I guess this is simply the problem I have then. I have good PC's, but they sorely lack in the role-playing department. I had this issue in Pathfinder, where they can't REALLY give up the fact that their characters actually can be afraid, intimidated, or any strong emotion that would make them not act like a hero would without magical influence. I guess I just gave up on trying to use social skills on them due to it leading more to disagreements then cooperation.
-
Simply tell them how the character feels in response, and let them decide what their character would do in that circumstance. As long as the RP is consistent, you're good. Consistent does not mean that they react the way you think they should, but that the ways they react are generally similar across similar circumstances.
I had one character in DnD who reacted to fear effects by charging in, for example, because it was the only character consistent response.
-
I guess this is simply the problem I have then. I have good PC's, but they sorely lack in the role-playing department. I had this issue in Pathfinder, where they can't REALLY give up the fact that their characters actually can be afraid, intimidated, or any strong emotion that would make them not act like a hero would without magical influence. I guess I just gave up on trying to use social skills on them due to it leading more to disagreements then cooperation.
At the risk of going off-topic...as this is the GM board, I have to ask:
Ever killed, maimed, robbed, or otherwise seriously inconvenienced them?
In my experience, if players can't conceive of their characters being afraid, it is usually because they have nothing to fear.
If a hero-complex player mouths off to the guy who just intimidated him, and Mr.Scary kicks the ever-loving crap out of him in front of Dog and everybody, takes his most prized possession, his car keys, and his girlfriend as trophies, and walks off without a care in the world...that player will learn to "roleplay" a wide range of emotions.
It has to be fair, of course...if the player feels they are being persecuted, they'll simply resent it...but if you warn them a few times..."Seriously, man, this guy looks harder than a coffin nail"... then make an object lesson out of it, the behavior changes are immediate.
Players have actually thanked me, later on, for worse.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
It's a matter of play style, and it is something you really want to be clear about going in. Some players would be fine with letting the GM direct their reactions like actors in a play, while other players believe they should have the autonomy to play their characters the way they want to. Friction can arise, even with "good" roleplayers, when the verisimilitude and the fickle roll of the dice clash. The social skill rules in SR4 can be irritatingly vague, with dice pools that are far too easy to boost, and conditional modifiers that should count for a lot more than they typically do.
I think RHat's approach is the most viable compromise; let the players know what they are feeling, and let them determine their own reactions. I would add - have the other NPCs act appropriately, if you want to show the effects of a social skill roll more strongly. For instance, if the street samurai is no-selling the gang leader's intimidation, have the decker girl timidly tug on his arm, her face pale, and whine "C'mon, Spike, pleaaaase don't piss these guys off and get us killed..."
-
That is essentially the purpose of that approach - it maintains the impact of those social skills so that you CAN have someone attempt to intimidate the PC, but at the same time it preserves player control over their characters and consistent/accurate characterization. After all, sometimes the mechanical effects of social skills and such might not actually be accurate to what a character would do.
-
Opposed? I'd rule no.
You can't smooth talk your way out of being scared.
"When some wild-eyed, eight-foot-tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head up against the barroom wall, looks you crooked in the eye, and asks you if you paid your dues - you just stare that big sucker right back in the eye, and you remember what ol' Jack Burton always says at a time like that:
'Have you paid your dues, Jack?'
Yessir, the check is in the mail."
-- Jack Burton
Isn't that a pretty good case for why you should?
-
I guess this is simply the problem I have then. I have good PC's, but they sorely lack in the role-playing department. I had this issue in Pathfinder, where they can't REALLY give up the fact that their characters actually can be afraid, intimidated, or any strong emotion that would make them not act like a hero would without magical influence. I guess I just gave up on trying to use social skills on them due to it leading more to disagreements then cooperation.
A really good way to fix this, is to introduce elements that remind them that they are not heroes. Put them in a situation where the 'easy' thing to do is, in aftermath, when all things are considered and tallied, utterly horrifying.
Mirikon, in the Moral Compass thread, explained one of his characters' motos as this: "I'm a bad man who does bad things to bad people for good nuyen."
