[Kat9]

While I am not a GM, I can speak on the player side.

It drives me a little crazy when I am playing a high social character with the skills, contacts and knowledge to pull off social engineering skills only to be stonewalled.

Try to find an angry ex-employee to get information about a place. Go get records of employee dismissals, track down their information.


They're dead.


Oh well, guess I'll go with the "lets shoot our way in guys," plan the other people suggested.

[All4BigGuns]

While I am not a GM, I can speak on the player side.

It drives me a little crazy when I am playing a high social character with the skills, contacts and knowledge to pull off social engineering skills only to be stonewalled.

Try to find an angry ex-employee to get information about a place. Go get records of employee dismissals, track down their information.


They're dead.


Oh well, guess I'll go with the "lets shoot our way in guys," plan the other people suggested.

Can't forget the ones that say "Oh, well you CAN'T roll your skill, you have to always 'play it out'. You're not a professional politician IRL? Well, tough. 'Play it out'.". Those are the ones that annoy the crap outta me.

[asnider]

Can't forget the ones that say "Oh, well you CAN'T roll your skill, you have to always 'play it out'. You're not a professional politician IRL? Well, tough. 'Play it out'.". Those are the ones that annoy the crap outta me.

Hell, that annoys me as a GM! I like to encourage my players to play it out, but they're not actors and some of them are really bad at improvising. If playing it out isn't going well, I'll just get them to roll of the dice. On the other hand, if they play it out well enough, I won't bother making them roll a success test. It all depends on the players and what they're happy with (and with what moves the plot forward).

[Kat9]

You're not a professional politician IRL?

Wait....you're not?



Vote for me!

[JustADude]

Can't forget the ones that say "Oh, well you CAN'T roll your skill, you have to always 'play it out'. You're not a professional politician IRL? Well, tough. 'Play it out'.". Those are the ones that annoy the crap outta me.

Hell, that annoys me as a GM! I like to encourage my players to play it out, but they're not actors and some of them are really bad at improvising. If playing it out isn't going well, I'll just get them to roll of the dice. On the other hand, if they play it out well enough, I won't bother making them roll a success test. It all depends on the players and what they're happy with (and with what moves the plot forward).

I tend to work it like this:

1) Player states what he wants to to do and starts outlining questions and other interactions.
2) Player rolls appropriate pornomancy pool.
3) NPC rolls to defend.
4) Player gets results of their outline, modified modified by the results of the roll.


After all, the Street Sam doesn't need to know how to shoot in the real world, does he? The Hacker doesn't need to be a real-world computer genius. So why should the Face have to be a real-world social engineer?

The caveat, of course, is that if you ask the wrong questions you'll get nowhere, even with all the Net Hits in the world.
That means that, for example, "I ask him where I can find Tony" with 7 net-hits on a Con roll indicates you sidle up to the guy at the bar and start buying him drinks, getting chummy, and eventually convince him you were friends in high-school, then casually mention you haven't seen Tony in a while. Not only do you find out where Tony is... if he knows... but either way, you'll get the guy you conned as a Loyalty 2 contact until/unless you do something to blow your cover.

[All4BigGuns]

Can't forget the ones that say "Oh, well you CAN'T roll your skill, you have to always 'play it out'. You're not a professional politician IRL? Well, tough. 'Play it out'.". Those are the ones that annoy the crap outta me.

Hell, that annoys me as a GM! I like to encourage my players to play it out, but they're not actors and some of them are really bad at improvising. If playing it out isn't going well, I'll just get them to roll of the dice. On the other hand, if they play it out well enough, I won't bother making them roll a success test. It all depends on the players and what they're happy with (and with what moves the plot forward).

I tend to work it like this:

1) Player states what he wants to to do and starts outlining questions and other interactions.
2) Player rolls appropriate pornomancy pool.
3) NPC rolls to defend.
4) Player gets results of their outline, modified modified by the results of the roll.


After all, the Street Sam doesn't need to know how to shoot in the real world, does he? The Hacker doesn't need to be a real-world computer genius. So why should the Face have to be a real-world social engineer?

The caveat, of course, is that if you ask the wrong questions you'll get nowhere, even with all the Net Hits in the world.
That means that, for example, "I ask him where I can find Tony" with 7 net-hits on a Con roll indicates you sidle up to the guy at the bar and start buying him drinks, getting chummy, and eventually convince him you were friends in high-school, then casually mention you haven't seen Tony in a while. Not only do you find out where Tony is... if he knows... but either way, you'll get the guy you conned as a Loyalty 2 contact until/unless you do something to blow your cover.

