Negotiating, How do you use it? Options

[GrinderTheTroll]

Holy hijack Batman!!

Thanks for the er....umm...yeah, ideas.

I plan on "shooting my players in the face" more often....yeah.

[Glyph]

I kind of prefer roleplaying mundane or nonessential negotiations or other social interactions, but even then, I think the GM needs to look at the character's stats, not the player's ability. Someone eloquent in real life, who is playing someone with a Charisma of 1, should not be able to fast-talk his way through everything. That's poor roleplaying. And when it matters, the dice need to come out.

I think the GM should tailor his descriptions and NPC reactions to the PC. Someone from a corporate enclave will be bewildered in the barrens, while a barrens ganger will be noting gang markers, whether the squatters are still out or have gone for cover, possible ambush sites, etc. Similarly, that ganger in a corporate high-rise probably won't notice the security systems that the corporate guy will be assuming are there.

If someone has low social skills, then people will tend to interupt him, roll their eyes at him, flinch from him, and give him disbelieving glances. Someone with high social skills, on the other hand, can make people laugh at a crass joke that would be offensive coming from someone else. People will gather around him, nod at him, smile at him, etc.

Roleplaying can enhance action scenes, decking, and social interactions, but I don't expect a player to be able to turn it on at will. I think it's perfectly acceptable to say "Um, my face tries to convince them we're the night janitors." If he can roleplay it out, then he should get the same bonus Karma anyone else gets for good roleplaying.

While I don't favor the "pure roleplaying" approach, I have also seen a lot of ludicrous examples in various threads from people who let the dice rule everything. I let social skills affect how I describe things to the players, but I hate taking control of PCs away from the players. Things like "Sorry, but your huge troll is too scared of the little ganger to hit him - he rolled a 15 for the intimidation open test." or "No, you agree to let the face be the sniper, even though you know he doesn't have a rifles skill. His negotiation skill is way better than yours."

Some people need to realize that social skills let you affect other people's attitudes to a limited degree - they aren't mind control. They don't make people do things wildly out of character for them. You might be able to fast-talk your way past a ganger, but he won't give you the keys to his bike just because you rolled high. Similarly, Johnson's won't go above what they are authorized to, even if they are so charmed that they want to. So how would I handle the above examples? I might tell the troll that the ganger makes him flinch back a step. I might tell the sniper that if he didn't know the face was unskilled, he would have been bamboozled.

[Voran]

[nezumi]

Of course, it always depends on the players. If the players want more freeform, I largely ignore stats.

But USUALLY, in my game, it works like this:

Player A has a low charisma character, but is high charisma IRL. He tries to talk his way out of stuff and I will ask him how that fits in with his character. If it doesn't, I will not award him karma for good roleplaying and/or he will fail even if his reasoning is good. You didn't make your character charismatic. Just because you can lift a file cabinet IRL doesn't mean you can do it with your character. The same applies to your character.

Player B has high charisma in character, but is not so speedy IRL. He tries to talk his way out of stuff. I will purposely ignore a certain number of slips or lead the conversation (the guard will pick up on little cues and points he would've missed otherwise). The character has excellent 'luck' with people; what he tries to talk about just happens to be what they're interested in. If the player is really struggling, I drop little hints, depending on the role (just like I do with any intelligence-linked skill).


I use stats to limit PCs in certain ways or give them hints in others. It still doesn't necessarily require dice, but I think it does encourage roleplaying and doesn't invalidate that karma spent.

[GrinderTheTroll]

[Talia Invierno]

Two sets of limitations, then -- and I'm talking specifically about CH-linked skills, here, although parts of this could extrapolate to other skills as well. (Love the "grenade" example given earlier :D )

The first, for the player to play their PC at not a higher level than the stats allow.
The second, for the player to be able to play their PC at as high a level as the stats allow.

In both cases, the numbers step in and identify both when a player is overplaying their PC (getting more intangible benefits than the stats would indicate); and underplaying that PC (simply lacking the ability to roleplay the kinds of benefits the stats would indicate). The happiest balance is when the stats come close to what the player themself is capable of ... but that's not usually the case, or even always desirable. As someone said earlier, a major reason for many to play Shadowrun is escapism -- and that requires temporarily becoming someone you're not, someone with skills or aptitude or sheer gift way beyond yours.

