Ok so I'm not new to Shadowrun (been playing about 10 years now) but I haven't played a game in about 2 years (been playing Mutants and Masterminds and WoD). Some friends and I got back into it and started up a new game and I encountered something that I never really thought about before Con checks are opposed by Charisma... Could someone explain this to me? I mean it seems natural that they'd be opposed by Intuition or maybe even Willpower or Logic but Charisma?! I can see why Negotiate is opposed by Charisma... con isn't a test of silver tongues it's using logic/body language and other such signs to pick out when someone is spouting BS.

Am I the only one that's put off by this? Has anyone else house ruled that Con is opposed by say Perception + Intuition to notice they're lying? or Logic + Con maybe? Shoot anything that isn't charisma?

Thanks in advance for any input!

Trying to make Charisma less of a dump stat for anyone but faces and shamans?

emphasis mine. Actively lying to someone takes a lot of mental effort to break normal patterns, as such the conman's body language would change somewhat.

I think most runners are given a fighting chance against it because they can use negotiation OR con + charisma.

It is a very simple game mechanic, social skill tests amount to a battle of wills between people. Charisma is the mental equivalent of Strength, so it covers your character's force of personality. Low Charisma characters can be browbeaten by strong personalities and good fast talkers, that's the way it goes.

You gotta remember that Con is a very short-term skill, when people who have been Conned get a chance to think things through, they suddenly realize that they might have been duped and act accordingly. This is why Conning guards to let you into a corp facility is not always a good idea - apart from the negative DP modifiers for them being suspicious and having a lot to lose from falling for the con, without a good number of net successes the mark is soon going to realize what's happened and raise the alarm.

Depending on the way the GM plays it, there may be times when you can also use Judge Intentions as a way of seeing through a con ...

I always viewed Charisma as 'Force of Personality' TBH.

- J.

Personally, I consider it depends on how/what the target is resisting.

Let's say the face is trying to seduce a mark. The mark has two ways of resisting: rolling Charisma+con to realize that the face is a skilled seducer, or rolling Willpower (possibly Willpower+Charisma) in order to just resist the seduction attempt, oblivious to the fact that it's a set-up.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for a character (or NPC) to substitute a judge intentions check for the cha + con check to determine if the guy is full of sh!t.
Maybe not though. A lot of real life cons rely on the mark never stopping and thinking.

This also depends on what kind of conman we are dealing with. A fast talker that tries to fool you would be a judge intention test for example. A clever pickpocket that tries to divert your attention would perhaps be a perception test, after all, the latter kind of conman is trying to divert your attention with physical motions that is supposed to catch your attention - while diverting your gaze from the hand that tries to take your credstick.

I've never had a problem with it-it's a far cry from some of what the previous editions ended up using, and I do like that. I'd be open to a player giving me a reason to use something else, if they had solid reasoning I might even allow it.

I think it's quite easy to give Judge Intentions too much leeway - it's a far cry from a mind-reading spell. If someone is trying to convince you to let them in to the building using some kind of ruse, I'd say a Judge Intentions success would reveal they want to get into the building not that they have a detonator and 6 pounds of C12 on their person.

Basically - if you're charismatic and sly, you know when someone tries to con you, because you know how it works... I think Con should be countered by Con also - it just seems logical.

I second this, totally.

Charisma as force of personality, social competence, charm and likeability makes perfect sense as the stat to resist cons, imo.

Just because you have a strong will and is used to getting your way doesn't mean you are any more unlikely to be fooled or fast talked than the next guy. Stronger cases could be made for intuition, but in many cases when someone are trying to con you they know exactly what to say and how to say it - and if they have a high con skill they will know all the little 'tricks' to get someone at ease. The biggest part of a con isn't the lie itself; it's getting the mark to like you and sympathise with you. The con man will be completely sincere in his wish to do that, and he or she will likely have judged what would work best on you before the first word was spoken - ideally before you even knew they existed.

If you are bad at the social 'game', you are much more likely to be hooked by all the little 'tricks' and the friendliness. If, however, you are very socially capable you are much more used to them and not as easily affected. Plus, you are a lot more likely to have a well-composed 'mask' that is harder to read.

