[X] My Assistant

[suoq]

The simple fact is that the player doesn't need to know what the character knows. It does make better RP, but it's hardly necessary, *and* everyone can learn (maybe the basics, maybe slowly) the 'vocabulary' of any RP task (social, combat, whatever). Once you discount metagaming, all RP tasks are the same kind of thing. Things like socializing and planning are indeed trickier, but not categorically different. They all take imagination, potentially outside of your experience, potentially outside of your previous imaginings.

I'm going to try and translate.

Using a gun, in Shadowrun, is easy. It really doesn't matter what kind of gun you choose because they've all been dumbed down beyond belief and the first thing a player does is limit his choices anyway by only purchasing a small set of guns and ammo. Even the most serious of street sams only needs 3 types of ammo anyway, Lethal, non-lethal, and armor piecing. (And that last is definitely optional).

Using social skills, in Shadowrun, can be much more difficult. A socially unaware player may not even know all the options available to them. The repercussions for choosing a bad option may be confusing to them. (The repercussions for a bad choice in combat is pretty straightforward.)

Infiltration is a good one to compare it to, as player knowledge in infiltration is a definite plus. A player who knows nothing about infiltration in an urban environment at a table with people who do understand the challenges is at a severe disadvantage. They don't even know what they don't know.

------
Edit: Part 2

Now at your table, and at many tables this may not be an issue. But at a table with people who use the words "roll play" to look down on others who aren't adding enough "flavor" it stands a large chance of being an issue. These people tend care about the representation of social skills and personality and may look down on any player who wants to substitute dice for a lack of knowledge.

I could, perhaps put it this way. For skills such as social and infiltration, there are TWO sets of rules. The things in the book and the things you know about from life, training, experience, TV shows, etc. and the action at the table reflects the intersection of those rules. For combat, there is no such intersection because the rules are blatantly unrealistic. Shadowrun is to combat what Kendo is to Bushido and Fencing is to Swashbuckling.

[Draco18s]

They don't even know what they don't know.

Very good point.

[Yerameyahu]

Still, my point is merely that all skills are the same *kind* of thing w.r.t. player/character knowledge mis-matches. There's a whole table of social modifiers, just like there's one for combat modifiers. Ignorance of the combat ones is a big problem, so you'd want to study that table; ignorance of the social ones is a big problem, so you'd want to study *that* table (actually, 2 whole tables). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Doing so would teach even a space alien that 'having the right look' is a tool for Etiquette (or Con), while 'wielding an obvious weapon' is a tool for Intimidation, right? (Cf. combat, where the various tables would tell them that being prone is a defensive tool, while aiming is an offensive tool.)

So, they are the same thing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Studying the rules can at least partially tell the player how to use *a* character, even lacking all world knowledge.

[CanRay]

NPC: "Why are you here?"
PC: *Rolls charisma dice* Four hits.
GM: "You give the correct answer."

*Runs through list of possible responses* "Frag You, Hoophole."

[Glyph]

Your post seems pretty popular.

Though again as I'd asked Ol' Scratch are you saying that you sort of take over their character a bit, or do you just go very abstract.

Generally, if the player doesn't look comfortable with roleplaying a scene out, I probably won't try to do the equivalent of a non-interactive cutscene where I tell him what his character does. I will elicit enough information to have a general idea what he is attempting (is he getting by the bouncer by giving him the evil eye, dropping the name of a VIP that he doesn't actually know, slipping him a certified credstick, etc.). Then I will describe the scene briefly, with little or no dialogue.

The movie comparison is good. Just like Eddie Murphy can shoot improbably well in the Beverly Hills Cop movies, he can also bully or bluff people with tirades that would just get a shrug or an eyeroll in real life. A face with high social skills functions in that action movie zone where his pedestrian attempts at quips or badassery will actually impress the NPCs.


