So, looking over SR4's rules, there's obviously a lot concerning physical combat, but I'm finding a lack of information for what you can do on the social side of the fence. One of the PCs is the 'Face' for the group, who handles all the negotiations for the team, and I would really like the character to be effective without having to wing it every time they're making a diplomacy-based roll.

There's a little bit available (about a page, almost two), but it doesn't cover much. How far can one go? For example, our PC uses their skills to haggle over the amount the PC group is getting for their run -- I usually rule 5% increase per Hit, to a maximum of +50%.

But, for example, how many hits to convince someone not to shoot you? Or to convince your worst enemy that his boss is going to double-cross him? You know, things like that.

I agree with you there. The social skill rules are maddeningly vague. Yes, there are too many variables to cover them all, but some more examples, and a better depiction of what can (and can't) be done with social skills would have been very useful. Unfortunately, the GM needs to set thresholds, and determine the results of beating the threshold, on a case-by-case basis. The vague rules, and super-high social dice pools, lead to a lot of differing conceptions of what a face can, or cannot, do, simply by rolling that cube of d6's.


My general opinion is that a face, even with magical and technological enhancements, can be a great con artist or negotiator, but doesn't perform the equivalent of mind control. I think social situations should be similar to negotiating with a Johnson - successes can get you more money, up to a certain hard limit. Similarly, dealing with an NPC should have certain thresholds, along with an upper hard limit of what you can accomplish.

For instance, convincing the local gang to let the wounded runner team past them. Maybe (after also factoring in some negative modifiers) a threshold of 1 gets them to consider only humiliating and robbing the runners, a threshold of 2 means they will settle for a "toll" or the runners owing them a favor, and a threshold of 3 means the gangers think it's not worth it, and will let them by if allowed to save some face. But if the runners insult the gangers, it might make it impossible to get past them without a fight. And the best the face can do, with a good roll, is to get them by. Even a 51+ dice pornomancer shouldn't be able to get the gang to swear allegiance to him, or loan the runners their bikes.

But that's just rolling dice. Someone thinking and roleplaying might attempt, for example, to hire the gangers as bodyguards through the area, letting them save face and get some money, while giving the runners some protection and some possible future contacts. A face who does that is like a sammie who uses cover and sets up ambushes - just like the thinking face, that sammie will get better results than a sammie who just rolls his 18 pistols dice.

I'm not quite sure I understand the question here? When my group negotiates over pay scale, I tend to use 5% per hit as well, with a maximum of what the client can pay (normally I pre-determine that), however that 5% sometimes varies (if I know that the client is in urgent need or in a rush, the increase sometimes goes up to 10% per hit).

However, convincing somebody not to shoot you ... you either use Con (Fast Talk) or Negotiation (Bargaining) with the modifiers of -4 dice (Attitude: Enemy); -4 dice (Desired Result: Disastrous or -3 if Harmful). With an opposed roll, the odds (unless the PC is some sort of pornomancer type) are that there won't be a good result. Oh, you can apply other sorts of modifiers too, such as -2 dice (PCs were fighting NPCs beforehand); -2 dice (PCs are violating NPCs territory) etc. etc.

Oh, and at no point will the NPC be dumb enough to shoot himself (probably even with mind-control dice bonus on the PCs part).

All of these are just my opinion of course.

Social skills can be very powerful or very weak depending on your GM. It helps to go over with your GM what exact ally each skill does. Here's what my group agreed upon.

Negotiation: Is always an opposed test against someone else's negotiation(save when using it to oppose a con check). It is used whenever two parties are dealing with each other in a situation where both sides are trying to get the upper hand in a compromise. How we usually run it is the NPC has a what they are willing to give up/receive to seal the deal. Then if the player wants to negotiate they roll the opposed dice(adding modifiers based on the situation), and the more net hits they get, the more they talk the NPC down/up(as the situation dictates), keeping in mind that each NPC has an upper limit to what they are willing to do for the deal(getting 10 net hits isn't going to make johnson pay you more money then he can afford to do the run.) Doing exceptionally bad(NPC getting more then 1 or 2 net hits) causes the NPC to somehow get the advantage in the deal and changes the conditions of the deal in the NPCs benefit. After the check the PCs always have the final choice whether they accept the deal or not, and further negotiations don't change things unless the situation changes.

