That's not a good reason. You can RP in D&D exactly as much as in SR4. Totally irrelevant. I shouldn't have used D&D-flavored examples, sorry.

How about: Just like 'I Called Shot him for increased DV' is weak RP.

In other news, you talk like Barry from Archer? Seek counseling!

It seems to me that the main divide here is between people that have groups where that would fly and people where the GM expects roleplaying for social interactions but not combat (and give significant bonuses to the people that can roleplay social interactions). I've played in both types of groups and just saying, "You don't have to roleplay, just read the book! It has the definition of those skills. Just roll the appropriate skill, there are only 4 options." Because that does not work in some groups, even if it does in yours and you think it should in every group. Yeah, players should be allowed to play anything regardless of their own capabilities and a good GM and group will help them with suggestions, but there is no one fit solution for every group to the roleplaying portion of RPG's. I agree, that doing lame things that sounded okay in your head is what RPGs are all about for most groups and that there's no shame is saying silly things in a game.

Also, does anyone else feel the rules are not entirely clear as to which skill applies exactly when. For example, you use etiquette to ease someone's suspicions, for example if you are acting like you belong in somewhere you don't. So when you are playing a part and actively lying about who you are you don't use Con, which does not make sense to me. Or the fact that people that are good at lying (Con) are better at figuring out someone is lying to them, than people who are good at grasping what proper behavior is and how other people feel and act (Etiquette).

I do like the idea of Etiquette as social perception.

Most use of social skills involves some level of dishonesty - con is only different in that getting the mark to accept a particular lie is the main goal in and of itself (as opposed to etiquette, where the goal is to fit in, or leadership, where the goal is to get the target to accept your authority). It is generally either which skill the character uses, or which one the GM says applies. I do agree that they are general enough skills that they can overlap in different situations.

I also agree that one of the bad things about social skills, is that they are always resisted with social skills. It should be possible to play someone who is antisocial, but difficult to manipulate. Hell, uncouth characters according to the fluff should be exactly that - sociopathic loners who don't give a damn about social mores. According to the crunch, though, they are easily lied to, manipulated, or intimidated, even if this flatly contradicts how you would expect a hard-bitten bounty hunter (the archetype with Uncouth and no social skills) to react.

thorya, I *do* think that a group that doesn't help a beginner is bad, though. Requiring a high level of RP is fine (hell, it's the goal), but that's not cool. Otherwise, I of course agree with you.

My point is that if the table is requiring freeform RP for social, but *not* combat, they're playing major house rules. Per the book, they're equal.

What Yerameyahu said. Nothing upsets people quicker than making them play a game where the goal posts keep moving and that's what it feels like when people think rolling a die is helpful when in reality even a couple successes can quickly turn into some Monkey's Paw or vengeful Djinn parable depending on how clever the GM thinks your actions were.

I think some kind of "social armor" mechanic could help. Just like there's B/I armor and various add-ons for fire/elec/whatever resistance, maybe PCs/NPCs can have some determination of resistance to social tactics? NPC X is highly resistant to seduction, so if the PC tries this tactic, there are penalties / bonus dice or something. NPC Y is very weak to seduction "attacks", but trying to bribe NPC Y would have hefty penalties.

I guess there are already some qualities that do this, like the Guts quality. Any other way to get social defense dice? (besides having relevant skills).

Or maybe this is something the GM should just arbitrate on the fly, rather than having pre-defined rules and numbers?

The trouble is when the GM arbitrates on the fly regarding someone else's character. If the GM says the face makes your character do something, and that goes completely against how you envision the character, then your character can get messed up to the point where you might as well make a new one, because you can't feel any connection to that one any longer.

That's why I like social skills being able to suggest avenues of attack - instead of social skills overwriting character backgrounds and personalities, they let the social character know what will work, and what won't. So maybe instead of seducing the save-herself-for-marriage hacker, the face realizes that succeeding in doing so would eventually end up with a jilted would-be bride out to make his life hell. But... he realizes that she has a very rosy, idealistic view of the world. By playing on her idealism (telling her how stealing that data will stop those evil experiments, not mentioning that their employer will probably do the same kind of experiments when they have the data), he will be able to get the same result he would have by seducing her. The face still gets to influence other characters, but the other players don't have that jarring feeling of disconnect between the dice and their characters' backgrounds.