Social skill-wise, I am somewhere between the RAW and Midas. I wouldn't surprise a seducing face by having an encounter suddenly turn violent - there would be plenty of warning signs beforehand. But on the other hand, the hot elf won't magically get the gay humanis thug to suddenly turn straight, and non-bigoted, for her, either. That's where I agree with Midas - social skills should not be mind control, but relatively subtle manipulations.

For player vs. player, I prefer playing it out, since rolling the dice can become a minefield of what different people think the threshold is for a character would do something, what the modifiers are, and so on. And can be a case of high dice pools killing roleplaying, because players can feel that their background has gotten trashed in favor of an implausible event orchestrated by the almighty dice. Or they can feel that their character has been taken from out of their control - and if they can't play the character they brought to the game, why show up?

The social skills have so many mechanical problems, to boot, that they are really only good for resolving fairly simple situations, such as the aforementioned getting past a bouncer (or a gate guard, or a checkpoint), or interrogating someone for information. Things like that. They break down when you try to resolve more complicated interactions with them.

[sunnyside]

As a player I'd call a time out if something like that happened outside of a critical glitch--and even then this shit better be something that's cool with everyone else around the table-- and it'd probably lead to a pretty ugly argument. "It didn't occur to your social expert that things were starting to get a li'l rape-y" is the exact sort of bullshit people are talking about when they say there's a gap between character experience and player experience. You can basically end up trolling your players for playing a character whose skills exceed their own capabilities and it's not something that hits me as enjoyable.

I'll second this one. I used to always make characters with a faceish side in college after just bashing things in high school. Rifts, Vampire, Earthdawn, Shadowrun, GURPS, D&D, deadlands. Many (most? virtually all?) GMs are just pretty horrid when it comes to dealing with a face. I remember some BS like that where the GM did treat social skills like a magical mind attack, which worked well enough when that's the sort of result I was shooting for. But if others were around, they'd sometimes react like I'd whipped out cupids bow and shot their friend in the chest. I think, fundamentally, he did not grasp the concept of a social situation, and that it involves people, multiple people even and it is not a discrete attack, but instead an exchange with both sides feeling the other out.

Hmmmm. I always make up my own stuff for sessions, but for fun I've read a lot of the adventures and missions. It occurs to me that if a group didn't have a mage, hacker/decker, or rigger(or at least somebody with the right vehicle) sometimes they'd just be forced to call up their fixer and add an NPC to the group for a while. And of course a lack of combat skills would be a problem in virtually all of them.

But I don't think you ever need a face.

How many people really actually have one in their group, and find it works out well?

That's okay, we're just as bad at 'realistic' tactics. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) As long as you *do* something, people agree with it, and *something* happens, it's a good RPG. The only problem is when you do nothing (or do something no one can agree with).

However tactical concerns are covered in page after page after page and in great detail. A lack of knowledge about what is realistic might actually help you in game, at the least it might make the game system easier to swallow.

My final comment is this:
It's frustrating being someone who doesn't know how to socially engineer the world around you.

Since it entered the computing realm I think we've probably all heard of social engineering, and that might capture a big part of the issue.

And I think this actually plays in with the GM pushback stuff.

The whole "Hey, we're with maintenence" *roll dice* bit wears on most GMs really fast. I'm actually curuious if it really always works with even the people advocating that method. Or can your face pretty well walk right past any guard anywhere that doesn't have high social skills?

With most GMs, probably even me, you can roll all the successes you want and they're either not letting you in or at least will check up on you immediately, because that's what they'd do with that line. I doubt the hotest Russian spy could get past even the light front desk security where I work with that one.

But that doesn't mean the high social skill is worthless, it just needs to be molded by something much more plausable, which is where troubles start setting in.

[Midas]

As a player I'd call a time out if something like that happened outside of a critical glitch--and even then this shit better be something that's cool with everyone else around the table-- and it'd probably lead to a pretty ugly argument. "It didn't occur to your social expert that things were starting to get a li'l rape-y" is the exact sort of bullshit people are talking about when they say there's a gap between character experience and player experience. You can basically end up trolling your players for playing a character whose skills exceed their own capabilities and it's not something that hits me as enjoyable.

