Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: tundrawalker1 Feb 28 2011, 09:19 PM

Hey all. Thanks for the suggestions I received in other threads. To set the table, this is the first time I and the majority of our group has played Shadowrun. Despite many many years of RPG experience, only this past Saturday was this first time Shadowrun was played in this group and only two of the member out of 7 have any experience with it from the past. I had made a thread where I asked for build advice with a nosferatu and I took the advice that was given to me and that advice was not to play a nosferatu!

One of the pieces of advice I was given was, due to my lack of knowledge of the game, was to play a more straight-forward character like a face or sam. Well, I did create a Face and I am very very pleased with him. I think I have a good grasp of what he can and cannot do but I would like to know what his scores mean other than a numerical value.

He is a dryad with a charisma score of 7 and has the tailored pheromones 3 cyberware, kinesics 3 adept power, 4 on the Influence group and the +3 to social tests that comes with the dryad. And, of course, he has the glamour power that comes with being a dryad. My question is, what does this translate to in game. I believe he is a handsome and inspiring person on level with a great speaker. I know that a 20 dice pool on social tests is good but nowhere near as high as you can get with a theoritical numbers experiment you can attain in the pornomancer threads but what does this guy translate to.

There is a breakdown of what the ranks look like for skills but not for attributes nor for total dice pools. So, my question to those of you with experience in the game, what does a charisma of 7 look like and what does a dice pool of 20 dice translate to for social tests. In a nutshell, what historical figure would you compare him to and his dice pool of 20 dice in social situations.

Thanks in advance for your responses. This is not a rules question per sey but it is a discussion on what the rules look like. Cheers!

Posted by: Ol' Scratch Feb 28 2011, 09:27 PM

Do you have access to Dragons of the Sixth World? If so, look up Dion's entry in the back. That's about how a souped-up magical Face would come across as, especially if its based on things like Charisma, Kinesics, and Glamour. Everyone he ever has a dealing with will always remember him (so Distinguishing Style and similar qualities should almost be mandatory).

Posted by: Mardrax Feb 28 2011, 09:33 PM

As an option from the Advanced Character Concepts chapter from Runners Companion, a dryad has Distinctive Style by default.

Since neither magically or technologically augmented people have never existed, real life examples would be impossible to give.

Posted by: Cain Feb 28 2011, 10:07 PM

The answer is, whatever you want him to look like.

Charisma isn't equal to looks. There are many charismatic speakers who would never make it as models. The universal thing is that he can easily get people to accept what he says, is probably very likable, and gets respect. Exactly how he does that is up to you, and how you roleplay/envision the character. He could rely on his looks, or on natural people skills, or even just sheer force of personality. That's all up to you, though, and not a mechanical choice.

He doesn't even have to be likable all the time. A Humanis (human supremacist) goon won't like your character since he's metahuman, but will end up negotiating with you. He's unlikely to be swayed by your good looks, but he might lean towards a sympathetic ear. The bottom line is, there's a lot of ways you could play this out, and you get to choose which one your character will take.

Posted by: Mr Clock Feb 28 2011, 10:09 PM

If you can be heard, you will be obeyed.

If you can be seen, you will be worshipped.

Your powers of persuasion verge on hypnotic.

Jesus, Dunklezhan, the Fonz. Amateurs.

Consider yourself a target for every corp and underworld agency that wants to influence people.

Posted by: Mardrax Feb 28 2011, 10:17 PM

A Humanis goon could very well like this character. All it takes is an Etiquette + Cha roll, opposed by his Perception + Cha, with a modifier of -2 from being prejudiced, and maybe a -2 from not having "the right look". This would take him from Prejudiced to Friendly on 3 net hits.

But anyway, yeah. Charisma is an ungraspable concept. If you want to say he's handsome, go for it, but he doesn't have to be, and that's not where the majority of his skills come from. What he will be is memorable and recognisable, unless you take good measures to tone it down.

Posted by: tundrawalker1 Feb 28 2011, 10:35 PM

Yeah, you are taking my post literally when I should have been clearer. I am not asking what his physical appearance is as that is up to me but rather, what does the dice pool do to others. How do they view him? And to the poster above who said it is impossible to compare him to anyone as there has never been a cyber/magic improved person in history, again you are being too literal. I am asking for a comparrison of the dice pool or how that dice pool effects others.

Basically, would he have the same or more clout than the Emperor in Star Wars, Martin Luther King, JFK, Hitler, the Pope, etc. Thanks to all who have posted so far!

Posted by: Ol' Scratch Feb 28 2011, 10:36 PM

There's literally an example of such a character. See my early post for the reference. Dion is exactly the type of example you're looking for.

EDIT: Sorry, his current name is Damon. Dion was an old alias. You can find him on pages 160-162 in Dragons of the Sixth World.

Posted by: Cain Feb 28 2011, 10:43 PM

I did answer that question, but I'll clarify. The dicepool does nothing, it's your decisions on character roleplay that changes how people view him. Are you playing him as a handsome and charming rogue? A strong personality and inspiring leader? A persuasive speaker? How do you *want* him to be seen? You then back that up by rolling dice, but the approach is up to you.

Posted by: tundrawalker1 Feb 28 2011, 10:43 PM

Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately I don't have that book. I wish I did if it answered my question so easily.

Posted by: Mardrax Feb 28 2011, 11:18 PM

*shrug* The description of Damon is really lacking, if not terribly one sided if you ask me. Though he's definitely one of the possibilities.
This politicians, good leaders. Where good means able to get people to do stuff. From Lincoln to Obama, from Hitler to Vader to the Emperor, from the best paid coaches in the NFL and FIFA, from the Dalai Lama to "that cheerleader who will definitely win prom queen", from Brad Pitt to Jenna Jameson, from the Queen of England to L. Ron Hubbard and his spiritual descendants. From Charles Manson to that one telemarketer who can actually sell you something you had no idea you wanted or needed.

Posted by: CanRay Feb 28 2011, 11:38 PM

Winston Churchill?

Posted by: Ol' Scratch Feb 28 2011, 11:40 PM

Most of those examples would be fine if he was just a Charisma junkie, but he's got the total package. Looks, body language, and otherworldly vibes. Even if he dressed incognito, heads would turn when he walked into a room.

Posted by: CanRay Mar 1 2011, 12:13 AM

*Thinks about Winston Churchill trying to dress "Incognito" and brain explodes*

Posted by: Mardrax Mar 1 2011, 12:14 AM

Having a good Etiquette roll actually tends to mean you blend in exceptionally and conform to all standards expected of you in a given setting, if you choose it to be so.
Disguise should be able to mitigate the effect as well, as it's not just changing how you look, it's changing how you carry yourself. See Johnny Depp vs Jack Sparrow vs Edward Scissorhands.

Posted by: CanRay Mar 1 2011, 12:18 AM

Tom Cruise had to learn how to blend in for "Collateral". A world-famous face, and he had to learn how NOT to be recognized, even with a "Hey, did you know you look like..." comment.

From the extras on the DVD, IIRC, he did it by posing as a Fed-Ex delivery man and a lot of practice. It can be done, but takes practice and work. I, personally, learned to blend in and stand out as needed for very different reasons, and, while rusty, can still do it.

Posted by: Mardrax Mar 1 2011, 12:45 AM

Of course. Every new use of a skill takes practise.
I can take my skill at playing guitar and a plethora of other instruments, combined with general musical knowledge, and apply it to playing a cello and do better than an untrained person, while doing worse than a trained cello player, until I get some solid practise in. A beat cop could take his skill with his service pistol to fire a .50 cal.

Shadowrun chooses to ignore this though. Barring specialisations, if you're good at one aspect of the skill, you're good at them all.

Posted by: CanRay Mar 1 2011, 12:55 AM

And skills get rusty too. I know I can't code half as well as I used to.

Posted by: Mardrax Mar 1 2011, 01:49 AM

Oh yes. Hell. every time I turn to a demo version of InDesign to help in some school project, I need to take an hour to reacquaint myself. Worse, if I don't play guitar for a week, I'm basically setting myself back a month. "Use it or lose it" is a true adage, in RL anyway. Not in SR though.

Posted by: CanRay Mar 1 2011, 03:29 AM

One advantage of Simsense, you can keep your skills up without having to leave your squat. Just make sure you have sensors out for when you're out of your body and in the virtual world.

Posted by: Glyph Mar 1 2011, 03:30 AM

Kinesics would probably help a character blend in, since it is total control of your body's subconscious cues. Tailored pheromones can be subtle. But glamour makes a character very memorable and conspicuous - just look at the flavor text for it.

A 20 dice pool in social skills is like the sammie having a 20 dice pool in pistols - he has some slack, in combat, and can successfully shoot people in the face of penalties that would make most other people miss. But his skill doesn't compensate for poor tactics. If he stands in the open and doesn't take cover, or if he walks into an ambush, his high dice pool won't do him any good.

High social skills are the same way. By themselves, you can leverage situations to your advantage if you are savvy, or be like the con man always running a few steps ahead of vengeful marks if you use your abilities to blatantly manipulate people. But your character is only a magnetic personality - he will need more than that to be a mover and shaker, if that is his goal. He is like all of those movies about aspiring musicians (Purple Rain and the like). He has the talent to be a star, but he needs to hustle to get there, and either be lucky, or create some breaks for himself.

One thing to keep in mind about social skills is that they are a lot more subjective than combat skills, so they depend on the GM a lot more. In some campaigns, a dice pool of 20 means people will tend to like you. In other campaigns, a dice pool of 20 will let you get away with some rather unrealistic things.

Posted by: Blade Mar 1 2011, 10:03 AM

High social dice pools are difficult to imagine, harder than high physical dice pools.

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/11/21/bill-clinton-reality-distortion-field/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timferriss+%28The+Blog+of+Author+Tim+Ferriss%29&utm_content=Google+Reader gives a good idea on how charisma works.
Now just think that Bill Clinton's dice pool doesn't go much higher than 14.

Posted by: CanRay Mar 1 2011, 10:09 AM

Never underestimate the eyes. Even when they're hidden by mirrorshades or replaced by cyberoptics, they give forth a lot of information and influence.

The "Intimidation Glare" in the movie Heat is infamous. No words, just a look, and everyone in the restaurant knows they better mind their own damned business or else.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Mar 1 2011, 10:22 AM

Just a minor quibble, but a dice pool of 20 SHOULD let you get away with some rather unrealistic things. That's probably a 7 skill, 7 stat, +6 in bonuses: that's unheard of levels of expertise, according to the rulebooks.


Must.....watch.....Heat.....again....now.....thanks alot

Posted by: Cain Mar 1 2011, 11:19 AM

Not really. Just imagine it as embodying a certain style to a high degree.

High physical dice pools are also in the "roleplay your vision" category. Some people think that you'd move like a cat, and that's certainly a possibility. But some martial artists use center control to hide their abilities, so you'd look perfectly normal. It all depends on how you want it to look.

Posted by: Muspellsheimr Mar 1 2011, 01:38 PM

We can measure how much force a person's muscles can exert. We can examine a person's hand-eye coordination, accuracy, and reaction speed. We can test a person's analytical & learning capabilities. We can record a person's physical & mental endurance and breaking points. Not so much for the other two attributes. Intuition and Charisma are the most difficult of Shadowrun's attributes for us to quantify. Because of this, we can't really explain what charisma is like, what it can really do. You can't understand what you can't see.

Charisma is presented as one's force of personality, how they influence others, as well as their knowledge of their self, resistance to the influence of others. How well others respond to you is determined by a number of factors; eye contact, physical & mental presence, and voice are major factors, as described in the article linked above. Do not however discount posture and movement. Finally, while it is a small part of charisma as a whole, physical appearance is also important. How does the character dress, their cleanliness, and how attractive? Someone visually appealing is more likely to be accepted & believed, while someone revolting to the eye is likely to be dismissed or ostracized, before they ever have a chance to bring other factors to bare.