I still say that the "if you ask the wrong questions" part should be removed from the equation. You can't expect players to know exactly what to ask, when to ask or whatever (that's part of being a social engineer).

[JustADude]

I still say that the "if you ask the wrong questions" part should be removed from the equation. You can't expect players to know exactly what to ask, when to ask or whatever (that's part of being a social engineer).

A4BG... dude... I'm not going to have a player walk up to a guy and find out everything he knows. They have to pick what topic they want to ask about.

I don't have strict standards, but if you don't bring up Big Jimmy up to the guy you just asked about Tony, then you're not gonna be finding anything out about Big Jimmy.

[WellsIDidIt]

I still say that the "if you ask the wrong questions" part should be removed from the equation. You can't expect players to know exactly what to ask, when to ask or whatever (that's part of being a social engineer).

So, if your Sam starts gunning down baddies, does he automatically target the most important ones when he rolls, or does he have to choose his targets?

Do your characters have to plan out their tactics and approach to get into a facility, or do they just roll infiltration/hardware and magically they're in the best/easiest way?

If players bother to pay attention, they know exactly what they're looking for and should be asking.

[All4BigGuns]

I still say that the "if you ask the wrong questions" part should be removed from the equation. You can't expect players to know exactly what to ask, when to ask or whatever (that's part of being a social engineer).

So, if your Sam starts gunning down baddies, does he automatically target the most important ones when he rolls, or does he have to choose his targets?

Do your characters have to plan out their tactics and approach to get into a facility, or do they just roll infiltration/hardware and magically they're in the best/easiest way?

If players bother to pay attention, they know exactly what they're looking for and should be asking.

I still say that the "if you ask the wrong questions" part should be removed from the equation. You can't expect players to know exactly what to ask, when to ask or whatever (that's part of being a social engineer).

A4BG... dude... I'm not going to have a player walk up to a guy and find out everything he knows. They have to pick what topic they want to ask about.

I don't have strict standards, but if you don't bring up Big Jimmy up to the guy you just asked about Tony, then you're not gonna be finding anything out about Big Jimmy.

All I'm saying is do not punish a player who isn't good at social interaction (and yes not being able to think of EVERY "right" question is a part of that) for not being good at it. How much one "pays attention" does not really come into play that much in that.

[asnider]

I still say that the "if you ask the wrong questions" part should be removed from the equation. You can't expect players to know exactly what to ask, when to ask or whatever (that's part of being a social engineer).

So, if your Sam starts gunning down baddies, does he automatically target the most important ones when he rolls, or does he have to choose his targets?

Do your characters have to plan out their tactics and approach to get into a facility, or do they just roll infiltration/hardware and magically they're in the best/easiest way?

If players bother to pay attention, they know exactly what they're looking for and should be asking.

I still say that the "if you ask the wrong questions" part should be removed from the equation. You can't expect players to know exactly what to ask, when to ask or whatever (that's part of being a social engineer).

A4BG... dude... I'm not going to have a player walk up to a guy and find out everything he knows. They have to pick what topic they want to ask about.

I don't have strict standards, but if you don't bring up Big Jimmy up to the guy you just asked about Tony, then you're not gonna be finding anything out about Big Jimmy.

All I'm saying is do not punish a player who isn't good at social interaction (and yes not being able to think of EVERY "right" question is a part of that) for not being good at it. How much one "pays attention" does not really come into play that much in that.

While I mostly agree with JustADude, I think you're right to an extent. If my players are *almost* figuring something out but not quite getting there, I'll throw them some extra hints/clues. Very rarely will I give them the answer outright, though.

Generally, though, if they don't ask the right questions or make the right decisions, tough. I'm not going to coddle them.

Just the other day they almost walked away from a run halfway through because they thought that the trid they found of Mr. Johnson saying that he no longer needed their assistance was completely above board. In fact, he was forced to record the video (and there were hints pointing to this in the recording). One of my players realized this just as the rest were about to walk away saying, "The job's done, we're not getting the other half of our pay because he changed his mind." If they hadn't realized it and gone on to do the necessary legwork to spring Mr. J, I'd have been a bit disappointed that my adventure didn't get played through, but I'd have let them walkaway from the rest of their paycheque. That said, I might later tell them about their mistake so that they think twice if something similar happens in a future run.

