![]() |
![]() |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
Target ![]() Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 20-June 06 Member No.: 8,753 ![]() |
Fairly new GM here and I'm not sure when to have my players use their Etiquette skill. In what situations do you use this skill in actual play?
|
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
Target ![]() Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 8-March 10 Member No.: 18,258 ![]() |
One of my players is trying a more face based character but is not good at the whole thinking of the right thing to say. So I tend to allow an etiquette roll during the conversation to see how the meet is going in general with modifiers based on what they are trying to do / say.
I have another player that is very good at the whole talking bit, but he has a low etiquette so I will make him roll to see if he manages to screw up even though he has said all the right things. I am in favor of RP, but not if the skills of the player totally override the skills of the character. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#3
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,244 Joined: 2-August 07 Member No.: 12,442 ![]() |
One of my players is trying a more face based character but is not good at the whole thinking of the right thing to say. So I tend to allow an etiquette roll during the conversation to see how the meet is going in general with modifiers based on what they are trying to do / say. I have another player that is very good at the whole talking bit, but he has a low etiquette so I will make him roll to see if he manages to screw up even though he has said all the right things. I am in favor of RP, but not if the skills of the player totally override the skills of the character. Exactly, which is why you pre-roll the etiquette, and then tell them how to RP (good or bad) based on the roll. The side benefit is that you're players should bet getting better and better at roleplaying through this method. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#4
|
|
Target ![]() Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 8-March 10 Member No.: 18,258 ![]() |
Exactly, which is why you pre-roll the etiquette, and then tell them how to RP (good or bad) based on the roll. The side benefit is that you're players should bet getting better and better at roleplaying through this method. <head desk interaction> I hadn't thought of pre-rolling the etiquette, I was getting them to roll during the conversation. But doing it first and telling them how to RP it makes more sense ... I will try that next session |
|
|
![]()
Post
#5
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,373 Joined: 14-January 10 From: Stuttgart, Germany Member No.: 18,036 ![]() |
<head desk interaction> I hadn't thought of pre-rolling the etiquette, I was getting them to roll during the conversation. But doing it first and telling them how to RP it makes more sense ... I will try that next session isn't that, how every single dice roll in any rpg is intended? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#6
|
|
Target ![]() Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 20-June 06 Member No.: 8,753 ![]() |
isn't that, how every single dice roll in any rpg is intended? Not exactly in my game. I tend to have the players roleplay out a social situation and then roll the appropriate skill to see how well they fared with a dice pool modifier based upon their roleplaying. I'm not saying that is how it is "intended" but that is how I do it. The better they roleplay the scene, the better the dice pool modifier within reason. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#7
|
|
Manus Celer Dei ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 ![]() |
Not exactly in my game. I tend to have the players roleplay out a social situation and then roll the appropriate skill to see how well they fared with a dice pool modifier based upon their roleplaying. I'm not saying that is how it is "intended" but that is how I do it. The better they roleplay the scene, the better the dice pool modifier within reason. That's backwards, devaluing the skill—the equivalent situation is to let the player go out back to a shooting range and then give modifiers based on how well they shot. The right way to do it is to roll and then roleplay the result (or alternately be honest about whose social skills are being tested and not make players buy them to begin with). ~J |
|
|
![]()
Post
#8
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,244 Joined: 2-August 07 Member No.: 12,442 ![]() |
That's backwards, devaluing the skill—the equivalent situation is to let the player go out back to a shooting range and then give modifiers based on how well they shot. The right way to do it is to roll and then roleplay the result (or alternately be honest about whose social skills are being tested and not make players buy them to begin with). ~J I would agree with this statement only for etiquette. But how are you supposed to RP a negotiations roll pre-RP? Say DP 8, roll 2 successes. So the GM says you did well, but not great, so give him an above average request and it will be ok. Something around 2k more maybe. Then the PC would respond, "Well Mr. Johnson, don't you think you could cover our expenses, maybe cap it at 2k nuyen?" Say DP 4, no successes, DM would say, eh, you ask for some stuff, but he's going to say no regardless of how reasonable it is. Then the PC say, out of character to the GM, "Eh, let's just move on since it won't matter anyway." In a post-RP rolling situation, you get the best of both the RP and then the impact is determined by the rolls. That way, players are rewarded for good ideas, dice pools still matter (even if you get a bonus dice or two), and the RP matters because the subsequent roll determines how receptive the NPC is to the idea. That way, the PC can RP however they want, if its good, not outrageous or ridiculous, then they can get some bonuses. It's realistic as well, because even if you're bad at negotiating, if you say something that makes sense, you should get a bonus. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#9