Your character has a social dice pool of 20, discounting situational modifiers. The greatest speakers, leaders, and con men of our world today - people who can change others perceptions simply by interacting with or being near them - have a dice pool of 10-14. Your character is 50% better (or more) than Bill Clinton. He should be capable of convincing most men they are gay. He should be capable of convincing most people they owe him royalties for the right to shop at Walmart. He should be capable of seemingly superhuman feats through the power of speech alone. Just remember that for any of this to happen, he has to be given a chance to speak. While body posture alone might be enough to stop the guards from shooting on sight as ordered, you can't do anything if you cannot communicate.


To answer the original question though, ultimately character description is up to you. As long as it is believable for a character with those abilities, go with whatever you want (that means he can't be a homeless bastard who shouts at random passerby's).

Posted by: tundrawalker1 Mar 1 2011, 02:52 PM

Thanks so much. This was exactly what I was looking for. That helps me interpret it a ton. Cheers!

Posted by: Blade Mar 1 2011, 04:07 PM

He might also need time. He could probably get a hardcore Humanis member to say that trolls are actually nice people, but it probably won't last very long.
But if he regularly talks to him, he should be able to get him to leave Humanis and join a pro-Troll movement in a few days or weeks.

Posted by: Glyph Mar 2 2011, 04:03 AM

If you want to envision a high dice pool, one good source is movies. It's not so much that the actors are that hyper-charismatic, but that they get away with things that would be completely implausible in real life. Like the scene in Beverly Hills Cop, where Eddie Murphy's character loudly plays the oppressed minority card to bluff his way into a hotel. This wouldn't work in real life, because the people behind hotel counters in real life are not developmentally disabled three year olds. But in the movie, it works.

I honestly would not read too much into the "better than any charismatic personality alive today". Think of any supposedly charismatic public figure, and I'm sure you can think of several people that you personally know, who would have real-world Charisma and Willpower scores of 1 - but still hate that particular public figure, and can not be budged on that opinion. Also, public figures tend to have publicists and speechwriters, not to mention money and prestige, and people who follow them, as much because they happen to agree with them as because of any inherent charisma they might possess. If you plopped, say, Napoleon in a tough bar, in the bad part of town, you think he could imtimidate everyone there?

A dice pool of 20 will get 2 successes, on average, more than a dice pool of 14. In other words, like the guy with 20 dice for pistols, you have an advantage, but not an insurmountable one. Sometimes, the guy with 14 dice will win. You can do impressive things - intimidate a whole bar of humanis rednecks, convince the gate guard that you're the new shift supervisor, talk the gang into letting your group walk on through without paying the toll - lots of useful stuff. But remember, social skills represent relatively subtle forms of manipulation, with realistic limits even for someone with inhuman ability. Could you talk your way past a checkpoint? Probably. Could you talk the guard at the maximum security prison to open your cell door? Probably not. Not with all of the negative modifiers you will have, and the inflexible procedures the guard will have.

Like gun skills, though, social skills work best when you use clever tactics in conjunction with them. Okay, so you are stuck in a cell, and you know the guard won't just let you out. But what if he thinks you are having some kind of medical emergency? All right, your group is hurt bad, leaking blood (and, in the sammie's case, hydraulic fluid). The local gang demands a toll to pass them, and you know their pride won't let them back down. But what if you offer to hire them to guard your group through their territory? You get to pay them without either side losing face, and you might even have the beginnings of a useful gang contact.

But ultimately, while you can see that I envision high social dice pools a lot differently than Muspellsheimr does, the only voice that really matters is your GM. Because as I said before, social skills are very heavily GM-dependent.

Posted by: Ol' Scratch Mar 2 2011, 05:05 AM

The problem with a lot of these responses is that they're essentially ignoring Glamour.

Yes, skills like Etiquette help you fit in. They don't make you invisible, however; that's a function of a skill like Infiltration, Shadowing, or maybe Con when coupled with a good Disguise. What they do is make it so that you don't come across as a 'social enemy.' A common go-ganger with a high Etiquette could walk into a Quick-E-Mart and the guy behind the counter won't instantly inch towards his shotgun or check to see if he remembers where the alarm is... but he will know that a go-ganger just walked into his shop. That ganger will just seem non-threatening to him because he's 'fitting in.'

Glamour is above and beyond that. The only way to suppress its effect is to make yourself completely unseen. Which, again, is Infiltration's job. Even in disguise, that otherworldly vibe will be there, and people will notice it. Your Charisma and Etiquette could be in the 30s and it wouldn't change that fact. Glamour is a metaphysical "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" sign pointing straight at you. Sure, it'll help you con people a lot better, but they're still going to remember you were there and what you did, far more than someone without Glamour.

Posted by: Blade Mar 2 2011, 10:00 AM

I think it'd still be possible with the good arguments.

I just think the social table lacks modifiers, such as:
- Procedure
- Hierarchy/Peer pressure
- Knowing the other guy has magically/artificially enhanced social skills
- Argument for/against the character's opinions
- Quality/quantity of the arguments

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Mar 2 2011, 02:09 PM

Which are all situational modifiers, and under the purview of the GM. There is just not enough room in the book to cover each and every situational modifier, for each and every skill in the book. Much of that is left up to the GM to adjudicate.

Posted by: Glyph Mar 3 2011, 03:12 AM

I agree that it would be possible. I even gave an example of that later on in the post. But some situations, you need to use tactical thinking, and not simply whip out your big dice pool. The social skill system in Shadowrun is good for resolving simple tasks (bluff past a guard, conceal the truth from someone, convince someone that you were framed for something instead of caught red-handed at the scene of the crime, and so on). But I prefer roleplaying (keeping the stats in mind while doing so, not ignoring them) for anything more complex.

Because the rules don't take a lot of things into account, such as what should be a higher and higher threshold for fooling someone multiple times, people who have previously been conditioned a certain way by other highly charismatic people (sure, you can out-talk the humanis goon, but can you change his mind when the humanis leader has been indoctrinating him for years?), people with inflexible instructions (an example in the book - there is only so high the Johnson can go), and things that would be hard limits even for someone with Charisma and Willpower scores of 1. When you try to use social skills out of their simple and narrow scope, the rules really break down.

Posted by: tundrawalker1 Mar 3 2011, 05:15 PM

An unfortunate twist has occurred. As mentioned, my character is a dryad. Dryads have the Glamor power. The Glamor power has certain effects such as giving a +3 to social tests and others treat him with deference, kindness and view him as insipirational and with awe. The problem is a member of the group is playing a magician who is an old curmudgeon and grupmy gus. In the first session, my face was negotiating with Mr. Johnson and after about 2 minutes, this player had his grumpy old man chime in and call my character a pretty boy who was wasting his time with negotiations as he didn't know what he was doing...despite again, my character has a 20-dice pool for negotiations.

Well, that player was told he did not have a realistic response because he was ignoring the text of the glamor power. That player has stood his ground and stated the only benefit the glamor power gives is the +3 to social tests and everything else in the description is flavour text and fluff not to be considered rule. The disagreement was sensible and polite and the GM told that player he was wrong and the text of glamour is the rule. That player said that if his opinion was not going to stand, he would be leaving the group. And left he has. It is unfortunate but he cannot hold the group hostage because he doesn't want to follow a rule about a power that happens to guide his character from being rude and hostile to actually liking my character.

I don't see how anyone can view the glamor power as only providing the +3 bonus and ignore everything else about the power. He feels no one can tell him how his character reacts to a particular situation as the character is his creation and he knows everything about the character. Sad but yes, there are people out there that will resort to poor reactions like this when they don't get their own way.

Posted by: Ol' Scratch Mar 3 2011, 05:31 PM

I really don't know why, but that's been a huge problem since D&D 4th Edition came out. I mean, there were always people like that, but once someone invented the acronym it went overboard. I loathe the term "RAW" and constantly want to punch people in the face every time I see someone say it. There's next to nothing you can do about it other than to tell them to piss off, though. Their faces will turn red and they'll pass out screaming that vile acronym as it's the one and only argument they have to defend such stupid arguments. (Though it is rather amusing how much vile they'll spew at you if you turn around and use the same argument back at them. To the point that they have no idea that you've been showing them just how stupid it is.)

Glad your group didn't let him stomp all over you though. Maybe at some point he'll 'get it' and realize that this is a roleplaying game with human interpreters and plain English rules, not a video game using a strict black-and-white reading of every rule by a computer that just has 'fluff' tacked on to make it more interesting to read for the silly humans playing it.

(I may be a bit biased though.)

Posted by: Mardrax Mar 3 2011, 05:55 PM

Oh well. That RAWmonger could be straightened out fairly quick. Make an etiquette roll to make him like you. That's RAW too.

I fail to see how this is unfortunate though. If someone won't bow to a majority decision, GM included, he has no place in an rpg, as it gets solidly in the way of having fun for everyone involved.

Posted by: tundrawalker1 Mar 3 2011, 11:15 PM

You sir, hit the nail squarely on the head. In fact, what we were discussing about Glamor was in fact the rule as it is written...didn't want to say RAW fearing a punch in the head from Ol' Scratch

The glamor power is not an ambiguous rule despite his sorry attempt to make it so. I said it was unfortunate that he left the group because we would all rather maintain our group number but it is still a healthy number and indeed, he may come around to the idea that he was wrong...highly unlikely though.

Call me crazy but isn't the Glamor power pretty easy to understand?

Posted by: Ol' Scratch Mar 3 2011, 11:20 PM

Most of the rules are, though some kinda be vague in certain situations. Just takes a little context and cross referencing to figure them out though.

Posted by: Critias Mar 3 2011, 11:30 PM

You've got a point (in this instance), but to be fair there are cases of the flavor text doing it's damnedest to turn a rule into something it isn't, if and when folks go out of their way to read them a certain way.

I remember a douchebag in an SR3 game who was insisting that his Phoenix shaman couldn't ever die, because according to the fluff section of MitS, "When the time comes for Phoenix to die...she rises anew from the ashes...once more young and vibrant." So when his shaman got geeked, he wanted to just be consumed in an awesome fireball that would kill everyone nearby, and then pop up as an eighteen year old again, or something. Never mind that there's a clear delineation between flavor text and rules for Totems, he was just out to be pissy.

That's not what's happening here, don't get me wrong...but if your disruptive dude had been burned before by that sort of player, I can understand him maybe reacting poorly to what he might see as someone essentially mind controlling his character just thanks to their metavariant choice. At any rate, though, once the GM's spoken, you shush up (and, at best, wait to discuss it more once the game session is over), you don't bicker and argue and derail a game so badly they give you the boot.

Posted by: Mr Clock Mar 3 2011, 11:52 PM

Yup, I'm on your side here. Counter-example - what would he think if he hit someone up with Influence Emotion or Mob Mind or Control Thoughts and found his target flat-out denying the effect because "he didn't want to do that," or "didn't want to feel that"? Glamor is a supernatural effect, nothing less.

Posted by: tundrawalker1 Mar 4 2011, 12:10 AM

I agree with you but I need to point out one thing. His issue was with everything the Glamor power does except the bonus of +3 on social tests. He said everything else in the text was flavour text and not rule. He felt the power only acted as a activation power where you would then get the +3 bonus on social tests and he felt you had to ignore everything else like how people treat the dryad with kindness, deference, awe, etc. Somewhat in his defence, he stated if I had used the etiquette skill and he lost the test, he would have RPed that out. His issue was that he didn't want to follow what the glamor power stated text-wise toward my character but instead to be a "verbally abusive" and ignorant curmudgeon. I, and two other players along with the GM told him that is now how the power works. And then he came up with another brutally wrong point.

He used the albinism quality as an example of his argument. He stated the albinism power gives flavour text and a mechanical effect. The mechanical effect was an allergy to sunlight. Once I pointed out that the albinism quality has the character with pale skin, white hair and sensitive skin, which are all written there as what he refers to as flavour text, I told him you cannot expect to play an albino and only have the allergy to sunlight and you have to have the other non-mechanical aspects to the quality.