When the players try to be heroes, they believe they're above silly things like fear. When they unknowingly deploy a bioweapon for the Alamos 20k, killing thousands, if not millions, they lose the hero title pretty quickly. They wake up, and if you continue the concept, they stop thinking in terms of 'I'm above this' and start thinking 'what would this character do?'
People don't just click RolePlay skills on and off. They learn. So start teaching.
-
I wouldn't allow them to oppose intimidation with con. You're scared, you're scared, full stop. The question is what you do with that fear. Now, if you want to try and fast-talk your way out of things after getting intimidated, that's cool.
And I'll just throw this out there:
Zoë: Do you know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed. You can look it up later.
-
I guess this is simply the problem I have then. I have good PC's, but they sorely lack in the role-playing department. I had this issue in Pathfinder, where they can't REALLY give up the fact that their characters actually can be afraid, intimidated, or any strong emotion that would make them not act like a hero would without magical influence. I guess I just gave up on trying to use social skills on them due to it leading more to disagreements then cooperation.
A really good way to fix this, is to introduce elements that remind them that they are not heroes. Put them in a situation where the 'easy' thing to do is, in aftermath, when all things are considered and tallied, utterly horrifying.
Mirikon, in the Moral Compass thread, explained one of his characters' motos as this: "I'm a bad man who does bad things to bad people for good nuyen."
When the players try to be heroes, they believe they're above silly things like fear. When they unknowingly deploy a bioweapon for the Alamos 20k, killing thousands, if not millions, they lose the hero title pretty quickly. They wake up, and if you continue the concept, they stop thinking in terms of 'I'm above this' and start thinking 'what would this character do?'
People don't just click RolePlay skills on and off. They learn. So start teaching.
That's more a matter of playstyle than roleplaying. If a player wants to roleplay a character who is a hero, and gets railroaded into playing a thug, he is more likely to become disgusted and disillusioned with the character, and care less about what the character would do. I know if my character accidentally killed millions of people, I would be likelier to have the character eat a bullet than anything else, and would be pretty apathetic to the entire rest of that campaign.
Shadowrun is a game where there should be moral dilemmas and difficult decisions, but no-win situations rarely lead to more roleplaying, because they take away player autonomy. If you have to decide between rescuing a contact and finishing the job, that's an important, character-impacting decision. But no-win situations are usually just frustrating, and can breed resentment because of the unavoidable metagame elements - it's not the cold cruel world not cutting the characters a break, it's the GM not cutting them a break.
-
Which is why it has to be fair.
[GM ONLY ALERT - Non-GM's stop here, or Santa gets it!]
Let's be frank - there's only two types of players who are truly fearless. Those that don't care what happens to their characters, and those that already know what happens to their characters. (Or the GM really needs to sell it better - Roleplaying starts behind the screen, folks!)
Identifying which you have is important, as you may have to deal with them in opposite ways.
The former is tough. A player who is at the table because his friends are playing, rather than a desire to play, etc. A good GM can often bring this player around by giving them some individual attention - figuring out what would kickstart their interest. This player may need to feel like a hero - chances are they are not a big contributor, give them a chance to feel a positive boost from the game by being the guy who saves the day for a change.
A novice GM will often try to punish this player for lack of attention - this rarely works, and is generally counterproductive. A good GM makes sure his game is fun for all of his players, and an uninvested player doesn't start becoming invested because the character they don't give a damn about got stomped. Give them a reason to give a damn.
Summers players, however, sound like the later. If you play out a scene where a bad guy psychologically and/or physically intimidates a character, and they refuse to accept the result because they're Big Damn Heroes (tm) who know they have the run of the place...well, then they need taken down a notch.
Novice GMs know that winning is fun. But always winning isn't a challenge.
Many GM's are like bad parents. They make threats and ultimatums, then never follow through. If the players figure out that they're always going to win...the game loses a huge element of the suspension of disbelief. Ever been on the edge of your seat, watching a movie, and then something totally implausible or inconsistent happens? The moment you think "Oh, that is bull crap" the movie has lost you...you're no longer in the story, you're just watching a movie, and probably not enjoying it nearly as much as whn you were totally caught up in it.
