[Sipowitz]

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.

[Sipowitz]

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?

[Namikaze]

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.

[Angelone]

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.

[shreck]

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]

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

[Sipowitz]

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?

[Angelone]

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?

[Sipowitz]

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. 

[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.



 

[ZeConster]

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.

[Namikaze]

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.

[Angelone]

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.

[Glyph]

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.

[Angelone]

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.