Perhaps I overstated my case a little. In all fairness, if an elf face tried to seduce a Humanis goon, I would probably roll a secret Judge Intentions on their behalf to see if they realized something wasn't quite right/picked up a hostile vibe before they left for the fateful alley. The point I was trying to make was that social skills are not mind control, and I don't care how many successes you get, a pornomancer ain't gonna change someone's core beliefs in a 30 minute conversation ... although they might be able to over time (and here I mean weeks rather than hours).

Also in my defence. my players fully understand how I treat social skills, so they would probably rule out the elf pornomancer seduction tactic if the target was Humanis in the first place.

[thorya]

My final comment is this:
It's frustrating being someone who doesn't know how to socially engineer the world around you. There's no way I can explain my experience to you, because you simply won't be able to grasp how difficult it is to not know what to say and when to say it, even trying to walk you through exactly what I think in a certain situation won't work because your mind will have already jumped to the conclusion that I cannot make, or have difficulty making.

Would something like this help you? Obviously your GM would have to use it too, but I've got a flow chart and 7 pages of different types of social interactions if you want it. I set it up so that you could have a social encounter that would have between 3-8 social skill rolls to capture interactions and different social "moves" or "spells" like Pushing Someone on an Issue or Threats. It's still a bit simplistic right now and I plan on expanding it, but it might help changes things from "I lie to the guard" roll dice, to roll dice, "You weren't able to hide that you find the Guard intimidating and he's makes a racist comment. What do you do? . . . Threaten him. Bribe him. Confront him about the racism. Walk away?"


FIRST IMPRESSION
First Impressions- 2 rolls. First your impression on them- Etiquette or Intimidation vs. their Etiquette. (If the situation is hostile intimidation is appropriate, if you choose intimidation in a none hostile situation it may have consequences later).
Second your impression of them- Etiquette vs. their Etiquette or Intimidation.
Bonuses/Penalties for First Impression Quality, Prejudices, Cool Entrances, etc.
Explanation- This is the initial sizing up of an opponent and the impression they make on you. Are they nervous, upset, confident? It is also how well you project your own person and level of confidence (or hide your nerves). If you are familiar with the individual, then this is mostly to see how they are feeling and to tell if something is "off" about them. This usually encompasses small talk and introductions, etc.
Results-
First Roll (your impression on them)-
+2 or more successes- They are greatly impressed or intimidated by you and only got what you wanted them to. They lose 1 to their dp for every net success above 1 for the rest of the encounter (after they roll their first impression).
+1- You make a good impression and they only get what you want them to.
0- You make a fair impression, but they are not impressed.
-1- You make a poor impression and they get a good read on them you. If you were hiding something or nervous they suspect it strongly.
-2 or more successes- The read you like a book and are not impressed. They gain 1 to their dp for every net success above 1 that they beat you by for the rest of the encounter. If you were intimidating, they are not scared of you.

Second roll (your impression of them)
+2- You read them easily and they do not seem particularly impressive, confident or scary. You gain 1 to your dice pool for every net success above 1 for the rest of the encounter. If they are nervous or hiding something, you know, even if you don't know exactly what or why.
+1- They don't seem like anything special. The GM should provide a hit towards their motivations and feelings about you.
0- You feel neutral towards them.
-1- The either seem scary or likeable (intimidation or etiquette). You can't really figure out exactly what their true goals are.
-2- They seem like a sociopath that is not to be messed with and you better just walk on egg shells or they are the life of the party and you're glad to have met them. You lose 1 to your dice pool every net success below -1.

[Midas]

The whole "Hey, we're with maintenence" *roll dice* bit wears on most GMs really fast. I'm actually curuious if it really always works with even the people advocating that method. Or can your face pretty well walk right past any guard anywhere that doesn't have high social skills?