Obviously, a TPK is counter productive, but setting up a situation as a challenge and then allowing it to BE a challenge are imperative. If they square off with a guy and fail an Intimidate check, don't tell them how to react - but you can tell them how they feel. But if they KNOW the guy can't back it up, you can't sell it.
So beat them up. Execute a hostage. Let them wake up with a horse head in the bed next to them. Implant a cortex bomb. Frame them for murder and extort them. Blow up their car/house/dog/Contact to send a message. Make the guy you warned them was a scary badass BE a scary badass, and let he dice fall where they may!
They will thank you for it, from the edge of their seats...if you do it well.
Some of it is play style - Pink Mohawk games are more likely to have fearless heroes than Black Trenchcoats. I am obviously more toward the darker end of the spectrum. But any game suffers if they players are in God Mode and know it.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
Hit the nail on the head there Joe.
-
Reminding the players that they are playing people and not just characters. It is a balance not present in many other RPGs, such as the current incarnations of D&D; and what makes SR so enjoyable to play.
Try using the 20 Questions files around the net, they can help focus the players on the reality of the person that their character sheet represents.
-
I would say this is quite simple. Con is for lying, not resisting being intimidated. I mean, resisting Intimidation is basically a Willpower test with Intimidation as a dice pool modifier (plus social modifiers as well). If you fail the test, you're character is intimidated.
On the other hand, Con is for lying. You could conceivably use it to bluff that you aren't intimidated. I agree with the earlier comment of using the opponent's net hits as a penalty to the Con check, blah, blah, blah.
It basically comes down to how you use the social skills. One way is to make broad, sweeping rolls with very little drawn out conversation (roll-playing). i.e. "I try to bluff my way past the guard by claiming I'm an employee that just forgot his name badge" (Roll for Con Test).
Another way is to have the entire In Character conversation making rolls only when appropriate for determining if a character is "affected" by what the other said (or did). For long drawn out interactions (like an Interrogation), particularly where the PC's are on the defensive, I would suggest making it a sort of Extended Test. This would give the Players a chance to show some resistance and come up with clever ways for their character to maybe resist being affected (Like using Con to confuse an opponent who is trying to Intimidate you).
The trick would be figuring out how to end things. In a interrogation, for instance, what keeps the enemy from just continuing to intimidate until the PC finally makes a bad roll and gives in?
-
The trick would be figuring out how to end things. In a interrogation, for instance, what keeps the enemy from just continuing to intimidate until the PC finally makes a bad roll and gives in?
That's actually kinda how interrogation works.
With unconstrained interrogation, eventually you get worn down. Nobody holds out forever.
"How did they finally get to you?
"They gave me a Grasshopper."
"What's a Grasshopper?"
"Let's see...two parts gin, one part brandy, one part Creme de Menthe..."
-- Ronin
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
Yeah, resisting interrogation is more a matter of how long you can hold out. That assumes a skilled interrogator, though, as opposed to a thrill gang or a pair of legbreakers. That kind of interrogation would be more like standard intimidation - "Tell us where the stuff is, or we start cutting off fingers".
Now, while con can't be used to resist intimidation directly, it does make it likelier that you can respond to demands for information with a believable lie.
Intimidation used against players should be done with care. They will tend to take it very personally, and will tend to put everything else on the back burner to get revenge on the person leaning on them. A noir staple is the big, big bad reminding the nominal hero that he is relatively powerless, but that doesn't translate well into Shadowrun at all, unless your entire group is into that mindset. If you have the Yakuza boss beat them up, execute one of their friends, and so on, then tell the players they had better just suck it up, because there's no way they can take out the oyabun, then you will probably have most of them walk out of the game.
Obviously, the PCs will be dealing with nasty types in the game, but just let logical consequences happen if they act like abrasive bullies to dangerous people. And also remember that this is an environment where face and street cred are very important. Sometimes backing down from someone can have serious repercussions, too. And that goes for the NPCs, too. A gang leader who is very intimidated by the face's umpteen successes might still panic and attack (even if the PCs have a lot more firepower), if he is being demeaned and threatened in front of his entire gang.
