Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: do as I say, not as you think...
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
BetaFlame
While I think it is possible to use those kinds of skills fo convince another character to do something they normally wouldn't, I also think it is remarkably bad form to do so, unless said character has turned out to be a threat somehow. (Like cacking a teammate).

I dunno. Maybe I am just old fashioned, but the sameway I wouldn't Charm a PC in D&D, I wouldn't use Intimidation to get something out of a PC in SR.

Seems rude to the PLAYER of said character. You know. The guy sitting to your right. That you have to see. Everytime you play.
The Stainless Steel Rat
QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685)
... the only people who fall for conmen are the greedy and stupid.

Even if your point was even marginally valid, it isn't applicable because in my experience nearly all Shadowrunners are greedy, and better than half are stupid.



SL James
QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685)
And the only people who fall for conmen are the greedy and stupid.

I've got it!

ShadowDragon's the WoW kid. Now it all makes sense.
TheHappyAnarchist
Actually it is not just greedy and stupid people who succumb to conmen.

The reason we cannot convince Shadowdragon, is because he has time to think about things, and we are not conning him. We are attempting to provide evidence that he is ignoring. You can tell because he is getting more and more irrational. He already stated that the smoother you get the more stubborn he gets. We try to be nicer, try to illustrate our points, and he starts foaming at the mouth.

The thing is, that if I was a skilled conman, and I wanted to con shadowdragon it would be remarkably easy. The easiest targets are not the greedy (who are inherently suspicious, they know you are not out to help them, because they wouldn't help you) They are the people who think they are right. The greedy in the previous example is best conned by making him think that he is exploiting you.
For someone like shadowdragon, it would be getting him to assign you as ally not enemy. So you agree with him. You start pointing out about how much the other side has holes in their head. Then you start pointing out where the allied side lies in a few other things. As you begin your working, you get him thinking that he is right and since you agree with him, you must be right as well. That is the point at which subtle suggestions become extremely effective.

Anyone can get conned, it just takes some work. You just have to feel out the angles and work those angles.

I don't accept any character concept that includes I never or has any point at which the character will crumble if that doesn't apply. Guess what, no one is infallible in any way!!!

Now, to address another point, I agree with the fact that it is not polite to negotiate someone into taking one for the team. That is not very nice on a player scale. However, it is also not very nice to say, I cannot be intimidated!!! That is not polite either. Or I cannot be seduced!!! Or whatever have you. Neither are nice things to do.

The dice are their to arbitrate, and they are most useful when used as a tool to advance roleplaying. So when the socially lacking GM/player rolls his skill, we can help them figure out what to say, we can help figure out what would make the ganger who hates corps respect/fear the cool gaze of Gordon Ito. They let you know that because of Mr. Ito's great knowledge and experience at dealing with all manner of scum, from the top of the board room to the bottom of the sewers, he picked up on a trick that makes gang members recognize the fact that this person can and possibly will squash them like a bug if they act out of line. The PC instinctually knows that if he gets in this guys face, he will not even blink as he orders the ganger taken out.

If you can't handle your character changing, and you want your character to stay the exact same the whole game, I don't want to play with you.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (TheHappyAnarchist)
Guess what, no one is infallible in any way!!!

HERETIC!!!!!!!! The Potato is infalable. Anyone who denies this shall forever suffer in Hell.

Good points, other than that.
Glyph
QUOTE (TheHappyAnarchist)
Faces can convince you to do things you don't want to do.  That is why conmen exist.  Do I want to give this person 50$ of my money?  No, but they made it plausible that I wanted to because they are that good.

If the face needs you to get butfucked to get past this ganger, then he is not convincing you that you like buggery.  He is not saying you are gay.  He is not saying that you will enjoy it.  He is hitting on the fact that the team needs it, and if you don't do it, then you are letting the team down. Or if you are a spendthrift he is pointing out that if you do not do it, you may lose out on the money for the run.

For some people it is remarkably easy to get someone to do what you want them to.  Really remarkably easy.  And if you want to play someone that is not easily conned then you need to improve those attributes and abilities that will keep you from being easily conned.

If you don't, then you will get conned.  If you think you shouldn't, you are a munchkin by definition, trying to get the equivalent of certain stats for nothing.

So your definition of a munchkin is someone with a Willpower of 3 who still has a reasonable assumption that his hetero character won't let anyone talk him into getting buggered?