[All4BigGuns]

Just the other day they almost walked away from a run halfway through because they thought that the trid they found of Mr. Johnson saying that he no longer needed their assistance was completely above board. In fact, he was forced to record the video (and there were hints pointing to this in the recording). One of my players realized this just as the rest were about to walk away saying, "The job's done, we're not getting the other half of our pay because he changed his mind." If they hadn't realized it and gone on to do the necessary legwork to spring Mr. J, I'd have been a bit disappointed that my adventure didn't get played through, but I'd have let them walkaway from the rest of their paycheque. That said, I might later tell them about their mistake so that they think twice if something similar happens in a future run.

This is an entirely different scenario. Missing clues in a scene is one thing, and it's fine not to hand the information over in this situation, but when doing legwork, negotiations or whatever using social skills PART OF THE SKILL TEST IS ASKING THE NECESSARY QUESTIONS. This means, that the CHARACTER knows what questions to ask even if the PLAYER doesn't. Refusing to give the information that should be garnered because the PLAYER "didn't ask the right questions" is silly when the CHARACTER by virtue of succeeding the skill test knew what to ask.

[JustADude]

Just the other day they almost walked away from a run halfway through because they thought that the trid they found of Mr. Johnson saying that he no longer needed their assistance was completely above board. In fact, he was forced to record the video (and there were hints pointing to this in the recording). One of my players realized this just as the rest were about to walk away saying, "The job's done, we're not getting the other half of our pay because he changed his mind." If they hadn't realized it and gone on to do the necessary legwork to spring Mr. J, I'd have been a bit disappointed that my adventure didn't get played through, but I'd have let them walkaway from the rest of their paycheque. That said, I might later tell them about their mistake so that they think twice if something similar happens in a future run.

This is an entirely different scenario. Missing clues in a scene is one thing, and it's fine not to hand the information over in this situation, but when doing legwork, negotiations or whatever using social skills PART OF THE SKILL TEST IS ASKING THE NECESSARY QUESTIONS. This means, that the CHARACTER knows what questions to ask even if the PLAYER doesn't. Refusing to give the information that should be garnered because the PLAYER "didn't ask the right questions" is silly when the CHARACTER by virtue of succeeding the skill test knew what to ask.

Dude... seriously... if the player can't even figure out what "TOPIC" he wants to fish for information on, then he has no business playing a Face.

That's like a Street Samurai not knowing he can't shoot a Shotgun with the Automatics skill.

[All4BigGuns]

Dude... seriously... if the player can't even figure out what "TOPIC" he wants to fish for information on, then he has no business playing a Face.

Talk about over exaggeration, and a ridiculous statement of telling people to force their players not to make the character they want just because of their own shortcomings IRL. Real smooth...

[Critias]

Dude, All4, I will PayPal each of you $3 to go buy a novella and read it, if it means you'll both just take a day or two off of sniping at each other on the forums, in like every other thread.  For realsies.

[Xzylvador]

ˆ It is getting slightly repetative.

Maybe we should stop derailing this thread and instead of scaring away the OP with bickering, work on the roleplaying-heavy adventuring recommendations.

Sadly, I don't really have much to offer here. I try to keep myself from reading the pre-made adventures in the hopes of ever getting a chance to play them.

That said, from the ones I have read/played, it isn't that much work for a GM to turn encounters with an often violent solution into roleplaying situations... In fact in most cases, the violence IS caused by roleplaying.
Example: Your team gets stuck in traffic. A black car pulls up next to you and 5 chinese guys, obviously Triads, step out and approach your vehicle. As they do, another black car pulls up and 5 Jakuza jump out of it. Both groups are obviously after your package and obviously not pleased to see another interested party.
Whether this becomes violent or not (and if it becomes violent, whether the PC's will be involved in the fighting or whether the Yaks and the Triads fight eachother and the PC's get away in the meanwhile) is entirely up to the PC's. A group composed of trigger-happy streetsams and racist martial adepts will deal with it entirely differently than a team which realizes they can be played out against eachother and that noone wants to start a gunfight while stuck in traffic during rushhour.
And IF the GM knows the PC's don't really want to deal with the hassle of combat but for some reason won't be able to avoid this from becoming ugly, a police rotodrone flying closely overhead to monitor traffic (or even advising everyone to get back in their vehicles ) should provide enough discouragement for the other parties to draw their weapons unless the players decide to attack.