Remember, he used the albinism quality as a reason for why his stance was valid that only the +3 bonus is all that counts with the glamor power which is totally self-defeating. At any rate, the GM ruled, although I don't see where a ruling was necessary as the power clearly states how it works and the player then "tendered his resignation."

The glamor power is crystal clear but he wanted to ignore everything about it other than the +3 to social tests. He was wrong, he was told by the GM he was wrong and so he quit. I believe it is largely a maturity issue as he says no one can tell him how his character feels. There again, he is incorrect.

Posted by: Glyph Mar 4 2011, 05:05 AM

Honestly, I can't blame him for leaving. An always-on power that makes his character act completely out of character, all the time? There's no point in showing up if you don't actually get to play your character. His RAW vs. fluff argument was completely wrong, but I can see someone not seeing the point of staying if he can't play his character the way he likes.

Of course, if it was me, I would be likelier to try to get some wiggle room with what a character like that would consider "hostile" - if you are a curmudgeon, then someone acting in a way that you see as being against your professional interests (even wrongly) could be seen as "hostile".


The whole thing with glamour illustrates the broader problem with high social skills, though. The results of social skills and their potential modifiers are extremely subjective. A GM call can make a player feel as if their character has been "ruined", that they might as well not have bothered filling out a background if a roll of the dice can completely negate their deepest held convictions or strongest personality traits.

This is usually the result of GMs assigning way too much power and leverage to social skills, treating them as mind control rather than relatively subtle manipulations. It is something to watch out for if you are playing a face with high dice pools, though. Social skills are always "on" and usually don't draw gunfire in response (unless you glitch pretty badly...). So you want to take care not to abuse it.

Posted by: Ol' Scratch Mar 4 2011, 06:11 AM

If I read the post right, that's not what he was objecting to. He was objecting to not being free to insult the character during a meeting because it was out of character because of that power. He wasn't being mind-controlled or forced to do something against his will. He just wasn't reacting to the situation properly. You could be the most curmudgeony curmudgeon that ever curmudgeoned, but that doesn't give you free fiat to do whatever the hell you like. And it's not even good roleplaying when you're doing that to someone who does come across to your character as a friendly, awe-inspiring figure who's not only incredibly charming, but is actively trying to get you a drekload more cash.

You have to respect other people's characters when you're roleplaying and react properly. Deciding to play a douchebag as a character just so you can be a douchebag even in a scenario where even a bonified douchebag wouldn't do what you do isn't rolepalying: It's being an actual douchebag. Doubly so if you don't respect the repercussions thereof. It doesn't matter that the character had Glamour or not. He was a Face with an undoubtedly high Etiquette (meaning he does know how to make a curmudgeony dwarf like him anyway) and various other social chameleon powers. If anything, the dwarf would have better reacted through an inner monologue wondering how he could stomach being around such a pretty boy, commenting to himself that he just doesn't get why he actually likes him even though he does.

It's no different than other characters treating the dwarf with constant disrespect for being a doucheburglar. If everyone started treating him nice and respectful, they'd be just as guilty for shitty roleplaying as he was.

Posted by: Cain Mar 4 2011, 09:45 AM

I'm leaning towards this argument. To be fair, the dwarf could be acting out of jealousy. While I agree that the player leaving was probably best for everyone concerned, Glamour is not a social get-out-of-jail-free card. The fluff text shows tendencies, not physical laws.

Posted by: TygerTyger Mar 4 2011, 01:12 PM

<- is the GM for the game Tundra is talking about.

True, but it does give you guidance on how your character perceives someone with the power. And technically it does say "will always" so that is pretty clear on how it works. Not suggesting its a "get-out-of-jail-free card" but it is a "you think I am pretty snazzy and I remind you of your childhood best friend card", you can't just completely ignore it. Or rather you can, but you are not playing by the rules when you do so.



And this is what it all came down to. No one was telling him that he had to act a certain way - we were simply pointing out that the nature of the Glamour power was such that his instinctive reaction to the Dryad was to like him, if even just a little bit. The text of the power is quite clear, with the phrase "sentient creatures will always react..." To me, that precludes being a loud mouthed jerk to them when they are trying to help you, unless you've a damned good reason, and "I'm an old jerk" wasn't good enough for me.

If it was pure social skill, I could understand his argument a lot more. But at the end of the day, this is a magical power. No different from a magician using Control Emotions or another similar spell on him.

This did open up an interesting discussion though - why the mechanics of social skills seem to be completely ignored when RPing intra-party. We have these mechanics to tell us how charismatic and convincing a particular character is. Just like we have mechanics to tell us how powerful your spell is, how well you sneak past people and how accurately you shoot. When it comes to NPCs, everyone wants to use the rules, and make the rolls (our group is pretty good in that a lot of time we avoid the rolls, but not always, and not when we need to know the answer to "what happens when I do X"), but when it comes to one party member charming / intimidating / bluffing another - we default to the individual RP skills. Which is extremely unfair. Tundra's character, as he has repeatedly noted has a Dice Pool of about 20 for social tests. Tundra, for all that he's a great fellow, can not realistically portray that. At the end of the day, at the table, its Tundra trying to convince the other player, rather than Armand (his character) trying to convince another PC. And that ain't right.

I understand not wanting to be "controlled" by another PC, or be told that your character is doing something because someone else wants you to do it, but why can't social skills be used in this manner without causing hurt feelings? Does anyone's group have experience with using social skills intra party? If so, how well or poorly did/does it work for your group?

FWIW, there is no dwarf... the "old curmudgeon" character is a human. Odd that people put curmudgeon together with dwarf. Racial profiling!!!!!

Posted by: The Jopp Mar 4 2011, 01:30 PM

The effect can be subtle.
Lets say that he is a rather bland person with average looks and average height he would STILL stand out in a crowd as there is jsut something about him that makes people notice him - call it presence or force of personality

Posted by: Fortinbras Mar 4 2011, 01:41 PM

There are a hundred ways to play that character in that situation, play it the way you like and play it well. The grump could mumble under his breath, make snide comments on his blog, start rumors about the dryad behind his back or just ignore him, believing all his silly manipulation is a waste of time.
There is a great amount of breathing room when playing a character.

What he can't do is hijack the game and claim another player's powers, that he bought with hard earned BP, is worthless because it's not in his character. That's like saying "You're Ares wouldn't hit me because my character dodges every bullet. You aren't letting me play my character."

I once choreographed a fight for Twelfth Night and the guy playing Toby Belch actually said to me "My character wouldn't lose this fight." Seriously? A fight you were written to lose? Written 400 years ago? And you say it's not in your character to lose?
It is up to the performer/role player to find his character within the context of the story and not force the story to bend to his preconception of his character. That is how discovery is made. If the cat stuck around for the game, he might have found more than one dimension for his character besides interrupting grump.

Glamor is Wesley in Princess Bride saying "Drop Your Sword!"
It doesn't matter that Humperdink has 20 more dice in combat, or that all of his plans will be ruined if he loses. Wesley beat him with a social check, Humperdink drops his sword and loses. The guy playing Humperdink doesn't get to say "But dropping my sword wouldn't be in my character." If that's the case, you don't know your character very well.

In any event, why is another party member cock blocking the face when the face is trying to make the party more money? If someone tried that in my group, I'd have shot that little grump in the head. It's just playing my character.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Mar 4 2011, 01:46 PM

This. I'm totally in the camp of "story-driven characters" and getting into character and whatever. But at the end of the day, everyone should have fun, together. Not individually. And if your idea of having fun is being a SOB to other characters...

Posted by: TygerTyger Mar 4 2011, 02:16 PM

Which was precisely our point to him. Which he ignored. Repeatedly.



Yup. His little tirade, and immediate acceptance of the first price offered, cost the face some dice pool on his negotiation roll, and ultimately about 8K on the final price of the job.

Posted by: Cain Mar 4 2011, 02:26 PM

But that's why it's fluff. It's not the same as the rules, although it should not be ignored, either. You can react to it differently and still be well within character. Like I said before, suppose he was acting out of jealousy? Or the start of an obsession? I quite agree that telling a character with 20 dice in Negotiations that he doesn't know what he's doing is ludicrous, but there has to be room for individual interpretation as well.

I'm going to rant for a bit, because I can. I have a player in a D&D RPGA game who is a massive rules lawyer, spotlight hog, control freak, and all-around problem player. Last week, from halfway across the restaurant, I heard him demand that another player hand over his character sheet, so he could decide what the character should do. The DM apparently chewed him out for this, long before I could get there, so I don't know exactly what went down. But I'm getting ready to ask this player to leave over it. Basically, to get back to the subject at hand, I understand that this is a player thing, and not a rules thing. But even the rules have to be bent in the name of fun, and this isn't even a rule-- it's fluff. I understand and agree that you should show a player the door if he doesn't understand this, but there has got to be wiggle room if you're going to have any fun.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Mar 4 2011, 02:34 PM

Well, it is very possible that the player has a point, if even a little one. If you are using the Fluff to force an emotional reaction from the character (however accurate it may be), it is a problem. I noticed that you compared Glamour to the Mental manipulation spells earlier, and that is a poor comparison. Primarily because all the mental manipulation spells can be resisted, and are continuously resisted until they fail. The Glamour power does not even allow a resistance against it (it grants +3 Dice mechanically), if you use the Fluff to enforce the mechanics. In essence, the Character can NEVER remove its influence from his actions. I can see the issue (Though I may not entirely agree with it). The player felt that this unfairly coerced his character's actions/emotions, and he did not want anything to do with that.

Anyways...

Posted by: Ol' Scratch Mar 4 2011, 02:35 PM

Is anyone really arguing that, Cain?

I think most people have offered alternative ways for him to have handled his curmudgeony ways without directly breaking the nature of the situation (and again, it doesn't matter if the Face had Glamour or not; the player just latched on that to add to his rage of being called on for his shitty roleplaying). He just, on a whim, decided to destroy a negotiation simply because he could. There was no need for him to randomly lash out, "jealous" or "obsessed" or not, anymore than there was a need for a random passer-by to run over and shoot him in the head because he was a 'curmudgeon.' Having an opinion about someone is completely different from acting like a dick, sabotaging your teammate and yourself, and then disrupting the group OOC over what amounts to a minor rant that no one was really arguing against so much as his reaction to it.

Again, even if the Face didn't have Glamour, he'd still be grossly out of line acting that way. In exactly the same way if everyone just randomly ran over and started hugging and kissing him despite his clearly being a dickwad. Roleplaying means reacting appropriately to a situation, not doing whatever the hell you want and disregarding it because you don't like it.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Mar 4 2011, 02:37 PM

Agreed... His actions were out of line... They would have been better left to the after negotiation conversation between the characters.

Posted by: Cain Mar 4 2011, 02:45 PM

All of which is true, and like I said, are good reasons for booting the player. However, that doesn't mean that in appropriate circumstances, a character should be able to react differently to Glamor. Roleplaying should not be a straightjacket.


Oh, I agree. He was out of line.

Posted by: TygerTyger Mar 4 2011, 02:51 PM

Actually I have to disagree with something that's come up in the last couple of posts. I don't consider the text of Glamour to be "fluff". The text very clearly states how a Dryad is viewed by others. The line is straight-forward:

Emphasis mine.

That's a pretty straight-forward phrase in my book. Yes, the "mechanics" are encapsulated in the "+3 dice pool..." part, but the rest of the paragraph is also part of how the power works. As Tundra noted in our discussion of the game, if the only factor for Glamour was the +3 dice pool, then the Distinctive Style negative that goes along with it would only effect those people that the Dryad actively engaged in a social challenge. And that is clearly not how the power works, based on a reasonable reading of the power.

Now, it could be that we're just using the term "fluff" in a different manner. If someone uses as I do "contextual information that is of no game-importance and is easily mutable without changing the actual system", then the portion quoted above is not fluff. If its used in the "this is a description, no more" camp, then it could be fluff, but that "fluff" should still serve as a guide for how something works, and how it is perceived.