So, half or so of the archetypes in the book are nothing but the bitches of anyone with face skills?

I could live with the aforementioned buying dinner example (although I would still need a convincing reason for my character to do so), but that's where I start disagreeing again.

When you allow those kind of extreme things to be decided by dice rolls, that's where you go back to making social skills overpowered and potentially ruining people's characters. And the big weakness of arbitrarily telling someone how their character reacts is that the player is the only one who really knows how his character would react to a specific situation.

Take the buggering example. If the face tells the character he would be letting the team down, the character might say "So what? I don't even like you guys." If told that he might lose out on the money for the run he might say "So what? I shoot people in the face; I'm not a whore." If you roll the dice and make a character do something completely out of character, then it's not the character "changing", it's the character's history and background being rendered useless by the almighty dice. That's not "changing", that's railroading.

As far as the argument that players should not be invulnerable to social skills, I say that I am not arguing for invulnerability; just a bit more common sense. Look at, say, how negotiation between the runners and the Johnson works. They both roll for successes. The players can get more money from the Johnson, but beyond a certain point, they can't get any more concessions. For the Johnson's part, he can be unbudged by the players, and wind up sticking to his initial lowball offer. But that's all he can do - the players can still get up and walk away from the job if they can't negotiate him to something they can live with.

That's how it works. Social skills can do small, subtle things, like fooling someone or briefly convincing him to act in a way that isn't in his best interests. Doing more than that takes time and genuine roleplaying, and I would honestly not resort to dice for that.

I would recommend the Miles Vorkosign series, by Lois McMaster Bujold, for a great, realistic example of a face. Note that he was so dangerous that an enemy attempting to have him executed told the soldier assigned to do it to cut out Miles' tongue if he tried to talk to him! Miles is a great face. However, he also occasionally runs into someone with a Willpower and Intelligence of 1 who can't be budged - his social ability is not a magic bullet that lets him control everyone else's actions.

And I don't hold players as the only ones that social skills have a limited affect on. Like I said in one of my previous examples, if the Johnson is a lesbian with secret ties to the Humanis policlub, then the ork face trying to pick her up won't get her in bed - in fact, the best he could do with a phenomenal roll would probably be to amuse her enough that she decides to let him live... this time.
eidolon
I love it! rotfl.gif

Now it has become "you aren't a good roleplayer if you don't play every skill the same way that I play them". silly.gif

It keeps getting better.

I wouldn't "not want to play" with someone for having a different point of view on a skill than mine. I'd not want to play with someone that thinks it's a big enough deal that it warrants insulting people and not gaming with them.
TheNarrator
And I wouldn't want to play with anyone who thought it was appropriate to use a dice roll to take control of another player's character and abuse them. Doesn't sound like somebody I'd want to spend time in a room with. Tabletop RPGing is a social experience for me, something I do while hanging out with friends. When it starts to turn into some powergamer's ego-trip, I take a walk.

There's a reasonable limit to what can be accomplished with social skills, just as there is to what can be accomplished by any skill. That applies for PCs and NPCs alike. If the GM feels that an NPC wouldn't do what the PC was trying to convince him to do, no matter how many dice he had, then so be it.

EDIT: Deleting last paragraph because I was unnecessarily blunt after a long day's work. But I still feel that this thread has degenerated into pointless bickering, and I'm done with it.
TheHappyAnarchist
No, I would not want to play with someone who went around "convincing" other characters to do everything. I would not want to do that anymore than someone who convinced everyone's character's to do what they want by threatening to kill them. Or flush all their bank accounts or whatever.

However, I don't think it is fair if the face uses a skill and you get to ignore it because "my character doesn't get conned. My character cannot be fast talked"

I don't think social skills are a magic bullet. For instance, no matter how well you roll you will not convince that decker on the spot to take a hit for the team. If you spent some time working on it, you might get him/her to agree though.
I think social skills are also not permanent alterations. If after weeks of working on you, the face convinces you to give buggery a try (you also need to keep in mind that this is not considered strange or unnatural in a social sense in 2070) then that does not suddenly mean your character stops being hetero. They may very well not like it. They just got convinced to try it over several weeks and likely on a drunking night.