Example-Malus is trying to get entrance to an exclusive club without a membership and is trying to bribe the guard. The guard wants 200nuyen to let malus in the club, but malus is short on cash and tries to haggle him down. The GM decides that each net hit on a negotiation test will change the price by 20 nuyen, with a minimum price of 100(the guard needs it to be worth the risk of getting in trouble with his employer.) The two then roll opposed negotiation tests, with malus getting a -2 penalty because his clothes are two weeks out of fasion.

Etiquette: This is the general social skill for most situations. Aside from avoiding player gaffs as per the rules, it is also used for fitting into unnatural situations(a street punk trying to fit in at a black tie affair), impress people and improve their opinion of you(our group gives a +1 bonus on future social tests for each net hit, but it attracts a lot of attention), convince people of a point(within reason), or try to gather information from a person/group.

Example-Malus is tailing a target who enters a biker bar. Malus is currently dressed in corporate casual and tends to be overly professional, which would make him stand out like a sore thumb and make shadowing his target more difficult. The GM decides that he will take a -4 penalty on all further shadowing attempts, but that he can reduce the penalty by 1 for each hit on an etiquette test to fit in at the bar(a bonus here is impossible, the best he can hope for is to fit in).

Con: Is used whenever you are trying to convince someone that what you say is not a lie(note that a)even telling the truth may require a con test if it is far-fetched enough, and a successful test doesn't make someone believe it, just doesn't give them any indication you are fibbing to them). Con can also be used to fast-talk someone, getting them to make a decision on a matter before they have ample time to think about it(and can be used to gain bonuses on other social roles, at the penalty of a negative reaction later).

Example-Malus' team member needs to get past a guard standing post at a facility. He uses Con opposed by the guards con or negotiation(whichever is higher) to strike up a conversation about a local sports team to give his team member a chance to pass by unnoticed. The GM rules that meeting the guards number of hits is enough to give the team member a chance to sneak by, with net hits adding to the infiltration test, while net hits on the guards part giving them a bonus to perception because of the suspicious behavior.

Leadership: Leadership is simple, leadership lets you make people do what you tell them to do. Your number of hits affects what you are able to convince them to do, how much effort they will put fourth, and how long they will do it after you are gone. Leadership is only opposed if two people are trying to do opposing commands. Leadership only works if the targets have some reason to obay you, or are prone to following orders.

Example-Malus need's to clear the street of on-lookers so his ally has a chance to break into a near by store. He starts to loudly proclaim that the department store 2 blocks down is having a sale and that they should all go down and check it out before all the good stuff is gone. The GM decides that the crowd provides a -2 penalty on his friends attempt to sneak into the store without notice(he has a maglock passkey so it's not blatantly obvious), and that each hit on Malus' leadership test will give him a +1 bonus on his infiltraition check as Malus convinces more and more people to leave the area.

Intimidate: Intimidate can do anything any other social skill can do pretty much, but with the added threat of force to make it work better. Can either replace a skill in some circumstances, or add to one in others. Keep in mind this tends to make enemies though.

Example-Malus has been caught carrying an illegal firearm in downtown seattle by a lone star beat cop. Rather then try to talk down the ticket or bribe the cop, Malus decides to remind the guard that anyone carrying a silenced military grade SMG knows how to use it and will do so if needed. The GM decides that a single hit is enough to make the lone star let Malus go(it's not difficult to intimidate a star with that level of force), but he will call in for backup after a number of minutes equal to the hits after Malus leaves.

Hope that helps.

I like the idea of Intimidate being able to avert violence. Though the threshold/negative modifiers should be challenging, if you convince a ganger pointing a gun at you that he better hope he can take you down in one shot, or you will outclass him and make him pay for underestimating you. Even if you're not that physically intimidating, with the right amount of conviction, you could convince an enemy that you've got an angel with a cross-hair on him. Only a nihilistic and insane enemy would enter a combat they're not sure enough about their chance to not get killed.

I also like intimidation because even if you're a sammy with a unimpressive dicepool, you can get some good positive modifiers for looking deadly (eg. Trolls should get positive modifiers to intimidate tests).

