Perhaps it's just me, but usually, playing games where a cane is a necessary tool for the GM aren't fun at all.

I'm with FoD, and of those three examples, mind-affecting magic is the only one that can direct a more-than-momentary action. I might rule that losing a composure check or Intimidation check causes the character to flinch, hesitate, or even freeze for a full turn, and I would rule out some actions (eg attacking when badly intimidated) or allow an attempt with huge penalties, but I would never tell the player what exact action the PC must take, eg "you surrender" or "you flee".

Let alone "the face persuades you to abandon your loyalties and motivations, and you go along with selling the orphans to Tamanous"... nor "the face inspires you with warm fuzzy ideals, and you agree to protect the orphans without payment".

The face, or the hacker who puts a few points into Etiquette (Avatar) and Leetspeak, or the sammie who picks up Intimidation and Or'Zet, should get plenty of value in their interactions with NPCs. Players should respect that the face PC is smooth and persuasive, and roleplay accordingly, even if the face's player is less persuasive, and that can be rewarded (or penalized) with Karma, without taking away each player's control over their PC.

I'm imagining a LOTR type campaign... and "Boromir, roll Intimidation plus CHA plus bonus dice for being bigger and better-armed than Frodo, plus bonus dice for noble rank; Frodo, roll WIL+CHA; oh dear, crit glitch, you're giving Boromir the One Ring." (Spend Edge, Frodo, spend Edge for reroll dice!)

And that would make me willing to *try* this system. In the orphanage example, I might say say "okay, you could possibly persuade my idealist PC to abandon the orphans but not to sell them to Tamanous", or "okay, my cynical PC could maybe take the job for a nominal fee but the orphage owes us a place to hide if we ever need one - and then YOU owe me a favor too". Those give me, as player, a chance to roleplay a reasonable amount of persuadability, to stretch the range of the characterization, and also a chance to draw no-way boundaries as needed.

But it involves a certain level of trust in the other players. In a good group, sure, I'll try it but I think we'll mostly just roleplay and only use this system occasionally. At a tournament or convention game, I'd be darn cautious.

But who is advocating "pure" roleplaying? Even the people who would rather roleplay most things out still think that the GM and the other players should take the face's social skills into account, not to mention that of the NPCs and other PCs. To do otherwise is not roleplaying at all, but metagaming, and should be penalized accordingly when it is time to give out the roleplaying Karma.

And the face has an entire world of NPCs to con, cajole, and manipulate. I have played faces, and I have never felt "screwed over" because I couldn't take control of another PC's character away from him. Your game might need your complicated resolution system, and if you need it, and it works without causing any resentments, fine. But I don't personally consider that the optimal way to run PC vs. PC social skills.

Is metagaming necessarily bad? In my games, I explicitly tell the players what will happen if any of their rolls fail (except in combat, because failed rolls have obvious consequences, detailed by the system), so that they know what's at stake. That's metagaming, too, and in my experience, it makes the game more exciting. Metagaming is only bad when the player uses it to cheat. But it is a tool, and like any tool, whether it's a good or bad thing depends on how its used.

To quote Luke Crane...

I actually forgot to include walking away in here. It's possible that one PC may refuse to even argue about something, and it would be wrong for the GM to force him to do so. It was in my head when I wrote it up, I just forgot to state it explicitly.

On further thought, you're absolutely right. I actually had a reason for doing this, but it's linked to your next point, so I'll address it there.

I see where you're coming from here. The reason that I had it set up as an extended test was because I wanted to provide an opportunity for other characters to chime in with their own arguments to help with either side from statement to statement. I hadn't come up with a good way of doing that when I wrote up the system, and then I went back and looked up the Teamwork Tests rules, which could actually work for this.

So, with what you've suggested, I can see two ways of handling this:

A.) Extended test option - The involved characters make their statements, then any characters on the sidelines have the option of making their own statements, backing whichever side they wish. They make a Teamwork Test with an appropriate skill and add their successes to the dice pool of whoever they're backing, thus increasing their dice pool. This would work especially well for the situation where the face has a massive dice pool and the opponent has crap-all for social skills.

Upside: The exchange becomes more dynamic, with everybody at the table having a chance to be involved. Also, it can potentially level the playing field by letting a socially inept character receive help from other characters. More hits will likely be scored by the disadvantaged character, and thus he'll have a much better chance of netting some really good compromises.

Downside: Still an extended test, which is actually fine with me, but I can see very well why others wouldn't like it. Also, a lot of dice rolling, which, again, I don't see as necessarily being a problem if it stays fun, but I realize, again, this may be something that other people don't like.