-
You definitely need to handle all Social skills with finesse. But the PCs shouldn't simply be immune to them because they might have to roleplay.
Noir and Cyberpunk genres have always gone hand-in-hand.
Look at Bladerunner, look at Neuromancer, at Snowcrash. Noir with neon.
Players should constantly be encountering people they simply should not @#$% with, even if they are certified badasses in their own right. I generally rely on roleplaying, in these situations, but if there is an instance where Intimidate comes down to a die roll, the PC's shouldn't be immune to it.
If they piss off the local Ninkyo Dantai in your game, how does it work? Do you NOT tell your Player's they should tread lightly? Or do you let some little weefle Runner mouth off of the Oyabun without consequences?
That said, I wouldn't dictate PC's actions - I would express to the Player that they think the Bad Guy is one scary MoFo, and apply penalties to any action they want to take vs said Bad Guy if they decide they still want to mix it up.
Social Skills aren't mind control. The PC's actions are still the Players, just as NPC's aren't simply puppets of the PC's if they succeed on a skill check.
I actually have a PC that is designed to be an Intimidation machine. If the target is unfortunate enough to recognize him (which is fairly likely, based on his Notoriety) he can be rolling a fistful of D6. But that doesn't mean he always gets everything he wants out of the target, or that the target might not panic, attack, seek revenge, etc. Nor does it mean that if I fail my roll, my PC can't be cowed by his target. He can still take action against that target, he's just Intimidated and will have negative effects from it.
It's a game mechanic. If the Player wants a PC that is immune to Intimidation, they should spec out their character to be so - otherwise, they're subject to it, just like everyone else. Social Skills in SR4 are powerful enough without removing the downside of having them thrown right back at you.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
That's the tightrope GMs need to walk. Make social skills matter, without taking away player autonomy. I think it works best the way you and RHat do it - I favor that approach myself. Let the dice roll determine how the character perceives the other character, and what the character feels - but still leave the exact reaction to those stimuli up to the player. If the player wants to no-sell everything, then that player might occasionally get docked some roleplaying karma, and might suffer in-game consequences from disregarding a pointed warning, not letting the other bloke save a bit of face, or insulting someone he really, really shouldn't have.
I feel the same way about NPCs. If I make a crotchety skinflint dwarven mechanic, then damnit, I want a crotchety skinflint dwarven mechanic. The face can roll umpteen zillion successes, but the results will still be tempered by the NPC's personality. He might get the best deal that you could squeeze out of a skinflint, but he will still be a skinflint - maybe he'll reluctantly give the group something close to the going rate, instead of his usual extortionate prices. He might make that NPC as friendly as that NPC can possibly be, but for that NPC, that might equate to moderate muttering and grumbling instead of his usual semi-psychotic rambling profanity-laced rants.
-
However it's played, you should incorporate the Willpower stat in some step of the test. Either first resolve Intimidation as normal and then roll the Con test afterwards, or oppose CHA+Intimidation against WIL+Con.
-
I'd say it's possible if the person being intimidated is a full blown social adept, has Rating 3 Kinesics, Cool Resolve, etc.
Barring that specifically....probably not.
-
Intimidation and con are two separate tests. Even if you are trying to lie or mislead someone who is intimidating you ("Redmond! I swear Billy's in Redmond!"), the intimidation test would be rolled first, then the con test. Part of interrogation (a specialization of intimidation) is getting reliable information out of someone, so I would possibly consider something like subtracting the net successes from the intimidation test from the successes of the intimidation victim trying to use con.
-
Intimidation and con are two separate tests. Even if you are trying to lie or mislead someone who is intimidating you ("Redmond! I swear Billy's in Redmond!"), the intimidation test would be rolled first, then the con test. Part of interrogation (a specialization of intimidation) is getting reliable information out of someone, so I would possibly consider something like subtracting the net successes from the intimidation test from the successes of the intimidation victim trying to use con.