When it comes to thresholds and modifiers, you have to look at it on a per situation basis. To use the "convince enemy not to shoot you" example. Factor things in like the size of the weapon, the skill of the enemy, their professional rating, how many people they have backing them up, knowledge of their target, motivation for their actions, etc.

I would like to point out that Intimidation doesn't necessary mean threatening the target of physical retribution, one of the of the specializations is mental intimidation:

Exemple - Malus is caught by the Lone Star carrying an modified ingram SMG under his Greatcoat (original Mortimer's), knowing that fast talking or dribing the cops so choses to intimidate them; as their hands approach the holsters Malus gives them an angry stare down and with low, menacing voice tells them: "Do you have the faintest idea who I work for? Probably not, and you are better to not find out. Now if you gentlemen don't mind I'm quite in a hurry". Now Malus makes a Intimidation + Charisma test with a penality of -2 against the cops Intimidation + Willpower, every net hit will give Malus a minute of time before the cops start to searvh for clues and give the allarm, if the number of net hits excides their willpower they are going to just let it go and hope that no dreck hits the fan.

Once my character (mystic adept: mage/face) had to infiltrate a corp for an extended period of time (she even recived the wage), at some point she approached hers target for extraction and procided with seducing him, however he got too eager so she applied some mental intimidation to keep him in check and futher seduction to make sure he did what she wished; in the end she had just to tell him to show up at a certain place at a certain time that he did, he was heart broken when realized that it was an extraction but followed the team without complaining.

The Face in my group ends more combats than anybody else. When half the enemy gang is dead and the other half is wounded, the Face rolls Intimidation with big positive modifiers for the situation, and the surviving enemy either flees or surrenders.

Don't be afraid to require social tests as extended rolls with intervals in days or weeks. Spend a few months befriending and cajoling, or terrorizing and torturing, and you can get people to do all sorts of things. Look at Jim Jones, Gloria Steinem, Bernie Madoff, Joseph Stalin, Martha Stewart, Barak Obama, James Dobson. These people don't convince in three seconds. They build their case over time. Think about trying to convince someone to have sex with you. Rarely do you walk up to a total stranger and say, "Nice boots. Wanna f!ck?", and achieve the desired result.

Another thing I'll do is allow bonuses for preparation. Let's say a PC is taking a meeting with a corporate executive. I'll let the PC roll Etiquette or Fashion or some relevant knowledge skill beforehand, while they pick out they're clothes, or choose the place for the meeting. Each hit adds a die to the Negotiation test at the meeting. If the PC spends nuyen, I'll add dice to the Etiquette test - if you go out and buy clothes in the style favored at his company, then wear them to the meeting, it might make him a little more friendly toward you.

Another house rule I have is that members of organizations get social skill bonuses because of that. If A Mitsuhama man offers you a job, you're likely to take it, because you want to cozy up to the rich and influential corporation. If the Mitsuhama man threatens to have you killed, you take him seriously, because Mitsuhama has the resources to do it.

I've got a drake adept in that situation, only instead of "extraction" it's "sabotage." And he's not terribly charismatic. Getting hired was the EASY part.

But yeah. Social Combat isn't very well explained, and on the one hand I like that. It actually keeps people from knowing exactly how a character needs to be built to Jedi Mind Trick their way past every problem (and deprive the troll meatgrinder of his fun).

And besides, if these people are this good, why are they shadowrunners and not CEOs?

Because they want to be? There's any dozen number of reasons for being a shadow runner. Also, of course, is the point that not every campaign is going to be about people at shadow-runner level.

The 'Charisma 11' comment I made to go with this thread wasn't a joke -- we have two elves who have Charisma 11 (and Glamour, go figure). They run a nightclub, and act as go-to for difficult missions and specialized operations. They are, technically 'shadow runners' in that they do covert assignments and such, but they're not the stereotypical type of runner, either.

In fact, I've noticed very few people in my games make the 'stereotype' -- our current group is a troll nun, an adept driver/gunman with a legit SIN, an ex-mafia street-samurai renegade (legit, criminal SIN), a Tir Tairngire noble who ran from home and is doing repair/tech work (also legit SIN), a ferret shaman 'spoiled girl', a physical adept (only two who have a 'normal' shadowrunning background), and fox shape-shifter 'Face' (with legit SIN from the NAN).