Yeah, I agree that a GM can arbitrate badly. I guess I'm envisioning a too-perfect table (TJ's table? zing!). Hopefully people are mature enough to discuss things, and the GM can rule to everyone's satisfaction, without having to "make your character do something". Lord knows my main group had one or two players that couldn't handle this kind of thing.

I agree with this 100% and strongly suggest treading very carefully with PvP social skills. The face that uses social skills on his teammates is asking for it, IMHO.

Would that it were as perfect as everyone assumes. But I am very happy with it, because there are very few incidents that need attention, and any that do crop up are easily and quickly handled.

The problem there, Glyph, is that we're still ending up with freeform social in a dice game. If that's the intended result, that's fine. But the point of dice is to remove the freeform BS ('I hit you! Nuh uh!').

I think you're right about the several points you've raised so far. The problem is always getting that balance.

Here's what I think we've got:
• the goal is good RP in general (roll vs. role)
• beginners have to be supported (meaning, people less skilled in any aspect of the game)
• there should be a 'read people' skill (whether it's another use of other skill(s), or like Kinesics from Eclipse Phase)
• dice should allow fair resolution, with randomness
• the crunch should reflect character personality accurately (inc. 'things he'd never do', but also the Uncouth paradox)
(Others? I didn't reread the whole thread.)

I like the existence of a 'read people' skill, not just for the basic cool function, but because it *allows* the jilted-bride hacker to happen. If the seducer fails his 'read' roll, it's now *his* fault for trying something that might backfire; we have many examples of this 'groupie from hell' theme in media.

One way to bolt on a fix for the Uncouth/accurate-character problem is perhaps to add a very simple entry to the Social Modifiers table, like 'Character's desired result is: counter to target's nature/background -(1-6)'. Obviously, social DP-creep is its own, huge, infamous problem… maybe that number would have to be higher. But everyone should probably allow *some* slim chance of their mind changing in exceptional circumstances, as well. Maybe Uncouth would give you an automatic level X of that effect for all non-obvious social manipulation (failing to notice flirting, flattery, etc.; but overt intimidation, yes)?

I still don't think there should be 'functional' rewards for RP, per se. A newbie rolling 8 dice to 'make him like us' shouldn't expect a basically worse outcome than a pro rolling 8 dice to 'convince him we're his ticket to that promotion you can tell he's dying for, that he's actually the one using *us* because he fancies himself a genius, that we're too dumb to be a threat, [etc.]'. +1 RP karma, sure.

I like several ideas I've seen in this thread. May I suggest that we decouple social interactions from Charisma slightly? I think a single attribute for all aspects of social interaction is very confining. People can be very friendly and talkative and completely oblivious to other people's opinions. People can be very stubborn and hard to convince to change their mind, even if they are completely awkward and socially inept. (If you disagree, might I suggest the internet as a reference. )

Maybe something like:

Social Perception (Intuition)- How well you judge other people's intentions and if people are lying or to get when other people are uncomfortable. Use against Con to determine if someone lying to you. Used against Etiquette when someone is trying to fit in or put you at ease. To judge other people's emotions and social weaknesses. Separate from Perception because reading someone's emotions has nothing to do with how good your eyesight is.

Determination (Willpower)- How set in their ways an individual is. Sort of like social "armor" to be used against social checks to make them change their mind or do something they are uncomfortable with. Used against Intimidation, Negotiation or Con* to convince you to do something you don't want to do.

*you might have already determined that they're lying to you with social perception, in which case determination gets a modifier to resist their Con.

Possible Qualities-
Egotistical- Reduced Social Perception, increased Determination.
Stubborn- Increased Determination.
Empathetic- Increased Social Perception.
Fanatical- Much increased Determination, reduced Etiquette and Negotiation (you don't care about fitting in and are unwilling to compromise)
Antisocial-

Yeah, this adds more skills that a face has to spend points on, but it also means that you can roleplay a stubborn antisocial ganger that is hard to convince to cooperate without making them a socialite. I also like Willpower being used this way because it means that individuals that are hard to talk into things are also hard to mind control into things and that just feels right to me. Obviously, a set of modifiers would be needed for these as well.