|
|
Manus Celer Dei ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 ![]() |
I would agree with this statement only for etiquette. But how are you supposed to RP a negotiations roll pre-RP? Say DP 8, roll 2 successes. So the GM says you did well, but not great, so give him an above average request and it will be ok. Something around 2k more maybe. Then the PC would respond, "Well Mr. Johnson, don't you think you could cover our expenses, maybe cap it at 2k nuyen?" Say DP 4, no successes, DM would say, eh, you ask for some stuff, but he's going to say no regardless of how reasonable it is. Then the PC say, out of character to the GM, "Eh, let's just move on since it won't matter anyway." Right, the RP only reflects what the dice showed. This is only a problem because you're coming in with the expectation that it will do something else—how you roleplay getting shot, for example, is only going to reflect the damage (and maybe the ability to take Free Actions), and it's true that it consequently isn't obligatory. Also, simply because the value is fixed doesn't mean there's nothing to negotiate any more. Without some kind of new leverage you can only get 2 successes worth of stuff out of the other party, but there are places you can go from there—can you sweeten the pot and maybe try again? Could you try to get more value out of what the other party will give by requesting an alternative payment form that's more valuable to you but no more costly to the other party? Actually, you also illustrate another reason why roll-first is critical. If you RP first, the other party comes in, offers you n¥. You RP-negotiate, then you roll. The other party gets more successes. Now what, they say "oh, we'll only pay n-k¥"? That seems actively offensive, but it's the proper consequence of your losing the negotiation roll and there's no good reason for the other party to be forced to give that up if they don't want to alienate you (if they're a contact, say). QUOTE In a post-RP rolling situation, you get the best of both the RP and then the impact is determined by the rolls. That way, players are rewarded for good ideas, dice pools still matter (even if you get a bonus dice or two), and the RP matters because the subsequent roll determines how receptive the NPC is to the idea. That way, the PC can RP however they want, if its good, not outrageous or ridiculous, then they can get some bonuses. It's realistic as well, because even if you're bad at negotiating, if you say something that makes sense, you should get a bonus. But "players are rewarded for good ideas", if by "good ideas" you mean "players are rewarded for having good social skills", means that suddenly your character's actual abilities matter on the player's abilities rather than their stats. The extreme version is the uncouth character with the player with a silver tongue who wins all social situations, but the issue is the same in less exaggerated circumstances—any time you award a bonus (or penalty) based on what is effectively the player using the skill that the character will use, you're devaluing the skill. A secondary issue is that it can create serious contortions to follow the die result. A character gets thrown into a situation unexpectedly, but their character comes up with a brilliant approach and delivers some stunning dialogue that all fits together and makes sense. Up comes the roll, and they fail! What happened, did they not actually say what they just said and tripped over the words? Did the listener just not believe them (careful, this is very dangerous! This approach means that one character's dierolls can affect what other people think without affecting what the character actually does!)? This gets even weirded when you don't want to entirely cancel out everything. Take the same situation as above, only this time instead of failure they got an absolute minimal success. They deliver this air-tight, compelling story and… it just falls flat. That's inconsistent because we already decided the story was compelling before the test happened—that's why the test had a bonus, right? The cart has been placed before the horse, much like it would be if the player said "I plunge my knife deep into his gut and twist" before rolling the attack roll. Finally, like I said, if you allow player social skills to stand in (partly or entirely) for character social skills, why not let the player go demonstrate their ability to shoot a tight group at 50 meters with a pistol for a bonus to their attack test? ~J |
|
|
![]()
Post
#10
|
|
Target ![]() Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 20-June 06 Member No.: 8,753 ![]() |