If things that have no mechanical effect are fluff and can be ignored, players would be free to say that their elves don't have pointy ears, their trolls don't have horns, that orcs do not experience racism... that anything which doesn't have a mechanic attached to it can be ignored.

If "fluff" though guides us in how to interpret powers, skills and abilities, its a useful tool, and can not be ignored.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Mar 4 2011, 03:03 PM

Guideline, Yes... Straightjacket, No...

Posted by: deek Mar 4 2011, 03:08 PM

Quite an interesting thread.

I first want to agree with a few things that Glyph mentioned earlier on, that being the social game is highly dependent on the GM and how he manages the game. I had a player with ultra high social skills and I let him play it up to the hilt. I fed into it, as everyone was enjoying it. But, had that been a different player, who was using it to steer the game away from where everyone else was wanting it and constantly guiding the other players away from what they wanted to do, well, there would be a problem for the GM and the game as a whole.

I do think that the player walking away, was actually a good move. He showed enough maturity to not stay in the group and make a bigger mess. There are a ton of players that would have stayed and continued to make problems and ruin everyone else's fun.

As for the question about how others handle social skills, I run one of those tables that everyone has agreed to not use their social powers on other players. So, a different set of rules for the "heroes" of the story, but it works out fine. Granted, I don't think I've ever run a game for anyone but my friends, so I know there are different scenarios when you start playing with random players or friends of friends.

Posted by: TygerTyger Mar 4 2011, 03:10 PM

Hell's yeah! That I agree with 100%. In our situation, no one told the player that he MUST LIKE THE ELF OR DIE!!!!... it was more like, "Why are you yelling at him and calling him names? You did know he's a dryad, has 20 dice in social skills, and on top, there's this Glamour power that says your first reaction to him is likely a very positive one... want to reconsider that stance?" To which he replied, in essence "No. You can't tell me how my character feels, and I hate everyone, so screw you all, its my way or I leave."

We said goodbye.

We tried over and over to explain that it wasn't a matter of Tundra's character "controlling" him, but that his magical charm (dude also has Kinesics 3 and Tailored Pheromones 3) was such that it was hard not to like him, and that it was rather unlikely that the old blowhard would have taken such an immediate, unwarranted and frankly extremely counter-productive, stance. Particularly on their very first meeting, and after the dryad had bought a round for the bar, and been charming to all and sundry.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Mar 4 2011, 03:19 PM

I think that I have a better way of putting forth my point. If the text you describe as Mechanics is truly mechanics (and not descriptive fluff), there would be absolutely no need for the +3 dice pool bonus to your Social Skills, because there would be no need for a roll whatsoever. It is just that simple, either the text is mechanic, and no roll is ever to be required, because you cannot resist the Dryad's force of personality, or it is a descriptive fluff, which the +3 bonus reinforces through the bonus to the Social Skill roll (an average +1 net hit due to the bonus)... Itr cannot be both...

Predisposition would rarely be overturned by charm. For Example: If I have a hatred for Elves (or Dryads), Being charming will not change that in the least. I may not voice my opinion, but I will still believe what I believe. And the Dandelion Eater may end up with a bullet in the back of the head at the first opportune moment that would allow me plausable deniability, regardless of how he thinks I should act towards him.

Posted by: TygerTyger Mar 4 2011, 03:36 PM

Why can't it be both? The power makes you feel awe, deference and kindness - it doesn't mean you won't still negotiate hard against them, or try to do your job and not let strangers into the high-security facility. They may be the nicest guy in the world, your new best friend, but you still have to put food on your table, and if you just automatically give in to his demand for 1 million nuyen, you will be fired. He may remind you of the lead singer of In Nomine, your favorite elven rock band of all time, but you still can't automatically let him in to the facility - your boss might literally kill you!



And yet it is charm and perseverance that has won over millions of people the world over. Racism is on the run (in the real world) because of the work and dedication of charming and charismatic people - people like Nelson Mandela, Malcom X, Martin Luther King Jr., and their ilk. People using their personal charisma to get people to listen to reason. And none of those people had magic working for them either.

Its not about how the elf thinks you should think about him... its about an instinctive reaction you are having to him... something about him makes you want to like him. Now that could easily manifest as "Fraggin' dandelion eater must be using magic, just like all his frakkin' kind." *double tap to the face* "Nobody messes with my mind"... but it still would have been a reaction. Pheromones and magic just work like that.

To put it in perspective, this character has more bonuses without ever going to a skill or stat, than most RL people could achieve in a lifetime. +3 from pheromones, +3 from Kinesics, +3 from being a Dryad. That's 9 dice, without even factoring in his personal contribution (skill and attribute) to that. Anyone that isn't at least interested in what he has to say, well frankly, and in my opinion, isn't being true to the system.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Mar 4 2011, 03:59 PM

Because it isn't both...




Apparently you have not been paying much attention lately. Attempted genocides are not an indication that racism is on the decline. These are happening throughout the world, even today. Even in America, Racism is alive and well, it is just not tolerated...



I get your perspective, now try to understand mine. The bonuses are ENOUGH, without having to force (because that is eactly what the Fluff you indicated does) an emotional response upon a character. If you want a particular response, roll the dice and let the consequences fall where they may. AS you say, the character has enough Dice to Force the issue without having to rely upon some bit of fluff text that forces that very same response. A response, I might add, that NEVER goes away if you enforce that bit of text. This is the issue your player had with the ruling you handed down.

Posted by: deek Mar 4 2011, 04:06 PM

But that's the thing, just having a 9 dice bonus or a 20 dice pool doesn't mean you "auto-win". And it sounds like that is what is being touted here with the Dryad (and the amazing social dice). Unless you are buying successes, you still have to roll, right. So, what if your 20 dice pool gets only 3 successes on that roll? And the 7 dice pool counter-negotiator gets 4?

Tymeaus has a case that the "awe, deference and kindness" is reflected as a +3 mod to social skills. Which, is as valid a way to read it as any other, I suppose. The point is, just because you have 20 dice doesn't mean you don't still have to roll them. I've seen players toss down 15 dice and only get 1 success. I've seen players through 6 dice and get 6 successes. It happens and shouldn't be an auto-win button.

Heck, I'm now starting to think that maybe the walkaway player could have gotten a bone thrown to him and at least been allowed to roll against the Dryad to keep his curmudgeonly attitude. Its possible that failing his roll, he would have given in, instead of having the GM say, no dice, this is the way it is. No one really like to be railroaded, even when following the rules and its my position that the GM is to try to keep everyone playing and having fun. I know that I rarely tell someone no at the table, even to some crazy ideas. I let them have fun and give them what I feel is fair and appropriate penalties and if they want to try, they can try...

Posted by: TygerTyger Mar 4 2011, 04:58 PM

Except no one is being railroaded. No one was told - you must behave in this manner or you aren't playing your character properly. All that was said was, "Are you sure that's how you'd behave, given the following rules and circumstances?"

If I, as the GM, had said "Dude, if you don't become this Dryad's best friend right now, and do everything he says, I'll kick you out of the game!" then I would agree 100%. But all that was asked of the player was to allow his character's feelings (not actions or even reactions to those feelings) to be influenced precisely as the rules indicate they are supposed to be.

And even if we had done the roll, it would have been the dryad buying 5 hits, against the old fart's 2 dice. Cha of 2, no perception (if it was Ettiquette). If it was Leadership (unlikely as they were strangers at that moment) it would have been 20 dice vs. 5.

In short, even if we had used the pure mechanics of dice rolls and eliminated everything but them, it still should not have happened the way it did.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Mar 4 2011, 05:22 PM

Point being, It could have...

Your question above (highlighted) begs anbother question. If he had said "Yes, This is what I want to do." What would your response have been? It appears from what you have told us (and the Dryad player has told us) that you would have enofrced the text you keep quoting, instead of letting the character continue with his actions. This is likely the crux of his dissatisfaction with the ruling you handed down.

Posted by: TygerTyger Mar 4 2011, 05:45 PM

That's a darned good question. And the answer is, likely go to a skill roll. And that would be enforced.

Its no different than if the dryad had tried to shoot the other character. We'd have had a skill roll on that note, and that roll would be enforced.

In my opinion, social skills should be used intra party as well as extra party. It makes sense that if you have a mechanic to influence others, that you would use that mechanic when you need to intra party as well. And that has to be respected, just as much as the Pistols dice pool has to be.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Mar 4 2011, 06:04 PM

At that point, though, the roll would have been too late, as the action had already taken place. I could see a roll to moderate any further actions. Basically, calming the cuurmudgeon down while the negotiations concluded, but that would have been it. Players in social situations do not roll Social skill for everything that they say (or feel), aftger all.

If you are using Social Skills as a hammer intraparty, then the game quickly becomes no fun. Social Contract and all that...I actually perfer that the Social Skills vs. Party Members be used sparingly, if at all. I prefer the adlib actions of the roleplay, rather than forcing a role upon someone because I rolled better than they did socially. Tends to make the game more dynamic. And lets character personality shine.

Now, if it gets to the level that they are a jerk, then that is something else entirely.

Posted by: tundrawalker1 Mar 4 2011, 06:24 PM

I believe social skills should be and will be used intra-party. If a character had a skill that would inspire party members, the members would be happy with that skill. Off the top of my head, in the Star Wars game a noble could inspire other party members based on a skill roll. Party members are happy to accept that bonus to attacks, saves, defence, or skills in that situation and are all for that skill being used to provide a benefit. But when the skill roll is used to influence party members on how to act, then it becomes a negative approach. Double standard.

Reading the Glamor power again, the text of the power is in no way fluff. It is description of how the power works and is not to be ignored in favour of the one sentence that states you get a +3 to social tests. I don't believe it is intended to be that way as I have outlined in a previous post regarding albinism.

Bottom line in our situation, the player was completely unwilling to view the situation in any way other than he was wrongfully viewing it. In about 5 posts on our own boards, he defended his action, gave examples of powers that acted the same way, text wise anyway, that glamor works and when he was shown that his examples disproved his case rather than adding to it, he totally ignored that aspect of the debate and then stated he was leaving the group. He was 100% unwilling to follow the direction of the entire group, including the GM by using the lame excuse that no one can tell him how his character feels. His argument that his background allows him to act in a way to ignore mechanics is akin to saying that if you had a background that indicated your character had always dodged every bullet fired at him then when you shoot at him he could ignore the mechanic by leaning on the fluff of his background. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

As I mentioned, the text of the Glamor power is in no way ambiguous and it a guideline how to react. It is not carte-blanche to mind control other PCs or NPCs but it does influence those other's behaviors. To blanketly ignore text of the glamor power with the reasoning being your background says he is a particular way it railroading the entire group.

Then there is the matter of maturity in dealing with the situation. This group of players, 7 of us in total, have been gaming together for years. There have been many disputes and disagreements about rules and such but never has anyone quit because of it. Furthermore, there are two actively running games. There is Tyger's Shadowrun game and another members 3.5ed D&D game based on the Palladium Fantacy Game setting. Because of a disagreement about a rule in the Shadowrun game, which was the first session of this game by the way, this player has left the group entirely so he will quit playing the other game and also quit doing other things we do. We all get together from time to time in the summer to go fishing. Granted it is less frequently than the frequency Tyger and I go fishing which is "as often as possible." If you stop associating with a group of friends due to a disagreement in the first session of a new game, well that speaks of maturity of that player.

Posted by: TygerTyger Mar 4 2011, 06:25 PM

All good points. But there's an unspoken agreement at our table not to be, if you'll forgive the language, a douchebag. I, as GM, would not let any single player even remotely attempt to repeatedly use social skills as a hammer. But implicit in the "don't be a douchebag" rule is the "play nice with others" rule, which means that you should play your character realistically, given the situation and relevant rules.

Players should go along with the plans of the high social character more often - he's just that convincing. They should listen to the hacker about computers for the same reason. When the rigger talks about why you can't get a vehicle to do something... you listen.