The ork in your example would not get the Johnson in to bed. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't make a good impression, and the Johnson finds him unusually charming and attractive, even if not in a sexual sense. It may be enough to make her question her beliefs, or maybe not. Generally speaking though, the face will not be in a position to exert enough influence to get her in bed. He would need to at least be a close friend, and likely need to get her very very drunk.

The specific examples are just things I mentioned. Everybody has cracks that a good face can exploit. They may be to differing levels (for instance, the corp intimidating the anticorp ganger would be able to cause him to respect him, maybe fear him, be polite and so on, but would not be able to make him kiss his boots)

The player does not know how the character will react to a specific situation. Players have idealized views of their characters, generally speaking. They imagine their character breaking their leg and triumphantly pushing on to complete the run and get out. Rolling the dice however, shows the character staying on the ground and holing up in a corner because he just is not that tough/strong willed. Some think that their character cannot be conned and cannot be fast talked/intimidated, seduced, what have you. And the truth of the matter is that almost anyone can be. There are a few pillars of resolve that cannot. These are people that have high resistance attributes and skills.

It's not the different opinion on the skills that makes me not want to game with them. It's the idea that my character is somehow immune to something. Glyph for instance, is reasonable. He has a different stand and I could work with him. Shadowdragon seems to think he is immune to social skills. I would not want to game with him.

Having a willpower 3 does not mean anyone can bugger you. When you account for the fact that it is Threshold 4 to convince someone to swing your way. The users desired result is annoying to the PC, -1. Shadowrunners are generally suspicious, especially of people that want to sleep with them off the street. -1. It is also an opposed check, with them getting Cha + Negotiation or Con. I would allow willpower or intuition to replace charisma, representing resisting or perceiving that the NPC is trying to seduce you. Consider average or 3 in attribute. Almost anyone will have negotiation at 1 or 2. We will say 1. That guaranties at least 1 hit. That means the Face needs to get 5 hits to convince you to bugger. They have a -2 dice pool. Assuming 1 hit/3 dice they will need a dice pool of 17. That is not assured. The way to get that is either to be a major sex symbol, with Cha 7-9 and Con 6, maybe with a specialty in seduction, or a very lucky face of lesser statistics, who uses Edge. When edge comes into play, he just happens to catch you in a curious and experimental mood, and happens to have a certain something about them that makes them attractive to you. There can also be extra dice gained by augmentation or intoxication. Either way, in this highly unlikely/unusual circumstance, they were able to convince someone who is not at all especially firm in their convictions, acute of perception or equally socially adept to engage in one experimental act of buggery. I don't consider that a bad thing. Others may.

I recognize that though, and don't try to convince my players to resort to buggery, as I recognize that now is not as accepting as 2070.
However, I do utilize similar logic in the all too common case of the Johnson intimidating the ganger who hates corps. Lets stat that out.
The Johnson is an enemy, -4 dice. Disired result is not quite harmful (no actual injury) but is not an annoyance, so -2 dice. Character likely has street cred, but so does Johnson. We will assume it evens out, even though a Johsnon in the position to intimidate likely has more cred. Johsnon has an Ace in the Hole (his territory) for +2 dice. Subject is physically imposing (is a ganger) -2. The Johnson has his guards, we will say that no outnumbering is going on. The Johnson does not think the character would try something so stupid as messing with him, so +2.
Total modifiers. -4 dice to Johnson's roll. I would say the task is Threshold 2, as it is just looking to demand respect. Kissing boots would be a good example of Threshold 4.

If the Johnson can make that roll you better believe I don't want the player to say, Oh I hate corps, so nothing he does intimidates me. I give the player the same respect. If the player tries to intimidate the johnson he is welcome to it. Or if the player intimidates some rent a cop on a run later, I will likely give him bonuses due to the fact that he is still angry about the johnson situation.

I just like the tool that social skills can be, if used properly. Convincing PCs to commit buggery against their will? Possible use of tool, not likely to be a good one. Intimidating a ganger into behaving at a meet? Definitely a good use. Same with a captain ordering his fellow PC to take out an objective/ not harm the civilians / harm the civilians, etc.
Taran
QUOTE (Glyph)
I would recommend the Miles Vorkosign series, by Lois McMaster Bujold, for a great, realistic example of a face.  Note that he was so dangerous that an enemy attempting to have him executed told the soldier assigned to do it to cut out Miles' tongue if he tried to talk to him!  Miles is a great face.  However, he also occasionally runs into someone with a Willpower and Intelligence of 1 who can't be budged - his social ability is not a magic bullet that lets him control everyone else's actions.