As to the bad GM's and RP giving numerical awards and punishing new or less social players by making social different than combat. "I know the game is crooked, but it's the only game in town."

Totally. It makes sense for Charisma to be 'offense', Intuition is 'perception', and Willpower is 'defense'; the RAW already reflects some of this, to some extent.

Can this be acceptably accomplished without a major skill rejigger? Instead, just change the linking, or allow the existing social skills to be multiple-linked? Again, the RAW already does this a bit… but only for Leadership and Intimidation rolls. Or, do you think there needs to be a separate skill just for social perception (EP's Kinesics) and/or one for *all* resistance (presumably linked to Willpower).

Multiple-linked would probably work. It would be Relevant Skill + Relevant Attribute, where the attribute used is Charisma for 'offense', Intuition for 'perception', and Willpower for 'defense.'

So if you're trying to see how intimidate-able someone is, Intimidate + Intuition. To do it would be Intimidate + Charisma. Defense would use any skill the defender can justify, plus Willpower. E.g. You can't intimidate the king, his Leadership is too high.

Awesome, I like to be reality-checked. It seems like a minor change is much better (in terms of feasibility) than a total overhaul.

I kinda would still like people to have that modifier for their personality; obviously, it requires PC/GM trust just as much as the non-numerical version, but having numbers makes it a fairer, gradient effect. A straight categorical 'my character wouldn't do that' causes fights.

Yeah, I thought some of that was RAW, well, intuition as defense for example.

However I think in most social situations willpower isn't so relevant. The point of the social skill is that you're convincing them that you're telling the truth and that they're getting a good deal, that letting you by is the right thing to do etc.


I think social qualities should be fun, and they could possibly be of 0 value allowing you to add them to characters up against the limits.

For example a saving for marriage quality could make one functionally immune to that sort of seduction, but also prevents your character from using all of that to their advantage.

Being an ornery cuss or stubborn might make you resiliant to con or even ettiquite, but you'd have some associated penalties and some RP expectations to balance it out.

AFAIK, it's not in the RAW. But yes, social interaction is tricky. There are a couple things to do about it.
1) Accept that Willpower != 'willpower' only;
2) Allow variation in the 'defense' stat as appropriate (sometimes people are just having a Charisma-off, after all);
Or even 3) (per thorya) Give a bonus if you noticed they're lying, flattering, etc. (bonus for successful Soc-Perception roll).

Any/all of these are valid and workable, IMO. The main issue is roughly that Mr. Uncouth can't resist suggestions.

On PVP social skills, I can see how that would be a problem.

Though obviously the hacker could empty some account, and the sammy could stomp someone and take their toys. All of those would present similar problems.

But I guess, well done, there wouldn't be in character reasons to be ticked off.

Though I think it might be fun for all of the other players could get a steady drizzle of RP bonuses related to putting up with some specific level of liking the face a lot. For example if somebody takes a bullet for them.

I strongly feel that the monkey paw thing should only happen if you're in some kind of glitch situation. Otherwise I'd say you're required to warn them about it and suggest other courses of action. I think having this as a firm policy would have helped out MASSIVLY in some of the more toxic situations I've seen with face type characters.

Actually, looking back, face type characters probably have the highest mortality rate of all. Because they have a habit of going out on their own, unarmed, and wind up pissing off the people they're trying to manipulate. Well, and because of the higher frequency with which players decide they suck, so they're more prone to going for the dramatic death scene in order to bring in a better char.



I don't see this as a problem, if you want to add seperate social resiliance qualities than great.

However I've known a number of uncouth individuals in my life and they've been as vulnerable as others to social manipulation if not moreso.

Actually I'd say moreso. They haven't recieved much positive reinforcement or validation from their male peers nor much contact with the ladies. Thus if you dole out a few compliments or swing around a pair of sweater monkeys they're eating out of your hand.

That's not quite what I'm saying. I agree, but there are *other* tactics and situations that don't make sense, and I think that's what people are talking about; I mentioned subtle vs. non-subtle, earlier.

