[X] My Assistant

[Muspellsheimr]

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).

[tundrawalker1]

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).

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

[Blade]

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.

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.

[Glyph]

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.

[Ol' Scratch]

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.

[Blade]

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.

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

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

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

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Glyph]

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

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.

[tundrawalker1]

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.

[Ol' Scratch]

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.)

[Mardrax]

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.

[tundrawalker1]

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.

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

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?

[Ol' Scratch]

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.

[Critias]

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.

[Mr Clock]

Dryads have the Glamor power.

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.

[tundrawalker1]

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.

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.

[Glyph]

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.

[Ol' Scratch]

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.

[Cain]

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.

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.

[TygerTyger]

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

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.

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.

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.

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) 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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Racial profiling!!!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[The Jopp]

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

[Fortinbras]

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.

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.

[phlapjack77]

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.

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...

[TygerTyger]

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.

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

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.

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.

[Cain]

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.

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.