Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Glaive on <10-05-14/0047:19>
-
So I have this tendancy to play high charisma characters even though I'm terrible at being a face. I can never think of anything witty or useful to say when put on the spot. Anyone have tips on how to be an effective face?
-
Remember to seperate yourself from your character.
Just cause you're a dullard doesn't mean your character is :P
Use your skills in place of your own talking abilities (you did take such skills as fast talk, Con, and Etequette. ... right?!?)
-
Follow the helpful tips in this guide. (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=17395.0) Normally I'd get all up in someone's grill about not using the search function, blah blah. But the reality is that the search function didn't pull this up without a lot of work, and I already knew the topic was there. If a moderator can see their way to maybe making a sticky of this helpful thread, it would probably be useful in the future as well.
-
Remember to seperate yourself from your character.
Just cause you're a dullard doesn't mean your character is :P
Use your skills in place of your own talking abilities (you did take such skills as fast talk, Con, and Etequette. ... right?!?)
Well I'm not actually in a game currently, but if I were, then I'd certainly take the proper skills. Still, no GM would ever let me completely replace role playing with dice. And to make matters worse, most games, not just Shadowrun, incorporate penalties for unbelievable lies or social faux pas. Pretty sure going mute from pressure for a solid minute counts as a social faux pas.
Although I guess it isn't all bad. I have had my occasional strokes of genius, when the situation just falls into place in my head and I know exactly what I have to do. More often than not though, I have no clue what I'm doing. I do just need to plan better?
Follow the helpful tips in this guide. (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=17395.0) Normally I'd get all up in someone's grill about not using the search function, blah blah. But the reality is that the search function didn't pull this up without a lot of work, and I already knew the topic was there. If a moderator can see their way to maybe making a sticky of this helpful thread, it would probably be useful in the future as well.
This guide seems to mostly cover what do do, but I'm more concerned about how to do it without coming off like a social reject. Lying unabashedly is fine and all, until crunch time and I literally cannot think of a lie. How do I avoid automatically failing my rolls due to having nothing to say?
-
How do I avoid automatically failing my rolls due to having nothing to say?
By rolling the dice. Your GM shouldn't force you to be able to actually be a face any more than he/she should force the mage to actually cast a spell. Sometimes it's best to just roll the dice.
-
This guide seems to mostly cover what do do, but I'm more concerned about how to do it without coming off like a social reject. Lying unabashedly is fine and all, until crunch time and I literally cannot think of a lie. How do I avoid automatically failing my rolls due to having nothing to say?
Yeah you just need to plan better.
You can have a plan for most 'typical' situations in an rpg, especially shadowrun.
Write them out either in bullet statements or long form if you need to. Memorize them and keep them with you when you game.
Nothing wrong with treading over the same water time and again. Just keep track of what you said to whom.
If you have multiple fake SINs keep close to what each SIN is supposed to be.
How do I avoid automatically failing my rolls due to having nothing to say?
By rolling the dice. Your GM shouldn't force you to be able to actually be a face any more than he/she should force the mage to actually cast a spell. Sometimes it's best to just roll the dice.
I will disagree.
-
What, precisely, do you disagree with Sipowitz? That the GM shouldn't require the face to always roleplay? Or that the mage player should know how to cast spells? Or something else?
-
I willingly roll my Bluff dice even after a good story, knowing I'll fail them at -2 Charisma Modifier and no training in the skill. The other way around is fine too. Now a GM always can go "that's a convincing argument" and provide a modifier, but in the end the character shouldn't be punished because the player isn't a silver-tongued devil. We don't make players describe how they sneak to decide whether or not their actual sneaking works, we don't go "you didn't say you were doing <obvious thing for the character at 8 agility and 6 sneaking> so you get noticed anyway". Why would we go "you automatically fail the social roll" if the player goes "I try to get a better reward by pointing out the dangers from lack of information", despite their massive charisma and social skills?
-
I know your problem, I have had the same trouble in a L5R game where I played the courtier: the face, but much more political, where a faux pas will get you killed, or worse, shunned (and yes, that is worse). I'm not good either and the main problem was one of the other players was and he played the gruff warrior, but was always taking over.
Have a talk with your GM about it, explain why you want to roll dice in some circumstances. It should stay fun for you as well, and having constant stress isn't much fun.
In fact, when I GM, I always have my players roll dice (for the important things at least), but I also have them roleplay the situation, with good roleplay giving bonusses and if they make the big faux pas, they get a penalty (faux pas here is of course really stupid decisions, not if the player is not good at this thing).
-
Why can't you play a high charisma without being a face ?! Some interesting mage traditions use CHA+Will.
If you want to be seductive or intimidating, take skill 1 and a spec. Done.
CHA can be a passive magnetism and you can even refuse to manipulate everybody or to lie permanently.
-
Well I'm not actually in a game currently, but if I were, then I'd certainly take the proper skills. Still, no GM would ever let me completely replace role playing with dice. And to make matters worse, most games, not just Shadowrun, incorporate penalties for unbelievable lies or social faux pas. Pretty sure going mute from pressure for a solid minute counts as a social faux pas.
If your GM wants you to roleplay you facing, you can always ask for a time-out while you ask the other players for tips. Some of the best speeches given by our faces in roleplaying games have been suggested to them by non-face players.
-
I don't think a Face should automatically fail a roll if they don't know what to say, but giving them penalties at least if they specify something out of place makes sense. It'd be like the street samurai make a poor choice to avoid cover in a gunfight or the mage treating his spirits like pawns. Sometimes player actions cause them inconvenience. If you stick to just "this is what I try to accomplish" then the only penalties (or bonuses) you should be getting would be on how your character looks and such.
Try if you can to phrase your actions neutrally. If you're backed into a corner and say, someone accuses you of lying, just say "My character makes up an excuse." and roll the dice. All you need to actual do is pick which skill you're using (Con, Etiquette, and so on). Heck, if you can, just say "I'll roll Con." It's better to try and leave what you're doing up to the imagination of others if you're uncomfortable with your own ability to come up with dialogue.
-
try reading any of the fiction you can get your hands on. I frequently find myself saying, "hmmm what would Argent do in this situation?" Then crying cause ill never be as good as argent :'(
I will also take notes of witty things to say and keep them handy for an appropriate moment. All of my war-hammer 40k charterers have had quotes sheets to read from
That being said, talk to your GM when you get one. I've been schooling the person playing the rogue trader in my 40k game. He used to be so polite and apologize to even the lowliest pesent. Now he is kicking ass and taking name, like a boss. With the right group you tend to hit your stride after a few games
-
What, precisely, do you disagree with Sipowitz? That the GM shouldn't require the face to always roleplay? Or that the mage player should know how to cast spells? Or something else?
For one that you are equating casting spells with talking. I don't require the street sams to lob of body parts or have implanted mechanicals or bring real AK97s to the game either.
I wont tell you how to play.
For me and mine, if you are playing a Face and don't talk in character with NPCs, you will fail. No I didn't say you need to be Templeton Peck, you have to give the Gm something to work with.
Like what firebug says to do will fail every time.
Try if you can to phrase your actions neutrally. If you're backed into a corner and say, someone accuses you of lying, just say "My character makes up an excuse." and roll the dice. All you need to actual do is pick which skill you're using (Con, Etiquette, and so on). Heck, if you can, just say "I'll roll Con." It's better to try and leave what you're doing up to the imagination of others if you're uncomfortable with your own ability to come up with dialogue.
-
For one that you are equating casting spells with talking.
Being a good face is as much about skill and natural charisma as it is about "talking." Okay, let's change the comparison then. Let's go with a street samurai. Do you require the street samurai player to understand how his/her weapons work in real life? Or let's go with a hacker instead. Do you require your hacker's player to be able to expound upon the nature of the Matrix with any degree of technical skill? Since there are literally hundreds of debates on the internet about how the Matrix works in SR5, I think that would be an impossible task. Asking your face's player to roleplay every interaction is fine and dandy, but to penalize them for not being able to do it sounds like a good way to discourage players from trying the face role.
