what is this, logics 101?
if one end up the GM of a group with a negotiations god, keep a 2x4 handy, or just say no...
Full Version: The hardest thing about SR4 is....
| QUOTE (Irian) |
| Sorry, but "If A, then B" doesn't allow you to conclude "If not A, then not B". "If you're a mage, you can do it" does NOT say "If you're not a mage, you can't do it." |
Yep, that's like "He can see me, so I can see him."
| QUOTE (Irian) |
| Sorry, but "If A, then B" doesn't allow you to conclude "If not A, then not B". "If you're a mage, you can do it" does NOT say "If you're not a mage, you can't do it." |
The assumption would be that the rule was put there to tell you how you can do such a thing. So if you want to do such, you follow those rules.
Rule A: If X, then Y.
Of course, if you want to do Y without X, there's no rule forbidding it. But you are not following Rule A.
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| ...no common sense required. |
that's sort of becoming a running theme for you on this thread isn't it? ;D
If you want to selectively apply realism to your games, feel free, it's your game and if your players are ok with it, fair dinkum. Personally i wouldn't touch it with a sixty foot pole. I'm walking away from this debate before it gets sillier than it already is. I can waste my time in much more constructive ways...
(like doing my job, for instance, but who would want to do that?)
| QUOTE ("toturi") |
| then you could assume |
You can't go around stating that the rules are ironclad, and implying that they require no outside arbitration because clearly the rules are all you need, and then start saying that there are things that you can assume even though they aren't in the rules.
Well, you can (and just did), but it pretty much shoots your argument in the face for money.
Maybe some people here should be writing some kind of "Runners of the Stick" since they think about the rules the same way Rich Burlew does to write Order of the Stick (purposefully "forcing" the rules to the point were they break - applying the rule to the litteral without commom sense applied and so on).
At least, would be funny.
At least, would be funny.
| QUOTE (raphabonelli) |
| At least, would be funny if it wasn't so true. |
sorry.
Couldn't help myself.
| QUOTE (eidolon @ Sep 4 2007, 09:27 PM) | ||
You can't go around stating that the rules are ironclad, and implying that they require no outside arbitration because clearly the rules are all you need, and then start saying that there are things that you can assume even though they aren't in the rules. Well, you can (and just did), but it pretty much shoots your argument in the face for money. |
No, I'm assuming that all I need is to follow the rules that state that I can do something. Not do-something-that-is-not-forbidden-in-the-rules. If there are rules that allow me to fly in the rules, then in order to fly, I need to follow those rules. So my argument still stands.
| QUOTE |
| Because there are rules for magic to walk through walls and fly around, then you could assume that the joe mundane cannot do such without. |
So in order to walk through walls and fly around, I assume joe mundane cannot do such without those rules. I am following the rules. So I am not assuming something that is not in the rules per se, but following those rules strictly instead. It pretty much shoots your argument in the face for
.
Reminds me of the old thread about taking the rules literally.
A shadowrunner can never walk, they must always run, and stay in the shadows – except when they live their fake SIN as an ordinary citizen and must act according to their chosen “real� profession…
A shadowrunner can never walk, they must always run, and stay in the shadows – except when they live their fake SIN as an ordinary citizen and must act according to their chosen “real� profession…
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| No, I'm assuming that all I need is to follow the rules that state that I can do something. Not do-something-that-is-not-forbidden-in-the-rules. If there are rules that allow me to fly in the rules, then in order to fly, I need to follow those rules. So my argument still stands. |
Ok, would you kindly show us the rule that says, that you can convince the Johnson to give you more money than he has or even to commit suicide?
| QUOTE (Irian) | ||
Ok, would you kindly show us the rule that says, that you can convince the Johnson to give you more money than he has or even to commit suicide? |
The only thing i can think of is the Commanding Voice power and that is not very effective as he will remember what happened and change his mind later.
Sure, he can be commanded to kill himself and fail in resisting it but not with regular Etiquette skill enhancing powers.
As my father used to say: You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it wash it's face.
Face it ladies and gents, there's no point arguing any further with toturi as he/she is clearly happy as a rules lawyer and isn't going to change his/her stripes any time soon. In fact, i'd daresay the more we debate the idea that he/she has the wrong end of the stick the more he/she is going to clutch the end of the stick for dear life in spite of the reasoned arguments leveled against his/her point of view. So, unless we want several pages of circular argument that equates to nothing (i know it's sort of a tradition around these parts), i suggest we just let it drop and go onto other subjects...
It is with great self restraint that i'm not adding "who am i kidding?" to the end of this post.
Oh.. woops...