This thread went to some pretty weird places, but this reference redeems it.
mmu1
QUOTE (Taran)
QUOTE (Glyph)
I would recommend the Miles Vorkosign series, by Lois McMaster Bujold, for a great, realistic example of a face.  Note that he was so dangerous that an enemy attempting to have him executed told the soldier assigned to do it to cut out Miles' tongue if he tried to talk to him!  Miles is a great face.  However, he also occasionally runs into someone with a Willpower and Intelligence of 1 who can't be budged - his social ability is not a magic bullet that lets him control everyone else's actions.

This thread went to some pretty weird places, but this reference redeems it.

I love those books... But I'm not sure I entirely agree with that point of view. Miles is a great face - but I'm not sure whether I'd call him a "realistic" example, especially in a SR context. Epitome, yes. Example? Meh.
spotlite
Just want to make one thing clear about the players involved here, in case any of them stumble across this thread and think they've done something wrong or that I've maligned them. I didn't think it was precisely pertinent to the original argument because as it had turned out I hadn't briefed the players as fully as I thought I had so they were experiencig it 'blind' as it were. But now I'm mentioning it so that my conscience is clear in accepting any blame that might be there (I'm a guilt whore. I've made you all hate me now, haven't I..? wink.gif ). I *thought* at the start of the mini-campaign, that I'd made it clear I'd allow a certain amount of OOC discussion in combat to reflect the fact that the team were supposed to have worked together for a good few months and are were an effective unit. But that when it came to decision time, to keep the 'feel' right, one player was going to have final say, and disagreements may come down to leadership rolls. The player hadn't used it during the run up until this point, and *I* forced the issue by suggesting it because of the circumstances. Unfortunately, apparently I'd completely *neglected* to mention anything about leadership to them (I'm SURE I did. But my memory on these things is not guaranteed, and when only one player remembers getting told it, and doesn't remember any others bring present, you have to hold your hands up and say 'oh god! its all my fault!'), which is why one took such offence.

Just want to make clear that this was not a player prone to forcing his will on other people, or trying to control anyone. and the problem players had in this case was with the ruling, not the other player. The guy sat next to them.

I agree with an awful lot on both sides of the argument (hence the adjustments I posted earlier that we're going to use), but I think I definitely fall on the line that its completely reasonable to use those skills on other players, that like many other kinds of tests the result may have a base time, which may well be months or years depending on the desired outcome, which yes, may be divided by successes. Also that targets should be allowed some kind of resistance or opposed check if its harmful to them. I'm afraid I just can't get round the idea that if its fair to use on NPCs then its fair to use on everyone. That's one of the core concepts of SR3 as far as I know - I'm sure I read that was the reason they got rid of threat ratings. (Then bless me if they didn't go right ahead and introduce Potency. Anyway, that's another thread, I'm sure).

Ok, i feel better now. Do carry on, I'm enjoying it hugely!
Glyph
As far as Miles Vorkosigan goes, he would be relatively easy to give stats to (although he would be way over the usual limit on Flaw points), compared to, say, giving stats to Wolverine. But it would be almost impossible to actually play someone like him in a game. An author can sit down for a few hours and figure out how he gets out of a tricky situation, and can change the situation in question to create something for the hero to exploit. Thinking and roleplaying on the fly, with an environment created by the GM, there's almost no way to approximate how cunning and fast-talking Miles is, even though he is hardly infallible in the books.



Spotlite: I actually think the way you originally handled it was best. You told the player that he was "strongly motivated" to follow the order, but left the final decision - and its consequences - up to him. That's my personal preference. If you do use social skills, though, remember that they are not mind control, and can generally not make people act in ways that are wildly out of character for them.



Now, on the question of social skills being used to get such outrageous results over a long period of play: would any of you actually do that? Would you eat up a lot of gameplay, interrupting the roleplaying with a progression of dice rolls, to get someone's character to do something that the player has NO interest in the character doing? Is this an abstract discussion of what is posssible, or something that you see as a valid way to run the game?

If a player tried doing that, it would be rude and munchkinish. I think BetaFlame's post on that subject put it best.