For example, in my group we have a guy who's usually really good at being the face. But we have someone else who has been wanting to try the role for a while. We talked it over, and we agreed that he would try to roleplay as much as he could, but at any time he could stop the roleplay and just roll dice instead. We've given this player the opportunity to try something new, something that will broaden his horizons and make him a better player. At the end of the day, it all depends on the table and the composition of your group. But since I'm not running a drama school, I don't penalize people for being bad roleplayers. Instead, I try to encourage good roleplaying. If the player does good roleplaying (this applies to everyone, not just the face) then they get a bonus karma.
-
I agree with Namikaze here. This is why they have an opposed roll, and not a debate club or used car salesman. Unless you require the rigger to perform a full tune-up on their car in real life, then you're pointlessly picking on the face. We play roleplaying games in part to experience things that we, ourselves, are not able to do. Is it better if a player can maintain character and come up with a convincing spiel when he's the Face? Of course. Hell, if he does well enough, you might even toss him a couple circumstance bonus dice. But should it be required? Oh HELL no.
-
I agree with Namikaze here. This is why they have an opposed roll, and not a debate club or used car salesman. Unless you require the rigger to perform a full tune-up on their car in real life, then you're pointlessly picking on the face. We play roleplaying games in part to experience things that we, ourselves, are not able to do. Is it better if a player can maintain character and come up with a convincing spiel when he's the Face? Of course. Hell, if he does well enough, you might even toss him a couple circumstance bonus dice. But should it be required? Oh HELL no.
+1
Last game we played I played the face. I'm a charming guy, but not the most witty or devious. I stayed in character as much as possible, Explaining to the GM at times what I was trying to do. We would roleplay it out, but the dice primarily determined the outcome. The dice changed how he had the NPC act. Certain choices that I made roleplay-wise could affect things. If I chose intimidate over diplomacy and it was the wrong choice, sometimes things went badly regardless of the roll. It was a good balance of roleplay and dice rolling. We all enjoyed it. I would not enjoy a situation where the roleplay was all that mattered. I'm not a grifter in real life.
-
For one that you are equating casting spells with talking.
Being a good face is as much about skill and natural charisma as it is about "talking." Okay, let's change the comparison then. Let's go with a street samurai. Do you require the street samurai player to understand how his/her weapons work in real life? Or let's go with a hacker instead. Do you require your hacker's player to be able to expound upon the nature of the Matrix with any degree of technical skill? Since there are literally hundreds of debates on the internet about how the Matrix works in SR5, I think that would be an impossible task. Asking your face's player to roleplay every interaction is fine and dandy, but to penalize them for not being able to do it sounds like a good way to discourage players from trying the face role.
For example, in my group we have a guy who's usually really good at being the face. But we have someone else who has been wanting to try the role for a while. We talked it over, and we agreed that he would try to roleplay as much as he could, but at any time he could stop the roleplay and just roll dice instead. We've given this player the opportunity to try something new, something that will broaden his horizons and make him a better player. At the end of the day, it all depends on the table and the composition of your group. But since I'm not running a drama school, I don't penalize people for being bad roleplayers. Instead, I try to encourage good roleplaying. If the player does good roleplaying (this applies to everyone, not just the face) then they get a bonus karma.
Mind showing me where I said anything about running a drama school?
Do I expect smooth talking eloquence every time out of the face player's mouth? Of course not.
However if the GM is in NPC mode trying to get something from the face player and all the GM get's in return is..."I um..I roll Con". You just failed. It's a role playing game. To us that means you roleplay. If we want to just roll dice and compare defenses we can pull out a miniature game and do that.
If that makes some of you uncomfortable, that's on you not us. Our group is not going to stop playing the way we prefer because some here feel it's badwrongfun.
You are correct we don't require the Mage to be able to cast real spells or the Rigger to be able to jack into their vehicle in real life. Those are fantasy elements from the game. However, the Face being able to talk in character is something that can be done in real life. We see no reason why that cannot be accomplished.
Remember what the OP asked?
So I have this tendancy to play high charisma characters even though I'm terrible at being a face. I can never think of anything witty or useful to say when put on the spot. Anyone have tips on how to be an effective face?
-
Mind showing me where I said anything about running a drama school?
Do I expect smooth talking eloquence every time out of the face player's mouth? Of course not.
However if the GM is in NPC mode trying to get something from the face player and all the GM get's in return is..."I um..I roll Con". You just failed. It's a role playing game. To us that means you roleplay. If we want to just roll dice and compare defenses we can pull out a miniature game and do that.
If that makes some of you uncomfortable, that's on you not us. Our group is not going to stop playing the way we prefer because some here feel it's badwrongfun.
I'm not really sure where the hostile tone in this is coming from. I never said what you're doing is bad, wrong, or ...unfun? I'm trying to figure out what the "badwrongfun" means. My whole point was that there are players who want to be that guy, who is smooth-talking, glib, and daring. And very, very few people that I've met in my decades of GMing have ever been able to pull that off. This means dice rolls anyway. But please note that I did say that I encourage roleplaying still - and not just from the face. Everyone should be a good roleplayer, but it takes time for most people to get to the point where they are comfortable with it (not to mention good at it). Perhaps this is because I do a lot of demos with people who have little to no experience, but I would never require a player to do something he's bad at just because the character is supposed to be good at it. The whole element of playing something fantastic disappears in that scenario.
You are correct we don't require the Mage to be able to cast real spells or the Rigger to be able to jack into their vehicle in real life. Those are fantasy elements from the game. However, the Face being able to talk in character is something that can be done in real life. We see no reason why that cannot be accomplished.
A good face generally knows people - body language, facial expressions, languages, psychology, etc. Those are part of their skill set. They're all knowledge-based elements that are derived from years of training, innate talent, and good luck. The same could be said for any character's skill set. Do you ask that your street samurai be able to know how to fire a gun or swing a sword? These are skills that are legitimate and real in the real world, much like the face skills. No fantasy. I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of people think that shooting a gun is as simple as "point and squeeze." They couldn't be more wrong if they tried. Firing a gun is a complicated process that, to do correctly, requires a lot of training and practice to develop these minute details into muscle memory. The same could be said for a person who is good at talking their way out of a traffic ticket, or convincing the girl at the bar to go to bed with them. The confidence and grace of these skills are developed over time, and not everyone will have them - many people will not have these skills.
What you're saying, as I see it, is that you penalize the player of the face for not being able to be a face in real life. If that's not true, I humbly admit my mistake and ask for clarification. What system do you use at your table for determining if a player has sufficiently roleplayed their part? Do you provide bonuses for exceptional roleplaying? If so, how?
I'm not really sure why there's this tone of hostility - from the start, I might add. I simply extrapolated information from what you had given me, which was very little. Now, I'm asking for more information so that those of us not at your table can figure out how you do it. Many of the posters in this thread have given real-world examples of their actions in use. Please provide us with the same, so that we can have more understanding.
Remember what the OP asked?
So I have this tendancy to play high charisma characters even though I'm terrible at being a face. I can never think of anything witty or useful to say when put on the spot. Anyone have tips on how to be an effective face?
I pointed the OP to a thread on the same topic, which had a lot of useful information. I also provided him with, what I think, is the most helpful tip of all: you can always let the dice speak for you. No one should be afraid to try something new, especially in a roleplaying game. Since there are rules for handling social interaction with dice rolls, I'd say it's a legitimate answer to the OP to say that the dice can resolve the scenarios that his roleplaying skills cannot.
-
As with everything in life fake it until you make it.
Can't do witty on the spot? Find half a dozen generic witty retorts or catch lines, and just copy it whole sale.
It doesn't need to be original, its all about presentation, most tables will get a kick out of it. Effort is far more important, that success, with such things.
Terrible accents are good as well, get your worst fake french of fake aussie accent on, little things can make all the difference.
-
Mind showing me where I said anything about running a drama school?
Do I expect smooth talking eloquence every time out of the face player's mouth? Of course not.
However if the GM is in NPC mode trying to get something from the face player and all the GM get's in return is..."I um..I roll Con". You just failed. It's a role playing game. To us that means you roleplay. If we want to just roll dice and compare defenses we can pull out a miniature game and do that.
