Negotiating, How do you use it? Options

[Eyeless Blond]

[Arethusa]

[Kagetenshi]

Maybe realize that it's a valid logical extension of your statement?

~J

[Crimson Jack]

I have both types of players in my group. Player A is a pretty witty guy and can normally talk his way through a myriad of different real life social encounters (oral presentations, job interviews, sales, etc)... he plays a fairly low-charisma character in my game with no real social skills. He prefers to just "roleplay" it out.

Player B doesn't have a head lexicon on hand to just spout out eloquent negotiations, but he's playing a character who spent some points in Etiquette and Negotiation.

Now, when we're playing the game, Player A routinely (and I can't emphasize how much "routinely" means) will be doing a great job of trying to fast talk or negotiate his way out of a situation... but when he shouldn't really have the skills to do so. Is he roleplaying? Kind of. He's playing a part, just not the one that matches up to his stats. So, I have to rein him in. Rein in by having him default to his Charisma rating.

Meanwhile, I allow Player B to get through some situations even though he may not always know the best (read: realistic) way to wax his tongue. He'll say what his character says, and then I'll interpret what the spirit of his words meant. Then I go to dice.

The way I see it, you shouldn't be able to get through a tricky social encounter by the player's real charisma rating. It's all about the character. Ignoring that attribute (in relation to social encounters) and set of skills is ignoring a major game mechanic.

[Arethusa]

[Kagetenshi]

So let me ask you this: do you even bother keeping Etiquette, Negotiation, Leadership, Small Units Tactics, or any similar skill in the game? If so, why?

~J

[Arethusa]

One, I don't play right now. Two, as Crimson Jack pointed out, roleplaying excellent social skills with a character who should not have them, no matter how well played, is bad roleplaying. They're necessary for determining, in abstract terms, the proficiency of the character. Beyond that, it's mostly all roleplaying, unless there is a very specific need for determining a mechanical result.

On a side note, as far as I'm concerned, Small Unit Tactics should never have been anything but a knowledge skill, and I find the current rules for it offensively silly.

[Kagetenshi]

And how does a GM with mediocre personal negotiation skills play? Does he just roll over and take it in the ass if there's a silver-tongued player? Or do you recommend removing social situations from the game because the GM can't handle them? Or must the most charismatic player necessarily be the GM?

~J

[Crimson Jack]

[Kagetenshi]

No, it really doesn't. You don't want the least charismatic, certainly, but as long as you actually fucking well use the rules there's no need for it to be the most.

~J

[Crimson Jack]

True, but it doesn't hurt.

[Talia Invierno]

It would seem, in part, to depend on the extent and parameters of what constitutes "role" within an individual definition of roleplaying. Absolutely no one seriously argues reducing the physical skills to an abstract: those arguments tend to be limited to what degree of abstraction is appropriate. Thus I'm thinking that in most cases, it's not skills per se that's the pothole, but expression of PC personality and/or degree of willingness to operate solely within that personality ... and what do we tend to strand on most, in these discussions, but the personality-related skills?

Thus, if the character personality is seen primarily as a collection of numbers, then the dice will be primary.

If the character personality is seen as something less easily quantifiable, the numbers to be used only when practical circumstances dictate a more abstract approach.

In either case, it perhaps should be understood that a person plays, not within the extreme abilities of their PCs, but within their character's limits. That should reduce the numbers of CH 1 [PC] CH 8 [real life] contradictions.

[Kagetenshi]

I disagree that the physical stats are safely ensconced in the realm of numbers. I seriously question the ability of anyone on this board to roleplay someone with a Strength of fifteen.

~J

[Crimson Jack]

Kage, I agree with you to a certain extent. But what's the point in having stat sheets at all if the numbers don't reflect the character? Why not play Shadowrun as Vampire: The Masquerade? <shudder>

When runners get into combat, they can rock/paper/scissors to figure out who wins. :D

[tisoz]

[vapor]

/unlurk

sounds like Arethusa game is treading dangerously close to weredigo's...


/relurk

[Crimson Jack]

[Kagetenshi]

[tisoz]

[Dawnshadow]

[Brambles]

I use roll-and roleplaying for my players in social encounters:

When one of them says "I want to negotiate my way out of it.", I ask him for his arguments. I listen to him and I add/distract TNM from sr3 pg 94. If he has gives good arguments, TN is lowered.
I almost never add to the TN with this system, except when arguments really make no sense or if the negotiator or one of the teammates says something offensive.

Then he rolls an open negotiation test. It seems fair to me to give the player a chance to defend himself with arguments when the rolls are bad.

[Da9iel]

@ Dawnshadow: That's all well and good, but you've only covered half the problem. It's easier to role play someone less intelligent or less skilled than more. The problem is how the GM treats someone who wants to role play a character more intelligent or more (socially) skilled. Do you simply say, "Sorry Dan, you're an abrasive moron. You spent karma on Int, Cha, etiquette, and negotiation, but it was a waste of karma. You fail, your character fails. Why don't you write up a troll (again)." It's a horribly run role playing game that won't let people play characters (socially) better than themselves. I may as well go out and live real life rather than waste my time with folks who just talk down to me in a game.

[Dawnshadow]

@Da9iel: That's another major one. I was just going for one good argument as to why making it only the character acting it out is a bad idea. If memory serves, the person playing a more (socially) skilled/etc character had already been brought up, but no one had really explained why just roleplaying it out is really, really bad.

[Da9iel]

Ah. You did at that, didn't you. Sorry. I shouldn't have knocked you for making a good point. I just wanted to cover the other half.

[Rory Blackhand]

Another interesting thread.

I'm an older guy. I've been in quite a few situations in my time, so I usually have a fair grasp on what to say in a myriad of social situations. I am currently playing a dwarf with a 1 charisma, no etiquette, and 2 points of the bad reputation flaw. I do the best I can to dummy him down by willfully messing up when I role play. For example I make myself obnoxious by hitting on troll and ork babes, calling them "toots" and "sweet cheeks", etc... I try not to make "any" leadership decisions on purpose. I also burp, fart, tell dumb jokes, and scowl at everyone. In short, I try to pick a type of social misfit and go with it. If flipping the bird at society types is a fantasy of yours, playing a low life street thug could be fun.

On the other hand, I am not guilty of being attractive either. I played an elf with an 8 charisma and a 6 etiquette. I can only imagine how likable and handsome he was. This is what fantasy gaming is about. You don't have to be the character to "imagine" what it might be like, most intelligent reasoning people can fantasize and dream quite well.

The hard part for the referee I think is to seperate and define just what different levels of success can do. I am not sure exactly what to do with socially adept players with low charisma/talent characters. I guess just roll with it in the same vain as you do with fat, nerdy, inexperienced players with high charisma/talent characters.

If a player with no talent starts making perfect sense as to why the five of you were in the research room after hours without your badges on I would say tell the player that what he is trying to accomplish is beyond what his current character is capable of. This allows the role play, but forces the roll play as well. If the player can find an innovative way to stay in character and get by a social situation then reward him.

Speaking of making players act out what they are doing. I remember GMing a game where a bunch of players wanted to toss a bunch of grenades into a room. I said no because they would be bunched up at the door and wouldn't be able to do it. After a bit of protesting I allowed 2 grenades. Several hours passed by after the incident and I had forgotten all about it. They all stepped out to get drinks and take a short break while I organized notes. When they returned they kicked the door open and pelted me with a dozen coke cans in about half a second's time. All I could say was "what the f....?" Shock and anger went to amusement as they all yelled "boom!" letting me know what it was for. Point taken. And they were accurate too at least half those cans hit me and or landed within a meter. I would have been chunky salsa for real.