The issue with Uncouth is a matter of degree, as far as I'm concerned. Basically, I'm not sure that a character so inept that literally everyone he encounters may grab an Fuzzy Friends emotitoy* and roll a good batch of completely unopposed dice is what people are seriously looking for in a quality given that it's so problematic in play. That's sub-Forrest Gump thinking and the Uncouth/Uneducated/Infirm line of flaws are such outliers compared to other flaws that I feel slapping an official price tag on them is a deeply flawed design decision.


*Seriously, a guy with 1 Charisma and no skills can pull out a fancy sixth world hand puppet and throw 5 dice against an Uncouth character to consistently score success. That doesn't hit me as a playable professional criminal.

Well you've got to get the uncouth character interacting with you in order to do any of that.

Though I need to get back to my book to see if I've been doing it wrong with the intuition defense thing.

I would give a lot of leeway to "My character would never do that," since I know a lot of people who would have pretty low mental Attributes and social skills, who still have plenty of those hard limits. I think if a face starts screwing around with other characters to the extent that he is jeopardizing their playability, the GM needs to step in. The inflated dice pools available to faces make setting some reasonable limits on social skills very necessary. My own attitude is that if the face can't get the Johnson to pay more than the predefined maximum he is allowed to, then social skills should be similarly limited to plausible results in other areas.

I'm certainly not saying 'screw with other people's characters'; honestly, the PVP aspect never comes up for me anyway, and it'd be just as bad as a character just shooting another PC, or stealing from them, etc. It's possible in any RPG, and it's the easiest way to start a RL fight in any RPG.

However, *NPCs* do shoot at you. NPCs do steal your stuff. NPCs should be able to 'social' you, too. It takes a good player to admit that they might not be 100% invulnerable against X or Y social 'attack'. Even 90% resistant is fairer and probably better RP. And I'm not really that convinced that those iron-willed, super-canny individuals really exist, who also have no Cha, no skills, etc. (And the addition of Quals/etc., and the use of non-Cha linkage, and other little modifications all help with this). Still, my point is mostly just that people should be encouraged not to *abuse* the 'my char wouldn't do that' power. The GM shouldn't abuse his, either.

I definitely don't think social skills are mind control, and I certainly think the DPs are ridiculous. These are separate issues, but unfortunately not independent ones.

Alright, checked it out and I had it right. Note, I don't have the anniversary version or whatever, but I'd hope they'd have not messed this up in that.

Con is resisted with Intuition + Con(or Negotiation)
Intimidation Tests are opposed by the target’s Willpower + Intimidation
And Leadership is opposed by willpower+leadership
Ettiquite goes up against Charisma + Perception (a very common non social skill an uncouth fellow might well have a lot o)
Negotiation goes against charisma, but that makes sense as that's a two way street.

Ugh. They do flip back and forth about what to use in their examples and the table vs the text. But I think those make sense and they're what I've used.

So pick up those still pretty cheap rating ones and the cha 1 uncouth character isn't so much worse at "defending" against socials skills as most people. And possibly they're better if their other attributes or perception are higher.

That *is* different from the table in SR4A, though I didn't compare text to table.

Con is resisted with Negotiation? Blah.

Anyway, I think it doesn't alter the basic point at all: use the full range of linked attribs with various skills. The listed ones are still not necessarily quite right (you can probably resist Leadership with something else), and there might be room at some tables for a more general defense skill; Intimidation might help you resist Intimidation, but it's not necessarily the only way. The players and GM should basically bargain this out on the fly, IMO.

Incidentally, the Uncouth character has all those skills at X rating (worse than 0), and pays through the nose to raise them. So… yeah, he's much worse. That's more a problem with Uncouth than with the social system, perhaps.

I guess it's easier on uncouth in the old version. Maybe that's a deliberate change because it was so easy to bypass the drawbacks as far as defending agaisnt social skills was concerned.

They do have a marked habit of fixing the wrong problems.

The problem with Uncouth is that, since social skills are resisted with social skills, and uncouth characters can't even default on social skills they don't have, then uncouth characters don't really get any resistance roll at all versus social skills.