Finally, like I said, if you allow player social skills to stand in (partly or entirely) for character social skills, why not let the player go demonstrate their ability to shoot a tight group at 50 meters with a pistol for a bonus to their attack test? ~J I don't think anyone is arguing that a player's social skill should "replace" a character's social skills. I'm just advocating the player give it their best shot at roleplaying the scene out in-character and then rolling the dice. More times than not in my game, the player either receives a minor bonus to their pool or their attempt falls flat and they don't get a bonus. Only on rare occasions where they totally fubar and patently offend the NPC do they receive a negative modifier. The social skills at least fall within the scope of "roleplaying" while shooting a firearm is a different beast entirely. Asking a player to tell you in-character how they are trying to bluff their way past the private security guard clearly falls within my definition of roleplaying. How many players come to the table every week without expecting or looking forward to talking in-character to NPCs? Not many that I know. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#11
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 245 Joined: 17-August 10 Member No.: 18,943 ![]() |
How many players come to the table every week without expecting or looking forward to talking in-character to NPCs? Not many that I know. And nobody is saying that they shouldn't. However, the incredibly eloquent and persuasive player who delivers an astonishingly good speech about why he should get a discount, whilst playing a 2-charisma-no-skill street sam, is NOT roleplaying well, if at all. And in the case of really astounding social role-plays, as long as its coherent with the character, I do handwaive the rolls in favor of the player. So, if a player demonstrates that he can wrestle you to the ground, would you also allow waive the combat rolls necessary for his PC to do the same to a security guard? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#12
|
|
Manus Celer Dei ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 ![]() |
However, the incredibly eloquent and persuasive player who delivers an astonishingly good speech about why he should get a discount, whilst playing a 2-charisma-no-skill street sam, is NOT roleplaying well, if at all. Nor is the player who delivers that astonishingly good speech and then rolls poorly. The player can't know how they should play until they roll. This argument reminds me of a SR event last year at GenCon. A player at my table was asked by the GM what his character was doing for a task in-character and the player told him that he'll just roll the dice. The GM said that was fine but what his character was doing in-character and was trying to get him to roleplay it out. The player then said, "I just roll the fucking dice and you just tell me what happens." The game soon ended uncomfortably. I'm just saying that the value of a skill is not diminished by asking players to roleplay. Isn't that the reason why we play the game? Well, right, but the GM was wrong for asking what the character did first (or maybe not—it really hinges on whether the player is deciding which skill to use, which should happen first, or whether the question is the description of how they use it, which comes after). The player's mistake comes in at the "and you just tell me what happens" part—what should happen is that then the player describes a sequence of actions that are of appropriate quality for the roll made, and then the GM describes the results. As you point out, much of the game loses its flavour without this collaborative fleshing-out of the world whose skeleton is made by the rules and rolls. To some degree I think we (or at least I) may be polarizing a bit—in much the same way that someone fighting a polearm-wielder might get bonuses in melee for falling back to a place with lots of projecting and overhanging obstacles (branches, pipes, your classic fight in a bamboo thicket) I think there's room for declaration of a general tactic as something not inherently part of the skill and therefore reasonable to let a player do for a bonus or penalty ("I'll work the Fixer's missing daughter into the conversation", "I'm going to assert authority and threaten to fire the guard if he continues to ask questions"), but that's different from actually beginning the use of the skill before rolling it. I'm not sure I was clear enough on that avenue before. ~J |
|
|
![]()
Post
#13
|
|
Target ![]() Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 20-June 06 Member No.: 8,753 ![]() |
I probably should have explained that I am extremely lucky in that my players, in their attempts to roleplay out the the social skill check, still stay in-character and within the abilities of their stats. The troll street sam killing machine that has absolutely no social skills still plays it that way. It's just that every now and then, he'll come up with something that his character would say that works. More times than not, it doesn't go that way but we still have fun watching him play it out. I also haven't had a problem with anyone shaving off points during character generation to create an uncouth asshat and just use persuasive out-of-character skills. All in all, it works for us. I was just unsure how to incorporate the Etiquette skill into the game and when a roll was required. Thanks for all of the advice here.
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 20th February 2025 - 10:55 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.