If a player ignores the mechanics of the game, it ruins the verisimilitude for everyone. If everyone acknowledges those mechanics, and RPs accordingly, while still being true to their vision of the character, then everyone wins.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Mar 4 2011, 06:32 PM

Agreed... Social Contract and all that...
But the sticking point for your Missing Player is the Relevant Rules part. He does not agree that the Fluff is a Rule, but a guideline that could be ignored. That was the point of contention... Ultimately, it was a point he was willing to quit over.

Posted by: TygerTyger Mar 4 2011, 06:55 PM

Yup.

I should note as well to that it was not just my decision that the "fluff" was part of the rules... everyone in the group, but for the challenger, agreed that it should work as we've discussed.

C'est la vie.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Mar 4 2011, 06:58 PM

Yeah... Not much more to be said at that point.

Posted by: Ol' Scratch Mar 4 2011, 08:03 PM

It sounded to me like that was just a random point to cling on to instead. He was upset about being called out for his roleplaying, plain and simple. The whole Glamour thing was simply a red-herring on his part. Hell, you see the RAW babies do it all the time around here. They'll ignore anything and everything but that one little point and focus all attention on that one little point until it becomes something incredibly stupid and everyone forgets what the main point was to begin with.

Posted by: TygerTyger Mar 4 2011, 08:15 PM

As much as I hate to agree, I have to. His character's actions in the entire scene made zero sense, and when called on it, that was his defense.

Like I said, c'est la vie.

Posted by: graymagiker Mar 4 2011, 08:44 PM

It would seem that the original question has been answered, and that the discussion is now on a specific instance in TygerTyger's game. I'd like to give my take in this open forum:

The issue is that an unnamed player wanted to rudely interrupt tundrawalker1's character's negotiations with Mr J. Tundrawalker1 is playing a dryad with the glamor power, the text of which reads:

TygerTyger made a call as the GM that the other player's character would not react that way, since he "Always responds with awe, deference, and kindness" to the dryad.

I agree that the sentence about how other sapient beings react to the dryad is part of the rule, and not 'fluff' or flavor text. I think that after TygerTyger made the call based on the text of the rule was the wrong time to argue about the rule.

However, I think that it is a bad rule. Tymeaus Jalynsfein has already explained my thinking:



Like I said before I think the place for a quick decision to keep action rolling is right when it happened, in which case I think TygerTyger did an exemplary job and his player was being a jerk by holding up the action and arguing the point then and there. But I do think that in order for the game to be fun, and in the spirit of fairness, adjustment needs to be made to the glamor power. Perhaps something like:



I think that if the player had better articulated their argument, and opted to have the discussion during down time for the game, a more favorable conclusion for all could have been reached.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Mar 4 2011, 09:23 PM

Yeah, sounds like it is probably true... was not there, but I can see that...

Posted by: Glyph Mar 5 2011, 06:03 AM

On the episode with the other player, I can't really comment. As the people involved have clarified what happened, it seems a lot less of an example of railroading than it did at first. But I'm still only getting one side of the story. Based solely on what I have heard here, and assuming it is true, it sounds like the player was the biggest part of the problem.

I still have a problem with using the glamour rules, RAW or not, to impose behavioral restrictions on another player - the trouble with that aspect of glamour is that it can't be resisted and never wears off. That said, it sounds like the GM was giving the other player some wiggle room in how exactly to play his character, and simply didn't want him ignoring it.

Social skills are best handled with mature, cooperative players who will take the game stats of the other player into consideration when interacting with him. The trouble with social skills is that while they are great for simple tests (get past a guard, tell a lie convincingly, etc.), they disrupt roleplaying when interjected into PC interactions. Instead of having an interaction between two characters, the dice are being whipped out, and one of the characters is being told what his character does. And unfortunately, you have the choice of the existing highly subjective rules, with lots of potential arguments about modifiers and thresholds, or house ruling something that will probably be cumbersome and eat up even more game time at the expense of roleplaying.

Social skills can be a real landmine. People can feel that their character is essentially being played by the other player - so why bother even showing up? And characters can be ruined if the almighty dice dictate that the character react in a way completely opposite of that character's personality. Which social skills shouldn't do, anyways.

Etiquette lets characters fit in. Con lets characters deceive others temporarily (and they don't want to be around when the truth comes out - con men rarely stick around after they have fleeced their marks). Negotiation lets you come out ahead in a bargain, getting more than you have given (although like con, overdoing it can backfire over the long run, as "buyer's remorse" sets in). Leadership lets you take charge of people, although it should be very limited when you don't have any legitimate (or seemingly legitimate) authority over them. Intimidation lets you bully people into doing what you say, because they think you can hurt them in some way, although it can breed a lot of resentment later.

None of these skills are magical mind control! People are too hung up over the idea that kinesics, glamour, and the elven metatype can result in characters more charismatic than any imaginable leader today, or in recorded history (not even quite true - those historical people would be getting +6 from the Global Fame quality). Well, the street samurai can roll a lot more pistols dice than anyone today, but all that means, in game terms, is that he hits the target slightly more often. He doesn't shoot around corners, or shoot other bullets out of the air, or shoot past the normal extreme range of his pistol. In the same way, the ork mega-face won't turn those humanis rabble-rousers into pro-meta activists with one stirring speech, you won't talk the security guard into shooting himself in the head with his own pistol in a round of talking, and no matter how hot the pornomancer is, he won't turn a straight character gay (or a frigid lesbian straight).

Now, that ork might convince a humanis thug that he's "okay for an ork" and slowly win him over. Likewise, some lengthy manipulations might get someone to commit suicide. And a bi-curious character might be convinced to try something "new". The difference is plausibility. And that's where you can run into trouble - when the GM thinks something is plausible, but the player thinks it is something his character would never do. And I'm not talking about stuff like "My character is never afraid!" but stuff like sexual orientation, whether a player would die before submitting to humiliation, things like that. In those kind of situations, I would tend to side with the player, who only has the one character to play.

Now, there's nothing wrong with dice rolls to see how "good" the face was, and some general suggestions to the other player. That seems to be your GMing style, and that would probably work decently for most cases. It gives the other player some constraints, but leaves enough room for roleplaying, and should keep the extreme "character ruining" cases from coming up, or at least lets the player state his case.

The thing is, just like the face needs to not be a bully with his abilities, the other players also have to be flexible, and create characters who can both work with a group, and occasionally be fallible, rather than no-selling everything like the social skills equivalent of Hulk Hogan. The problem (as described) with the other player was that his "personality" was both not conducive to working with a group, and not flexible enough (even if social skills were not rolled at all, it would still be frustrating to game with someone acting the same way not matter how you acted towards him).

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Mar 5 2011, 03:23 PM

Much better put than my meager meanderings. Completely agree...

Posted by: TygerTyger Mar 5 2011, 09:44 PM

Exactly. Couldn't have articulated it better. Hell, couldn't even have articulated it that well. Thanks Glyph, that's a great perspective.

Posted by: ShadeofShadow Jul 2 2011, 11:28 AM

I tried very hard to let this go. It's done and over with, I know, but despite my best efforts to forget it this incident still haunts me. It bothers me, because for the first time since age 16 I was accused of bad rp, despite never having this issue with a wide variety of groups, both one-offs and longer term rp. I honestly tried to just forget, as there seemed to be some hope of maintaining friendship with most of the group and I didn't want to jeopardize that by digging up a skeleton, if you will...but since I've never gotten any response to e-mails except a professional inquiry I sent, I can only assume that I'm the only one that wanted to still maintain the friendships (aside from the two individuals I knew before meeting the rest). I'm sorry if this is incorrect, but that's the impression I've gotten.

I'm tired of torturing myself over and over again, and I need to get this off my chest. For what it's worth, I apologize and fully expect anger and disbelief, but I really do need to do this.

I would have posted my response to this situation as it happened, as it didn't take me more than a few minutes to actually find this conversation at the time, but my account registry didn't take effect until weeks later.

First, let's look at the background and personality of my character:

My character, one facet of his personality, was based off a real individual. The individual in question was indeed an old man, a very stubborn old man that doesn't take too kindly when people half (or less than half) his age question his experience. In fact, the two most prominent arguments I've been privy to have been him arguing with another individual about an area of knowledge that the other individual had been trained in extensively (and this individual was correct), but that individual was wrong because it went against everything the old man had learned several decades ago. To give a more specific example, argued with me about whether or not Africville was built on the dump, or the dump was built on them (all records show that the dump came after Africville was already in place, as you know, but because I hadn't 'lived' through that era, I didn't know anything). Sorry for those members who don't know what I'm talking about; it's a shameful part of local history.

Other aspects, which unfortunately we didn't get to examine due to the session being cut short, were based on other influences...caring and worried grandfather, dedicated physician, essentially honest citizen up until this juncture in his life, and having a general low opinion of most of the corporations.

All the aspects were covered in the background and short introduction scene the GM, Tyger (using part of his board name), had us write up on an individual basis. My background was lauded as being original, creative, and well done, and even Tundra here liked how my character reacted in the intro scene.

Naturally I assumed that I could use that as a basis for my in-character interactions, and so I did.

Now, the scene setup from my perspective:

A group of random people (with useful skillsets) who had never met each other before in their lives are brought together for their first run by a middleman. Most of them are young individuals, one is a monkeyman (well, I forget the exact proper term), one of them is a shape-shifting bear, and one of them is a crotchety old man who is, right off the get-go, out of his element.

There was one or two limited interactions; one character (the character destined to be the face) buys the bar drinks, the old man interacts with the bear, and the monkey-man being true to his nature and written background/personality tries to play a prank on the destined-face and the lone female soon-to-be party member.

This group of random people who'd never met each other before go into the back room for the negotiations, and right away one of the youngsters (a pretty boy smooth-talker, as per my character's impression) begins talking for the group of people as if he had been elected chief negotiator. The old man, having already agreed to do the work for the asking price (under the firm belief that green rookies shouldn't negotiate until they're proven, as per his work ethic...get your foot in the door, so to speak, before trying to buck for raises), who is already nervous for being out of his element, sees this youngster trying to wheedle more money out of the Mr. Johnson, and worries that this pretty-boy is jeopardizing his chances of a: making a good working impression, and through that b: risking his chance of earning income to save his sick granddaughter.

He tries to nip this in the bud. The pretty-boy basically tells him he doesn't know what he's talking about. The old man, having someone half his age or younger tell him that he doesn't know what he's doing (plus actually having business knowledge) gets angry and snaps at the man.

Now, there was a few moments of continued negotiation, but they're irrelevant now, as the previously stated situation is where the bulk of the trouble comes from. It was literally just after this that the scene had to be abruptly ended. My character's reactions were questioned in person at that point, and I explained my reasoning and even clarified that things would change rapidly, especially once my character saw what the face could do for him. Everyone seemed fine with this...until it hit the groups' forum.

Before we get into that, here's something how I envisioned the next rp going: After the meeting, my character would approach the 'pretty-boy' and apologize for his rancor, and state that he was willing to take a payout hit because of his error in judgement. I stated on the groups' forum that I am ICA=ICC. And, unlike the basis for the stubborn part of the character's personality, the character himself was perfectly fine with owning up to his mistake.

When we get to the board, the monkey-man's player is chastised for his attempt at a prank (Statements, why would he do that? He had no reason to do that are made), despite playing according to his approved background and personality. And then the attention is focused on me. That I knew Tundra's character was the face, that I knew he was a dryad, that my character's reaction was totally wrong, that he couldn't possibly react like that because of the glamour...trait? Spell? Whatever.

First of all, my character had is magic vision on...he identified the shape-shifting bear, but all he knew about the future face is that he was putting off magic like crazy. Never received IC information that he was a dryad. Ever. It might have influenced how my character reacted, we'll never know now.