Face it ladies and gents, there's no point arguing any further with toturi as he/she is clearly happy as a rules lawyer and isn't going to change his/her stripes any time soon. In fact, i'd daresay the more we debate the idea that he/she has the wrong end of the stick the more he/she is going to clutch the end of the stick for dear life in spite of the reasoned arguments leveled against his/her point of view. So, unless we want several pages of circular argument that equates to nothing (i know it's sort of a tradition around these parts), i suggest we just let it drop and go onto other subjects...
It is with great self restraint that i'm not adding "who am i kidding?" to the end of this post.
Oh.. woops...
Even with commanding voice it's not very likely, that you can kill someone that way, because it says, that the target either does what you want OR stands around confused - GameMaster's Choice 
Personally I would allow such an extreme command only to succed if the target rolls a critical Glitch, but that's something each GM must decide himself...
But yes, of course, with Commanding Voice, Spells, etc. you can tell him "Give me all your money!". But we're talking about the skills Negotiation, etc. here, combined perhaps with Kinesics, but not with Spells or something like that.
So the question is still on the table: Where does it say, what you can get on a very successfully Negotiation roll?
If toturi didn't talk nonsense, there must be a paragraph somewhere that states, that you can convince your target to do almost(?) everything (otherwise his statement "all I need is to follow the rules that state that I can do something." makes no sense). I am very sad that I missed that paragraph and hope that someone can enlighten me.
Personally I would allow such an extreme command only to succed if the target rolls a critical Glitch, but that's something each GM must decide himself...But yes, of course, with Commanding Voice, Spells, etc. you can tell him "Give me all your money!". But we're talking about the skills Negotiation, etc. here, combined perhaps with Kinesics, but not with Spells or something like that.
So the question is still on the table: Where does it say, what you can get on a very successfully Negotiation roll?
If toturi didn't talk nonsense, there must be a paragraph somewhere that states, that you can convince your target to do almost(?) everything (otherwise his statement "all I need is to follow the rules that state that I can do something." makes no sense). I am very sad that I missed that paragraph and hope that someone can enlighten me.
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
See, I don't get this. I've had my groups turn down jobs all the time, and it doesn't ever spell the end of the gaming session. All it means is that I have to do some stuff on the fly, or better yet, have the players (and their characters) set the direction of the game. Even if worst comes to worst and I can't think of anything, some kind of social situation and/or shopping trip would work. Anything but end the session prematurely. |
...this is pretty much now why I am in with a new set of players (hence my statement "...this particular situation has since been resolved").
The group I am with now does a much better job of acting on their own initiative instead of waiting for me to do something. A lot of times, I am just sitting there taking notes as they make the moves. I rarely have to do much prompting and even though they may deviate from the main plotline from time to time they are still very aware the characters are being paid for performing a particular mission. The characters are also a lot more "realistic" in their sights in that the didn't "ask for the moon" at the initial meet.
As to improvising an entire run session from the ground up, that is nice when you have something to fall back on as a foundation. In SRIII that wasn't so much an issue due to the wealth of supplements, heck if worse came to worse I could have always "taken twenty" (sorry) and modified something from the Missions supplement to throw at them.
When we were doing 4th ed all I basically had was the core rules and Street Magic to go on (the latter which I had just got & barely had a chance to look through). There just didn't seem to be enough foundation to go on for me and converting anything from previous editions would have taken way too much time as the entire game mechanic was changed. I'll admit I am not the best improviser. In an ongoing campaign it is one thing for me to "roll with the punches" and come up with stuff on the fly, for I still have some sort of background to work from. To just come up with an entirely new mission off the top of my head with little or no background is another.
RiS participants stop here
[ Spoiler ]
Most of the time the actual details of the result of a roll is described by the GM. The paragraph detailing Social Skills only states that when the character attempts to influence another, it is an opposed test. From the example, in the book, we can see that successful "influence" will result in an outcome that is favorable to the player or PC. Nothing within "Using Charisma-linked Skills" allows the player to dictate the details of that roll - just like a street sam's player does not have the ability to describe the result of his PC's pistol skill, how that result is described is the GM's responsibility. For the most part, the player does not have the ability to say that his PC goes up to the guard and convinces him to kill himself. All he can say is that his PC scored so many hits and if the GM is rolling in the clear, so many hits more than the NPC.
So by "using Charisma linked skills" alone, there is no rule that says you can "convince the Johnson to give you more money than he has or even to commit suicide." Because the description of the result is still in the GM's hands.
So by "using Charisma linked skills" alone, there is no rule that says you can "convince the Johnson to give you more money than he has or even to commit suicide." Because the description of the result is still in the GM's hands.
