HI all,

Just curious how you all handle it the runners decided to negotiate the price of deal or some goods. I am looking for what other ways you've all come up with do decide if they mark is going to give over his soul as well as the Panther Cannon.

Fast Talk is a common application... lie to the security guard just long enough to walk away and get out of LOS. Negotiation is one of the key skills for a Face. Some use it to convince a contact to do a favor for them, as well.

What is a Face? I have seen it referred to in other posts but am personally oblivious as to what a "Face" is ... short of the thing i begrudgingly have to look at in the mirror!

a "face" character is a facilitator, a negotiator, a smooth-talker. their job is to represent your team to the Johnson, to infiltrate by fitting in, to distract the secguard with conversation while the decker hooks into the terminal behind the guard, etcetera.

He's a guy on the A-Team... "In 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit..."

Face= the public "front" that the team puts out, thus the ones that people deal with, generally Face-to-Face

How do I work negotiation??

Assuming a PC is selling...

The seller makes an offer. I take the price of the object. I multiply it by the street index + .5 (more if it's not the fixer's specialty. Less if it is the seller's specialty.)

The buyer can either accept that price or choose to negotiate. Should he negotiate, he rolls his negotiate skill against the seller's intelligence, and the seller rolls negotiate against the buyer's intelligence. I count the number of net successes. The final price is the base price * street index (possibly plus or minus some, if it's the seller's specialty or not.) + or - 5% for each net success, in the winner's favor.

Should the PC be selling, he sets the 'base price' and then makes up his claimed 'selling price'. The NPC may negotiate if he so chooses, but the rules are the same, except I don't use street index (I assume the PC has already factored that into the base price). The NPC then decides if that price is really worth it. The PC may have to cut the price if the NPC simply won't go for it.

Just like in the rules, except the starting price I add an extra 50% to the original asking price so the PCs aren't negotiated 'up' (it has no effect on the final negotiated price).

They also tend to have high intelligence, which is the base stat target number for resisting Negotiation tests, and high Willpower, which is the base stat target number for interrogation/intimidation.

I make opposing parties roll an Open Test (Negotiation), then each side uses Charisma to generate successes. Net successes usually bump up/down the price 5-10%.

Any other dice methods you all use?

I add in a situational modifier to the target number to the side that has the stronger bargaining position. If The runners realize that Mr Johnson will get geeked if he doesn't get the run done quickly, then I give the runners a slight bonus on the test. On the other hand, Mr Johnson knows that the runners really desperately need this job becuase they owe a certain mafia getleman a large sum of money, then the Johnson gets the bonus.

I don't use the dice much for rolling the results I prefer to role play it.

The only problem with that approach is that it forces lesser intelligenced and decidedly uncharismatic not to mention piss-poor negotiating people (like me) to play worthless characters. I like the dice rolls. We can roleplay the best we know how and let the dice take care of the result.

And you can like that all you want, but that mentality is fundamentally incompatible with a roleplaying centric game. I despise using dice for social situations, and in my game, that'd just be too bad for you.

Of course, it goes without saying that in a casual game without any real emphasis on roleplaying (and lots of emphasis on 'game'), dice are very significant.

Neither approach is necessarily problemed (though the latter is of necessity superficial); they're simply two very different styles.

Yeah, make them walk around the room when they want to use stealth, or take them outside to fire a gun when they decide to use one of those skills, or have them run around around or climb the house when they decide to use athletics. That is all about roleplaying, too. Not roll playing.

Some people actually play roleplaying games to escape the mediocrity of their mundane lives. Good for you that you are so superior that you can just play yourself instead of a fictional character represented by some stats on a sheet of paper and outcomes decided by chance and probabilities.

I reward people who can roleplay convincingly their character with an occasional Karma point.

And I reward those who provide a particularly clever angle for the social interaction with a reduced TN.

But if you, the player, are stumped for a good lie and can't manage to sound convincing in a pinch when confronted by a security guard, you still get to roll your Fast talk of 8 for your faceman. You won't have a karma point or reduced TN, but you probably will succeed anyway. The character is that good.