Half these people don't have to 'run, but they do for their own personal reasons. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Oh, atypical shadowrunners are nice to see, I agree. I've got a drake adept with a legal SIN (which may as of next week no longer be valid as he's declared dead, or possibly MIA as he got hired by a corp for some good infiltration action and what becomes of his legal identity depends on how the rest of the team extracts him).

Concept wise we've created Tinker Toy (rigger elf who rigs his own limbs: modular detachable drones with guns), Rodrigo (previously mentioned--I think he made it to ink), Bubblegum (came from the same twisted mind as Rodrigo, a 16 year old girl with extensive bio/cyberware and is a missle launching killing machine machine with a cute and bubbly attitude about life), Friend Computer (of Alpha Complex; awakened AI who thinks its Friend Computer and refers to the other runners as Troubleshooters and keeps trying to kill them for treason) and a few others.

I would actually like to see social skills fleshed out in a book. One complaint I have had with almost every RPG I have ever tried has been that social characters just aren't that fun to play, because social activities tend to be summarily resolved with a single die roll. You wouldn't resolve a battle with a couple of combat skill rolls. I would like to see player skill come into play more, with players having to make decisions regarding stuff like negotiating tactics, what tac to take in conversations, etc. Done right, it could be a real blast to play a proper wheeler and deadler- think Chili Palmer in Get Shorty and Be Cool.

Nothing forbiddes to do it.

I remember hearing about a player who, during a scene, tried using a social skill. The game master let him roll dice, then continued on as if nothing happened. When it was brought up later, the game master said 'well, there's no rules for it'. Yes, that's poor GMing, but the fact remains -- if there's nothing to back up the use of social skills, they'll just be glossed over. I've often wondered about RPGs that put in social attributes and social skills, but then don't actually bother to set up any rules for their proper use.

For example, can I use Intimidation to impose a penalty on someone's attack roll? Can I scare them so badly that I make them miss? Can I use Con to convince someone I'm not actually injured? What about convincing someone that their boss is going to betray them, and shake their morale enough to have them turn on their boss first? Can I inspire my allies using Leadership to give them a boost on an activity they're doing, motivating them to do even better than normal?

Nothing in the rules covers any of this. Yes, I can wing it... but I don't like doing that. I like having the rules laid out so I can show people and so there's consistency from game to game and campaign to campaign.

I agree with AllTheNothing. Make the end result (the real reason you're engaging in social tests) intimidatingly difficult. Also, keep a whole bunch of invisible modifiers, and even if the player is not a particularly quixotic and pursuasive guy/girl, make sure they stipulate the tone/tack they're going to take. You mentioned the target's dead wife? Ooh, you just lost three dice!

To overcome a difficult to achieve outcome, you have the face make a few tests, not to contribute to the finally test, but to soften the target up for the final strike, just like in combat. For some examples, let's look at the social modifiers.

"With respect to the character, the NPC is: Hostile (-3)"

So you make a test to improve your standing. Make an etiquette test, make him feel comfortable, like you have things in common and he can trust you. Speak his language. For every hit on that test, improve that hostile modifier by 1 DP modifier. Six hits would get you "Friendly" with the character, and +2 dice to the final test. If the player has an idea of why con or negotiation might work as well, have them explain their idea and then roll with it, applying modifiers as you see fit.

"Character's desired result is: Annoying -1"

So whip out the negotiation dice. You've already appeared to be a fellow corporate wageslave, so work with that. Tell him that if he scratches your back, you'll scratch his. Maybe the info you want from him will help you with a promotion, and you won't forget who helped you up the ladder. Two hits will get you from Annoying to Advantageous. However, if the target gets more net hits, maybe he has a doubt. Maybe this is a loyalty test. What if he gets caught? This could be classified as insider trading! One net hit by him and he sees your intention as some-where inbetween annoying and harmful, for 2 dice.

"Character has superior rank: +1 to +3"

Use your con skill to lie to your target, convince him that you're actually above him in his corporate heirarchy. Each hit gives you another superior rank modifier. Let's say three.