This is the exact way I do it in my games. If the intimidator gets 3 net hits and my player still wants to lie about the info given, he needs to make a Con test with -3 dice +/- any other modifiers of course.
-
Intimidation and con are two separate tests. Even if you are trying to lie or mislead someone who is intimidating you ("Redmond! I swear Billy's in Redmond!"), the intimidation test would be rolled first, then the con test. Part of interrogation (a specialization of intimidation) is getting reliable information out of someone, so I would possibly consider something like subtracting the net successes from the intimidation test from the successes of the intimidation victim trying to use con.
This is the exact way I do it in my games. If the intimidator gets 3 net hits and my player still wants to lie about the info given, he needs to make a Con test with -3 dice +/- any other modifiers of course.
As it is a Player, of course, if they fail the Con check, they still lie.
They just don't lie convincingly.
(I'd give bonus dice for coming up with something really good.)
((This is in direct reference to the above comments on folks who don't believe in using Social Skills vs PCs, not you specifically, Warmachinez.))
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
As it is a Player, of course, if they fail the Con check, they still lie.
They just don't lie convincingly.
(I'd give bonus dice for coming up with something really good.)
((This is in direct reference to the above comments on folks who don't believe in using Social Skills vs PCs, not you specifically, Warmachinez.))
Completely agree! If my player roleplays accordingly and spits out a very convincing lie in an appropriate manner I give them bonuses.
-
Seconded. This only causes problems with players who do an absolutley terrible role-play and think they deserve an Oscar.
I settle this with a vote around the table. Thankfully my PC's can agree on "I'd believe that"' or "I think he should take a penalty on that one. That felt like one inbred cousin having sex in my left ear and another inbred cousin having sex in my right ear, and they're meeting in the middle".
A little excessive but there you have it.
-
???
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
As it is a Player, of course, if they fail the Con check, they still lie.
They just don't lie convincingly.
(I'd give bonus dice for coming up with something really good.)
((This is in direct reference to the above comments on folks who don't believe in using Social Skills vs PCs, not you specifically, Warmachinez.))
Completely agree! If my player roleplays accordingly and spits out a very convincing lie in an appropriate manner I give them bonuses.
Of course, the problem with that style is it makes it that much more difficult to play this particular type of character as a wish fulfillment - you're effectively being penalized for not actually being as good as your character.
Besides, I prefer to see the check as having to do with every facet of communication BUT the specific words your use.
-
As it is a Player, of course, if they fail the Con check, they still lie.
They just don't lie convincingly.
(I'd give bonus dice for coming up with something really good.)
((This is in direct reference to the above comments on folks who don't believe in using Social Skills vs PCs, not you specifically, Warmachinez.))
Completely agree! If my player roleplays accordingly and spits out a very convincing lie in an appropriate manner I give them bonuses.
Of course, the problem with that style is it makes it that much more difficult to play this particular type of character as a wish fulfillment - you're effectively being penalized for not actually being as good as your character.
Besides, I prefer to see the check as having to do with every facet of communication BUT the specific words your use.
Giving someone a bonus for Roleplaying well is not the same thing as a penalty for not being as good as your character.
If I give Bob the Samurai a gold star for RP, it is not the equivalent of punching Dan the Rigger in the face for not being exceptional...though, honestly, that might motivate Dan to show up prepared to get into character. ;)
But then, I don't see my table as motivated by "wish-fulfillment" but rather telling interesting stories.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
In the case of Face characters, giving a bonus for a well-crafted lie means you're denying the bonus to someone who can't put such a thing together, making them less effective at the role. The exception, of course, is if you asess the bonus criteria in some part based on the player in question.
-
This is veering dangeriously into heated debate territory...
So, the key is how do you reward good/entertaing roleplaying in a game without 'penalising' the players who don't/are unable to go the extra mile?
I think this will come down to individual groups and there playstyle. I encourage rules light, roleplay heavy games where being stylish/entertaing/creative is rewarded with lower then expected threshold or bonus 'cool' dice.