B.) Single opposed test option - The involved PCs make their arguments, dice pools are modified by the quality of the statements and normal social skill modifiers. Then the other characters get the option to pick a side and help out if they choose. They make a teamwork test and add their hits to the pool of whichever side they've chosen. The opposed test is made, with compromises based on the margin of failure of the loser.

Upside: Much simpler, with fewer rolls. Also, quicker.

Downside: Not as dynamic. Sideline characters have to pick a side and stick with it - they can't be swayed by the arguments as they fly back and forth.

Both ways of doing it would work pretty well, in my opinion. I could actually see presenting both as an option to the players and seeing what they say about it. Or even trying the single opposed test first, and presenting the extended option later on.

I'll take a look at that if I can find it. I'm not so down with the "winner take all" idea. It kind of defeats the purpose of what I'm trying to do, which is to come up with a way of settling a social conflict mechanically, but allowing for the loser of the challenge to not be mind controlled.

The threshold I came up with is the opposing character's Composure dicepool - Will+Cha. It could just as easily be Will+Logic or Cha+Logic, depending on how you see the argument working. I picked the Composure pool because as I envisioned it, the point isn't to be right, it's to be convincing.

IRL, I've seen someone tricked/pressured/frustrated/guided into taking part in a conversation that they would rather avoid many times. If fairly normal people IRL can manage this, then surely the super-Face with wacked-out Cha and 'cool social-fu' can do the same to his teammates. He'll know how to work them even better than he can perfect strangers (and, as for the reverse, his skill means that it's unlikely they can use their knowledge of him against him to much effect).

Sorry folks, but if the Face and the Sammy get into a physical conflict the dice are probably going to give it to the Sammy. Everyone would call the Face's player a whiney bitch if he didn't accept the outcome. In a social conflict, the Face will win and if the Sammy's player can't take that, then he's a whiney bitch.

It's a game. Your character is your 'piece' in the game - it is NOT 'you'. If another character takes an action that causes an effect, you have to accept that whether the action is physical or social or anything else.

The difference is that in most games, the sammie typically doesn't shoot at the face on a whim.
(although I'm sure some GMs have seen it happen ).

TheGothfather has the right idea. The face should get the abilities his player paid for, but the other players need to feel that they are actually getting to play their own characters, not having them be turned into the NPCs of another player who's being an asshole.

The only defense against an asshole player is not playing the game with him/her. If the player is dedicated to screwing with the other players they can just do it with a magician and Control Emotions/Control Thoughts/Influence. The high-Cha guy just does it more smoothly and if your players really want to play their characters they'll accept the good and the bad.

This works best for a one-on-one conflict. For multiple characters, I'd go with making Teamwork tests for the characters who aren't directly involved, but still want to put in their two nuyen.

In the extended opposed test version of these rules, this would occur after the two main characters made their statements, but before they roll their dice. The beauty of doing it this way is that those who aren't the main characters have the opportunity to be swayed to either side, and make teamwork tests for whichever side they want between statements.

In the single opposed test that Glyph suggested, the two main characters would make their arguments, then everyone else would roll their teamwork tests, and then the opposed test would be made with the modified dice pools.

There's already rules for using social skills against groups. SR4 pp. 120-121. The system here is for a "duel of wits" style argument, which is intended to be much more personal.

In this situation, the player of the Face can equally ignore the effects of the Sammy's actions. The results of physical actions are not inherently any more enforceable than social actions. If the Sammy wants to ply, he has to accept all aspects of the game and not think that he has some kind of final word.

In any case, the GM may need to step in. Were I the GM, I would enforce the results of both activities equally. BTW, physically attacking a teammate is a good way to never find professional work again, and I'm sure a good Face has made that pretty clear early on - well before anyone ever thought of killing him.

@HappyDaze:
I'm quoting Jack, because that's what can happen if you let the face try that kind of asshattery. And you know what? It's a perfectly valid response. If a player pulls that kind of crap, it's the same as a mage casing control thoughts on other characters, or the sammie threatening the hacker with his Uzi III, or the hacker threatening the sammie with a copy of corporate security footage with his face on it. Except that the latter tend to happen during dramatic scenes of conflict. Social skills are on all of the time.

It's not a matter of "accepting the good and the bad", it's a matter of someone being a griefer. You are correct that leaving is the best option, but if I was GMing, I would boot the offending griefer out long before anyone else left. "If your players really want to play their characters"? Yeah, usually they do, which is why they don't take kindly to other people taking control of those characters away from them. Which, unfortunately, is how too many GMs tend to run social skills, rather than as the relatively subtle manipulations they are supposed to be.

This is an extension of the 'don't play with assholes' that I mentioned earlier. If this occurs, just have you next character come in as a suicide bomber packed with his maximum load of explosives. You can always out-asshole one another until you're tired of Spy-vs-Spy idiocy. Hopefully mature minds will stop using violence as the answer. IRL, people use social conflicts to solve problems all the time - so why not PCs?