OTOH, even if you manage to sound perfectly convincing and had a clever lie, you face a high risk of failure if you are playing a PC defaulting to his charisma score of 1. You might get a karma point for entertaining the group if you weren't out of character, though.

But you shouldn't IMO let your roleplay entirely dictate a social interaction outcome unless you have magically and perfectly calibrated your PCs social skill with your own. Or unless the outcome is of no particular significance.

Usually, your PC is much more skilled than you are, but occasionnally he's worse. AFAIC the social stats still mean something no matter how the player compares to the character. Otherwise, you can try playing SR with the amber rules or something like that.

To be fair, he specifically stated he despised rolling dice for social situation.

The perverse effect of that would be that no one would invest much in social skill and charisma in his campaign. If you're good, you're good. Otherwise though luck. The end result is probably, ironically, higher combat skill than in the average campaign.

Maybe realize that it's a valid logical extension of your statement?

~J

I have both types of players in my group. Player A is a pretty witty guy and can normally talk his way through a myriad of different real life social encounters (oral presentations, job interviews, sales, etc)... he plays a fairly low-charisma character in my game with no real social skills. He prefers to just "roleplay" it out.

Player B doesn't have a head lexicon on hand to just spout out eloquent negotiations, but he's playing a character who spent some points in Etiquette and Negotiation.

Now, when we're playing the game, Player A routinely (and I can't emphasize how much "routinely" means) will be doing a great job of trying to fast talk or negotiate his way out of a situation... but when he shouldn't really have the skills to do so. Is he roleplaying? Kind of. He's playing a part, just not the one that matches up to his stats. So, I have to rein him in. Rein in by having him default to his Charisma rating.

Meanwhile, I allow Player B to get through some situations even though he may not always know the best (read: realistic) way to wax his tongue. He'll say what his character says, and then I'll interpret what the spirit of his words meant. Then I go to dice.

The way I see it, you shouldn't be able to get through a tricky social encounter by the player's real charisma rating. It's all about the character. Ignoring that attribute (in relation to social encounters) and set of skills is ignoring a major game mechanic.

So let me ask you this: do you even bother keeping Etiquette, Negotiation, Leadership, Small Units Tactics, or any similar skill in the game? If so, why?

~J

One, I don't play right now. Two, as Crimson Jack pointed out, roleplaying excellent social skills with a character who should not have them, no matter how well played, is bad roleplaying. They're necessary for determining, in abstract terms, the proficiency of the character. Beyond that, it's mostly all roleplaying, unless there is a very specific need for determining a mechanical result.

On a side note, as far as I'm concerned, Small Unit Tactics should never have been anything but a knowledge skill, and I find the current rules for it offensively silly.

And how does a GM with mediocre personal negotiation skills play? Does he just roll over and take it in the ass if there's a silver-tongued player? Or do you recommend removing social situations from the game because the GM can't handle them? Or must the most charismatic player necessarily be the GM?

~J

No, it really doesn't. You don't want the least charismatic, certainly, but as long as you actually fucking well use the rules there's no need for it to be the most.

~J

True, but it doesn't hurt.

It would seem, in part, to depend on the extent and parameters of what constitutes "role" within an individual definition of roleplaying. Absolutely no one seriously argues reducing the physical skills to an abstract: those arguments tend to be limited to what degree of abstraction is appropriate. Thus I'm thinking that in most cases, it's not skills per se that's the pothole, but expression of PC personality and/or degree of willingness to operate solely within that personality ... and what do we tend to strand on most, in these discussions, but the personality-related skills?

Thus, if the character personality is seen primarily as a collection of numbers, then the dice will be primary.

If the character personality is seen as something less easily quantifiable, the numbers to be used only when practical circumstances dictate a more abstract approach.

In either case, it perhaps should be understood that a person plays, not within the extreme abilities of their PCs, but within their character's limits. That should reduce the numbers of CH 1 [PC] CH 8 [real life] contradictions.