If that makes some of you uncomfortable, that's on you not us. Our group is not going to stop playing the way we prefer because some here feel it's badwrongfun.
I'm not really sure where the hostile tone in this is coming from. I never said what you're doing is bad, wrong, or ...unfun? I'm trying to figure out what the "badwrongfun" means. My whole point was that there are players who want to be that guy, who is smooth-talking, glib, and daring. And very, very few people that I've met in my decades of GMing have ever been able to pull that off. This means dice rolls anyway. But please note that I did say that I encourage roleplaying still - and not just from the face. Everyone should be a good roleplayer, but it takes time for most people to get to the point where they are comfortable with it (not to mention good at it). Perhaps this is because I do a lot of demos with people who have little to no experience, but I would never require a player to do something he's bad at just because the character is supposed to be good at it. The whole element of playing something fantastic disappears in that scenario.
It's not hostile it's blunt.
You are correct we don't require the Mage to be able to cast real spells or the Rigger to be able to jack into their vehicle in real life. Those are fantasy elements from the game. However, the Face being able to talk in character is something that can be done in real life. We see no reason why that cannot be accomplished.
A good face generally knows people - body language, facial expressions, languages, psychology, etc. Those are part of their skill set. They're all knowledge-based elements that are derived from years of training, innate talent, and good luck. The same could be said for any character's skill set. Do you ask that your street samurai be able to know how to fire a gun or swing a sword? These are skills that are legitimate and real in the real world, much like the face skills. No fantasy. I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of people think that shooting a gun is as simple as "point and squeeze." They couldn't be more wrong if they tried. Firing a gun is a complicated process that, to do correctly, requires a lot of training and practice to develop these minute details into muscle memory. The same could be said for a person who is good at talking their way out of a traffic ticket, or convincing the girl at the bar to go to bed with them. The confidence and grace of these skills are developed over time, and not everyone will have them - many people will not have these skills.
What you're saying, as I see it, is that you penalize the player of the face for not being able to be a face in real life. If that's not true, I humbly admit my mistake and ask for clarification. What system do you use at your table for determining if a player has sufficiently roleplayed their part? Do you provide bonuses for exceptional roleplaying? If so, how?
I'm not really sure why there's this tone of hostility - from the start, I might add. I simply extrapolated information from what you had given me, which was very little. Now, I'm asking for more information so that those of us not at your table can figure out how you do it. Many of the posters in this thread have given real-world examples of their actions in use. Please provide us with the same, so that we can have more understanding.
No we penalize players who can't be bothered to even try. Do I expect smooth talking eloquence every time out of the face player's mouth? Of course not. If you can't give any effort then you get nothing in return.
This is not trying to us. "just say "My character makes up an excuse." and roll the dice."
Remember what the OP asked?
So I have this tendancy to play high charisma characters even though I'm terrible at being a face. I can never think of anything witty or useful to say when put on the spot. Anyone have tips on how to be an effective face?
I pointed the OP to a thread on the same topic, which had a lot of useful information. I also provided him with, what I think, is the most helpful tip of all: you can always let the dice speak for you. No one should be afraid to try something new, especially in a roleplaying game. Since there are rules for handling social interaction with dice rolls, I'd say it's a legitimate answer to the OP to say that the dice can resolve the scenarios that his roleplaying skills cannot.
But he's asking for the roleplaying skills help, yet nearly everyone has told him don't worry about it let system mastery be your skill.
-
If the OP is wanting to hone his face skills in roleplay, why not ask the GM for 'Night out' Session where the team is just chillaxing at a local watering hole or nightclub. Sometimes a not so serious session lets everyone relax a bit and he can try schmoozing around a bit, and if he gets an angry boyfriend trying to slap him around for hitting on his gf, well the sammie may enjoy stepping in for a old fashioned brawl (or stay back and watch in amusement while the face slides down the bar top.) This shouldn't take over the campaign, but just like anime- filler episodes are often the most entertaining and a good break from the serious action.
He has to start somewhere and maybe he can learn a lot more growing into the face role along the way. There will still be rolls involved, hopefully modified by the choices he makes, but he will get a better feel for what he is doing if he can see it from the Face POV.
-
The way I see it, players should generally try their best to roleplay out their conversations - face or otherwise. A face shouldn't just say "I roll con", but try and act as the character would. Speaking in-character is an invaluable tool in creating the proper mood for roleplay.
Thing is, how a player speaks shouldn't be a factor in the success of their character's actions. What they say probably will, although even there a GM should throw bad liars a bone (in the case of con as an example).
If a face's player stumbles through a conversation, that's fine. He might go "I tell um, the guard: Your shoes are untied... wait that's silly... I er, I dunno. Any hints? Wait, I have it. It's um, it's okay Steve, we're, um, mechanics and we picked up an alarm, I mean, an error in the systems". That's a trainwreck of a bluff if the player did it, but the slick face would - if the dice indicate it - roll that off his honeyed tongue in a way even a guard staring at an empty error screen will believe it.
In the end it's a balancing act, and it very much depends on your group and mood, and certainly something to discuss with the GM. But in the end it's your character that's saying witty things on the spot and it's the dice that decide - possibly with bonuses or penalties for roleplay - if such an action succeeds. And a GM should be lenient with an inexperienced face character and give him a break if he hits a wall.
-
This reminds me of something. You all know the four double-attribute tests, right? I employ a fifth in my games: Common Sense. When players get stuck not knowing what to do, or are pondering things that their characters may know are a bad idea, I let them roll Logic+Intuition and tell them what they realize. They can still do the dumb/risky things if they want to after that headsup, but I don't want to penalize the players for something their characters could know/do while the players can't.
-
Dare we ask what happens when they critically glitch on the CS roll? :P
Why yes, making a remark about that troll's mother probably will be a good ice breaker......
-
Out of Context D&D had a nice Shadowrun quote a while back that probably fits here (http://outofcontextdnd.tumblr.com/post/97018680194/the-reason-behind-the-attack-was-that-the-rival).
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kkOKvPrdZ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC8WMbIV2rQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwTC7bw6NSY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsVtHqICeKE
also Burn Notice
At one point I had the insight, that most problems I have with playing a face are not that I cannot talk, debate, discuss or I take to long for finding the right words. No, it’s the fact that I don’t know what to do. Or what I can do. And that is same as GM. I did not had my problem with the fact that people could not talk, (I thought it was, but I was wrong) it was the fact that they don’t know what to do and just wanted to roll*. And with that I as GM didn’t know what to do.
Just look around for some ideas, the talk will come natural.
Pink Mowhawk Bonus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4CrD_zfP08
* “I just wanna con him to give me all this stuff. I take edge. I have max charisma and con … he has no chance” “But it is not in his interest to give you all his stuff, he don’t know you and you have nothing to offer or blend him.” “Year I don’t know, but my character is a con artist I am sure he can come up with something.” “But it’s impossible.” “Nah you just don’t know how to do it, because you too are no con artist, no pro for sure. I am confident my char will find a way, the dices will support that.”
-
As a GM, generally a Missions GM, this is an area where I give the player an opportunity to use his or her personal gift of gab, or personal creativity in the tactics of what they're trying to accomplish. If they come up with something truly extraordinary, I'll give them a bonus of some kind, or open a door to options that might not be accounted for in the adventure as written.
For example, at Origins in June, one group I ran for consisted of a face, a medic/low-powered combat person, and three flavors of street samurai. Without giving too much away, the Mission required the team to locate some items within a warehouse and Do Something. But with no hacker and no magical support, they were looking at having to do this the hard way, scanning each individual pallet.
Cue the group's face, who comes up with the plan to play the "ugly American businessman" card in this non-English-speaking locale. With judicious use of Edge and his description of his approach, I gave him the opportunity to BS his way into the facility and convince the staff to determine the location of the items despite the relatively limited amount of information he had to provide them. Problem solved! (Cue the next problem, confronting a Force 6 spirit by oneself while clad in a stealth suit and armed only with a pistol. :) )
-
In my game, you need to roleplay. It doesn't matter if what you said is something I think is particularly compelling or stupid, though I might increase/decrease thresholds accordingly. It matters what the dice you then roll come up with. So, yeah. I don't allow you to just say, "I make up an excuse," and roll, but, at the same time, I don't require that you think up an ironclad alibi or anything, either.