This doesn't fly.

Intraparty violence is not generally a valid response to social conflict. Why? Because as you said, social skills are on all the time. It's the normal and acceptable way of handling a conflict between non-hostiles. Just because someone disagrees with you and tries to change your mind (a social conflict) does not mean you should resort to physical violence - they are not your enemy. To even suggest that words should be dealt with by a bullet because you can't outtalk the other guy means that the suspension of disbelief in your game accepts that shadowrunners are not merely mercenaries but ruthless psychotics to the core.

Since social skills are on all the time, perhaps everyone would do well to brush up on them. The group might not even need a dedicated Face, especially if they feel socially threatened by such an individual (not too uncommon IRL for poorly socialized people to avoid associating with those of more influence).

What's ironic is that you don't seem to consider the face to be immature, or an asshole, in that example. Using social skills to solve problems is when the face talks the group into an exclusive nightclub, or convinces the Ancients to let the group pass through their territory unharmed, or convinces the guard that a tattered ID really does mean they're the janitorial staff. Abusing a liberal interpretation of the game mechanics for social skills, to take control of another player's character from him, isn't solving problems... it's creating them.

That doesn't fly.

It doesn't matter if a group "brushes up on" social skills. The face can probably fire a pistol, but still isn't likely to be even close to the sammie's level of skill. A dedicated face in SR4 will win most dice contests against any non-face hands-down, easily.

But the face is fine with a low pistols skill, because he doesn't have to face down combat monsters on a daily basis. But that's the situation the rest of the party's in, whenever the face wants his way.

In such a situation, roleplaying doesn't really matter, since your characters are all being overridden by the allmighty dice. So barring a GM who sets reasonable limits on social skills, it's back to Jack's solution.

If you don't have a GM that sets reasonable limits on any aspect of the gam, then nobody's going to have a solution. I'm not suggesting mind control on the part of soail skills, but I am suggesting that they should be able to influnce PCs just as they influence NPCs - I don't play d20 for a number of reasons, and its ruling that PCs are immune to social skill effects is one of them.

Sure. But you didn't need to have a dedicated Face, did you? You choose to associate with a guy that can talk people into almost anything... and they (and your character) like it!

Charisma should be the most important stat in any game that involves any amount of social interaction either intraparty or interparty with NPCs. Look at how far Charisma and social skills get otherwise mundane individuals IRL. Of course, many of the players of RPGs tend towards the socially inept side that just wants to blow shit up, so it doesn't suprise me to find that some people don't want to mirror this aspect of reality to any real degree.

And my suspension of disbelief goes out the window when the other characters know for a fact that the face is a slick tricky con man who can turn the Don gay or convince the elf corp princess to put out for the troll biker - after all that's exactly why they put up with him in the first place - falling for his crap.

Then again, I don't have to worry about it anymore as PC social skills don't work on other PC's anymore in our games.

I saw another GM make a similar change by making it so that all PCs were 100% immune to attacks from other PCs (something he got from a online game). I don't think either idea is a satisfying solution to ingame problems.

BTW, can NPCs use social skills against your PCs, or are all PCs total psychos that can't be influenced by others?

Results of physical actions are inherently more enforceable by the GM because the rules of combat are clearer and more unambiguous than the Social skill rules. The sammy does not have the final word, however. He still needs to shoot to kill the Face, just as the Face can shoot the Sam back. The Face can also use Edge to bypass being killed. Just as the Sam can sacrifice RP karma to ignore the strong influence the Face or any other NPC or PC have on him.

Both sides have their upsides and downsides. It is a matter of choice.

This is a very good point.

Cogent point on the group option to work *together* to make the in-game result match the in-game character abilities, when those differ from the player's abilities.

An attractive female gamer, in a group of mostly male and mostly lonely gamers, can get doubled effective Charisma and make good use of pheremones, and if they are also the GM's girlfriend, they may get HandOfGod without actually burning Edge, but that's a different topic.

DITG lays out some explicit principles. Yay explicit principles, thanks for posting them!

Now then. I *still* see more discussion. I'm rolling my Charisma + Con. Anyone who gets fewer hits, *must* pitch their players on either Gothfather's system or the DITG principles, or lose Karma.

24.97.85.139/cgi-bin/shadowroll.pl

You're right. Read one too many posts and misremembered the exact wording. Sorry about that. I meant your use of the word 'penalty'.

Well, I'm clearly pitching my own system to my players, but that's because my system was designed to fit the style of play I use at my table, which is much more "indie" game style than traditional. Either of the one's that we've suggested in this thread would work well, I think, as would no system at all if that's what makes it fun for your players.