[ Spoiler ]
Err, you mean that the player can't say "I try to convince Mr Johnson to give us more money" (or even better roleplay his question to Mr Johnson) but can only say "I use con on Johnson" ?
And then it's up to the GM to decide the outcome of the action ?
And then it's up to the GM to decide the outcome of the action ?
I mean the player can say "I try to convince Mr Johnson to give us more money using X skill". But the GM decides how much and in what manner. But strictly speaking, I could see a GM running it your way, Blade.
| QUOTE |
| ...did I miss anything? |
Uberallies, ally sustainment, Task spirits?
On the social monster side-topic... how many places does RAW have to stress the necessity of GM calls? C'mon, GMs are explicitly given suggestions on making major house rules to key elements of the system, and we're arguing over whether "if it doesn't spell it out, it doesn't allow/disallow it"?
The whole "How much will the Johnson pay" thing has already been beaten to death several threads over. The closest thing to consensus (and my personal favorite) is that the Johnson has $X, would like to pay no more than $X-$Y, and, if he had to scramble, mortgage his house or career, *might* go as far as $X+$Z. But social skills can't add lots of zeros to a credstick.
If you want to mind-control the Johnson into giving you all of the money, then shooting himself, fine. That's what MIND CONTROL spells are for. Don't bother trying that with Social skills, and expect repercussions, because you can't Mind Control *or* Con your way past all the people you just annoyed.
When a player reaches that point of power-gaming, my final weapon is almost always "turning the tables." If a player is consistently, and blatantly "breaking" the game and flaunting their abilities as a Social Adept or whatever, I usually just pull out an NPC who has exactly the same skill set as them.
So when your social-muncher finally burns you (as the GM) for the final time, just have the other PC's run into a corp assassin who has the same uber-muncher social skills and have him convince every other PC in the group that their social adept friend has been swindling them, and is planning to kill them, so you better kill him first. Then when your mucher/rules-lawyer PC argues with you, use every one of his arguments against him for why the NPC assassin can do just that.
After the PC is dead, maybe you can have an "I won't do it if you won't do it" talk for the next character.
So when your social-muncher finally burns you (as the GM) for the final time, just have the other PC's run into a corp assassin who has the same uber-muncher social skills and have him convince every other PC in the group that their social adept friend has been swindling them, and is planning to kill them, so you better kill him first. Then when your mucher/rules-lawyer PC argues with you, use every one of his arguments against him for why the NPC assassin can do just that.
After the PC is dead, maybe you can have an "I won't do it if you won't do it" talk for the next character.
If a player spends a ton of points on something, they should be good at it (social fu, combat, magic, hacking, whatever). I have no problem with Social Adepts, as long as a player plays them sanely and realizes that social skills often take time to work. So while fast talking a bouncer takes seconds, slowly manipulating the King of Rohan so that he falls under your malign influence takes a long time.
So if the super social adept said "My male elf pornomancer adept walks up to the Mafia Don, turns him gay, seduces him and convinces him to give me all his money. Oh, and I rolled ten successes", I would say no.
But if he said this:
"I'm going to try to meet some low level mob flunkies and get some work. I'm going to work my way up the ladder, eventually becoming a made man. I'm going to charm my superiors and establish alliances with other mobsters. I'm going to try to get promoted to captain of my own crew. I'm going to make sure the mob boss notices me. I'll use my social fu to get him to like me. I'll offer good advice and eventually, I'd like to be his consiglieri. Then, after he trusts me, after years of loyal service, I'll stab him in the back, take over the organization, and marry his hot young wife who I seduced in the meantime."
Or this:
"I'm going to have my sexy lady social adept research everything about the Don and find out what his turn ons are. I'll get a job working at his favorite bar/nightclub/strip club and I will try to get close to him. Then I'll try to seduce him. Later, I'll try to get him to divorce his wife then convince him to marry me. Then I'll get myself named in his will"
I'd let him roleplay it out over the campaign, make his die rolls and give him a chance to succeed.
-JKL
So if the super social adept said "My male elf pornomancer adept walks up to the Mafia Don, turns him gay, seduces him and convinces him to give me all his money. Oh, and I rolled ten successes", I would say no.
But if he said this:
"I'm going to try to meet some low level mob flunkies and get some work. I'm going to work my way up the ladder, eventually becoming a made man. I'm going to charm my superiors and establish alliances with other mobsters. I'm going to try to get promoted to captain of my own crew. I'm going to make sure the mob boss notices me. I'll use my social fu to get him to like me. I'll offer good advice and eventually, I'd like to be his consiglieri. Then, after he trusts me, after years of loyal service, I'll stab him in the back, take over the organization, and marry his hot young wife who I seduced in the meantime."
