[Sipowitz]

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.

[Michael Chandra]

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.

[ZeConster]

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.

[Angelone]

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.

[Sipowitz]

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.

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

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.

[Sipowitz]

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.

 

[Namikaze]

I've had lots of games where there's one player who treats the game like it's a 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. 

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

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.

[Sipowitz]

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.

[Angelone]

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?

[Sipowitz]

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.

[Namikaze]

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.

[Sipowitz]

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.

[8-bit]

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.