With most GMs, probably even me, you can roll all the successes you want and they're either not letting you in or at least will check up on you immediately, because that's what they'd do with that line. I doubt the hotest Russian spy could get past even the light front desk security where I work with that one.

But that doesn't mean the high social skill is worthless, it just needs to be molded by something much more plausable, which is where troubles start setting in.

I second that emotion. It is a different story if the hacker has introduced a bogus "pest control inspection" into the company logs and the PC's are kitted out in pest control overalls and not looking like armed-to-the-teeth shadowrunners. Without such legwork I wouldn't care how many successes were rolled despite the "highly suspicious" negative DP modifier, the security guard is at best going to check company records at most a minute after he leaves the PCs, and raise the alert if he doesn't find it logged into the company schedule, and that is only if the PCs look the part. Plausibility is the key, negative repercussions for the NPC if he/she doesn't accede to the social check the icing on the cake.

[Midas]

"I'm shooting him" *rolls dice* "Four hits."

Yes, the other guy rolls too (in both situations), but that's what gun combat boils down to: each person decides that they're killing someone else and rolls a handful of dice. There's a few other modifiers you can drag into it, yes (say, aiming) but social situations lack these modifiers as mechanical bonuses and instead rely on player skill--NOT CHARACTER SKILL--to invent and often just to justify the dice roll rather than aid the dice roll.

OK, let's look at social skills compared to combat.

If you decide to attack an NPC, you have to decide whether to use Pistols, Automatics, Longarms, or one of the close combat skills. If you want to use social skills, you need to decide whether to use Negotiation, Con, Intimidation or Leadership.

Next up in combat, you choose your tactics. Do you draw your weapon, duck for cover and then draw your weapon, charge the guy or release a thermographic smoke grenade? Admittedly, in the case of combat most players will instinclively know which tactic to select.

You also need to choose your tactics with social skills. Negotiation would usually involve a bribe when appropriate, most face characters should know roughly how much a standard bribe for the thing you want is, so you should be able to consult your GM OC on this character knowledge. Leadership (at least in my game) only works if you have already established your credentials with the NPC, but could work off the cuff if you have a power suit, an company ID with a management level rank that passes rudimentary inspection.

Intimidation is the Clint Eastwood "Go ahead punk, make my day" approach, although you should modify your tactics depending on whether or not you are in the superior position or not (outnumbered? which side has their guns ready?). If you are, a Dirty Harry or "I really wouldn't try that if I were you." tactic should be fine. If they are, you might need to get a bit more imaginative - "I'm a made man, you really want the mob on your arse for the fence price of a commlink and a predator" should be good against gangers, "Raise the alert and you're a dead man." might work against a security guard who values his life.

Con is the probably the most difficult social skill to use as, at least in my game, you do need props and a hook to pull it off. All I can suggest is you look to movies and books for inspiration, and try and plan ahead for the "if we get caught red-handed by security" type situation. As Glyph and others have suggested, a good GM should accept character knowledge and be able to give you OC suggestions at least in the beginning, although you might miss out on that bonus karma for a well-executed plan.

If you do want to play a social character, consult your GM about how ready he/she is to give you OC advice, and good luck!

[Draco18s]

If you decide to attack an NPC, you have to decide whether to use Pistols, Automatics, Longarms, or one of the close combat skills. If you want to use social skills, you need to decide whether to use Negotiation, Con, Intimidation or Leadership.

"Hmm. I seem to only have one gun here in my pocket....I guess I'll use that."

[Yerameyahu]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It's a metaphor, not an exact comparison. There are occasions when you have fewer social options (because of who you are, where you are, etc.), but it is indeed easier to bring all your social 'weapons' with you. Still, that guy also has fists, or could use the gun as a club, and so on.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

But I don't think you ever need a face.