I don't make people say the words, but it the player has worked out something about the npc and uses It? Hell, that's bonus dice. You worked out the other guy owes nuyen to the mob and you use it in your intimidation roll, that should be rewarded. Well played my friend, well played. My group doesn't do (and this is not directed at anyone) roll some dice, your charlacter will 'know' what to say... Its just not our style. But that's my table and I expect things to go differently elsewhere
-
???
This is heated? How so?
Seemed perfectly civil, to me.
RHat, what you're suggesting is that if I reward someone for playing a role well, I'm penalizing someone who isn't as good at that role. That's simply not true - I am rewarding the better player. I am not subtracting the dice from someone else's pool.
If you're objecting that the person who plays a role better is more effective, I don't see where that is a bad thing.
Most RPGs reward good roleplaying, and Shadowrun is no different. Look at the Karma rewards - the very first thing listed is "Good Roleplaying" followed by things like Guts, Smarts, Motivation, Humor & Drama. Pretty much all of those are rewarding behavior.
If I give a Karma reward to someone of any of those, and I penalizing the player who isn't brave, funny, or smart? No, it is a reward for exceptional play.
The concept that you can't reward someone for being good at something because that somehow takes away from someone else simply celebrates mediocrity. If your Face who doesn't come up with anything convincing to say wants bonus dice and extra Karma, he simply needs to become a better Face. He isn't penalized in any way, he gets all the dice his character earned, but to do better than that, well...he has to do better than that.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
My players and I have been playing together for more then 10 years, so I know what they are capable of and as such will adjust 'reward dice' accordingly. I also suspect my group to be like Black's group, heavy on roleplay and less on rolling dice. In most situations if a player makes an argument or wants to negotiate a new fee, I ask them for a bit of explanation. If it is cursory and to the point, then he can roll his dice. If a player goes all out and gives me multiple arguments/reasons/ etc. then I could give him additional dice. It doesnt happen that often that someone really brings forward convincing and compelling reasons to recieve these bonuses, but when it happens I want to encourage it.
-
Exactly.
Example 1 - The team's Face goes up to the guy guarding the back door of the nightclub, and says:
"I try to Con my way in."
He gets his full dice pool for Con. He's just phoning it in, but his character's got skills, so he gets his basic roll.
Example 2 - The team's Face goes up to the same guy and says:
"Thank the Nine Lords of Night you're here! There's a team of Shadowrunners headed this way. Hard as coffin nails, these guys. I'm gonna go in and warn the Boss right away! You stay here, and keep your eyes open. If you see anything, anything, suspicious, you call me right away! *passes the guard an ARO of his comm number* Keep up the good work, choomba. I know talent, and you're going far in this organization!"
I'm probably going to give this guy something for the effort. This encourages him to keep it up, and the guy from Example 1 sees there's a benefit to actually becoming engaged in the game.
The most common mistakes GMs make is no positive reinforcement for quality play (Carrot) and using punishment, rather than consequences, for negative actions (Stick). You reward people for doing well - you're not punishing anyone, you're encouraging. The Stick is letting them face the music when they really botch things up, you don't punish players. You allow there to be fair and reasonable consequences for completely screwing the barghest.
The bottom line is, giving the guy from Example 2 props isn't a penalty on Guy 1. There's no negative dice. If he wants positive dice, he just needs to actually step into the role a little.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
Exactly.
Example 1 - The team's Face goes up to the guy guarding the back door of the nightclub, and says:
"I try to Con my way in."
He gets his full dice pool for Con. He's just phoning it in, but his character's got skills, so he gets his basic roll.
Example 2 - The team's Face goes up to the same guy and says:
"Thank the Nine Lords of Night you're here! There's a team of Shadowrunners headed this way. Hard as coffin nails, these guys. I'm gonna go in and warn the Boss right away! You stay here, and keep your eyes open. If you see anything, anything, suspicious, you call me right away! *passes the guard an ARO of his comm number* Keep up the good work, choomba. I know talent, and you're going far in this organization!"
I'm probably going to give this guy something for the effort. This encourages him to keep it up, and the guy from Example 1 sees there's a benefit to actually becoming engaged in the game.