Or this:
"I'm going to have my sexy lady social adept research everything about the Don and find out what his turn ons are. I'll get a job working at his favorite bar/nightclub/strip club and I will try to get close to him. Then I'll try to seduce him. Later, I'll try to get him to divorce his wife then convince him to marry me. Then I'll get myself named in his will"
I'd let him roleplay it out over the campaign, make his die rolls and give him a chance to succeed.
-JKL
| QUOTE (laughingowl) |
| To me the simple problem I have scalability... 1-7 is to small of range. There needs to be more then even 3 dice (1 hit) to reflect a 'professional' and 'the best world renowed'. If the system had been moved to a d10 system maybe... but even 11 ratings mean a fairly small difference between a nobody, a amature, a professional, and 'the best' A 'new character' off the street should not be Fastjack's skill level. (sure Fastjack is going to be a lot more 'rounded' but he should still also be able to smack around any starting character... The difference of pistol 4 and pistol 7. (a well trained professional and 'the best') is stastically a single hit.... |
Sorry to derail the thread back to this earlier statement but I'm am literally sitting here studying about Binomial Distributions and I have to take up issue with this.
Sure the Means of the two skills only differ by 1 but that's not the full story.
Let's say that both marksmen, using only their skill dice, need to roll 4 hits to succeed. The 4 only hits 1.2% of the time while the 7 hits 16.82% of the time. In addition, they get 0 hits 4=20% of the time and 7=6% of the time.
The skill 7 shooter also has less risk per unit of return (coefficient of variation) than the skill 4 guy. Which means it is less risky for him to expect large returns. So at skill 7 I know I can reliably hit you in the head whereas at skill 4 I'm just aiming for CoM.
it's not SR3...
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| No, it is a Physical Skill (as in the category). You can even get a Reflex Recorder for it. |
I hadn't caught this so I checked... indeed Perception is listed under Active Physical Skills. Fortunately, this is an easy fix. No skill linked to a Mental attribute can be considered a Physical skill, therefore no Reflex Recorder for it.
Looks like this might have been a case of "Where else do we put it?" Since Perception is definitely not a: Combat, Magical, Social, Technical, or Vehicle skill, it got dumped into Physical. A new category (Mental Active skills) almost needs to be created to avoid some of these unreasonable situations (Reflex Recorder nonsense), or amend the Reflex Recorder to say:
| QUOTE |
The reflex recorder adds 1 to the rating of a specific skill or skill group (Combat and Physical skills only) linked to a Physical attribute |
| QUOTE (Cheops) | ||
Sorry to derail the thread back to this earlier statement but I'm am literally sitting here studying about Binomial Distributions and I have to take up issue with this. Sure the Means of the two skills only differ by 1 but that's not the full story. Let's say that both marksmen, using only their skill dice, need to roll 4 hits to succeed. The 4 only hits 1.2% of the time while the 7 hits 16.82% of the time. In addition, they get 0 hits 4=20% of the time and 7=6% of the time. The skill 7 shooter also has less risk per unit of return (coefficient of variation) than the skill 4 guy. Which means it is less risky for him to expect large returns. So at skill 7 I know I can reliably hit you in the head whereas at skill 4 I'm just aiming for CoM. |
thats some highly interesting numbers
| QUOTE (jklst14) |
| If a player spends a ton of points on something, they should be good at it (social fu, combat, magic, hacking, whatever). I have no problem with Social Adepts, as long as a player plays them sanely and realizes that social skills often take time to work. So while fast talking a bouncer takes seconds, slowly manipulating the King of Rohan so that he falls under your malign influence takes a long time... |
I don't have a problem if the time is taken, either. However, most of the time, players that super munch their dice don't want to take the time. Often they don't even want to RP the social encounter (which I always make them do anyway). Most of the time, dice-munchers just want to throw their 25 dice and get what they want, right now.
Oftentimes, I have a problem with roleplaying a social encounter. The player doesn't necessarily know what to say or how to act. Roleplaying a social encounter, especially one where you're trying to manipulate a character with skills your character has (but you don't), is near impossible.
In these cases, it might be that the group as a whole comes up with ideas as to how the character handles the situation in-game, giving ideas on actual dialog and such. But the dice do the talking.
A player shouldn't have to do research into rocket science in order to play a rocket scientist. A player shouldn't have to know how to speak effectively in order to play a social adept.