However, I'd suggest that one of the major reasons CH gets the shaft in so many of these discussions is because we so frequently do seem to take for granted an "invisible" social skill at least equal to our own ... even in the street samurai with a CH and Etiquette of one. In all things social, we default most easily to being ourselves: and because it's what we're used to, in most cases we never see it.

Yet in strict rules terms it's still bounded by a quantitative value (call it CH 2 or 3, for average; 4 for a more leadership type). No problem defaulting to our own expectations, here -- if we're prepared to pay the appropriate bps for our PCs.

[Dog]

Geez, I always thought I was a big push-the-role-in-roleplaying guy. This is heavy.

When you say that a player has to role play a social situation well in order for his character to be successful, you're confronting him instead of encouraging him, it'll probably take away from the fun.

Last Monday, the team's face was hangin out when a former client showed up loaded on tequila and began to spout off to her friends about all the cool/dangerous/illegal things the runner had done, within earshot of about 2 dozen people.
player's response: "(character voice) Hey I just.... oh well that's... You know I... it's just that....oh fuckit! (picks up a handful of dice, switch to normal voice.) I tell everyone she's lying."

his character had a charisma 7 and fast talk 5. The player is kind of a mouse. I wasn't gonna penalize him for that.

[GrinderTheTroll]

Dog, that's about how we do it.

I let the players get as far as they feel comfortable and at somepoint let them or me introduce the dice. If they'd done a lion's share of RP, then the roll is less impactful (but I don't let them know) than if they just roll right off the bat.

[Arethusa]

I would like to take a moment to point out that I never suggested ignoring the character's limitations when moving towards pure roleplaying/freeforming social situations. After all, if you're ignoring the character's limitations, you don't exactly have a role left to play. If the player is generally charismatic and maintains his level of charisma while playing character that is a social troll, that s just as bad as a sociallt insular player trying to throw dice at everything that comes his or her way. Neither player is in character, and neither is roleplaying well at all, and the GM should be good enough to take note of this.

This naturally puts limitations on players, because that timid, socially insular player is probably going to have trouble playing up to a more charismatic/demanding character than, say, a good actor would. But I don't believe that that that timid, socially insular player is stuck being so, and if it's demanding, so be it. Before Kagetenshi and co have another fit, note that this is by no means an indictment of all games everywhere that do not conform this construction of roleplaying. It is specifically suited to a game run with a heavy emphasis on roleplaying, and it demands both a GM and a group of players both able and (in my opinion, more importantly) willing to engage a game at this level. It is not escapist, and if you play games because you want escapism, this would obviously be inappropriate. But escapism exists more or less uniformly in all media, and it is something of a constant. Moreover, if you play games casually just for fun (which is different from escapism), it is still inappropriate, and I'm not saying you need to change.

[Vuron]

I'm most comfortable with using a combination of real life skills + the game stats.

So even if the gamer has great social skills (hahaha!) they'd still need to invest skill points to make thier will manifest on the world.

If you need a system for doing a combination I'd say have the PC roll an extra 1-2 die or subtract -1 to -2 from TNs for circumstances in which they convincingly roleplay the negotiation etc. Conversely subtract a die or add to the TN if the player couldn't fast-talk his mom into lending him her car.

Ostensibly this would encourage those will some decent social skills to specialize in Face characters while those with no social skills would likely move towards archetypes that actually fit thier personalities rather than some idealized version of themselves.

[Tarantula]

[Arethusa]

[Botch]

[GrinderTheTroll]

When I was a kid at daycare, some guy used to come in with painted, metal figures and he would Roleplay with the older kids and they would have a great time just talking in character. I assume it was D&D, since at that time (1980) seemed to be alive and well. I never saw any dice, paper or pencils, but I know they had a good time.

Play however you can as long as you and your group have fun. I like the rules and dice more than pure RP, but striking a nice balance seems to be where my group lies.

[Botch]

Grinder,

That's my point, play fairly within the rules of the game. Sure, don't award good RP karma to a low RL CHA/INT player and thus hinder they character development, but don't set arbitary limitations on the character's skills when they are being used. IF EVERYBODY at game inception agrees to LARPing social skills, fine, but there is no excuse to swear and flame people who play the game by the rules as they are stated in canon.