Many of us (and by "us," I mean RPG players in general) have no real skill in swinging a sword or casting spells. We do, however, have experience with interacting with people on a regular basis. You don't need to have the Charisma of my elf technomancer to play a face in a roleplaying game. But you do need to actually roleplay the character. It can be difficult at first, but hopefully the group you're in will be sufficiently supportive in allowing you to flex those new RP muscles. And just like physical muscles, you have to start small and work your way up to the bigger stuff.
-
When you say "need to roleplay", what level are you talking about though? Are we talking "I tell him some rubbish about bad paperwork, you know how the bosses are", "I tell him the paperwork must have gotten mixed up somewhere, and how I suspect Frank from accounting got rejected recently and is taking it out on people", "Urg, messed up paperwork again?! I'm getting bloody pissed at Frank, the guy got rejected by the boss's secretary and now he keeps taking it out on us by making files disappear for a while. The guy really oughta get fired, he's causing the company to bleed money in wasted time!", or somewhere inbetween?
-
When you say "need to roleplay", what level are you talking about though? Are we talking "I tell him some rubbish about bad paperwork, you know how the bosses are", "I tell him the paperwork must have gotten mixed up somewhere, and how I suspect Frank from accounting got rejected recently and is taking it out on people", "Urg, messed up paperwork again?! I'm getting bloody pissed at Frank, the guy got rejected by the boss's secretary and now he keeps taking it out on us by making files disappear for a while. The guy really oughta get fired, he's causing the company to bleed money in wasted time!", or somewhere inbetween?
For our group it would be
"Urg, messed up paperwork again?! I'm getting bloody pissed at Frank, the guy got rejected by the boss's secretary and now he keeps taking it out on us by making files disappear for a while. The guy really oughta get fired, he's causing the company to bleed money in wasted time!"
Have the conversation don't tell me the conversation.
-
We do, however, have experience with interacting with people on a regular basis.
That's a huge assumption - most of the players I know have very little to do with interacting with people. Out of our whole group, I'm the only one that's ever had a management role, been in sales, or otherwise dealt with people on a regular basis. Our players are mostly tech-heads who try to do their job and go home. And that's been pretty much the norm for the last 20ish years that I've been GMing.
You don't need to have the Charisma of my elf technomancer to play a face in a roleplaying game. But you do need to actually roleplay the character. It can be difficult at first, but hopefully the group you're in will be sufficiently supportive in allowing you to flex those new RP muscles. And just like physical muscles, you have to start small and work your way up to the bigger stuff.
I agree that there should be roleplaying. It's a roleplaying game. It's not a battlemap with mechs (nothing against BattleMech, but Shadowrun it ain't). However, does your GM say that you fail your dice roll if you don't roleplay? What are the actual mechanics used here? I asked the same question earlier and got no actual answer. I'm hoping that someone in the "must roleplay" camp can give me an example of what they actually do.
-
We do, however, have experience with interacting with people on a regular basis.
That's a huge assumption - most of the players I know have very little to do with interacting with people. Out of our whole group, I'm the only one that's ever had a management role, been in sales, or otherwise dealt with people on a regular basis. Our players are mostly tech-heads who try to do their job and go home. And that's been pretty much the norm for the last 20ish years that I've been GMing.
You don't need to have the Charisma of my elf technomancer to play a face in a roleplaying game. But you do need to actually roleplay the character. It can be difficult at first, but hopefully the group you're in will be sufficiently supportive in allowing you to flex those new RP muscles. And just like physical muscles, you have to start small and work your way up to the bigger stuff.
I agree that there should be roleplaying. It's a roleplaying game. It's not a battlemap with mechs (nothing against BattleMech, but Shadowrun it ain't). However, does your GM say that you fail your dice roll if you don't roleplay? What are the actual mechanics used here? I asked the same question earlier and got no actual answer. I'm hoping that someone in the "must roleplay" camp can give me an example of what they actually do.
I'm in the "should roleplay" camp, so I'm not too strict about it to my players (when I DM) - it's just something I'd like to do myself and encourage in players. But maybe my answer helps a bit too. I'll give a player time to come up with something to say, and if someone really can't come up with something compelling but his character reasonably would, I'd let it slide (or make other players give hints). For me it's not about punishing players, it's about improving roleplay.
A player flat out refusing to try hasn't come up yet, but I don't think that's something that can be solved with in-game penalties.
I should add that it's something that's grown over years of roleplaying. I'm not a terribly good public speaker myself, so as a beginning roleplayer I found it jarring to always speak in-character. I still use descriptive conversations occasionally, although I try to catch it and correct myself (unless it's an unimportant conversation). So I think player experience with roleplay is an important consideration as well.
-
That's a huge assumption - most of the players I know have very little to do with interacting with people. Out of our whole group, I'm the only one that's ever had a management role, been in sales, or otherwise dealt with people on a regular basis. Our players are mostly tech-heads who try to do their job and go home. And that's been pretty much the norm for the last 20ish years that I've been GMing.
It's not really a huge assumption. The mere fact that you're playing a roleplaying game means you have experience interacting with people. You don't need to be in sales or management to know how to verbally interact with another person. Even those tech-heads who go to work and go home have to deal with people at work, at the store, at the restaurant, at home, and so on. They probably have families and friends. At the very least, they have a roleplaying group, and in order to play, there has to be interaction.
I agree that there should be roleplaying. It's a roleplaying game. It's not a battlemap with mechs (nothing against BattleMech, but Shadowrun it ain't). However, does your GM say that you fail your dice roll if you don't roleplay? What are the actual mechanics used here? I asked the same question earlier and got no actual answer. I'm hoping that someone in the "must roleplay" camp can give me an example of what they actually do.
In the examples given before, I'm good with the second or third. I prefer the third, but the second is good, too. And, sometimes, the second is preferable for dissemination of lots of boring information. I would never say someone fails a dice roll because he didn't roleplay, because, without the roleplay, there can be no dice roll. So, you just rolled your Con skill. Awesome. What was the lie? Is it believable? Do you have some sort of support for it? Things like this go into determining the difficulty of the check. As GM, I need to take all that into account in order to set the threshold. "I roll a Con check" is not acceptable. "I tell the cop that I've never even been to the Space Needle because I can't afford it, and I sure as hell didn't kill anyone there" is perfectly fine. It doesn't always have to be purely dialogue, though some is preferable to none.
-
In the examples given before, I'm good with the second or third. I prefer the third, but the second is good, too. And, sometimes, the second is preferable for dissemination of lots of boring information. I would never say someone fails a dice roll because he didn't roleplay, because, without the roleplay, there can be no dice roll. So, you just rolled your Con skill. Awesome. What was the lie? Is it believable? Do you have some sort of support for it? Things like this go into determining the difficulty of the check. As GM, I need to take all that into account in order to set the threshold. "I roll a Con check" is not acceptable. "I tell the cop that I've never even been to the Space Needle because I can't afford it, and I sure as hell didn't kill anyone there" is perfectly fine. It doesn't always have to be purely dialogue, though some is preferable to none.
That makes sense to me. Telling the GM the goal of the conversation, and even a little detail about how the character goes about meeting that goal is tantamount to a street samurai telling the GM what he's aiming at and how he's firing his gun. Makes perfect sense. And I love roleplaying - so it sounds like your system does a good job of encouraging roleplay without penalizing those who are bad at it. Kudos.
-
That makes sense to me. Telling the GM the goal of the conversation, and even a little detail about how the character goes about meeting that goal is tantamount to a street samurai telling the GM what he's aiming at and how he's firing his gun. Makes perfect sense. And I love roleplaying - so it sounds like your system does a good job of encouraging roleplay without penalizing those who are bad at it. Kudos.