In these cases, it might be that the group as a whole comes up with ideas as to how the character handles the situation in-game, giving ideas on actual dialog and such. But the dice do the talking.
A player shouldn't have to do research into rocket science in order to play a rocket scientist. A player shouldn't have to know how to speak effectively in order to play a social adept.
| QUOTE (Malachi) |
| Looks like this might have been a case of "Where else do we put it?" Since Perception is definitely not a: Combat, Magical, Social, Technical, or Vehicle skill, it got dumped into Physical. A new category (Mental Active skills) almost needs to be created to avoid some of these unreasonable situations... |
...that would definitely put to rest the inconsistency of Perception being affected by the Infirm quality.
| QUOTE (Malachi) | ||
... or amend the Reflex Recorder to say:
|
You would think that was already considered when you take a look at Enhanced Articulation. There it lists that EA works for all Physical Skills linked to a Physical Attribute.
i don't see the problem with making perception a recordable skill. learning to keep your head and eyes moving so that you can take in more of your surroundings, learning to make the most of your peripheral vision, learning to move your head to shield your ears from wind and other background noises--there's no reason these shouldn't be able to be recorded.
Especially in a world where almost every (meta)human ability in existance can be bought on a microchip anyways.
Going back a bit, nerfing a social adept in play, especially after the player has spent a lot of time and effort into creating that character is just plain cruel. Not evil, as in the Evil GM's Union, but just plain mean-spirited and cruel. It's one thing to put the kibosh on a character *before* game begins, b ut afterwards? That's blatant GM abuse.
And to hit on another topic: a tactical game that relies heavily on GM handwavium is, IMO, a poor system. Rules are meant to clarify the situation, so the amount of time where you rely on guesswork is minimized. This also reduces the appearance of GM abuse.
And to hit on another topic: a tactical game that relies heavily on GM handwavium is, IMO, a poor system. Rules are meant to clarify the situation, so the amount of time where you rely on guesswork is minimized. This also reduces the appearance of GM abuse.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Going back a bit, nerfing a social adept in play, especially after the player has spent a lot of time and effort into creating that character is just plain cruel. Not evil, as in the Evil GM's Union, but just plain mean-spirited and cruel. It's one thing to put the kibosh on a character *before* game begins, b ut afterwards? That's blatant GM abuse. And to hit on another topic: a tactical game that relies heavily on GM handwavium is, IMO, a poor system. Rules are meant to clarify the situation, so the amount of time where you rely on guesswork is minimized. This also reduces the appearance of GM abuse. |
Pfft
it's entirely reasonable to put the thumb screws on. But you don't just do it, you talk the player aside and say something like"Okay this is my problem <blah>. My proposed solution is that you are always going to get a *fair to good* rate from the johnson - the big bonus you are going to get for that awesome skill is lots of extra little tidbits of intel that the johnson has. So he might be able to give you accounts that a corp hacker set up when he scoped out the situation, some survelliance info, etc, that he wouldn't give out normally 'cause the guy likes you. He might also direct more high profile work through next time. If you keep performing you'll get a top shelf rep and rates etc will pick up to match (but so will risk). If you want to reshuffle your abilities around a bit, I can work with you on that."
Which isn't taking a huge dump on him, does give him a sizable ROI on his skill investment, and if he feels screwed you can rework the character with him too.
face to face character interaction rules are always going to have a strong handwavium aspect imho, because the GM has to emulate fairly dynamic situations. If you could define this stuff rigidly, computers could manage RPGs with great interpersonnal dynamics.
Except they don't.
| QUOTE (Big D) | ||
Uberallies, ally sustainment, Task spirits? |
...meant to get back to this one. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately since I was the GM at the time) we didn't get this far before I closed my SR4 campaign to devote my energies to GM-ing my SRIII RiS campaign.
The hardest thing hasn't changed since first ed: Finding players who appreciate legwork enough to do it under pressure and that 'clique' enough to be cohesive.
I suppose the corollary is also true that finding a knowledgable, entertaining GM challenging enough without being an horse's behind is also hard.
The rules are mutable, player personalities are not.
I suppose the corollary is also true that finding a knowledgable, entertaining GM challenging enough without being an horse's behind is also hard.