Now, you want to make the final test, but it's looking easier because he's friendly towards you (+2), however he's also afraid for his job (-2), but he thinks you're of superior rank (+3), so you turned a -4 modifier into a +1 modifier, effectively gaining five dice.

This system can be scaled up or down to take as long as a major combat all the way back to the simple one roll you were initially doing, all depending on the situation.

What can a character do with 11 CHA? This.
Notice how the Cylons standing around her, who really just want to run, are so dumbstruck by that they fall into line; they immediately arm their weapons, preparing to attack Galactica in spite of their inferior tactical position.
While the Intimidation test wasn't even directed at them, the sheer power of it turned them into compliant followers for a brief moment. In fact, that whole episode is full of social tests, some more relevant than others.

Social tests, though, are about circumstances and positioning. You can't just convince anyone of anything. You need context. That context can be provided, or it can be created. For example, if you've just narrowly avoided being executed by a firing squad and, while holding your firing squad captive made a terse yet committed statement that you're going to take back your ship from the mutineers, then it is possible that some members of that firing squad might be so inspired by your show of leadership that they defect and join you on your quest to restore order.
But, that only really works if you have the guys who just tried to kill you at gunpoint and they think that they might be able to avoid being executed themselves if they switch sides again.

In fact, it is human nature to sympathize with captors, so you should try to use social skills to bring hostages over to your side.


The problem is that the potential applications and limits of social skilled are so context dependent that it is rather difficult to provide all-encompassing rules for them.


Thresholds and modifiers should be based on the NPC's disposition and beliefs. And there should be some good RPing, not just a simple "I intimidate him" or "I con him". And that's the best advice I can give. Since every NPC is different and every social test is different.

Someone recently told me the same thing for guns -- that it is almost impossible to assign 'damage' to a bullet, because the circumstances and situations on how it strikes someone, and how that person responds, is so different. A shot that someone isn't dropped by may kill someone else, with the exact same entry/exit point. Then a police officer I know mentioned a friend of his who got shot in the foot --- and died from hydrostatic shock.

It really depends on how far you're willing to go, for the details and modifiers. If 'I shoot the ork street samurai' is a viable thing, then 'I con the ork street samurai' should be just as viable.

There is a lot of truth to that. It's one reason why the focus on producing the horde of guns, gun modifiers and ammo mods for SR has struck me as silly. You can reasonable abstract it to a very limited classes of guns that are functionally identical inside the class. 12 gauge shotguns are much more likely to drop someone than a shot from .22 derringer, but people get killed by .22 pistols all the time.

I've known people who could talk people into doing seemingly crazy things. A relative of mine reminds me of the joke about George Halas. 'He throws around nickels like they were manhole covers.' She once made the mistake of attending one of those "free vacation" offers in which you have to listen to a timeshare pitch. She had forgotten her checkbook which is why she didn't end up owning a timeshare, as they were incredibly convincing.

I've also seen guys who always had the most amazing girlfriends, despite the guy not having any obvious redeeming qualities and essentially treating them like a doormat. There are limits as to what you can talk people into, but it's a lot further than you might think. Prison inmates have convinced guards to help them escape.

Absolutely. It *would* be nice if there were an optional combat-esque rules set for social/negotiation interactions though, that was a great suggestion. Thresholds are probably about the only thing we have to go with in the current system, kind of like playing air hockey - First side to 7 wins. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The big difference between social skills and combat skills is the impact the former can have on player autonomy if abused.


When a PC gets shot, you never have the player complaining that getting shot is out of character for the PC. No. The PC knows that the character has been shot and accepts that characters can get shot, and that your personality has nothing to do with the ability of bullets to pierce your flesh. Their might be some rules disputes, but that is it.

If you use social skills against a PC, on the other hand, you've opened up a can of giant nauseating headache. Because the players want to actually play, they don't want to be dictated to. They want to say "my character does this". They don't want the GM to say "your character does that". And there lies an interesting problem. Hard and fast social rules allow a character to compel a PC just as well as they allow a character to compel an NPC, and that isn't very fun. It's usually up to the player to define the bounds of a PC's behavior, not the GM, and not another player. And poorly applied codified social rules allows just that to happen.