And we don't penalize people who are bad at it either. We do penalize people who can't be bothered to try.
What I can say is you keep equating what one archetype does as being nearly identical to what another does. That is not being accurate.
Perhaps it's easier to understand if I say we do first person roleplaying. You act as if you are standing right there doing what needs to be done.
-
Facing from my perspective (as a GM, and granted lenient GM at times).
If you roll good but aren't great at getting your point across RP wise, I'm not going to penalize you for it as long as you aren't doing something that would be totally socially unacceptable (cussing out your boss for example). But if you are in the ballpark, then you're good.
Now if you are an amazing Face RPer, I'll possibly end up granting you with a bonus karma now and then for just doing an amazing job, and there have been times when a face has been so convincing that I forget to even call for rolls (I try to not do that, but if I can get enthrawled sometimes).
But all in all, as long as you are making an effort, there is no reason to penalize you for not being a face in real life.
-
I think someone rolling a social skill needs to at least describe what he is trying to do, and what tactic he is using. For a guard at a gate, you need to at least give me something like "I'm trying to get this guy to let me through, and I'm pretending to be a maintenance guy." I wouldn't really reward good roleplay with extra dice, no more than I would give extra dice to someone for describing his martial artist's attack in more detail. But like Top Dog, I wouldn't penalize a player for a bluff that is described awkwardly.
Just like shooting a gun, not every tactic is going to work. Maybe you're trying to pretend you're the boss's nephew and the receptionist knows everyone in his family, or maybe pretending to be a new hire won't cut it because even new hires would be in the database. On the flip side, sometimes unknown factors can make social skills more effective. If you are trying to frame the Sons of Sauron for a botched explosives job your team did, it might be an easier sell if the police chief is racist against orks.
Social skills should be comparatively subtle in their effects, too. The SR5 rules may have potential problems similar to the SR4 rules, but their fluff is an improvement - it implies that social skills are more for PC vs. NPC than PC vs. PC, and their example of intimidation was a lot more realistic than the SR4 one. The intimidated ganger lowers her weapon and is suddenly more amenable to talking first - note that she doesn't piss her pants in fear and then grovel. I think a lot of problems arise because some players and GMs assume someone with high double-digit dice pools auto-succeeds in telling anyone to do anything.
If someone has high social skills/Charisma, though, I would give them more hints and more detailed descriptions - for someone normal, I might just say the Johnson is a bit brusque, but for a face, I might say he seems snappish because something is making him nervous, and that he seems like he is in a hurry for some reason. Also, another intangible is that I would let them breeze through some situations that are a petty annoyance, or take some time and work, for other PCs. Bouncers wave them in, people cross the street to hit on them, etc.
-
yes i have seen this come up in so many rpg games i have playd .
why is it always the social rolls where we get this whith .
we can say :
i shoot my gun.
i sneak into the building wile trying to avoid the cameras.
wile sneaking i try to get behind him to backstab .
and everything is ok .
but the moment we say :
i try to haggle to get a discount.
i slip the doorman a bribe to let me true.
i negociate whith mr johnson for a better payout .
we are not allowed to just pick up our dice and roll them but we have to play out the scene like its a larp .
olso bonuses and penalties becous of bad/good wordings is a dickmove imo.
there is a reason we have the dice and the skilpoints.
for the creator of the tread i woud give the advice to start small.
do not talk ingame yet but distance yourself from your character at first .
you can say thing like :
i nod at the apropriete moments and do the usual smaltalk whith the client .
i try to negociate a better payout for the mission wile i use extra expenses/disposebal gear/travel costs/... as an excuse.
i aproach my mark at the bar and use the sportsgame that is playing as an in to start the conversation rolling afterwards i liquere him/her up and try to get the info i need .
its easyer wen you talk in 3Rd person and switch to ingame voice once you feel more secure.
-
Shreck does have a point, spelling aside. Logical action description should be a perfectly valid basis for any roll, regardless of the skills and attribute involved. It is the only way to be consistent between all elements of the system. I would not consider that to be bad role playing in anyway, in fact it's solid and consistent role play. It may not be as entertaining to the table. Trying to go a little further is good for a number of reasons but there is no reason to complicate matters. Layout the scene, specify the conflict, arbitrate character interaction with the elements of the scene and between characters, enumerate or foreshadow consequences of character actions be they good or bad, conclude scene, advance to the next scene. To me that boils it down to it's most basic level.
-
Depends on what role play means to you and yours.
Is role play meant to mean I play the role of the street samurai?
Is role play meant to mean I am playing Tommy 'Murphy' Jones; the smartass, to talkative for his own good, who seems to have a bad luck streak Street Samurai.
Logical action description is fine up to a point.
Murphy<looking through his scope>(to other players) "I see 3 Go-Gangers. Putting a short burst into the middle Go-Ganger hopefully the others will scatter left and right."
Aims and fires at Go-Ganger
Okay with me.
Murphy<walking up to Go-Gangers>(to other players) "I see 3 Go-Gangers. Going to Con the Middle Go-Ganger. Hopefully the other two will follow the middles lead"
Rolls Con.
Not okay with me.
-
Depends on what role play means to you and yours.
Is role play meant to mean I play the role of the street samurai?
Is role play meant to mean I am playing Tommy 'Murphy' Jones; the smartass, to talkative for his own good, who seems to have a bad luck streak Street Samurai.
Logical action description is fine up to a point.
Murphy<looking through his scope>(to other players) "I see 3 Go-Gangers. Putting a short burst into the middle Go-Ganger hopefully the others will scatter left and right."
Aims and fires at Go-Ganger
Okay with me.
Murphy<walking up to Go-Gangers>(to other players) "I see 3 Go-Gangers. Going to Con the Middle Go-Ganger. Hopefully the other two will follow the middles lead"
Rolls Con.
Not okay with me.
why not ?
both have spend points in the skills requierd , why is one allowed to roll his dice and the other one not ?
i suck at fighting in RL but i play a streetsam who kan kill cyberninjas whith a roll of a dice.
i suck at public speaking and whitty barter in RL but i play a face who can charm/bluff his way out of any situation whith the roll of a dice.
but wen you freeze up wen the spotlight is on you or you cant come up whith a good excuse wen everyone at the table is looking at you, you are not allowed to play a face ?
on page 140 we got a full table with all the + and - moddifiers wen using social skill so clearly we are suposed to roll the dice to see wat happens ?
-
Logical action description is fine up to a point.
Murphy<looking through his scope>(to other players) "I see 3 Go-Gangers. Putting a short burst into the middle Go-Ganger hopefully the others will scatter left and right."
Aims and fires at Go-Ganger
Okay with me.
Murphy<walking up to Go-Gangers>(to other players) "I see 3 Go-Gangers. Going to Con the Middle Go-Ganger. Hopefully the other two will follow the middles lead"
Rolls Con.
Not okay with me.
The fact that the same method is fine for one player and not for another is what I think a lot of people have issue with. Again, no one's talking about your table specifically - just in general, it's fair to require the same out of both players.
The drawback to your method is that someone who wants to play a face and doesn't know how will get penalized or possibly scared off. That's no good for anyone, since that person might turn out to be a great roleplayer down the line, had they only been given the chance. The plus though, is that those at your table that aren't necessarily good roleplayers will get to see good roleplaying - and hopefully this will entice them to become good themselves.
Has anyone here ever noticed how hard it is to find really REALLY good roleplayers? Usually these people become GMs, not because of the love of the rules or the stories but because of a love of the NPCs. I feel that it is our responsibility as GMs to encourage people to push their boundaries and try new things. I've got two new players at my table this week, both of whom have Pathfinder experience but that's about it. They're both comfortable with the roleplaying angle, but they're not comfortable with the setting yet. My expectation, or hope rather, is that after a few sessions they'll be very comfortable with the setting, and we'll see more and more of their character come out at the table. Until then, if they want to stay mostly quiet and not roleplay heavily, then fine.
It's all about fairness, encouragement, and growth. I feel that we have an obligation to these players to provide them with a great game, great story, and great fun. If I started penalizing players for not being good at roleplaying, I think I'd be violating that commitment.