The rules are mutable, player personalities are not.
| QUOTE |
"Okay this is my problem <blah>. My proposed solution is that you are always going to get a *fair to good* rate from the johnson - the big bonus you are going to get for that awesome skill is lots of extra little tidbits of intel that the johnson has. So he might be able to give you accounts that a corp hacker set up when he scoped out the situation, some survelliance info, etc, that he wouldn't give out normally 'cause the guy likes you. He might also direct more high profile work through next time. If you keep performing you'll get a top shelf rep and rates etc will pick up to match (but so will risk). If you want to reshuffle your abilities around a bit, I can work with you on that." Which isn't taking a huge dump on him, does give him a sizable ROI on his skill investment, and if he feels screwed you can rework the character with him too. |
Which isn't the same thing as nerfing the character. Talking to the player and saying: "Look, this just isn't working" isn't the same thing as some of the suggestions in this thread, which involve sudden rules-changes or GM escalation.
It's one thing to try and work things out. It's another to just yank the rug out from under a problem character.
| QUOTE (jklst14) |
| If a player spends a ton of points on something, they should be good at it (social fu, combat, magic, hacking, whatever). I have no problem with Social Adepts, as long as a player plays them sanely and realizes that social skills often take time to work. So while fast talking a bouncer takes seconds, slowly manipulating the King of Rohan so that he falls under your malign influence takes a long time. So if the super social adept said "My male elf pornomancer adept walks up to the Mafia Don, turns him gay, seduces him and convinces him to give me all his money. Oh, and I rolled ten successes", I would say no. But if he said this: "I'm going to try to meet some low level mob flunkies and get some work. I'm going to work my way up the ladder, eventually becoming a made man. I'm going to charm my superiors and establish alliances with other mobsters. I'm going to try to get promoted to captain of my own crew. I'm going to make sure the mob boss notices me. I'll use my social fu to get him to like me. I'll offer good advice and eventually, I'd like to be his consiglieri. Then, after he trusts me, after years of loyal service, I'll stab him in the back, take over the organization, and marry his hot young wife who I seduced in the meantime." Or this: "I'm going to have my sexy lady social adept research everything about the Don and find out what his turn ons are. I'll get a job working at his favorite bar/nightclub/strip club and I will try to get close to him. Then I'll try to seduce him. Later, I'll try to get him to divorce his wife then convince him to marry me. Then I'll get myself named in his will" I'd let him roleplay it out over the campaign, make his die rolls and give him a chance to succeed. -JKL |
Amen JKL..
The first one ... no..
The second one... ohh so many story arcs.... ohhh soo much fun ....
Not only would I allow it, but I would certainly work it into the campaign, and probably give the social adept a few bonus karma relating to developing that arc (as well as what ever is run).... I do tend to run my games more like an old episode of love boat or so, where 3-4-5 stories might be running at once....
Especially for something epic along these lines...
And to answer others:
You can you your social adept to:
I con the Johnson.
I convince the Johnson to give us more money.
I convince the johnson to give us more money, tell us everything about the job / himself / his corporation / and the opposing side, and convince try to convice him I am Maria Mecurial.
However the 'results' are up to me (the GM) ... sure the number of hits will determine how much you shift it towards what you want...
But YOU can't say I got ten hits, he pays me ¥5,000,000,000,000 to walk his dog ... Now if they only thing you were doing is talking him into 'more money' you will get 'more money' then you would have gotten with nine hits, and certainly more then if you got zero ... but I have to determine how much more money, based on what you are doing, and what he can afford. (or at teh extreme silly range, what he has... he can't pay you more then he has, no matter how bad you seduced him.... even if you do convince him, donating everything he has to you and then killling himself while calling out your name (fake one of somebody you hate) will get him enternal life and a million virgins... he can't give you more then he has...
Some times the rules will speify what each 'hit' does (such as combat) more often though we get 'each hit improves the amount of sucess' (and 4 or more net hits are an exceptional sucess).
However what a sucess is is still up to the GM in most cases (though as mentioned a few the rules do give HARD results)...
I'm pretty much on the same boat as Toturi and Laughingowl on this one. GMs have options when it comes to dealing with Social specialists. That players do not dictate the response of a given NPC should be a given. Another smart move is to simply make sure the real big movers in the Shadowrun world rarely deal with the PCs directly (kinesics and pheromones require a certain amount of close proximity to be effective). After all, the big boys all want to cover their asses against potential threats, and mind influencing 'ware and magic are definitely threats. People know this stuff is out there, that's why Pheromones are illegal as hell and mind control magic gets cracked down on in the majority of jurisdictions, corp and country alike. Playing it smart and simply being proactive with what kind of characters you want to see at your table has worked fine with my group, and our GM is liberal enough to allow Cyber Social adepts and teamwork tests at the negotiating table.
laughingowl, it is true to a certain degree that the GM controls the description of the results. But as I have stated before, this will go out of the window once the player can add his own comments to the GM's descriptions and then it is not so much that the player cannot add "even after he pisses on the Don's mom" but that the player and the GM has to sit down and talk about why he wants to add that.