If a GM tried doing that, it would be railroading. It's a bad idea to try to force things on players. Characters can grow and change, but it should always be the player's choice - the GM should only allow the opportunity for that to happen.

For example, if the GM wants to introduce a love interest for the PC, he should have an appropriate NPC show up, express interest or act available, then see if something clicks. If the PC is irritated by the NPC, or uninterested, then try again with another one later!

But you don't want to go down the road of "Tough. She's hot-looking and I rolled high, so your character is taking her out. If you wanted more say in the matter, you should have given your character a higher Willpower." You won't get roleplaying or character growth that way. You'll get a player who rolls his eyes and says "whatever" as you describe the budding romance, and who will probably try to shoot his lady love the second he makes a successful resistance test.



My own personal experiece with that (dice rolls trumping characterization) is a much more minor one, but it still, in my mind, negatively affected how I played my character. It was the Ravenloft setting, with horror checks whenever you encountered something horrifying (which was fairly often). My character was a cowardly sort (although trying to improve), and I started out roleplaying him that way. But even for a coward, you occasionally want the "worm to turn". After failing a check on one of those times, and after so many frustrating times that my character was running away or frozen in fear because of that stupid check, I stopped thinking about his characterization as much. If I made the check, it wasn't "What would a cowardly character manage to do if he was trying to overcome it?" Instead, it was "All right, I made that damn horror check! I can actually do something this round."

Now, I still enjoyed the campaign. It had a rich plot and the DM was good at running a horror-type game. But the horror checks definitely were, to me, a negative factor.
spotlite
QUOTE (Glyph)
For example, if the GM wants to introduce a love interest for the PC, he should have an appropriate NPC show up, express interest or act available, then see if something clicks. If the PC is irritated by the NPC, or uninterested, then try again with another one later!

But you don't want to go down the road of "Tough. She's hot-looking and I rolled high, so your character is taking her out. If you wanted more say in the matter, you should have given your character a higher Willpower." You won't get roleplaying or character growth that way.


That's pretty much what I'd do. I'd handle it by saying 'ok, s/he's hot, you really like him/her personally, and s/he seems really interested in you'. And let the player decide whether their character is interested, horny, or just not looking for that right now. If it was a plot-stick encounter like a trap or other set up, then I'd just have the guy or girl not give up so easy. But I wouldn't 'Negotiate' the PC into going off with them. It would ruin the flavour of the encounter, as well as the opportunity for the group to take the mickey out of the character later for being ruled by their loins. And that would be no fun.

In our situation, it just seemed that what else was Leadership more ideally suited *for* if not a Captain ordering a subordinate? I can't see our players using it on each other in the normal course of play, and I certainly wouldn't on the occasions when I play.

On the other hand, those really unusual circumstances are what I come here for - generally I find (after the dust has settled sometimes) that I'm already pretty middle of the road, which makes me feel good, but there's always enough POVs that I also get a fair idea of practically anything my players or fellow GMs might be thinking, which also helps big time.

I think you're right in what you say - what sort of group would tolerate that kind of regular behaviour from a player? What kind of GM would play those kinds of games with his players on a regular basis, if ever? Who WANTS to play in a campaign about forced buggery, for goodness sake? OK, it happens, and if you happen to be playing 'Prisoner Cell Block Shadowrunner' as we have, or 'Snuff-Porn, The RPG' as we haven't, you may well want to include that kind of thing. We didn't, but only because any prisoner that tried it would quickly been overpowered and eaten (or something) in a too-long suppressed Wired-Reflex-Induced Adrenalin Addiction Syndrome Sudden Catastrophic Relapse (or WRIAASSCR for short, which if you say fast is the sound someone undergoing such a relapse makes as they tear your head off and play high-speed basketball with it).

But generally speaking? Would you? Really? That's some freaky stuff you're into there, and good luck to you! But I think we'll stick with common or garden variety roleplaying. Prostitution, drugs and hired merc-type shenanigans are about as gritty as we get!

Thanks all!
TheHappyAnarchist
Definitely good points made there.

I would like to point out that I was putting that up there as a theoretical exercise, and would do much to discourage forced buggery. I had not emphasized that as much at all, so really want to emphasize that.

If you are a bully, be it social, physical or trying for the limelight all the time, I am not interested in having you in my game.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012