Now, I personally would not interpret that as meaning that anyone can make an uncouth character do anything. The examples of social skills show that, despite opposed tests not using thresholds, social skills do kind of have them, in that more successes seem to imply more control. To that, I would add that you need a modicum of plausibility to even attempt a social skill, and depending on what you do, negative modifiers will likely apply. So, for example, a girl scout with a switchblade probably wouldn't even get to roll to intimidate the troll bounty hunter, while the average ganger would suffer significant penalties, and would need a number of successes - one success might get him to flinch, two might get him to be cautious, three might get him to look for a way to back off while still saving face, etc.

But even treated reasonably, uncouth still remains an absolutely terrible quality - one of SR4's "trap" options.

Eh, I can sort of see it. In the old version, if you never intended to use charisma offensively you tweak things so you were getting disadvantage BP for "free".

It sounds like in the anniversary edition you really get a character with some vulnerabilities.




I don't like it because it can hurt RP.

But runners are a team. So you can have the little face and the big troll and a "of mice and men" dynamic going on that can keep both happy.

I'd allow the troll to grant the little face the "physically imposing" bonus if he's standing sufficiently close.

Yeah, silly me. Looking in the section on using Charisma linked skills for how to use Charisma linked skills like Con. I agree the system is better if you use the section that says Con+Intuition.

Also dislike leadership being opposed by your leadership. Could we use your team's leader's Leadership+ your willpower? Also, what does it mean for someone to use leadership on you? Is this for if you try to convince a lone star patrol to follow your orders because you're actually their lieutenant? (joking) It seems like it should be used by your Face to somehow benefit the rest of the team.

I know that Perception is used for opposing Etiquette, but I still feel like social perception is fundamentally different than awareness of your surroundings.

I've always viewed Leadership as basically making an appeal to authority and thus it's a good bet whenever you're being honest but are not threatening anyone or trying to exchange favors. For example, locating the extraction target and saying "Come with me if you want to live" could totally be treated as either a Leadership or Intimidate check.

Etiquette is a lot about how you're dressing, acting, etc. Those are actually related to noticing things. Since 4th ed SR doesn't do things like 1/2 perception + 1/2 etiquette I can see them breaking for perception. But I could see it the other way too.



I suppose the lone star example could be a highly penalized con roll followed by a leadership roll. But I don't think leadership was handled the best.



The way SR structures things I could see that also being con. But the distiction of which one it is should be clear based on the situation.

If you're making it clear that if they don't come with you than YOU'LL kill them, it'd be pure intimidation.
If it's basically a lie (not going with you would be safer) it'd be con. (and it'd have more penalties)
If you're telling the truth and this is a persuasive type thing, that would be leadership.

Since leadership has the "example" aspect as opposed to only the appeal to authority side, and because of the specializations, I rather use it as a catchall for things that aren't examples of conning, intimidation, or negotiation.

And I find that fits well with the modifiers. For example a firefighter, cop, other relevant authority figure should obviously get a bonus to a statement like that.

It's biggest use I find is with NPCs though. I play where NPCs aren't all fight to the death types. Older editions would often specify that if a given NPC or type of goon took a certain amount of damage they'd run; I liked that and still do it. So a leadership roll is used to try and rally the other gangers or whatever.

In this context the leadership vs leadership and rank vs rank thing makes sense, because the other guys want to retreat, and rank and leadership would play into that. It works well for power struggles too.

But I suppose in other settings it can be more awkward.

Etiquette is a knowledge skill, seriously.
There's no active use of it.

I could see having knowledge skills that allow you to know what to wear, how these people hold their drinks, and what people are talking about when they start going on whatever sports or art that group is into. As the GM I could see requiring such a roll in some cases in order to avoid or gain the various modifiers from the table. I think that's actually sort of implied if not explicitly laid out. And I notice that the writers like to give facey characters slews of knowledge skills.

After that, however, etiquette is very much an active skill. It is one thing to know, in an academic sense, what is proper, and it is something else entirely to actually navigate the waters of avoiding saying or doing the many many wrong things while still engaging in conversation and other things that demonstrate that you fit in, and doing them right.