Hey,I ran a game back YEARS ago, where a PC did that.....and the cops found out that, no, he was NOT joking when he said they did not want to find out who he worked for...The PCs were hired to be part of Big D's runner stable(this was before Dunkelzahn ran for president or anything like that...)

It doesn't allow high charisma players to come up with great story when they can (I watched a friend of mine play a dwarf fighter in D&D 4e who ended up being "the face" just because Jim is such a good RPer, nothing he said was out of character, it was just incredibly appropriate, actually outdoing the pre-written campaign).

OTOH I can't con my way out of a paper bag half the time, thus can't handle half the social rules that do exist.

Oh, I fully understand this. But the thing is, the alternative is 'social skills don't do anything', or 'social skills are this vague thing which may or may not work if the GM cares to consider it'. Neither of these, I think, are good options. The only alternative is to make functional social rules, and give the players an 'escape clause'. If the player doesn't like where the social attacks are going, let them blow an Edge and shake off the effects. That's not too bad, considering players blow Edge like candy in combat anyway.



Sure. But think of it this way: If characters use social skills on NPCs under the current rules, and the GM allows it, then that means NPCs can use the same social skills against PCs anyway. So, honestly, it makes no difference. The fact that the rules are vague, however, hurts the GM's case more, because at the moment, a player can say 'the rules don't allow that!!' -- and they're right.

At the moment, the rules are poorly codified, and thus there's a lot of room for abuse. And, as a counter-point... what do the players do against mages who throw around mind-affecting spells? A skilled mage can really screw with people, using mind reading, mind control, and emotion control. And it is incredibly dangerous what someone skilled with emotion manipulation can do. What happens when someone feels subtle annoyance every time they see someone? What happens when it builds up? What happens when they can't stand to be in the room with someone? All sorts of little tricks... then you toss in a brief moment of mind control, having the target attack the person they're annoyed with. Keep it subtle and quick (just one action, then cancel the spell), and they'll think it was their own idea, and nobody'll be the wiser.

Is that better, or worse, than having just nice, clear, social rules?

PC twinkery. When there's a set list of rules on how socials work (see D&D and its "epic uses of diplomacy") a player WILL break them (see the Jumplomancer: the man who jumps over towns and gets a +900 diplomacy roll by taking 10 or the artificer who casts a few Friend Shields on some friends mules, stabs himself, summons a god with a haiku, uses diplomacy +(infinity) on the god to cast Alter Reality to make the skill boosts permanent).

Without clear rules the GM can say "no, I'm sorry, dressing in drag and doing the hula does not give you any bonus dice" and not offend the player.

Conversely with combat our GM thought that a full dodge (complex action) lasted until the start of the next combat pass making Dodge and multiple initiative passes very very much worth having (full dodge the first pass, shoot passes 2, 3, and 4). Since discovering that this is NOT the case by explicitly written rules we've determined that Dodge is near useless (why waste 10 build points on 2 dice (4 with the spec in ranged/melee) you'll use once in a blue moon when you can instead raise your reaction getting +1 dice all the time AND get an initiative boost?).

I... both agree and disagree with that. On the one hand, I think that characters should be able to use social skills to be smooth-talking even if they are not that way in real life. And even an enthusiastic roleplayer will run dry on inspiration sometimes. And sometimes stopping to roleplay out a minor scene such as getting past a border guard will just bog down the game for everyone else. So I agree that the player should be able to whip out those dice and roll them to resolve the situation.

But even if you're not going to roleplay it out, I think there does need to be some, minimal detail. A face saying "I con the ork street samurai" isn't like the sammie saying "I shoot the ork street samurai". It's more like the sammie with cyberspurs, a claymore, a heavy pistol, and an assault cannon saying "I kill the ork street samurai". Your first question will be "Yes, but how, exactly?" Same for the face. You don't have to roleplay out everything, but let me know whether you are going to bribe him, pretend to be the boss's nephew, pretend to be part of the cleaning crew, pretend to be a new hire, etc.

And while the face who just rolls gets his dice, as I said before, the thinking face should be more effective, just as a thinking sammie is more effective.

The other issues is player vs player social skills. Ugg.