I disagree that the physical stats are safely ensconced in the realm of numbers. I seriously question the ability of anyone on this board to roleplay someone with a Strength of fifteen.

~J

Kage, I agree with you to a certain extent. But what's the point in having stat sheets at all if the numbers don't reflect the character? Why not play Shadowrun as Vampire: The Masquerade? <shudder>

When runners get into combat, they can rock/paper/scissors to figure out who wins.

/unlurk

sounds like Arethusa game is treading dangerously close to weredigo's...


/relurk

I use roll-and roleplaying for my players in social encounters:

When one of them says "I want to negotiate my way out of it.", I ask him for his arguments. I listen to him and I add/distract TNM from sr3 pg 94. If he has gives good arguments, TN is lowered.
I almost never add to the TN with this system, except when arguments really make no sense or if the negotiator or one of the teammates says something offensive.

Then he rolls an open negotiation test. It seems fair to me to give the player a chance to defend himself with arguments when the rolls are bad.

@ Dawnshadow: That's all well and good, but you've only covered half the problem. It's easier to role play someone less intelligent or less skilled than more. The problem is how the GM treats someone who wants to role play a character more intelligent or more (socially) skilled. Do you simply say, "Sorry Dan, you're an abrasive moron. You spent karma on Int, Cha, etiquette, and negotiation, but it was a waste of karma. You fail, your character fails. Why don't you write up a troll (again)." It's a horribly run role playing game that won't let people play characters (socially) better than themselves. I may as well go out and live real life rather than waste my time with folks who just talk down to me in a game.

@Da9iel: That's another major one. I was just going for one good argument as to why making it only the character acting it out is a bad idea. If memory serves, the person playing a more (socially) skilled/etc character had already been brought up, but no one had really explained why just roleplaying it out is really, really bad.

Ah. You did at that, didn't you. Sorry. I shouldn't have knocked you for making a good point. I just wanted to cover the other half.

Another interesting thread.

I'm an older guy. I've been in quite a few situations in my time, so I usually have a fair grasp on what to say in a myriad of social situations. I am currently playing a dwarf with a 1 charisma, no etiquette, and 2 points of the bad reputation flaw. I do the best I can to dummy him down by willfully messing up when I role play. For example I make myself obnoxious by hitting on troll and ork babes, calling them "toots" and "sweet cheeks", etc... I try not to make "any" leadership decisions on purpose. I also burp, fart, tell dumb jokes, and scowl at everyone. In short, I try to pick a type of social misfit and go with it. If flipping the bird at society types is a fantasy of yours, playing a low life street thug could be fun.

On the other hand, I am not guilty of being attractive either. I played an elf with an 8 charisma and a 6 etiquette. I can only imagine how likable and handsome he was. This is what fantasy gaming is about. You don't have to be the character to "imagine" what it might be like, most intelligent reasoning people can fantasize and dream quite well.

The hard part for the referee I think is to seperate and define just what different levels of success can do. I am not sure exactly what to do with socially adept players with low charisma/talent characters. I guess just roll with it in the same vain as you do with fat, nerdy, inexperienced players with high charisma/talent characters.

If a player with no talent starts making perfect sense as to why the five of you were in the research room after hours without your badges on I would say tell the player that what he is trying to accomplish is beyond what his current character is capable of. This allows the role play, but forces the roll play as well. If the player can find an innovative way to stay in character and get by a social situation then reward him.

Speaking of making players act out what they are doing. I remember GMing a game where a bunch of players wanted to toss a bunch of grenades into a room. I said no because they would be bunched up at the door and wouldn't be able to do it. After a bit of protesting I allowed 2 grenades. Several hours passed by after the incident and I had forgotten all about it. They all stepped out to get drinks and take a short break while I organized notes. When they returned they kicked the door open and pelted me with a dozen coke cans in about half a second's time. All I could say was "what the f....?" Shock and anger went to amusement as they all yelled "boom!" letting me know what it was for. Point taken. And they were accurate too at least half those cans hit me and or landed within a meter. I would have been chunky salsa for real.