How many people really actually have one in their group, and find it works out well?

We always have a Face at the table, though they are never in the range of a Pornomancer. Generally 10-15 Dice in the Social Skills are about the norm. Our Facing tends to work pretty well. Only a issue or two, on occasion. But for the most part, they work out pretty well.

[Yerameyahu]

It depends on what you mean. Facing is the most fundamental aspect of SR4 and basically all RP-RPGs (exceptional niche settings can avoid social interaction, yes). That doesn't mean every group needs 'the Face', the one specialist who's allowed to talk to people. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Paul]

But I don't think you ever need a face. How many people really actually have one in their group, and find it works out well?

I missed this. I can't think of a group that we've run in twenty years that didn't have a "Face". Obviously some were more effective than others, but we love them. But then we all love caper movies, and crime drama and thrillers. We like the interaction. I think Yerameyahu is correct in saying that often the Face isn't just "The Face"-a character that's useless outside of social situations. Just like not all Street Samurai are only useful in combat scenarios. Characters can and should be more than just one dimensional.

[sunnyside]

The point I was trying to make was that social skills are not mind control, and I don't care how many successes you get,

Still though, I'm getting the vibe here that most GMs do treat social skills as mind control. Just a crappier version than what the magic users have.

Would something like this help you? Obviously your GM would have to use it too, but I've got a flow chart and 7 pages of different types of social interactions if you want it.

I'd at least be interested in giving it a look to see your take on things. Could you post it soemwhere?

I second that emotion. It is a different story if the hacker has introduced a bogus "pest control inspection" into the company logs and the PC's are kitted out in pest control overalls and not looking like armed-to-the-teeth shadowrunners.

See but then it's the hacker getting you in. The face is pretty much superfluous.

We always have a Face at the table, though they are never in the range of a Pornomancer. Generally 10-15 Dice in the Social Skills are about the norm. Our Facing tends to work pretty well. Only a issue or two, on occasion. But for the most part, they work out pretty well.

Hmmm you'd probably remember your last two sessions pretty well. I'm curuous, what facey things did your face do in the last two sessions?

It depends on what you mean. Facing is the most fundamental aspect of SR4 and basically all RP-RPGs (exceptional niche settings can avoid social interaction, yes). That doesn't mean every group needs 'the Face', the one specialist who's allowed to talk to people. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'd differentiate between facing and RPing. The crazy charisma 1 troll can be a fun character to have RP wise, even if you never let them do any "facing".

I missed this. I can't think of a group that we've run in twenty years that didn't have a "Face". Obviously some were more effective than others, but we love them. But then we all love caper movies, and crime drama and thrillers. We like the interaction. I think Yerameyahu is correct in saying that often the Face isn't just "The Face"-a character that's useless outside of social situations. Just like not all Street Samurai are only useful in combat scenarios. Characters can and should be more than just one dimensional.

Same question about what they did in the last two sessions.

I fully agree that characters with social skills as a tertiary focus can be a lot of fun without having expended much "power". But that's a different subject.

[Whipstitch]

I'm not sure I've ever been in an SR4 group that didn't have someone throwing at least 9-12 dice in the Influence group sans emotitoy. You don't need to go all master of intrigue on everyone but being able to grab some supporting evidence and convince someone that you mean what you say or are genuinely interested in cutting a deal has some serious bennies.

[Paul]

Hmmm you'd probably remember your last two sessions pretty well. I'm curious, what facey things did your face do in the last two sessions?

"Facey"? That's the technical term? Heh. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) At any rate to be serious the Face always has something to bring to the table-in the last game he was able to deescalate a situation between an armed PC and angry gangers; he was able to convince the target of their extraction that fighting them was a bad idea. This is in addition to all the "routine" stuff-making use of contacts, negotiations, etc...

In the game prior to that he was useful in gaining a great deal of information on their target and the area of operations ith out arousing suspicion.