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| laughingowl, it is true to a certain degree that the GM controls the description of the results. But as I have stated before, this will go out of the window once the player can add his own comments to the GM's descriptions and then it is not so much that the player cannot add "even after he pisses on the Don's mom" but that the player and the GM has to sit down and talk about why he wants to add that. |
The GM CONTROL ALL DESCRPTIONS OF WHAT HAPPENS...
the player may state what they TRY to do....
but the GM is the only one that can say 'What happens'.
The player can say: "I attempt to charm his pants off, so much that he is drooling on the floor, begging me to allow him to kiss my feet!"
However, they player can not say:
"I charm his pants off, so much that he is drooling on the floor, begging me to allow him to kiss my feet!"
Even if they have 20 automatic sucess somehow.... that might not be enough.. That they 'charm him' is almsot a given ... (unless he was gelded at birth, mistreated by women his whole life, and conditioned so any thought of sex, makes him think he is about to die)... however, how he acts those desires depends on the person...
The player may WANT him to do those things... and 'averageman John' may very well likely do that, but the only one that can say what 'X net hits' result in on a social test is THE GM....
While the GM shouldn't handwave (or very very rarely) ... a X net hits has a result more favorable (and closer to what they player wants) then X-1 net hits.... Nothing states what each net hit does, and something like social skills nothing really can... way to many factors invovled.
Players state 'desired' results...
GMs state 'results'....
Sure if players and GM are comfortable together alot of times, the players will state results... and often as the GM, if the results are inline with the 'rolls' I will go with what the player states...
However, anyone in any game I have ever played or run... clearly understands... it didnt happen until the GM says it happened...
Case in point:
One of the best geek jobs I ever pulled...
Player ChunkySalsatobe (well known for using grenages everywhere... even downtown Seatle to clear the pedestrains while chasing somebody)... (rolls some rice) I grab my High Effenciy Offensive Grenades, with 5 dice 7 or better, the grenade should land right in the call box, lets see how tough the baslistic glass is on that both...
GM: (rolls some dice) Actually you notice a sligth tug, funny sensation as you pull the grenade from your belt, your think you even here a small 'ting' .... (some calculations go though figuring out the size of his armored car.. and rebound effects...) Ok soak instant-death
(as it works out hand of god, saved, him... though considering the 3 incenary grenades he had on his belt 2 of them cooked off... and set his car on fire... where he had 120 grenades in his trunk YES ON checking his sheet 120 grenades of various types... the secondary explosion did him in)
Players can not know all the factors... PLAYERS can not state outcomes...
Players state intentions...
GMs state outcomes...
Player MAY state desired outcomes... and GMs (if reasonable) will often run with the outcomes... but ONLY GMs can state outcomes.
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| I'll do that as soon as you show me where RAW states that there is a limit. Common sense tells me that if the rules do not state a limit, there isn't one. As long as you cannot do that, common sense simply cannot suffice. |
Ok by the rules.. social tested don't do anything...
Nothing in the 'mechanics' says the opposed side has to do anything... sure they give you what oppose rolls are
| QUOTE |
| CHARISMA-LINKED OPPOSED TESTS Skill Used Acting Character Rolls: Target Character Rolls: Con Con + Charisma (Con or Negotiation) + Charisma Etiquette Etiquette + Charisma Perception + Charisma Intimidation Intimidation + Charisma Intimidation + Willpower Leadership Leadership + Charisma Leadership + Willpower Negotiation Negotiation + Charisma Negotiation + Charisma |
But never in the 'rules' do they tell you '1 net hit on a Intimidate rolls makes a guy piss his pants, 2 net hits crap himself, 5 or more net hits and he starts babbling incoherently)...
The one 'fluff' example though we have makes it very clear what is suppose to happen:
| QUOTE |
| Crazy Mary rolls 5 hits, and the exec rolls 2. With 3 net hits (5 – 2), the gamemaster decides this guy is so afr aid of Mary that not only does he escort her into the office complex, but he takes her in through a back entrance to ensure that no guards will see them |
Gamemaster decides... very key words...
It is SUBJECTIVE... the game master needs to decide what the effect will be...
1 net hit will always be less result then 2 net hits, which will always be less then 4 net hits, etc...
However,
2 net hits may NOT be (very unlikely to be matter of fact) twice 1 net hits...
Sometimes you will have guidelines...
Each net hit on a negotation roll will allow: ¥500 extra per person, or 10% payment up front to help outfit....
more often then not, the GM has to decide how much each net hit would have...