I personally feel that it is bad GMing to limit a character by the limitations of the player.

Edited: To make clear I am not having a pop at Grinder, but I am upset by Arethusa. Oh, and the odd spelling mistake.

[Critias]

Wow. So, like, if a player ever talks in character, it's suddenly a LARP? Neat. I never knew that.

Botch, how do you reconcile it when a very bright player comes up with a brilliant plan, but does so with an Int 1 Troll (with no skills near appropriate to the situation)? What happens when that retarded Troll with the eloquent and intelligent player tries to fast talk his way past a bouncer, by speaking out a logical argument against the bouncer keeping their guns, out loud and IRL, and claiming it's in character?

Likewise, how does your group handle it when one of your players just says "Uhh, like, my guy fast talks...the...uhh, the bouncer. To get him to let us in. And keep our guns. And grenades. Yeah. He just says...uhm...y'know...Here, I'll roll." Does the GM make up the argument, counter argument, etc, all by himself? Should the player get any sort of penalty for being so vague and relying solely on a die roll? If another character is trying to fast talk a different bouncer at a different door, and plays it out with more detail and finesse, should he get a bonus to the roll? Bonus karma at the end of the game? Neither?

I'm just curious. There's a fine line between metagaming and role playing in some games -- games where the players have skills the characters don't, and vice versa -- and I'm wondering where different gaming groups draw that line.

[GrinderTheTroll]

[Tarantula]

[Botch]

[Critias]

I had a whole big long point by point reply ready to go, then realized turning this thread into more of a flame war than it already is just wasn't worth the trouble.

The simple truth is neither group in this argument is right, just like neither group is wrong. Some gaming circles are capable of, and enjoy, role playing out their social encounters as a valuable and necessary part of a night's fun of dice-tossing. Some groups couldn't care less about talking in character, and just worry about rolling the dice and making the GM figure out how the fast talking works. Most groups are somewhere in between.

Everyone have fun in their game, and shut up about everyone else's. Amen.

[Botch]

Personally, I think everybody bar Arethusa is right. Everybody else has acknowledged that player skills and character skills are different and it is dependant upon good GMing of this gray area that makes a good game.

1) Good roleplaying should be rewarded.
2) Die rolling is the definative mechanic of SR. Why else collect and spend karma?
3) Good RPing aides dice rolls.

[wagnern]

If you depend solely on dice rolling, then encounters can easily degrate into metagaming:

Player 1 "I try to gain his trust."
Player 2 "Oh, John, don't forget to offer him a gift."
Player 3 "Food is alwies good, do you have a candy bar?"
Player 1 "I will give him my ration bar, does that give me any bonuses?"
GM "An act of kindness is worth a +X, now roll"

It is much better to go:

Player 1 "I neal down and look at the kid under the car, I hold my hands in plain sight and say 'It's ok, the bad men are gone, we are not going to hurt you. Come one out.' ."
Player 2 "I stay back. oh, wait a minut, 'Sam (player 1's charictor) offer him something.' "
Player 3 " 'Ya Sam, does any one have a candy bar?' "
Player 1 "I take out a ration bar and set it just under the car. 'Come on out kid, we wount hurt you, you must be hungery, Come on, that is it.' "
GM "Ok, Player one roll your negoations add +X."


or at least that is my 2 cents

[Nikoli]

Either method is vailed way to go.
Remember, the vast majority of us are anti-social, emotionally stunted little cave trolls (myself included) and have difficulty in expressing even the most basic forms of empathy at times when confronted by situations in the real world, can you honestly expect us to know to talk that way when the situation calls for it?

If the face person goes withthe second method consistently, I'd reward them for their good roleplaying, same for any character that can play their realm of influence that well, but it's not going to be over the top, 10 karma a session type rewards.

[Fortune]

I think calling Arethusa's way of gaming 'wrong' is a bit extreme. If his players have no problem with this style of GMing, then more power to them to play and/or run the game as they all like. It isn't 'wrong', just not quite the same as most groups do things.

[Vuron]

Arethusa method isn't wrong as long as the PCs know going in that social tests are decided by Roleplaying rather than success tests. That way nobody feel like they are getting the shaft when they invest lots of skill points into social skills and not get to use them.

Think of it as x number of active skill points that get to be spent on other skills.