It's all a personal preference thing. We like the role of the Face.

In other games-as this is a new campaign and we're only three games into it-the Face has played major roles. We almost always have one-but again we don't see it as role that's one dimensional. Being a useful Face is more than just "talk".

[Paul]

And that's just the character we think of as the "face". Everyone makes use of social mechanics at our table at one point or another.

[sunnyside]

in the case of combat most players will instinclively know which tactic to select.

Again I think that's part of the core issue here.

Not only is it pretty clear instinctively, but the rule book spells out the pluses and minuses in great detail. And if they pick "wrong" it might not even be a big deal anyway, they just aren't slinging an optimal number of dice for their shot.

When "we're with maintenence" isn't enough, I think a lot of would be faces hit a wall and have no idea what to do.

I'm not sure I've ever been in an SR4 group that didn't have someone throwing at least 9-12 dice in the Influence group sans emotitoy. You don't need to go all master of intrigue on everyone but being able to grab some supporting evidence and convincing someone that you mean what you say or are genuinely interested in cutting a deal has some serious bennies.

I don't think 9 dice makes you a face.

As above I agree that it's fun and to some degree useful to have a character that picks up some social skills on the side, but that's not really what we're talking about here.

[Draco18s]

Again I think that's part of the core issue here.

Not only is it pretty clear instinctively, but the rule book spells out the pluses and minuses in great detail. And if they pick "wrong" it might not even be a big deal anyway, they just aren't slinging an optimal number of dice for their shot.

When "we're with maintenence" isn't enough, I think a lot of would be faces hit a wall and have no idea what to do.

Quite.

[Paul]

I'm not sure I can seriously look at "Dice Pool" as an effective measure of a character. If that's the core of the discussion, count me out. Rules lawyering and power gaming just makes me want to barf.

[Yerameyahu]

I'd differentiate between facing and RPing. The crazy charisma 1 troll can be a fun character to have RP wise, even if you never let them do any "facing".

I didn't say that RPing was facing. I said that facing is fundamental to games that have RP, because social interaction is all but required. Facing means 'winning' at social interaction.

What are you on about, Paul? The dice reflect the character realities (along with other crunch aspects, like contacts, etc.). You can't be a good face with crappy dice, unless you're metagaming (cheating). That's what this thread is about. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) You can't be a master strategist if you character is a moron.

Again, it's true that combat is a little less open-ended (from one POV) than social interaction, but there *are* big tables full of ideas for social tactics. You do have to be imaginative; it's an RPG. If you're being unimaginative in combat, in strategy, in gearing up, in legwork… you're doing those all just as badly.

[Draco18s]

I'm not sure I can seriously look at "Dice Pool" as an effective measure of a character. If that's the core of the discussion, count me out. Rules lawyering and power gaming just makes me want to barf.

Alright then, how does someone like myself, who isn't terribly well versed in how to persuade people to do what I want them to, be "an effective character" for social interactions?

[sunnyside]

I'm not sure I can seriously look at "Dice Pool" as an effective measure of a character. If that's the core of the discussion, count me out. Rules lawyering and power gaming just makes me want to barf.

Nobodies doing that, we haven't mentioned a "rule" yet.

I just meant it in terms of a sign that the character wasn't meant as a "face" but had thrown in some social skills on top. The sort of character where they aren't going to be disapointed if they only use their social skills for a situation during a mission where they weren't really needed but it was fun, and then flirting with someone during downtime. Which, again, is fun, but not what I'm asking about.

If you're being unimaginative in combat, in strategy, in gearing up, in legwork… you're doing those all just as badly.

However "badly" in those things means you could have thrown a couple more dice.

Badly when "we're with maintenence" isn't enough means doing nothing.

And in my opinion when you've got a player doing nothing, it's time for the GM to do something. Hence this thread.

I've worked to make sure things were fun for graceless faces, but I thought maybe I could get some insights to improving (and maybe make it less work on myself).