Secondly, I am of the camp that other people can't tell you that how you play the character -you- created is wrong, especially when detailed background information has been provided as requested, nay, demanded by the GM. Some people will snort at this statement...let me ask you this. Would you go to Tolkien and tell him how Frodo reacted in LOTR was wrong? Would you tell Frank Herbert that the way Paul Atreides handled the situation he found himself in an incorrect manner? No, you wouldn't, because it's their character. I don't claim to be anywhere near as talented as those two individuals, but my character wasn't designed by committee. And despite some assertions on the board, namely one post in particular, I don't believe you can change core personality traits (like making a straight man gay), at least not without severe psychological trauma (torture), or extenuating persistent circumstances (prolonged prison time, and even then it's not 100% certain).

Thirdly, I e-mailed the people who make Shadowrun, and got a reply from their line developer, questioning him about glamour. I wanted clarification from an official source. His reply to my e-mail was word-for-word this:

Generally the latter. Characters should mostly be nice to someone with glamour, but if they have a reason not to be nice, they can not be nice, right up until the time the character with glamour uses a Charisma skill and succeeds in charming, conning, or intimidating them in some way.
Have fun!
Jason H.


My character, by his background and personality, which had been fully accepted by the party and GM, had a reason to not be nice. No charisma roll was ever made, a roll that I would have abided by. This e-mail was a bit late in coming, unfortunately, as things developed rather quickly on the other board. Had he come back with a 'glamour means that you can't react negatively dice roll or no' response, I would have cheerfully admitted I was wrong.

Fourth point: My character had maxed out willpower, and if we're using descriptions as part of rules mechanics, this makes him highly naturally resistant to various and sundry things...I'll leave it at that.

Now, here's the kicker; before this got -really- ugly, I wasn't even angry...I was genuinely trying to avoid just what happened. I offered to switch out to my secondary character, because this character was seemingly going to cause issues (bear in mind that we've only had one incomplete rp session so far). That idea was summarily rejected, and the argument continued...first brought to outside sources by Tundra and Tyger (to this forum), and then by me after I'd found out about this thread (with claims that everyone here saw eye to eye with their statements 100%, which clearly they didn't). The accusation that I wasn't 'seeing it from their perspective', when they were equally guilty of not seeing it from mine, combined with essentially being called a five year old, DID make me angry eventually...but what bothered me the most was that I was being made out to be completely unreasonable, and that I was a bad rp'er.

I was also told the whole group was against the way my character reacted, and that they were all against my interpretation of Glamor...when I had two other group members who verbally agreed with me.

I was basically told I should have ignored everything I put into my character background and just had my character fall neatly in line with everything as if everyone had always been part of a team. It was expected that my character was to immediately know that the face character was looking out for everyone's best interests, that he had more business experience than my character, that Tundra's glamour ability made it totally impossible for my character to react in a negative way.

Basically, I was being called a bad rp'er because I took my character's IC circumstances into account, from my approved background, his personality, from my approved background and introductory scene, and the situation of not knowing anyone else in the room aside from the middleman...not knowing their intentions (aside from getting work), motivations, personalities, abilities, skills, etc, and acted accordingly with a well thought out, fallible character. Never once was it stated that my character had received a complete dossier on the people he was going to potentially be working with, or that they were anything but complete strangers.

What rational human being entrusts important matters in his/her life to people they've never met, or even heard of, let alone doesn't know what their qualifications are?

To make things worse, on here I was being made out to be completely unreasonable, when (as stated before) I offered to shelve my character to avoid the mess, and then willingly left the group to avoid causing more friction with two individuals in particular over this matter. Individuals who, at this point, had told two people that their rp was wrong (remember monkeyman?). I couldn't even present my side of the situation on here because, for whatever reason (maybe the admin was busy or something), my account didn't get approved here until weeks later.


Of course, once that happened, then the proverbial can of worms opened...that my own personality was causing issues in the group, that I needed to change myself to be part of the group again. Despite being told, once I was gone, to 'don't ever change' by more than one member of the group (various variations, but I'll use the wording of one individual). My fault for assuming because I ignore negative qualities in people I befriend, or rather that I accept them as part of who that person is, that everyone else does the same. There was one thing I was already going to change, namely my seating position, so that my size and height didn't cause space issues...I knew it was causing an issue with at least one, possibly two people so I was going to offer to move to a chair so that I wouldn't be in anyone's way.


The GM forgot, conveniently, that he'd had a blow-up with this very same group in the past and was forgiven. Word of mouth from another member of the group.

Looking at all of this now, it seems so...childish to me that grown men got into an argument over a game that went this far. I think part of it has to do with the fact that none of the discussion was face-to-face; people tend to be more reasonable in the flesh than over message boards, and the use of body language and vocal tones helps to take the edge off of things that, viewed as text, look offensive and insulting...although I was quite clearly insulted by one comment. I still don't feel I was wrong in the way I played my character...were there other ways? Yes, but the way I did it was also equally valid; the old man screwed up. Was it fair to tell me that I couldn't use my background as a basis for my rp? No, not after so much emphasis was put on actually creating one with no indication that it wasn't to be used (never did anything unreasonable there either, like say my character was immune to this, or was exceptional at this, unless he had the stats to back it...it was based on 25 questions the GM had us answer, and so was basically all personality). What was the point of insisting on it if it was never going to be used for anything? Did myself, Tundra, and Tyger overreact/react badly? Yes. One of us should have said 'alright, enough's enough, this is going to get bad so why don't we just grab a coffee and talk about it in person.

In the end, after everything....do I feel I was wrong? That's subjective. I don't believe my interpretation was wrong, I don't believe my rp was wrong...but, where I was wrong was on two fronts...one, as mentioned before, was not stopping the discussion on the board and saving it for over coffee in person, where nothing could be misconstrued...two, was forgetting that it was the GM's sandbox, and while my interpretations weren't wrong officially, he had the final say in his game.

Sorry for dragging this up again; hopefully now I won't keep suddenly remembering this at random times...it really does bother me to a high degree; guilt for my part in continuing the argument to the point where we 3 ended up pissed off at each other, anger at being made out to be a complete bastard and all around bad-rp'er...disappointment over loss of friendship over something so trivial.

Thanks for reading.

Posted by: Aku Jul 2 2011, 12:43 PM

Well, its always interesting to see "the other side", even if its 3 months after the fact. I would say a couple of things though shadow, one you said there was some "grandfatherly" qualities to you, and to my understanding, thats how you would sort of react to the person with glamour, as you would with the grand kids, it's going to be VERY hard for anything they do to REALLY make you mad.

Secondly, and this is to me a preference, I understand that shadowrun is based on nefarious deeds, mistrust, a conning people, but i think it should be "assumed" (UNLESS stated by the GM that subverting other PCS from the get go is ok) that the other players, know their role, and are trusted. Otherwise, we would be spending a month of games doing background checks on everyone else, and no one would actually be playing shadowrun.

Thirdly i didnt see it was actually a group of people you knew personally (i generally game online when i get the chance), so in that regard the incident IS unfortunate.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jul 2 2011, 12:52 PM

There actually are some SR players in the Halifax area? Huh.

Posted by: Critias Jul 2 2011, 01:29 PM

I think that would'a been best, yeah.

Posted by: suoq Jul 2 2011, 03:12 PM

It doesn't matter if it's a jam session, a shared world writing group, a role playing game, or cooks sharing a kitchen. Bring things that can play along well together.

I don't care how great of a roleplayer you think you are. The moment you decided to bring an argumentative old man to do a job with a bunch of strangers who are likely young and therefore likely to set your character off, you screwed over everyone including yourself. You keep justifying that you were properly playing the character, but you shouldn't have brought that character in the first place.

------

DM: "Did all of you create characters for the fantasy campaign where you'll need to take a magic ring across the land to destroy it before evil captures it?"
Player 1: "Yes, I'm playing a human fighter named Boromir. His goal is to take the ring by persuasion, force, whatever, and use it to fight the evil instead of destroying it."
...
(while Player 1 is off getting a soda)
DM:"Just so you guys know, I'm killing Boromir in the next encounter. He's not being invited back."

Posted by: ShadeofShadow Jul 2 2011, 04:17 PM

I'll agree to a point with the rather harsh statement, but also don't forget that the concept was approved of and applauded prior to the start of rp. Also, as stated, tried to sub out a character that would be more agreeable and had that rejected. Until this moment in the abortively short rp, there had been no problem with the concept at all.

Posted by: suoq Jul 2 2011, 05:24 PM

It's not someone else's job to make sure the character you intend to play, you can play in a manner that doesn't annoy the rest of the players.

One of my current characters has "bias vs humans". I have to be able to play that bias in a way that reflects the bias BUT allows the character to interact in a positive manner with any human character any other player brings to the table. If I can't do it, it's not someone else's problem because they approved it.

Your choices and your behavior are your responsibility. Everyone else is free, at any time, to reform the group without you, just like you are free to find some other group to play with.

Posted by: Glyph Jul 2 2011, 06:37 PM

If I were in the same position, I probably would have walked too. But I will add the same disclaimer I did when I replied to the first set of posts - that this is reacting to the facts as presented, which may or may not be the same as what actually occurred. The biggest point of contention is whether the cantankerous old man was disruptive, or just in character, with the player ready to change things up if needed. And I can't quite discern that, even with both sides to look at now.


Sometimes I think Shadowrun would be a better game either without any social skills at all, or more limited ones that don't affect PCs, or NPCs that have fully fleshed-out personalities.

I think it depends on how you see characters. Some people, like ShadeofShadow, and myself, see their characters as their extension into the game world, that they should be able to run as they please. It's fine if the character gets shot, imprisoned, mind controlled, etc. but no one should take control of how you play the character away from you. If you can't play your own character, what's the point of even showing up to a game?

There are other playstyles, though. Some people look at their characters more like game tokens - your token is frozen on the board this turn? Your token gets moved by another player? Okay, long as that's what the rules say. Some people see the game like a play, where the GM, as director, tells them what to do, and what they should be emoting. "You failed your resistance check by 5 successes, so your character should be really attracted to the face all of the sudden." And... acting!

Nothing wrong with either playstyle (other than the inherent wrongness of being different than my own, obviously superior playstyle, of course ). But different playstyles can clash, and I think the vaguely worded rules for social skills often exacerbate this problem.

Posted by: Cain Jul 2 2011, 10:11 PM

I like to see players roleplay unique and interesting characters, I think it adds enjoyment and fun to the game.

However, I'm also very sick of "But that's what my character would do!" as an excuse to cause a disruption in a game.

Recently, in my game, the other characters have been pulling pranks on the troll, because he's exceptionally dumb. As in, all mental stats at 1 dumb. The player got a bit fed up with this, and started justifying his troll getting even with others, even though he couldn't reasonably know who did what to him. (His justification was that the troll was mad and lashing out randomly.) It finally culminated in an attack on another PC that would have killed him outright. At that point, I had to literally call a halt to the game, and explain to everyone that I don't allow PVP in my games. I had already individually talked to each of the pranksters, and told them in no uncertain terms to cut it out because it wasn't fun; I just hadn't gotten to the troll player yet, because I assumed he'd be better when the pranks stopped.

In a way, I just told everyone how they should play their character. They couldn't pick on him as much, even if it was in character; he couldn't murder them in cold blood, even if it was in character. And you know what? That's fine. Roleplaying a character is not free rein to be a total jackass. In Shadowrun, you are part of a team; you need to create a team player. You don't always have to get along with flowers and sunshine, but you do need to be able to work with each other and solve differences.

Now, I don't know how this situation really went down. But here's what would have happened if it were at my table: I'd sit all of you down, and explain that while you control your character, that doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you like. You have a range of acceptable responses, and that range is pretty damn broad. Glamour means you interpret the person in the best possible light, which dictates your range of responses. I don't know if what the dryad said was a direct insult, or just smart mouthing, or what. But rather than jumping to homicidal rage, the acceptable range is to get miffed first, then upset, then angry, and so on.