-
Depends on what role play means to you and yours.
Is role play meant to mean I play the role of the street samurai?
Is role play meant to mean I am playing Tommy 'Murphy' Jones; the smartass, to talkative for his own good, who seems to have a bad luck streak Street Samurai.
Logical action description is fine up to a point.
Murphy<looking through his scope>(to other players) "I see 3 Go-Gangers. Putting a short burst into the middle Go-Ganger hopefully the others will scatter left and right."
Aims and fires at Go-Ganger
Okay with me.
Murphy<walking up to Go-Gangers>(to other players) "I see 3 Go-Gangers. Going to Con the Middle Go-Ganger. Hopefully the other two will follow the middles lead"
Rolls Con.
Not okay with me.
why not ?
both have spend points in the skills requierd , why is one allowed to roll his dice and the other one not ?
i suck at fighting in RL but i play a streetsam who kan kill cyberninjas whith a roll of a dice.
i suck at public speaking and whitty barter in RL but i play a face who can charm/bluff his way out of any situation whith the roll of a dice.
but wen you freeze up wen the spotlight is on you or you cant come up whith a good excuse wen everyone at the table is looking at you, you are not allowed to play a face ?
on page 140 we got a full table with all the + and - moddifiers wen using social skill so clearly we are suposed to roll the dice to see wat happens ?
Never said that both don't roll, they do.
-
I find it extremely unfair that most groups will let most players get by with I shoot him, I banish it, I hack the Gibson, but make the face basically act out a scene. I feel that discourages role play more than it encourages it. I would let a get away with "I try to negotiate a higher rate for the run" or "I try to convince the bouncer to let us in". Those in my opinion are straight skill checks. Trying to hit someone up for information or pick up a target at a bar? That's a little more in depth, but I'm not going to penalize someone for being socially ackward in real life. It discourages them from trying something new and possibly getting better as a player.
If you make the face go into that much detail I feel you should make everyone do the same. So "I shoot him" should be "I peek out from cover, scan the area, draw a bead on my target, and gently squeeze the trigger."
-
Logical action description is fine up to a point.
Murphy<looking through his scope>(to other players) "I see 3 Go-Gangers. Putting a short burst into the middle Go-Ganger hopefully the others will scatter left and right."
Aims and fires at Go-Ganger
Okay with me.
Murphy<walking up to Go-Gangers>(to other players) "I see 3 Go-Gangers. Going to Con the Middle Go-Ganger. Hopefully the other two will follow the middles lead"
Rolls Con.
Not okay with me.
The fact that the same method is fine for one player and not for another is what I think a lot of people have issue with. Again, no one's talking about your table specifically - just in general, it's fair to require the same out of both players.
Life isn't fair.
Some archetypes require more effort than others. If people have issues with that, no amount of me saying anything is ever going to change their minds.
The drawback to your method is that someone who wants to play a face and doesn't know how will get penalized or possibly scared off. That's no good for anyone, since that person might turn out to be a great roleplayer down the line, had they only been given the chance.
I don't start new players out on harder to play archetypes? I ease new players into the hobby.
Initial exposures are extremely hard to overcome.
The plus though, is that those at your table that aren't necessarily good roleplayers will get to see good roleplaying - and hopefully this will entice them to become good themselves.
Or they just play the silent types and let players who like to be verbose do it.
It's all about fairness, encouragement, and growth. I feel that we have an obligation to these players to provide them with a great game, great story, and great fun. If I started penalizing players for not being good at roleplaying, I think I'd be violating that commitment.
Show me where I have ever said I penalize players for not being good at roleplaying.
What I have said is I penalize players for not even trying.
-
I find it extremely unfair that most groups will let most players get by with I shoot him, I banish it, I hack the Gibson, but make the face basically act out a scene. I feel that discourages role play more than it encourages it. I would let a get away with "I try to negotiate a higher rate for the run" or "I try to convince the bouncer to let us in". Those in my opinion are straight skill checks. Trying to hit someone up for information or pick up a target at a bar? That's a little more in depth, but I'm not going to penalize someone for being socially ackward in real life. It discourages them from trying something new and possibly getting better as a player.
If you make the face go into that much detail I feel you should make everyone do the same. So "I shoot him" should be "I peek out from cover, scan the area, draw a bead on my target, and gently squeeze the trigger."
How does someone get 'better' as a player if all you require is "I try to negotiate a higher rate for the run" rolls dice? Is getting 'better' as a player about game mechanics mastery?
-
Sipowitz, your definition of "not trying" as a face is identical to your definition of "trying" for any other player role. And if that's what you want to do at your table, that's fine. But justifying it as "life's not fair" just seems like you're blowing off contradictory opinions.
-
In the very next sentence I said that trying to get info from someone or chat them up would require more than just a roll. They get better by trying something new instead of doing the same things over and over. They get better by not being discouraged to try something new and taking a chance to expand their horizons. If they don't feel like they have to be James Bond levels of charming to play a face and give it a try and then start taking baby steps at role-playing more did they not get better?
You say life isn't fair and I agree, however, a game you are playing for fun with other people should be.
-
sorry Sipowitz i am not trying to attack you or anything .
but in my experience from the games i have played so far:
we do not roll social skils
i mostly use them as a dumpstat becous no matter howmuch points you have in it you always have to play out the scene in character ( like it was a larp ).
and depending on how that went you succeedid or faild ( no dice roll req ).
becous :
for instance we do a haggle scene were i am trying to sell some gear to a pawnshop .
we are talking in person and we go something like :
gm: i am willing to offer you 250 for the lott.
me: but look at the craftsmanship on this piece, i cant accept less then 400.
gm: 300 my final offer.
me: 300 and you trow in that katana on the wall over there.
gm: 350 if you want that katana.
me: deal ( extends hand)
gm: deal ( shakes hand )
you cant really roll the dice after playing out the scene becous it alreaddy happend.
so how do you deal whith a scene like that ?
-
Sipowitz, your definition of "not trying" as a face is identical to your definition of "trying" for any other player role. And if that's what you want to do at your table, that's fine. But justifying it as "life's not fair" just seems like you're blowing off contradictory opinions.
Your not seeing what is said.
Murphy<looking through his scope>(to other players) "I see 3 Go-Gangers. Putting a short burst into the middle Go-Ganger hopefully the others will scatter left and right."
Aims and fires at Go-Ganger
Okay with me.
1. Character is telling the other characters what he sees.
2. Tells other characters what he is going to do. Short Burst is descriptive action. It also happens to be a game definition.
3. Does said action
4. Said action requires no interaction with scenery or population of game world
Murphy<walking up to Go-Gangers>(to other players) "I see 3 Go-Gangers. Going to Con the Middle Go-Ganger. Hopefully the other two will follow the middles lead"
Rolls Con.
Not okay with me.
1. Character is telling the others what he sees.
2. Tells other players what he is going to do
3. Does said action
4. Fails action. Action requires interaction with the population of the game world
-
sorry Sipowitz i am not trying to attack you or anything .
but in my experience from the games i have played so far:
we do not roll social skils
i mostly use them as a dumpstat becous no matter howmuch points you have in it you always have to play out the scene in character ( like it was a larp ).
and depending on how that went you succeedid or faild ( no dice roll req ).
becous :
for instance we do a haggle scene were i am trying to sell some gear to a pawnshop .
we are talking in person and we go something like :
gm: i am willing to offer you 250 for the lott.
me: but look at the craftsmanship on this piece, i cant accept less then 400.
gm: 300 my final offer.
me: 300 and you trow in that katana on the wall over there.
gm: 350 if you want that katana.
me: deal ( extends hand)
gm: deal ( shakes hand )
you cant really roll the dice after playing out the scene becous it alreaddy happend.
so how do you deal whith a scene like that ?
We roll our respective dice?
-
It's a bad example, your face isn't saying what they want. If the face said something along the lines of "I try to talk our way past them" would they still have failed?