The most common mistakes GMs make is no positive reinforcement for quality play (Carrot) and using punishment, rather than consequences, for negative actions (Stick). You reward people for doing well - you're not punishing anyone, you're encouraging. The Stick is letting them face the music when they really botch things up, you don't punish players. You allow there to be fair and reasonable consequences for completely screwing the barghest.
The bottom line is, giving the guy from Example 2 props isn't a penalty on Guy 1. There's no negative dice. If he wants positive dice, he just needs to actually step into the role a little.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
This is an awesome post. About the only thing I would add is knowing the players you're playing with. For example, if you know someone in your group absolutely fails at acting but is giving their all the best they can then don't be a "DBag GM" and make things hard on them. It will only discourage them from trying. I've always felt the real world qualities shouldn't affect things in the RP - Universe. Assuming folks are trying of course.
-
Exactly.
Example 1 - The team's Face goes up to the guy guarding the back door of the nightclub, and says:
"I try to Con my way in."
He gets his full dice pool for Con. He's just phoning it in, but his character's got skills, so he gets his basic roll.
Example 2 - The team's Face goes up to the same guy and says:
"Thank the Nine Lords of Night you're here! There's a team of Shadowrunners headed this way. Hard as coffin nails, these guys. I'm gonna go in and warn the Boss right away! You stay here, and keep your eyes open. If you see anything, anything, suspicious, you call me right away! *passes the guard an ARO of his comm number* Keep up the good work, choomba. I know talent, and you're going far in this organization!"
I'm probably going to give this guy something for the effort. This encourages him to keep it up, and the guy from Example 1 sees there's a benefit to actually becoming engaged in the game.
The most common mistakes GMs make is no positive reinforcement for quality play (Carrot) and using punishment, rather than consequences, for negative actions (Stick). You reward people for doing well - you're not punishing anyone, you're encouraging. The Stick is letting them face the music when they really botch things up, you don't punish players. You allow there to be fair and reasonable consequences for completely screwing the barghest.
The bottom line is, giving the guy from Example 2 props isn't a penalty on Guy 1. There's no negative dice. If he wants positive dice, he just needs to actually step into the role a little.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
What I'm more getting at, however, is if a player tries to come up with a good con, but can't - I, for one, don't ever want to see a situation where a player doesn't get to play what he wants because another player is better at it.
-
What I'm more getting at, however, is if a player tries to come up with a good con, but can't - I, for one, don't ever want to see a situation where a player doesn't get to play what he wants because another player is better at it.
I totally have this problem I can't face worth a crap because of my IRL charisma of 2. ;D
-
"Making things hard for them" implies penalties or punishment. Penalties are okay for the right reasons - the guard is on high alert, doesn't like Orks, you don't look like you belong there, you are carrying three Assault Cannons, etc. - but penalizing someone because they're trying and just aren't there, yet, is obviously a bad call.
As for another player being better at it, that kind of thing needs to be worked out during CharGen and team creation. If, in the examples above, I throw a couple of bonus dice to Example 2, and he is playing anything but a Face, he's still not going to be more effective than a Face who rolls their base dice pool.
Unless the Face is a total gimp, their Social dice pool should crush that of any other teammate. A Heavy Weapons Troll doesn't out Con a Dryad (extreme example, but you get my point). A team certainly shouldn't have two Faces, in most circumstances, and if it does, they should have complimentary Specializations, not overlapping ones.
People have natural strengths and weaknesses, and they don't necessarily coincide with those of their character. Some people will gravitate toward certain roles, while others will branch out and try things they might not be great at. If someone is trying to play a role well, I'm going to encourage that.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
Being a face should be like being any other character in Shadowrun - dice pools give you raw ability, but tactics can make you more effective. Combat is the same way. Hand a brand new player and a veteran player the same badass sammie with 20 dice for automatics, and chances are the veteran player will be more effective. He will know how to do things like use full defense as an interrupt action or duck behind a wrecked car for some partial cover. The newbie will just charge in, guns blazing, and get dropped in the first round.