I do feel your pain. In my RPGA 4e game, there's a munchkin that I flat-out refuse to speak to anymore for personal reasons. But here's the catch: he plays a warlord, a leader-type class. So, he feels justified in OOC telling the other players what to do. He constantly yells at other players to do what he says, tells them how to move, and even once loudly demanded that a LD player hand over his character sheet so he could pick out the best attack. And he justifies this because his character has a high charisma, and is a tactical Warlord, so "it's what my character would do!" Roleplay and abilities are no excuse to be jerks, no matter what side of it you're sitting on.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 2 2011, 10:24 PM

If you encounter a player who acts rude but expects his social game stats to make up for it, it's really simple.

"Clearly, by acting this way you are voluntarily choosing not to use your social skill to it's fullest. Make your social checks using just your base attribute, no modifiers. Heck, half your base attribute."





-k

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 2 2011, 11:09 PM

You can be both disruptive and in character. I'm not saying there weren't some extenuating circumstances and maybe you guys needed a better "meet and greet" session before the session, but honestly if you want to play the character with the years of experience couldn't it just as easily have occurred to you that starting an argument amonst yourselves in front of the potential employer is potentially just as damaging.

Now one thing I do feel the need to stipulate, After reading glamour as part of this I found the power both poorly worded and borderline bulldrek mind control and would have serious issues with a dryad at one of my tables because of it. It's pretty munchkin cheese at it's finest and the game is poorer for it being in.

Posted by: Glyph Jul 2 2011, 11:15 PM

Yeah. It's like the infamous example of the screaming, naked, painted orange guy using "stealth". The rules for skills assume you are actually using the skill. If you are not, you shouldn't even get a roll (although for a social skills guy, I would allow him the etiquette roll to detect his gaffe beforehand - and he would face all of the consequences if he ignored that and committed the gaffe anyways).

Social skills need more than simply a roll. Even if you're not up to roleplaying the whole thing out, you should still say how you're going about it, as this can strongly affect your modifiers. If you threaten the troll ganger by telling him you have a vidfeed of him skimming off the take on the gang's protection racket, you might get a situational bonus. But if you try to intimidate him by having your skinny elven face grab him by his jacket lapels and threaten to beat him up, you're likely to get laughed at, then swatted by a shovel-sized troll hand, pornomancer-level dice pools or not.

Posted by: Blitz66 Jul 4 2011, 07:08 PM

Been lurking on this forum for a while, and this topic spurred me to make an account.

I think both posters are completely in the wrong.

First, yes, the character playing the old curmudgeon was, honestly, just plain weird. Agreeing to work for the agreed-upon price, without a hint of negotiation, and expecting everybody else to follow his example, leading to squabbling like toddlers in front of a Johnson? There is no way that is doing anybody any good, and is never going to end well for anyone involved.

When you make a character with a social quirk, it is your responsibility to come up with a way to not whip it out at the PCs and beat them up with it. Find a reason why your character will act counter to his or her natural tendencies for the good of the team. If you can't, don't bring the character to the table, because it just isn't going to work out. Perhaps the character was fantastically thought out and original, and maybe you played him perfectly, but the person you used as a basis for him probably doesn't work as part of an illegal mercenary problem-solving team. Professionalism prevents friendly fire accidents.

Second, anyone who says "Your character has to like my character, because The Rules!" is looking for a fight. There are countless ways to try to reason with the player, but "see, my +3 bonus says you've got to like me!" is the exact wrong way to do it. While the old guy's actions were extremely wrong and counterproductive and, frankly, juvenile, explaining that to the player is preferable to thrusting your character sheet and its "compel you to like me" abilities under his nose.

Third, the team apparently hadn't met each other before the meeting with the Johnson. Otherwise, the discussion about who does the talking would've already taken place, there would be no need for pranking, and the group dynamics would've been settled. Even if there was a new member, they wouldn't have felt that they had the ability to make decisions as the rookie on an established team. The battle for decision-making power that they demonstrated for the Johnson means that the team isn't made up of people capable and experienced enough to determine their roles before showing up. Thank Plot you still got the job, even at a cut rate. Meeting the Johnson requires you to be all business, and that was not what happened, because the team had not bothered to prepare.

Frankly, this group looks to me to have far deeper issues than the question of who was in the wrong here.

Posted by: tundrawalker1 Jul 7 2011, 01:21 AM

A likeable guy walks into a bar and is treated like the bar's most regular patron, smiles and buys the entire bar a round of drinks. He sends out the good vibes and charms everyone in the place...except obviously the curmudgeon. The party is speaking to Mr. Johnson and the obviously charming regular steps up and uses his charm to get the team more money. Yet the curmudgeon still, in front of the Johnson, tries to belittle the face.

That is exactly how it went down. The Glamour power was totally ignored, not from a mechanical perspective, but a fluffy background perspective akin to saying "your anti-magic aura doesn't affect me as my character is immune to anti magic auras in my background so I can ignore your anti-magic aura." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Mechanic trumps fluff. And then the GM concurs and says the offending player is not playing by the rules (it is his game after all) but the player stomps his feet and says fine, I quit.

The group has moved on from the unfortunate incident and that is that. Unfortunately we have had members in the group in the past that were rather alpha dogish and it was his way or the highway. The group's enjoyment is very important and once an individual's disposition interferes with the enjoyment of others, then the offender ought to capitulate or as in this case, depart. It is not the first time it has happened but the group is not interested in being railroaded by one individual.

Posted by: Critias Jul 7 2011, 01:25 AM

Yeah, it sure sounds like it.

Posted by: Blitz66 Jul 8 2011, 02:55 AM

Dude, seriously. The group has fun when all its members are having fun. That was the character introduction, and people wanted to roleplay their characters, and you were waving your character sheet in another player's face and saying that because of how you built your character, he was playing his character wrong. I'd have left too.

It's true that the other guy's PC was doing things that were bad for himself and the group, but you and the GM handled it badly too.

And, oh yeah, the rule is that you get a +3 bonus. That's almost neutralized as soon as the other character is revealed to have a prejudice against metahumans who muck with people's heads and make you like them even when you wouldn't - ta-da. Glamour lets you roll more dice than you would without it. It is not a social insta-win, and you have absolutely no right to insist that another character absolutely must like your character and follow his lead.

Posted by: Cain Jul 8 2011, 04:32 AM

Social abilities and powers have always been a sore spot for many players. Some people actually do think that because their character sheet says X, they can order around the other characters with impunity. That's almost never the case.

In situations like these, the GM has to take a very direct role. He has to set the guidelines for the interactions. Note that these are guidelines, not rules: the GM has to set the situation, and explain the ramifications to the players, and then trust them to work within the framework of the story.

Posted by: Midas Jul 8 2011, 07:37 AM

This. The fluff of the Glamour quality states that all sapient beings TEND TO react with awe, deference and kindness, leading to the mechanics of a +3 bonus to non-hostile social skills. Shade's character might quite logically disapprove of this flash young guy walking into the bar, buying everyone a round of drinks, and then taking control of negotiations with the Johnson, despite the Glamour quality. If I think all politicians are self-serving egotistical fools and go and see Bill Clinton or Dubya or whoever speak, at the end I will still think all politicians are self-serving egotistical fools but that guy can sure get his points across. The Humanis goon might think that all metas are sub-human, but this elf ain't a bad guy despite his inferior gene pool.

It seems like Tundra's GM and other players took his side, so it seems Shade may have acted a little out of line in some respect. I wonder if this whole debacle might have been a clash of egos or a difference in playstyle (some players like to skim over the meet and the legwork and cut to the action). It is a shame that what happened at Tyger's table happened, and I hope some kind of rapprochement can be made between all involved, if it is not too late for that.

Posted by: TygerTyger Jul 8 2011, 11:23 AM

Wow, what a ressurection.

For the record, none of this happened at the table. The scene played itself out, exactly as Shade and Tundra have described. Days later, on our game forums, it was explained to the group what Glamour meant, both the rule, and my (as GM) interpretation of what that meant - a default initial positive reaction to a Dryad, unless there was a mechnical reason (ie a Quality) which would conflict with it. Lacking that, it was explained, and agreed upon by all the other players that Glamour did mean initially people lacking mechanical reasons would react positively to a Dryad, until given a reason otherwise. It was very clearly explained and understood by everyone that it did not cover conduct, only feelings - Glamour influences how you feel, not how you act.

That is the sum total of the situation.

To Blitz, Tundra never waived his sheet (metaphorically, actually or otherwise) and told anyone how to play anything - he noted the rule and asked that it be respected.

To Midas, your interpretation of the power is the same as Shade's, and is perfectly valid. However, the rest of our group interpreted it differently, noting the use of mandatory language "Sapient beings will always respond with awe, deference, and kindness to the character as long as she does not act hostile." Our group read that as more than fluff. FWIW, if the majority of players had taken the alternate position, we would have gone with that ruling - we have a pretty democratic group, and the will of the group has often over ruled our various DMs when it comes to rules interpretations.

Posted by: Blitz66 Jul 8 2011, 11:13 PM

You and your group's rules interpretation skills are incredibly weak. An ability that automatically forces a specific attitude on everybody the character meets is WAY too powerful. That sentence merely exists to give you an in-character context for the +3 to social checks that is granted by the ability. The way this group ruled it, dice never have to be thrown, because the dryad auto-wins the checks. That's not even close to the power level available to anybody else in the game. Also, don't say "the group agreed and majority rules" when the GM has already spoken. That's BS. If the GM has spoken, most of the group agrees with him automatically unless they're being affected, unless you've got some exceptionally bright and willful players.

When I say he was "waving his character sheet in your face," I was saying the same thing you are when you say "he noted the rule and asked that it be respected." When one player points to something on his character sheet and says that, as a consequence of how he built his character, other PCs must act a specific way without so much as a check, that player is wrong. If, in some hypothetical other situation, that player is reading the rules correctly, he's STILL wrong, because those rules should be thrown out immediately, but in this case, the rules are fine. You just flubbed the implementation.

Posted by: TygerTyger Jul 9 2011, 12:16 AM

I see. So you would then only apply numbers given, for only they can be a rule? That would make for a challenging game, but I suppose some people prefer that style. I would assume then that the Distinctive Style negative quality that Dryads get would only apply to those folks they have actually rolled social tests against - after all, if the Glamour only matters for the +3 dice, then the negative should only apply when it is used.

As for: "When one player points to something on his character sheet and says that, as a consequence of how he built his character, other PCs must act a specific way without so much as a check, that player is wrong" I have to disagree. If the sammie had pulled out her gun and shot the other character, that would have worked. If the ninja had used one of his blades, that would have worked. Both actions would have forced a specific action from the victim - a dodge roll, or a resistance test, and maybe enforced penalties as well. Why not the clearly (in my group's interpretation) written power? All are on one character sheet, all have mechanical rules explaining how they work, and all are within the scope of the game.

Also, I think you are taking the Glamour power even further than we are... you've suggested that no test would ever be made, as the Dryad would already have won - we strongly disagree, and have explained that at length previously, so I won't belabour that point much further, but treating someone with "awe, defence and kindness" is a far cry from letting them win every test... Friendly is after all only one small facet of any social test.

As for the GM speaking first, I don't know about your gaming group, but mine is in fact full of "exceptionally bright and willful players" who are all a part of the world and rules discussion. Sounds like perhaps you have been playing with players who don't stand up for themselves, and/or GMs who run very strictly, but in our group, we work together on these issues. So yes, my group does frequently speak up when we think the GM is wrong, happens a lot actually. And we arrive at a consensus. Failing that, majority rules, and the loser is expected to work with that. Happens all the time, and I've been on the conceding side of that more than once, and have gone along with the will of the group.

Posted by: Blitz66 Jul 9 2011, 01:31 AM

The Distinctive Style negative quality tells you how it is used. +3 to +6 on attempts to identify, trace, or physically locate the character who has it. Glamour tells you how it is used. +3 to social tests. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The rules text is pretty clear, and there's no real parallel.







You're not making a great case for your reading comprehension skills there, fella.