Edit- Maybe we are all misunderstanding each other. Sipowitz, here's what I think you are saying, if a Samurai is trying to get past somebody, let's say a mook guarding a door, it's okay for them to say "I shoot them" and roll the dice. However, if a face is trying to get past them saying "I try to talk my way past", isn't okay. If I am understanding correctly why is on good and the other not? If I'm not understanding correctly what am I missing?
-
It's a bad example, your face isn't saying what they want. If the face said something along the lines of "I try to talk our way past them" would they still have failed?
Edit- Maybe we are all misunderstanding each other. Sipowitz, here's what I think you are saying, if a Samurai is trying to get past somebody, let's say a mook guarding a door, it's okay for them to say "I shoot them" and roll the dice. However, if a face is trying to get past them saying "I try to talk my way past", isn't okay. If I am understanding correctly why is one good and the other not? If I'm not understanding correctly what am I missing?
For us: "I shoot them" =/= "I try to talk my way past them"?
I don't know how else to say it.
-
Why? To me they are both quick and easy tests. There really isn't any interesting interaction there. It's not talking to a contact or trying to make a new one. It's a yes or no, either you hit them, physically or socially, or you miss. What does the player and the group gain by stringing out a simple interaction such as that? Where does it stop? Does everything get role-played out? Picking up food and such?
I'm seriously trying to understand, not get on your case about this.
-
I think part of the problem is there's extra rules that offer 'guidelines' on shooting people: bursts, called shots, ammo types... for social skills, however, that isn't the case, so if you put the same amount of effort into it as one would put into shooting people, it'll feel like you've done less.
-
I suppose that makes sense - I mean, knowing when to use a single shot versus a burst shot is a matter of tactics that the player determines, not the character. So if you at least give the GM a hint or two of the tactics or methods used, then that would make it even.
-
The prejudice and the "harm" table are the equivalent. Trying to talk some one who is biased against you into doing something that would inconvenience them vs firing a burst at long range. Admittedly in my example I'd want more than just a roll and at least have the player come up with a good reason or compromise.
-
A social skill takes a bit more than "I roll con". Even if you aren't roleplaying the scene out, you still need to say what you are trying to do, and, in the most general terms, how you are doing it. Saying "I try to get past the bouncer by acting like I'm some VIP" is acceptable (to me). I don't see that as picking on the face; I see it as asking for the bare minimum level of detail the GM needs. The street samurai with three different guns, with 8 hostiles surrounding the group, can't just say "I shoot him", either. He needs to specify which gun he is using, what firing mode he is using, and who he is aiming at.
-
A social skill takes a bit more than "I roll con". Even if you aren't roleplaying the scene out, you still need to say what you are trying to do, and, in the most general terms, how you are doing it. Saying "I try to get past the bouncer by acting like I'm some VIP" is acceptable (to me). I don't see that as picking on the face; I see it as asking for the bare minimum level of detail the GM needs. The street samurai with three different guns, with 8 hostiles surrounding the group, can't just say "I shoot him", either. He needs to specify which gun he is using, what firing mode he is using, and who he is aiming at.
Exactly, or slipping the bouncer some nuyen.
-
Why? To me they are both quick and easy tests. There really isn't any interesting interaction there. It's not talking to a contact or trying to make a new one. It's a yes or no, either you hit them, physically or socially, or you miss. What does the player and the group gain by stringing out a simple interaction such as that? Where does it stop? Does everything get role-played out? Picking up food and such?
I'm seriously trying to understand, not get on your case about this.
That Mook Guard could be a potential contact.
Our first 5e game had that happen. What we thought was going to be a simple data steal, ended up being a smash and grab, we left one of the Mook Guards alive, even gave him some creds for his trouble(we roughed him up so it wouldn't look suspicious). We kept giving him money for info and gave him intel on other crews to make him look good, he kept getting promoted.
All of that happened because we took the time to roleplay with a Mook Guard.
The handle I use here came from another Mook Guard encounter. It ended up giving the whole crew a 'press cover' to get into places. We got fake SINs and everything for it, even started the "This Week in Seattle" news site because of it.
All of that happened because we took the time to roleplay with a Mook Guard.
It doesn't happen all the time. However, it would never happen if you "I use Con" rolls dice it.
-
I think part of the problem is there's extra rules that offer 'guidelines' on shooting people: bursts, called shots, ammo types... for social skills, however, that isn't the case, so if you put the same amount of effort into it as one would put into shooting people, it'll feel like you've done less.
So you'd more like compare "I use my SMG (easier to conceal) loaded with stick-'n-shock, put it on FA mode and fire 6 rounds in his face with a Simple Action" with "I wear my fancy business clothes, act like a typical cocky corp guy and slip the "good man" some nuyen with a certified credstick as I enter without expecting him to stop me"? It involves preparations, weapon of choice and type of attack action.
-
The prejudice and the "harm" table are the equivalent. Trying to talk some one who is biased against you into doing something that would inconvenience them vs firing a burst at long range.
I personally feel the "Social Modifiers" table isn't as helpful as the combat rules in guiding your actions, and prejudice just makes things harder: it doesn't actually give you any ideas on how to proceed. The book is simply more vague about how to face than about how to fight.
I think part of the problem is there's extra rules that offer 'guidelines' on shooting people: bursts, called shots, ammo types... for social skills, however, that isn't the case, so if you put the same amount of effort into it as one would put into shooting people, it'll feel like you've done less.
So you'd more like compare "I use my SMG (easier to conceal) loaded with stick-'n-shock, put it on FA mode and fire 6 rounds in his face with a Simple Action" with "I wear my fancy business clothes, act like a typical cocky corp guy and slip the "good man" some nuyen with a certified credstick as I enter without expecting him to stop me"? It involves preparations, weapon of choice and type of attack action.
Something like that, yes - but for inexperienced faces, you'd need a table with things like "clothing", "attitude", and the like.
-
Why? To me they are both quick and easy tests. There really isn't any interesting interaction there. It's not talking to a contact or trying to make a new one. It's a yes or no, either you hit them, physically or socially, or you miss. What does the player and the group gain by stringing out a simple interaction such as that? Where does it stop? Does everything get role-played out? Picking up food and such?
I'm seriously trying to understand, not get on your case about this.
That Mook Guard could be a potential contact.
Our first 5e game had that happen. What we thought was going to be a simple data steal, ended up being a smash and grab, we left one of the Mook Guards alive, even gave him some creds for his trouble(we roughed him up so it wouldn't look suspicious). We kept giving him money for info and gave him intel on other crews to make him look good, he kept getting promoted.
All of that happened because we took the time to roleplay with a Mook Guard.
The handle I use here came from another Mook Guard encounter. It ended up giving the whole crew a 'press cover' to get into places. We got fake SINs and everything for it, even started the "This Week in Seattle" news site because of it.
All of that happened because we took the time to roleplay with a Mook Guard.
It doesn't happen all the time. However, it would never happen if you "I use Con" rolls dice it.
Thanks for the answer. I do similar things if my group decides to roleplay an encounter out, and I don't let them raise contacts loyalty ratings without roleplaying exchanges. I just feel it slows the pace down when it's done all the time.
-
All depends on what you want out of the game. Our group, for the most part, likes the interactions/banter between PCs, PCs and NPCs.
-
And we're all agreeing with you. We're simply saying that 'I Con the gangers into letting us pass' is just as valid as 'I put a short burst into middle ganger'. If you succeed (make your roll), there are certain consequences; if you fail (miss your roll) there are certain consequences. This applies no matter what SKILL you happen to be using, and should at worst gain the player no RP bonuses or penalties. (Penalties should come when you offer them something blatantly wrong - or even subtly wrong.) Penalizing a guy who just hasn't the RL chops really IS like penalizing the guy who doesn't know enough to say that he's gonna take in that breath, let half of it out, and gently squeeze, not pull, the trigger.
In regards to the question laid out by the OP, though, your GM - and the other players!! - should help you out in trying to get some of those RP bonuses. "Well, Con means you're gonna scam them or something - a bribe, faking like you belong there, or what?" Your table should be helping you out, especially if some of them ARE better socially. And in helping you out, they increase your chance to succeed, and thus the team's chance to succeed.
