Playing a Face... Options

[mfb]

that's my point--by your logic, there won't be any consequences. i won't have done anything wrong. i'll have made some crime lord my best friend because he thinks the way i pissed on his mother was funny--he's not gonna wake up later and realize "waitaminute, now my mom smells like urine!" he's just gonna be cool with it for no explicable reason.

[knasser]

If a player is attempting do something, then they get to roll the relevant pool, subject to modifiers. If a player is calling the barman a twat or making crude innuendo to Miss Johnson, then I find it hard to consider it "attempting to do something" where the "something" is asking for a favour, etc. To extend the principle to absurdity so that I can highlight what is wrong with it, you might as well have a player pour water over a pile of wood and then roll his camping skill to start a fire. The character is clearly not attempting to do what the player says he is attempting to do. And thus inviting Wrath of GM. Unless the player, really and genuinely lacks the social skills to recognize when their character's behaviour is at odds with their intention, then they're going to get penalised and that penalty is without cap because the degree to which their behaviour can be at odds with stated intent is without cap.

If it isn't deliberate then I take a sustained approach of advice and abstraction where necessary, as I said earlier.

It occurs to me that one reason why I don't suffer this problem much (apart from sensible players) is that I as a person am capable of playing an NPC as socially aggressive. A Johnson or a Big Villain is a competent, talented professional. I consider them to be able to put down any ego-tripping 2-bit psycho who mouths off to them, and they do when you've got me GM'ing their mouth. Players are like creatures from a horror film. They can smell fear or weakness and are drawn to it. And you can sig me on that!

[toturi]

[Ravor]

Wow.

You know toturi I've long suspected that you weren't being serious on these forums, but this clinches it, now I know there is no way that you can possibly be serious.

[toturi]

What's not serious about my post? Perfectly serious.

You have convinced the crimelord about the subject you were discussing without the shadow of a doubt. He absolutely believes you, you made a convert out of him. But he'll hate your guts. Maybe 1 dice more if you talk bad about his mom. If you were discussing his mom, you'd have made him so angry about his mom, he'd kill her for you - if you've beat him in the test by many more hits. How likely is that? Well, let's just say that I follow the rules about NPCs too.

[Ravor]

Oh I wasn't talking soley about that one post, I was referring to the fact that there is just no way that you can possibly be serious about running your game with such blind aherence to letter (As opposed to the spirit.) of :S RAW :S as you try to claim in the various rule discussions that come up.

[toturi]

Believe me, I intend to run that game - give me some time to clear my plate. You can quote me on that.

[Ravor]

Call me a suspicious old man if you want, but if/when you do run that game special for mfb it wouldn't prove anything considering that the game was set up with that very reason in mind in the first place.

[toturi]

You're welcome to join, old man.

[Ravor]

*chuckles* Thanks for the offer toturi, but I don't think I would enjoy that style of game very much at all. (Besides, I've never had much luck with IM Games, having an average lag that is counted in seconds tends to do that.)

[fistandantilus4....]

Stop baiting tutori please.

[mfb]

edit: i don't think this is the place for this discussion, as we're not really talking about how to play a face. i'll make a new thread.

[Kyoto Kid]

...response had been copied to a temp file for inclusion in mfb's forthcoming thread.

Many apologies in part on my behalf for this getting out of hand. My original intent was to illustrate what I felt was an inappropriate way of playing a Face Character based on the discussion at the time.

[mfb]

im in ur threds peeing on ur moms

[Kagetenshi]

The answer is simple, if not necessarily easy (or, for some people, satisfying) to put into practice: roll the dice first, then roleplay the result. Not the other way around.

~J

[Aristotle]

[Demon_Bob]

Going to edit this Post later when I can think more clearly to be about the subject, but untill then. . .

[nathanross]

Ive been waiting for this thread to cool down a bit before throwing in my opinion.

As a player who loves to play Faces, I have found that dice are boring and put a huge knot right in the middle of what would normally be a smooth act of roleplaying. The one exception to this is when Negotiating, since the dice really need to determine that.

There should also be some checks to see if what the character is doing suceeds (such as coning a guard), but the character still has to choose their method of attack, what will he say to the guard that will make the guard want to let him through. You dont just go up to the guard, role some dice and he lets you through, that is just too easy and I suspect those who GM like that bore their faces very quickly. There is just no thrill in suceeding from dice, no learning or risk.

I have been lucky to have at least one GM that plays social situations very well, and will only call for dice rolls when he feels the character is trying for something really difficult or at a crucial moment (which helps add tension to the situation). Social interaction is a very important element of Shadowrun, and to skip past it is to loose a large part of the fun that is in this wonderful game.

[eidolon]

[Demon_Bob]

To continue discussion outside of "Playing a Face" please goto
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=17593

Had to take some time to think for a minute why people play Faces.
I figure that people play a Face because they either: Want to be the dashing charismatic person that they see in movies; They enjoy Social Interactions and wish to explore the Social side of the shadowrun universe; or They have a Shaman and want to use their high Cha for something else as well.
That being said.
A Face should attempt to walk a line between saying to much and saying to little.
Saying to little tends to make playing a Face kinda boring. You wind up just sitting in the background making die rolls every now and then after a short description of an action.
Saying to much can cause problems as well, either by possibly insulting the person your talking to, or just generally causing them to kinda fade out or forget the point.
As the gunslinger might ask the GM to describe the area so he can make decisions on his actions so should you ask questions about the person you wish to sway.

"Be Short. Be Sincere. Be Seated." FDR, on public speaking.
Somehow I imagine a LARPer would have several good suggestions on playing a Face.

[Eleazar]

I realize this part of the discussion is over, but I just would like to state I agree with Shadow's position, though not necessarily how he gave that position. The whole point of Role-Playing is the chance to assume the identity of the character. Given some people's "style of play" on these forums, a mentally handicap(this is the extreme I realize this), socially inept, uneducated, or unintelligent person could never play in one of their games. The whole ROLL-playing remark has really lost it's wit and cunning, especially since I don't think it applies very well to Shadow's posts. He still advocates role-playing while enabling those players to role-play a character that is very different from their own individual character. Everyone has their style of play, I understand this. People have a style of play that might seem elitist to Shadow, but this style of play fits very well to the people of the group.

If I make a create a character that is polite, suave, and has great etiquette, I don't want to be axed by the GM because the only way I know to speak is a bit uncouth. If you would then respond that such a player should not play a "James Bond suave character", then I would ask, why should a GM and his "style" dictate the type of character I want to play?

[Shev]

[Dizzman]

I didn't read all the posts before posting, but this has worked well for me in other games as a GM: If the player doesn't know what to say, but his character would, he gets a etiquette or knowledge skill (if appropriate) check to see what to say. The GM can then give the player a "line" to say to the NPC. If the GM can't think of something, it is pretty clear that know amount of role play or roll play will work.

For SR4 - I would use a threshold of 3 unless it is a very tense or difficult situation, which might require a threshold of 4 or 5.

You might suggest that as an alternate rule for your GM. It still preserves the Roll play aspect of the game while still giving your character the benefit of the dice you clearly paid for in character generation.

[Demon_Bob]

[Lagomorph]