I think my argument in favour of Charisma is that the Con rules (and this is hugely down to my own supposition) are based on the premise that a 'con' is only a con when the defender knows they should say no, be they a security guard or a dupable pensioner, and it takes force of character to say 'That's all well and good mate, but rules are rules'.

Convincing someone to break the rules is negotiation. Convincing them that you're legit and are supposed to be there is con. Important difference.

Absolutely disagree. Negotiation is about improving your position in determining the outcome of an arrangement. SR4A p.125:

"The Negotiation Skill governs the psychology and bargaining tactics used when the character deals with another and seeks to come out ahead ... Specialisations: Bargaining, Diplomacy, Sense Motive."

So they must already be willing to break the rules for Negotiaton to apply.

Yeah, but you can't convince someone to break the rules using Con either, unless that person was open to breaking the rules anyway. You may fool him into believing he is not breaking the rules, but that's not quite the same thing (though it may be more effective).

Making someone break the rules when he wasn't going to originally would be either Persuasion (under Leadership) or Intimidation...

- Make someone believe something: Con
- Make someone do something: Leadership
- Make someone agree to something: Negotiation
- Scare someone into doing something: Intimidation
- Force someone to do something: (pick a combat skill; any combat skill )

I pretty much agree with all this.

While this may be a reasonable starting yardstick for social skills, it is not the be-all-and-end-all of it. For instance, as a GM I only allow Leadership to be used in situations where the character's superiority in the chain-of-command credentials have been established or in panic situations (taking control in the street an explosion has just occurred etc).

For me, Intimidation also will depend very much on who has the upper hand, bigger posse etc. In addition to DP modifiers, this can also affect the outcome of the test - successfully scare someone who has superior numbers and guns drawn, and they may try to take you out now while they have the drop on you ...

Oh, successful Intimidation can certainly have 'less desirable' results - depending on what you wanted to accomplish. However, if you successfully (with DP penalties) intimidate a bigger group with guns drawn, I'd say you have made them back off. It happens. However, said group may very well take first opportunity to shoot you in the back, if they think they can kill you quickly. Or they'll leave, make a few calls, andcome back with twice as many people...

As for Leadership...I kind of agree with you, and kind of not - since Persuasion is a specialization of leadership, it should have uses even outside of the chain of command. It even makes some kind of sense, because if you are a good leader used to giving orders and motivating people, chances are you'll be able to do the same thing to people who do not see you as 'their leader'.

Of course, you can't go up to a security guard and just give him orders, but if you are trying to convince someone of doing something without using threats, bargaining, or lies, there's no skill other than Leadership(Persuasion) that applies.

That's pretty much my take too. The skill goes beyond official and/or perceived seniority - it caters for momentarily gaining someone's respect for your arguments. For example, you might be little more than a street urchin trying to persuade a hardcore gang of thugs it's a good idea to delay their raiding plans for a day - you're not the boss of them and they'll never think of you as such, but it's still a Leadership roll.

For me Leadership requires the target to be open to taking orders from the leader to work, but YMMV. If (insert name of someone you think is a great and charismatic leader) walked up to a random person on the street and told him/her to go fetch a coffee, they almost certainly wouldn't (unless they were a big fan, in which case they are open to taking orders from said bigwig). And Aerospider's urchin would get a clip around the ear and told to mind his business, unless said urchin could give a very good and plausible reason they would want to delay their raid for another day (and that's starting to merge into Con in my book).

For me Leadership (Persuasion) is more skill at motivating someone to do a trivial onerous task and make them think that the rest of the group is relying on them to do the best job possible, or persuading someone that you are counting on them to undertake this dangerous job for the good of the group, or something similar. But like I said, YMMV.

YMMV indeed.
I would maintain that Leadership does not mandate the giving of orders though. What about the 'C'mon, who's with me?!' approach? Or 'You can do it, I know you can, and I'll be right behind you every step of the way'?

Whereas, if you have an established position of command why are you using the skill at all? Is it possible one of your men will say 'Get your own fucking latte, sir!'? If so, then you don't have the position you thought you did. Using a military example your men would have to be pretty shaken or distrustful to question an order up to and possibly even including those with a promise of certain death.