-
And we're all agreeing with you. We're simply saying that 'I Con the gangers into letting us pass' is just as valid as 'I put a short burst into middle ganger'. If you succeed (make your roll), there are certain consequences; if you fail (miss your roll) there are certain consequences. This applies no matter what SKILL you happen to be using, and should at worst gain the player no RP bonuses or penalties. (Penalties should come when you offer them something blatantly wrong - or even subtly wrong.) Penalizing a guy who just hasn't the RL chops really IS like penalizing the guy who doesn't know enough to say that he's gonna take in that breath, let half of it out, and gently squeeze, not pull, the trigger.
In regards to the question laid out by the OP, though, your GM - and the other players!! - should help you out in trying to get some of those RP bonuses. "Well, Con means you're gonna scam them or something - a bribe, faking like you belong there, or what?" Your table should be helping you out, especially if some of them ARE better socially. And in helping you out, they increase your chance to succeed, and thus the team's chance to succeed.
It's only valid if the group playing, plays that way. Which I have said multiple times throughout this thread.
If your group plays it that way, have at it. More power to yas. I'm not going to stop you from playing that way.
Just like I will ignore anybody that says I have to play it that way.
And just to reiterate, yet again, we don't 'Penalize a guy who just hasn't the RL chops' We penalize those who don't even try.
-
I've had lots of games where there's one player who treats the game like it's a sand table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_table). That one player is great at tactics and such. That player will usually lend a hand to those players that aren't so great at figuring out what to do next in a combat scenario. And those that are great at the social aspects of the game will usually do the same for other players.
But as the GM, there's a certain point (and this is rather difficult to quantitatively define) at which I let the dice do the talking. Sometimes it's downtime, and we don't want to spend forever on something that's tangential to the story. Other times, it's because a player is really struggling and I see that they know what they want but they don't know how to do it. But I can see now, from ZeConster's examples, that I was being perhaps unfair in asking Sipowitz to define the line that exists between "not trying" and "not skilled."
This is going to boil down to a GM call in almost every case. Though the table should be helping out, and if the player is really struggling then the dice should resolve those matters. Otherwise, why have the skill points, attributes, and other rules aspects of the game? I've played in games where the GM wants to roleplay everything, and it can get really frustrating at times. Particularly when the GM wants the game to be played in the correct time period and such. One can only throw so many "forsooths" and "alases" out there before they want to shoot themselves. :P
-
Yes, but here's the thing, Sipowitz - the point where you define 'don't even try' is well beyond the point that I even just indicated.
Which, I suppose, is fine - but I hope you warn people walking into that situation that that's what is expected/required of them.
-
Yes, but here's the thing, Sipowitz - the point where you define 'don't even try' is well beyond the point that I even just indicated.
Which, I suppose, is fine - but I hope you warn people walking into that situation that that's what is expected/required of them.
For us 'I Con the gangers into letting us pass' = not even trying.
We equate that as being equal to a street sam thinking that "I kill everyone in the room" rolls pistols once suffices.
-
Yes, but here's the thing, Sipowitz - the point where you define 'don't even try' is well beyond the point that I even just indicated.
Which, I suppose, is fine - but I hope you warn people walking into that situation that that's what is expected/required of them.
For us 'I Con the gangers into letting us pass' = not even trying.
We equate that as being equal to a street sam thinking that "I kill everyone in the room" rolls pistols once suffices.
What would be trying for your group? Say for a face trying to enter a club, a sammy trying to shot someone, and a rigger trying to evade pursuit in a chase?
-
For us 'I Con the gangers into letting us pass' = not even trying.
We equate that as being equal to a street sam thinking that "I kill everyone in the room" rolls pistols once suffices.
What would be trying for your group? Say for a face trying to enter a club, a sammy trying to shot someone, and a rigger trying to evade pursuit in a chase?
Those are 3 very different concepts with multitudes of different answers.
But to humor everyone here who thinks they are exactly the same thing.
The Face trying to enter a club needs information. Who owns the club, what is the doorman's name, does the doorman like sports, does he have debts, does the doorman have any issues that could be used a leverage, have any family. Does the club have any issues that can be used as leverage, how much does the doorman need as a bribe to get in, is there a VIP list that the face can get on, and so on and so forth.
With all of this extra work to get inside the club why make it just 'I Con the doorman into letting us pass' is what I can't fathom. But anyways.
After the team has gotten as much information as they can to help the Face get inside. It is up to the Face to use all of the relevant information in a roleplaying(i.e talking in character) 'scene' There can be multiple die rolls by the Face, trying spot something, assessing the emotional state of the mark, etc. during that 'scene'
If your group doesn't do these things, for whatever reasons, fine 'I Con the doorman into letting us pass' rolls dice is perfectly acceptable.
-
Sipowitz, I think that some of us, myself included, have come to realize that ultimately the line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" cannot always be defined quantitatively. That means that some of us are respecting the way you run your table. Please show the same respect back.
-
How many times has the line or variation of "penalizing players for not being drama school graduates", even after my refuting of that, been dropped?
Yet I have to show respect?
It's like their, how was that said.... do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.
-
I think this topic has been pretty well discussed. I would suggest that either everyone walks away and agrees to disagree, or someone locks this thread. I mean, you guys can keep debating as much as you want, but I think everyone's version of playing this out at their table has been clearly presented and set in stone. Everyone's way of playing is different, and that's about it. What will work for one table, won't work for another, and there is nothing wrong with that.
-
For us 'I Con the gangers into letting us pass' = not even trying.
We equate that as being equal to a street sam thinking that "I kill everyone in the room" rolls pistols once suffices.
What would be trying for your group? Say for a face trying to enter a club, a sammy trying to shot someone, and a rigger trying to evade pursuit in a chase?
Those are 3 very different concepts with multitudes of different answers.
But to humor everyone here who thinks they are exactly the same thing.
The Face trying to enter a club needs information. Who owns the club, what is the doorman's name, does the doorman like sports, does he have debts, does the doorman have any issues that could be used a leverage, have any family. Does the club have any issues that can be used as leverage, how much does the doorman need as a bribe to get in, is there a VIP list that the face can get on, and so on and so forth.
With all of this extra work to get inside the club why make it just 'I Con the doorman into letting us pass' is what I can't fathom. But anyways.
After the team has gotten as much information as they can to help the Face get inside. It is up to the Face to use all of the relevant information in a roleplaying(i.e talking in character) 'scene' There can be multiple die rolls by the Face, trying spot something, assessing the emotional state of the mark, etc. during that 'scene'
If your group doesn't do these things, for whatever reasons, fine 'I Con the doorman into letting us pass' rolls dice is perfectly acceptable.
Is the face expected to get this information by him/herself? The team's hacker can get a good chunk of it. I asked about the other archtypes because I'm curious about how in-depth your group handles them. Let's go with the hacker though, how deep do you get into data searches? Does the hacker have to ask a specific question and then roll for the result of it then go on from there? For example say the do a data search on "Rikki Tikki's Tavern" what do they get? An address? Reviews? News articles about the time the naga escaped?
-
How many times has the line or variation of "penalizing players for not being drama school graduates", even after my refuting of that, been dropped?
Yet I have to show respect?
It's like their, how was that said.... do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.
People in this thread have respected your opinion. And listened to you. And tried to understand, even when understanding was difficult. And after all that, you're still saying things like
But to humor everyone here who thinks they are exactly the same thing.
why make it just 'I Con the doorman into letting us pass' is what I can't fathom. But anyways.
If your group doesn't do these things, for whatever reasons, fine 'I Con the doorman into letting us pass' rolls dice is perfectly acceptable.
All of which belie a tone of sarcastic indignation. You're not a martyr here, Sipowitz - we're all here on the side of understanding each other. Or at least, that's the presumption we should all be acting on until proven otherwise. When someone doesn't understand what you're talking about and asks for a follow-up, that's not insulting or indignant. All I'm asking is that we all remember to treat each other with the respect that we wish to be given.
-
Gonna take 8-bit's advice and walk away.