Especially since the skill includes being able to fake it, and since, mechanically, the skill is used mostly to win friends via interaction and conversation. That's a very "active" thing, and one that definitly should be linked to charisma not logic.

The problem is that Etiquette is a passive skill. You don't ever say "I'm using Etiquette" for anything. It's...more like a knowledge skill ("Do I know X?" *roll* "Am I acting properly?" *roll*)

What? Of course you do. Again its chief purpose is making friends. If a face has time and circumstances allow, they'll usually open up with an attempt to use etiquette in order to buddy up to the mark and shift their attitude. This gives the face more dice when they get down to business.

It can also be used if you're out trying to develop some contacts, when doing a little legwork, get through the ritzy party to the maintenence closet, or to spice up downtime.

Passive rolls are less common, usually the face has a reason for being out and about and having the GM spotlight shining on them, and they're the one asking for the etiquette roll. I find most of the time if they don't ask for the roll they're fishing for a "gimmie" from the GM, i.e. setting up the bugs and demo charges in the biker bar shouldn't even require a roll for their character.

Just go read about it on p133-4. There are several 'active' options.

It's not really my fave skill, but it has some function in the current setup.

Excuse Me?

Man, I love you guys. </sarcasm> This is the third time I've mentioned that sentiment in this thread and only now does anyone quibble about it.

It's not a very important issue, either way; accordingly, it wasn't addressed before we'd dealt with the important ones.

I didn't really say anything because I more or less agreed with the statement. I've long held the suspicion that the way many people use Etiquette isn't really reflected by the RAW itself. Etiquette has its own separate write up from the rest of the social skills and generally isn't use for convincing people of anything in particular but rather for making small talk, covering gaffes and paving the way for the other social skills by tinkering with the subject's attitude modifier. It's great if people are already inclined to volunteer information or you have to survive a dinner party with your rep intact but aside from that it's mostly an enabler.

Right, and if we look at the word itself:



Nothing from this definition makes me think of performing an action (huh, fancy that, "etiquette" is a noun), but rather a way of holding one's self. Subtle social cues, things not to say, grammar and pronunciation style (think: southern drawl versus terse New Yorker).

To me, Etiquette seems like it would be more at home as a limiter on hits on social tests, or at best a fallback panic button ("oops, said the wrong thing, quick, recover!") and not really worthy on its own merit to be a full active skill.

What if you just go read about it on p133-4. There are several 'active' options.

RAW beats common use every time. It's like how punching people in the face isn't a Physical Skill linked to Physical Attributes.

Which book?
'Cause p133 of my core book (available here at work) is totally the initiative section of combat. I think you meant p121.

In any case, the rules and uses for Etiquette are largely useless. It is a rare situation indeed that one can manage to talk to a hostile character and make them feel at ease.

Also,



Instinctive ability is not an active skill. It is a subconscious effect, like knowledge or flinching away from sources of pain.

Yerameyahu was citing the anniversary edition. I don't think they changed much.

Also, none of what you are talking about matters.

I remember a time when we prefaced things with SR4 and SR4A.



Que?

First off, there's a reason that your quote has the word "also" in there: there's a write up of non-instinctive learned social habits preceding and following your quote which describes Etiquette as broad set of learned responses and tricks that definitely can be defined as an active skill. Knowing when to tip, how to bow gracefully or when to use the correct fork is not instinctive knowledge, but it is incorporated into the Etiquette skill. Again, common use dictionary references are a slippery slope from which to view the rules. Defining skill as only being learned tricks is a fool's errand given that the rules consistently include things that are in large part a matter of personal aptitude such as Perception or Running alongside technical skills like Demolitions.

I don't remember that time, Draco18s. SR4A is the correct version, currently.

Etiquette has some qualities of a knowledge skill, in that a GM can call for an etiquette roll to see if you know or notice something. But it is still more of an active skill. It is an opposed test that acts as a combination of social disguise and making people's attitudes more friendly towards your character. For uses of the former (your ganger not getting kicked out of the high society dinner, you suit making those troll bikers loosen up and crack jokes around him), it stands on its own. For uses of the latter (improving people's reactions to your character and negating social gaffes), it makes the use of subsequent skills, such as con, easier.