[X] My Assistant

[hobgoblin]

what is this, logics 101?

if one end up the GM of a group with a negotiations god, keep a 2x4 handy, or just say no...

[Grinder]

[toturi]

[Mr. Croup]

[eidolon]

[raphabonelli]

Maybe some people here should be writing some kind of "Runners of the Stick" since they think about the rules the same way Rich Burlew does to write Order of the Stick (purposefully "forcing" the rules to the point were they break - applying the rule to the litteral without commom sense applied and so on).

At least, would be funny. :grinbig:

[Mr. Croup]

[toturi]

[The Jopp]

Reminds me of the old thread about taking the rules literally.

A shadowrunner can never walk, they must always run, and stay in the shadows – except when they live their fake SIN as an ordinary citizen and must act according to their chosen “real� profession…

[Irian]

[The Jopp]

[Mr. Croup]

As my father used to say: You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it wash it's face.

Face it ladies and gents, there's no point arguing any further with toturi as he/she is clearly happy as a rules lawyer and isn't going to change his/her stripes any time soon. In fact, i'd daresay the more we debate the idea that he/she has the wrong end of the stick the more he/she is going to clutch the end of the stick for dear life in spite of the reasoned arguments leveled against his/her point of view. So, unless we want several pages of circular argument that equates to nothing (i know it's sort of a tradition around these parts), i suggest we just let it drop and go onto other subjects...



It is with great self restraint that i'm not adding "who am i kidding?" to the end of this post.

Oh.. woops... :D

[Irian]

Even with commanding voice it's not very likely, that you can kill someone that way, because it says, that the target either does what you want OR stands around confused - GameMaster's Choice :-) Personally I would allow such an extreme command only to succed if the target rolls a critical Glitch, but that's something each GM must decide himself...

But yes, of course, with Commanding Voice, Spells, etc. you can tell him "Give me all your money!". But we're talking about the skills Negotiation, etc. here, combined perhaps with Kinesics, but not with Spells or something like that.

So the question is still on the table: Where does it say, what you can get on a very successfully Negotiation roll?

If toturi didn't talk nonsense, there must be a paragraph somewhere that states, that you can convince your target to do almost(?) everything (otherwise his statement "all I need is to follow the rules that state that I can do something." makes no sense). I am very sad that I missed that paragraph and hope that someone can enlighten me.

[Kyoto Kid]

[toturi]

Most of the time the actual details of the result of a roll is described by the GM. The paragraph detailing Social Skills only states that when the character attempts to influence another, it is an opposed test. From the example, in the book, we can see that successful "influence" will result in an outcome that is favorable to the player or PC. Nothing within "Using Charisma-linked Skills" allows the player to dictate the details of that roll - just like a street sam's player does not have the ability to describe the result of his PC's pistol skill, how that result is described is the GM's responsibility. For the most part, the player does not have the ability to say that his PC goes up to the guard and convinces him to kill himself. All he can say is that his PC scored so many hits and if the GM is rolling in the clear, so many hits more than the NPC.

So by "using Charisma linked skills" alone, there is no rule that says you can "convince the Johnson to give you more money than he has or even to commit suicide." Because the description of the result is still in the GM's hands.

[ Spoiler ]

But this all goes down the drain once the player gains the ability to describe the result of his PC's actions. So the question, Irain, is what rule allows you to add what you want to the GM's description?

[Blade]

Err, you mean that the player can't say "I try to convince Mr Johnson to give us more money" (or even better roleplay his question to Mr Johnson) but can only say "I use con on Johnson" ?

And then it's up to the GM to decide the outcome of the action ?

:wobble:

[toturi]

I mean the player can say "I try to convince Mr Johnson to give us more money using X skill". But the GM decides how much and in what manner. But strictly speaking, I could see a GM running it your way, Blade.

[Big D]

[Malachi]

When a player reaches that point of power-gaming, my final weapon is almost always "turning the tables." If a player is consistently, and blatantly "breaking" the game and flaunting their abilities as a Social Adept or whatever, I usually just pull out an NPC who has exactly the same skill set as them.

So when your social-muncher finally burns you (as the GM) for the final time, just have the other PC's run into a corp assassin who has the same uber-muncher social skills and have him convince every other PC in the group that their social adept friend has been swindling them, and is planning to kill them, so you better kill him first. Then when your mucher/rules-lawyer PC argues with you, use every one of his arguments against him for why the NPC assassin can do just that.

After the PC is dead, maybe you can have an "I won't do it if you won't do it" talk for the next character.

[jklst14]

If a player spends a ton of points on something, they should be good at it (social fu, combat, magic, hacking, whatever). I have no problem with Social Adepts, as long as a player plays them sanely and realizes that social skills often take time to work. So while fast talking a bouncer takes seconds, slowly manipulating the King of Rohan so that he falls under your malign influence takes a long time.

So if the super social adept said "My male elf pornomancer adept walks up to the Mafia Don, turns him gay, seduces him and convinces him to give me all his money. Oh, and I rolled ten successes", I would say no.

But if he said this:
"I'm going to try to meet some low level mob flunkies and get some work. I'm going to work my way up the ladder, eventually becoming a made man. I'm going to charm my superiors and establish alliances with other mobsters. I'm going to try to get promoted to captain of my own crew. I'm going to make sure the mob boss notices me. I'll use my social fu to get him to like me. I'll offer good advice and eventually, I'd like to be his consiglieri. Then, after he trusts me, after years of loyal service, I'll stab him in the back, take over the organization, and marry his hot young wife who I seduced in the meantime."

Or this:
"I'm going to have my sexy lady social adept research everything about the Don and find out what his turn ons are. I'll get a job working at his favorite bar/nightclub/strip club and I will try to get close to him. Then I'll try to seduce him. Later, I'll try to get him to divorce his wife then convince him to marry me. Then I'll get myself named in his will"

I'd let him roleplay it out over the campaign, make his die rolls and give him a chance to succeed.


-JKL

[Cheops]

[DireRadiant]

it's not SR3...

[Malachi]

[hobgoblin]

[Malachi]