As you mentioned, attacking somebody else requires a check. Your interpretation of the Glamour rule forces everybody your player's dryad meets to treat him as if he's already won a check against them unless there is something on their character sheet protecting them. That is a huge difference.



Everybody else has to EARN that "awe, deference and kindness" with a social check, and a freaking fantastic one at that. Your dryad wins that automatically. They HAVE to think and behave in a certain way, under your interpretation. That is freaking huge, and gives the dryad a lot of leeway in determining the course of the encounter. If everybody is deferring to you, you're running the show, and you're so adamant that everybody around the dryad should bow and scrape to him that a player was run off because his character refused to. No. You are entirely, 100% wrong.



I've had people at my table who question the rules, and I love having those players there, but the majority of players will go along with it so as not to make waves. I'm not buying that a whole group, minus one, of experienced role-players would read those rules the same way you did. Not a chance. In dozens of games, there is a description of the effect and then the rules effects, and you and your group apparently can't tell the difference suddenly. There's something fishy going on with that.

Posted by: Udoshi Jul 9 2011, 01:38 AM

Well said on all accounts, though I did want to elaborate on one specific account.

I was in a long-running(year long) shadowrun game that ran weekly, but our players did a LOT of party social when we could. The team was fairly well bonded, and would go out for drinks, parties, and occasionally talk and lie about the things they've done in the past. Lying, especially, as most runners aren't keen to give out details that can get their friends, family, or past associates hurt to near strangers. As we found out when our doctor's Judas quality kicked in. Ahem.

The interesting part was how we did it. I'm specifically thinking of the interactions between the hacker and the face. The face was a ridiculously high kinesics adept, who rolled a decent brick of dice for most things. The hacker(me) was only slightly less competent - he was made to include social engineering under hacking, and came with a decent charisma, the group, and some empathy ware - and we actually did use dice against each other fairly frequently. But not in the way you thing.

Both me and the adept's player were socially adept people who actually COULD put stats-to-play without dice, derive meaning and emotion from stances and positionings, or even the way people said hello. And more importantly, work information into our posts for the other to use. I think that playing-by-post, and not table, helps immensely in this regard, in that its much easier to make longer and more accurate descriptions of what is happening without making people wait. Just the general kind of combination of player attitude/maturity/competence that glyph mentions. Having a good partner makes it great to play off of other people. I also think that NOT having the gm around(like i said, weekly game) for interparty social actually helped a little bit - there was no potential animosity from someone ELSE stepping in to say 'this happens', and the dice are a neutral trustable party.

But when we used dice - and we did, fairly frequently - the one thing we used the most were Judge Intentions - to read what was going on - Con Checks(for lying, and having the other not notice), and, occasionally, Composure tests, for when something really strange or funny happened. None of this quasi-mind control social rolling crap. Having good character interactions, with the dice there as a sort of neutral adjudicator of 'what happens when...' happens to work out very nicely, and can occasionally lead the way to its own funny occurences. A good example from our game involves that kind of hilariously improbably dice luck that happens occasionally: the hacker and the face just could NOT lie to each other. They were both competent enough to not press for details, or cause a scene, or annoy the other person - over the course of multiple sessions, every(and I mean EVERY) time a Judge or Con roll was rolled against each other, the lie was spotted. Nothing was necessarily DONE about it, depending on the situation(nobody cares if you really don't like the coffee), but it was noticed.
And eventually we just stopped rolling, and started working the same information into interactions without the dice at all, just accounting for familiarity naturally in the course of play.


Just thought I'd share my experience with it. Worked out very positively, but I think the players are much more to blame for that. Rolling for Bullshit Checks(only), and letting the players act, react, and change the scene appropriately works out really well.
But it works out even better if your players can act their role well, too. An emotive, understanding, mature player who can bring that spark of life to a character is worth hanging onto, because they can make any game so much more interesting.

Posted by: TygerTyger Jul 9 2011, 11:58 AM

Then we'll have to just agree to disagree on that. I respect your opinion, but it isn't the one that I and my group came to. For the record, my opinion and interpretation are not wrong, and neither are yours... that's how interpretations work.



Well, as you know none of the people involved, and obviously have your own set of experiences you have been shaped by, I will give your concerns the appropriate consideration.



Yes, such players are worth hanging onto. Glad to hear of an example where Social skills were used, if only in a limited fashion, and such success was had by all. I'd enjoy hearing more about your experiences, as this is something we've been trying to work with for a while now.

Posted by: tundrawalker1 Jul 9 2011, 04:25 PM

I really see no need to continue discussing our particular incident. It is over. The guy left the group and as it stands, the way he left the group was such that he is not welcomed back. I guess he could apologize for his actions and petition the group to allow him back but we are getting on just fine the way it is. The group agrees with the black and white clear wording of the Glamour Power. This person in particular does not but as a majority has clearly stated this is how the power works, the discussion is done...otherwise the bebate would go on forever and we are there to game, not bicker. The group will not be railroaded. It was attempted by two other players in the past and in both those cases, the group was clear that railroading will not be accepted. In on instance, the player capitulated in favour of the group and the other left the group. We have a grand time when we game and one person's actions, which were unacceptable to the group, will not be tolerated. In fact, that player who keeps commenting on this incident more than 3 months later has demonstrated he is unwilling and unable to accept the rule as it is to be played in this group and continues to make waves. It is clear he is not interested in coming back to the group. The incident was fairly minor but the reaction was anything but. The reaction is the problem, not the incident, folks.

Posted by: tundrawalker1 Jul 9 2011, 04:29 PM

Sorry but that is hilarious. The guy you are talking about is an investigator with the government who has a law degree and interpretes legislation, evidence and facts every day. What do you do? lol

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 9 2011, 10:08 PM

And yet, he apparently STILL gets the Glamour Power Wrong. Amazing...

Posted by: Udoshi Jul 9 2011, 10:14 PM

Sure, I'd be happy to chip in. Its a lot easier for me to answer questions (how did this work, what might have happened in this situation) than to just blather on.

I'm not sure what to say, other than it was some magic combination of stats, coincidences, character attitude, player empathy and on the fly adjustments that.... just worked. Really really well.

Posted by: TygerTyger Jul 9 2011, 10:33 PM

And again, that's your interpretation. Neither right nor wrong, just your interpretation.

Posted by: CanRay Jul 9 2011, 10:46 PM

"The spirits love you, everyone else thinks you're a son of a slitch."

Posted by: Blitz66 Jul 10 2011, 05:31 AM

Also law. Only thing is, I'm good at it, so I didn't have to settle for a government job.

He quoted my words. Among those words was the phrase "without so much as a check." In context, this meant that the problem was that there was no check taking place. His ruling is that other players' behavior is altered without a check, and I said that this is wrong. He responded by giving other examples of affecting other characters without their consent, saying that they were just like his version of Glamour. This was not true, because each of those actions require checks.

This is precisely the degree of excellence I've come to expect from government personnel.

EDIT: Also, next time you get the urge to pull out somebody else's credentials and wave them around like they're special and unique on the Internet... don't.

Posted by: tundrawalker1 Jul 10 2011, 11:44 AM

Next time you feel like telling me what not to do on the internet, don't. Your pompous attitude has been recognized by many so it is fair to say your beginnings here have been inauspicious after only a handful of posts. Good job. To end a flame war even before it begins, although your posts have indeed been hilarious, your comments will receive no more responses. I tend to only respond to comments that are sensible anyway. Cheers!

Posted by: Grinder Jul 10 2011, 02:30 PM

Blitz66, tundrawalker1: stop it now.

Posted by: tundrawalker1 Jul 10 2011, 04:14 PM

Certainly. I have no interest in a flame war which is why I told him I won't respond to any more of his posts. I have no desire to converse with someone who happens to be brand new who comes on and attacks others like that. The discussion is over as far as I am concerned. Cheers!

Posted by: CanRay Jul 10 2011, 06:10 PM

Aw, but I had the marshmellows and weenies ready. *Pouts*

Posted by: TygerTyger Jul 10 2011, 06:26 PM

*chuckles at CanRay*

I love watching people try to "prove" their opinion too, always reminds me of http://xkcd.com/386/ Especially amusing when one of them is a close friend... That usually makes it good for some later teasing.

Posted by: Blitz66 Jul 10 2011, 06:50 PM

Sorry about the insult on your professional capability. You didn't present your own credentials as if they made you right and assume them to be superior to mine with no knowledge of me. Your friend did that, and I shouldn't have belittled your position when you weren't the one to make it an issue. Not cool of your friend to put you out there like that, though.

I still maintain that your interpretation of the rule is incorrect. Not just different from my own, but different from the intent of the rule, and extremely overpowered in play, and since you dictate how other players must behave as a result, harmful to everybody else's roleplaying fun. I'm still waiting for you to come up with an example of forcing an outcome on another character without a check, since, again, all of your examples require checks.

Posted by: Glyph Jul 10 2011, 07:35 PM

I find the quality poorly written. "Cannot help but feel moved and inspired", "always respond with awe, deference, and kindness to the character" - too overpowered, for any quality. The wiggle room is not in the character response itself, but in how a particular character might show "awe, deference, and kindness", and, more importantly, what a particular character might consider "hostile" (which negates this arbitrary aspect of the glamour power).

For the latter, I think the character in dispute had enough reason to consider the face's actions to be hostile. From his point of view, this upstart youngster was taking it upon himself to speak for the group without asking anyone's consent, and making him look unprofessional by trying to renegotiate the price after the other character had already agreed to do the job. Whether a character like that was appropriate for the group, I won't comment on, as there are two conflicting accounts of the incident.

Almost any use of social skills could be considered hostile (trying to get past the security guard? "Hey, this bitch could cost me my job, and damnit, I thought she was nice!" Trying to get more information from the Johnson? "Hey, I almost blurted out who I'm really working for! I'm being played by this bitch!"). But you know what? I still think the RAW quality is overpowered, in that a lot of times, NPCs will be hostile to the PCs, and having an instant "make everyone like you" card is way too much.

Probably not RAI, either, but merely a case of too much hyperbole in the wording (you see that in other things, such as the skill descriptions for higher-rated skills). Note, though, if you are running a RAW campaign, that said NPCs will only be non-hostile towards the PC with glamour, not everyone else. So keep that in mind if gangers accost the characters. And also keep in mind that NPCs will still do their job. A fixer might really like the PC, but he will still try to buy cheap and sell high - the character's glamour, at that point, is only the dice pool bonus. And a corporate strike team will already consider the entire group, including the PC with glamour, to be "hostile"

Posted by: Grinder Jul 10 2011, 08:09 PM

Not your job. Topic closed for 24 hours.

Posted by: Grinder Jul 10 2011, 08:10 PM

Watch your tone, ok?

Posted by: fistandantilus4.0 Jul 12 2011, 12:13 AM

Unlocked. Don't get personal and stick to topic please. And please don't play "Last Word" after a mod post in the future.

Posted by: Cain Jul 12 2011, 02:55 AM

I disagree, but I wasn't there, so I really don't know.

What I do know is, while it's generally uncool to tell people how to roleplay their characters, there should be guidelines. The Glamour power gives us a guideline, which is then subjectively interpreted by the players. Trying to circumvent that is also uncool. Someone with a power like Glamour gets to start off being viewed in a more positive light, and mouthing off to somebody else is kinda stretching the definition of "hostile". Depending on the situation, it might just be humorous.

I admit, I'm very sick of the disruptive player's excuse: "But that's what my character would do!" There need to be guidelines to roleplay, so it's not an excuse to do whatever you want. The GM needs to define the framework, and the players need to work within that. As long as everyone's cooperating, there shouldn't be a problem, and there should still be a lot of room for creative roleplay.

Here's my example: Recently, in my game, I had to very firmly lay down the rule that there was no PvP. PC's are not allowed to hurt other PC's, no matter what. If your characters don't like each other, that's fine, as long as they're not actually out to hurt each other. Practical jokes are fine, too-- hence the troll in a tutu. If things get really out of hand between characters, I'll have a talk with the players, and then at worst retire one or both of the characters.