I think Con really has to be reserved for misrepresenting the truth.

So, using your example - which skill would you use if Mr. Shadowrunner goes up to Joe Schmoe on the street and tries to persuade Joe into going to fetch a cup of Joe?

Mr. Shadowrunner isn't lying or being dishonest, isn't offering something in return, isn't threatening Joe; he just really wants a cup of coffee.

"Hey, buddy - you've been standing there for a couple of minutes now. Can I ask a favor of you? I need to stand here and watch that car over there for when the owner gets back - I've been here for half an hour now, and I don't know how much longer it will take. Could you go round the corner and pick up my cup of latte? I've already paid for it and ordered it, but if I go myself and the owner gets back I'm toast with my Johns...umm my boss. The girl at the café is refusing to bring it out here. C'mon, what do you say? It'll take you two minutes, tops. Be a chummer!"

Now, if Mr. 'Runner was offering a latte for Joe, or some form of compensation, I'd use Negotiation. If he was discreetly showing his gun and using tone of voice and body language, I'd use Intimidation. He's completely sincere and not trying to sweet-talk, so I don't see how Con could possibly apply.

Note that there is a modification under Leadership in the Social Modifiers Table: Character is not part of the subject's social strata, and another Subject has superior rank - how would you justify using those modifiers if the subject has to be open to taking orders from the character in order for the skill to apply at all?

Quick modifier calculations for your (and my) scenario:

Yes, your "Who's with me?" and "You can do it!" motivations are perfectly legitimate uses of Leadership in my book, and both examples strongly suggest that the target is amenable to taking orders from the character. By "taking orders" I mean "going along with what the character is suggesting", rather than in a narrow military sense.

And yes, in a pseodo-military situation being told "no" by a lower rank person is a problem. I would assume in that sort of situation the lower rank guy will have to go and get the latte anyway, for me here the successful use of Leadership would be if he was happy rather than resentful for having to fetch and carry your cuppa joe.

As for Con, you are right that it is about misrepresenting the truth, although you should note that most good conmen will try and keep as close to the truth as they can to make their misrepresentations that much more plausible.

Interesting scenario, and I think in this case Con, Negotiation, Leadership and Intimidation could all be used. Why Leadership? You've chosen someone who is hanging around on the street corner with nothing better to do, so he is feasibly open to taking orders (in the broadest sense of the phrase). Why Con? Well, you would have to modify your story a bit, ask him if he likes paedophiles, tell him you are tailing a paedo, ask him if he'd help out an undercover cop keeping the streets clean. For me, no matter what skill you used the guy would probably ask for a cup himself, even if he were only trying it on, but that's by the by.

On the face of it, you have me on the "Character is not part of the subject's social strata" modifier for Leadership tests. However, you yourself said that Leadership should not be able to work on a security guard as an example, so even you think there are some people who will not bow to a good Leadership roll. The point is where you draw the line on cases where Leadership should or should not be applicable, and for me it is that openness to taking instruction.

Sorry, double post ...

What I meant by going up to security guard and 'just give him orders' was that it would require a lot more. Modifiers for a Leadership roll in that case would probably be -3 for the social strata (unless the character fits in really well; say a corp pin and fancy suit, but then we move closer to Con), as well as modifiers for the security guard outranking the character (another -2 or -3), guard being a minimum of suspicious (-1), and character's result being at least harmful (-3). Total ranging somewhere around -9/-10 and possibly the guard getting an extra 2 dice to resist since he has the backing of the company and procedure (ace in the hole). So even a charisma 8 elf with Leadership 6 would be looking at no more than 4-6 dice for his test - likely a 50-50 chance or so. The average runner would have little chance, unless it's a munchkin-y social adept.

Use Con, and all of a sudden the character has only -3-4 dice...

As for Joe on the corner asking for a cup of joe for himself, that'd be him initiating a Negotiations test ('sure, buy me a cup of coffee as well and I'll get yours'), Con test (if joe is planning to take both cups for himself) or possibly Intimidation ('get me a coffee as well or I'll go tell the owner of the car that someone's after him' - bad idea for Joe...).