Also to the 'word on the street says you are too high priced... we can't afford you...'
Doesn't matter if the 'players' made the roll and 'won'... still doesnt change they are charging alot... the 'Johnson' himself may or may not be conviced (depening on pure negotation, con, etc was used), but word on the street would still go Team X is getting ¥100,000 to rob a stuffer shack in the barrens... man hate to see what they ask for on a 'real' job.
Also doesnt stop the Johnson boss from hearing of it all and after the fact going... Hmm Jimmy said they guys were good and really need more money... though the boobs did a half ass job. Promote Jimmy to waste inspection duty and flag the file on team X... until three mangers recommend otherwise, they get paid standard rates, or we go with somebody else... they aint worth what they ask for...
My "gripe" is not about any of the rules, but more about style. Conciously or not, I think the developers are going the White Wolf route, using the "dystopian future" thing as an excuse for prurience. Maybe I'm just too attached the the "old" SR way of writing. But I sincerely hope they go no further down this new road. SR has been the best rpg on the market for at least the past 7 years, IMHO, and I look forward to seeing it remain so for many years to come.
Meh. Personally, I don't think they've handled anything particularly distastefully. But then again, my brain translates "penile implant" into meaning "waste of time and essence" virtually instantaneously, so it could just be me. I honestly don't view the game as being prurient at all, and even if it were, I doubt I would particularly care if the game could be played in such a manner. It's certainly more in keeping with the dystopian theme than the previous editions and their "We shoot working Joe security guards right in the face but it's OK because we're really just standing up for the little guy!" angle, which could quickly become outright laughable with some, or hell, maybe even most groups.
| QUOTE (Zhan Shi) |
| My "gripe" is not about any of the rules, but more about style. Conciously or not, I think the developers are going the White Wolf route, using the "dystopian future" thing as an excuse for prurience. Maybe I'm just too attached the the "old" SR way of writing. But I sincerely hope they go no further down this new road. SR has been the best rpg on the market for at least the past 7 years, IMHO, and I look forward to seeing it remain so for many years to come. |
Wow, I had to look that one up.
| QUOTE |
| prurience: feeling morbid sexual desire or a propensity to lewdness |
Ah yes, I agree. I was sad to see the shadow-slang go away, replaced by boring modern profanity. I found it an import nuance for giving the characters a sense that this is a different time and culture. The increased sexual content also seems to be an attempt to make the game more "edgy" and appeal to a different market that wants that sort of thing. I just hope it doesn't sully the overall quality of the game.
| QUOTE (laughingowl) |
| Player MAY state desired outcomes... and GMs (if reasonable) will often run with the outcomes... but ONLY GMs can state outcomes. |
No, most of the time only the GM can state the description of the outcomes. There is an exception.
| QUOTE |
Ah yes, I agree. I was sad to see the shadow-slang go away, replaced by boring modern profanity. I found it an import nuance for giving the characters a sense that this is a different time and culture. The increased sexual content also seems to be an attempt to make the game more "edgy" and appeal to a different market that wants that sort of thing. I just hope it doesn't sully the overall quality of the game. |
It bugs me more that the shadowslng only mostly went away, to leave just enough to be completely jarring and incomprehensible.
As far as the sex thing goes, I wouldn't mind it if it had been handled tastefully. Prurience is a good word for how it's been handled, though. Every time I read the orgy spell, I hear Beavis and Butthead: "Uh. Uh-huh-huh."
| QUOTE (toturi) | ||
No, most of the time only the GM can state the description of the outcomes. There is an exception. |
When is the exception?
| QUOTE (laughingowl) |
| Also to the 'word on the street says you are too high priced... we can't afford you...' |
Just as a sidenote: This is something, I would integrate into the outcome of the Negotiation roll, because Negotiation will also show you, what your Johnson CAN and WANT give you... I would let the player decide to get the maximum, but stay in the Johnson's "That's ok" limit or get more, but risk a "You're expensive" reputation... Normaly a very good Negotiater should decide that before he starts...
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| how else did they scrounge up up to 250000 worth of gear? |
Yeah. How could professional thieves and criminals have possibly scraped together anything valuable. It's a real mindbender. Especially for criminals and thieves like hackers. Absolute crazy talk, that!
| QUOTE (laughingowl) | ||||
When is the exception? |
Critical Success.
| QUOTE (SR4 pg. 59) |
| A critical success means that the character has performed the task with such perfection and grace that the gamemaster should allow her to add whatever flourishing detail she likes when describing it. |
'Flourishing detail' does not necessarily equate to 'outcome'.
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