Hi everybody,

I want to gather a few impressions from you about the "social interactions" part of the game.

Everything started a few months ago, when I started to become pissed of that only a few NPCs which are supposed to be good at talking (imperial agents, negotiators, politicians etc.) have ranks in Cool or Discipline (one or two ranks), most of them do not have anything there. Which typically results in that NPCs which are "good talkers", at the same time, are very easy to convince about anything.

Then I checked the PC side and realize that it is in most cases the same. For example, in the politico entry:

First of all, just because Cool and Discipline aren't career skills for a Politico there's nothing in the world that's preventing you from increasing them. It costs a little more, sure, but they're totally available to everyone, without exception.

Second, unless your characters are very experienced with several high (4+) skills it's their characteristics that's going to provide the main "resistance" to influence skills. In my group I have a Twi'lek Slicer/Politico who, as far as I recall, doesn't have ranks in Cool but has a Presence of 5. That would make her very, very hard to talk into doing anything.

And finally, be careful about having NPCs use interaction skills to force PCs to do anything. Try roleplaying it instead; if the NPC has a very high Charm skill, present the player with some very good arguments and let them convince themselves to go along. Or if they have a high Deception, come up with a very believable lie. Or if they're using Coercion, let the player do what they want regardless of whether they failed their Discipline or not, but suffer strain damage if they go against the threat.

Thanks for your points.

And finally, be careful about having NPCs use interaction skills to force PCs to do anything. Try roleplaying it instead; if the NPC has a very high Charm skill, present the player with some very good arguments and let them convince themselves to go along. Or if they have a high Deception, come up with a very believable lie. Or if they're using Coercion, let the player do what they want regardless of whether they failed their Discipline or not, but suffer strain damage if they go against the threat.

Regarding this, I am from a different school or Role Play. A NPC successfully Coerce your PC, role play that. A NPC Decieves your PC, role play that. The same goes for players. I can have a player on my table with very poor communication skills, while his PC can be a monster negotiator. If his PC convinces the Imperial Moff to give him the pass code, so be it. My games are "first roll, then role play the outcome".

Cheers,

Yepes

First of all, just because Cool and Discipline aren't career skills for a Politico there's nothing in the world that's preventing you from increasing them. It costs a little more, sure, but they're totally available to everyone, without exception.

But it seems weird that the Career/Spec doesn't have them, if that's what those skills are for. (Career skills are cheaper because - as they're a part of your day-to-day job - they are familiar to you, right?)

I'd wing it. I used to play a lot of GURPS and, unlike EotE, their skills are very specific. I quickly learned just to sketch out NPCs with ultra-generic versions of skills ("Fightingness = X", "Social Bullship = Y", "Sneakology = Z", etc.).

Your group's face tries to bluff a trooper? Maybe this specific one's dumber than the rest (one purple).

They then try the same trick on an officer? Maybe this one comes from a family so twisted they'd make a Lannister proud (three red).

First of all, just because Cool and Discipline aren't career skills for a Politico there's nothing in the world that's preventing you from increasing them. It costs a little more, sure, but they're totally available to everyone, without exception.

But it seems weird that the Career/Spec doesn't have them, if that's what those skills are for. (Career skills are cheaper because - as they're a part of your day-to-day job - they are familiar to you, right?)

I'd wing it. I used to play a lot of GURPS and, unlike EotE, their skills are very specific. I quickly learned just to sketch out NPCs with ultra-generic versions of skills ("Fightingness = X", "Social Bullship = Y", "Sneakology = Z", etc.).

Your group's face tries to bluff a trooper? Maybe this specific one's dumber than the rest (one purple).

They then try the same trick on an officer? Maybe this one comes from a family so twisted they'd make a Lannister proud (three red).

Hi everybody,

I want to gather a few impressions from you about the "social interactions" part of the game.

Everything started a few months ago, when I started to become pissed of that only a few NPCs which are supposed to be good at talking (imperial agents, negotiators, politicians etc.) have ranks in Cool or Discipline (one or two ranks), most of them do not have anything there. Which typically results in that NPCs which are "good talkers", at the same time, are very easy to convince about anything.

Then I checked the PC side and realize that it is in most cases the same. For example, in the politico entry:

"If there is one thing a Politico knows how to do better

than anyone else in the galaxy, it's talking. He can talk

to anyone about anything in any necessary way."

but he has no Cool or Discipline skills, which again, translates in that a Politico character is easy to influence.

Does not feel a bit odd to you? It seems that these characters are good at exposing their ideas, but one can change their minds easily!

May be it would fit me better, for my idea of social interactions, to oppose each skill with itself (Like Negotiation, which is Negotiation vs Negotiation (or Cool). In a similar way I could do Coercion vs Coercion (or Disciplpine)

Deception vs Deceptcion (or Discipline)

Leadership vs Leadership (or Discipline)

Charm vs Charm (or Cool)

Thoughts ideas? Which is your vision of this aspect of the game?

Cheers,

Yepes

A Politico has the Well Rounded talent, so for anyone that has issues with this they certainly can have Discipline and Cool as career skills.

Those specializations are meant to make characters that employ Charm and Deception, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those specs are meant to make characters good at resisting Charm and Deception. Think of them as being "social offense" with a lack in social defenses.

I don't know, Happy. As is, it doesn't make Politico's as a whole any more skittish and lacking in self-control than other characters. But it doesn't help players of "face" characters build someone who see the angles and know when they're being conned (which is something that I imagine most Politico players (con-men, fixers and "legitimate businessmen keen to get away from the binding red tape of core-world regulation") would like to be able to say about their character.

(I can't stress "imagine" or "most" enough, there. Manny is fecking clueless.)

They may not have the skills; that doesn't mean they can't throw 3-4 Gs and situational Boosts. That's a good roll, even if it has no Yellows in it!

I don't know, a politician being all talk and easily swayed with even the simplest arguments seems pretty realistic to me.

I don't know, a politician being all talk and easily swayed with even the simplest arguments seems pretty realistic to me.

They're good at dishing it out, but don't they hold up their hands and run for the limo yelling "No comment" when they're on the receiving end.............

I don't know, a politician being all talk and easily swayed with even the simplest arguments seems pretty realistic to me.

They're good at dishing it out, but don't they hold up their hands and run for the limo yelling "No comment" when they're on the receiving end.............

Their Signature Ability could be 'No Comment', 'Improved No Comment', and 'Supreme No Comment'........................

I don't know, a politician being all talk and easily swayed with even the simplest arguments seems pretty realistic to me.

They're good at dishing it out, but don't they hold up their hands and run for the limo yelling "No comment" when they're on the receiving end.............

Their Signature Ability could be 'No Comment', 'Improved No Comment', and 'Supreme No Comment'........................

I would actually love something like that. "No Comment; the PC is exceptionally good at creating distance from potential problems. Once per game session the player may flip two Destiny Points and make a hard Deception check. Whether it be by spinning the PR machine to put them in a good light, calling in big favors, or making sure not a trace of evidence remains on those bodies in the river, the PC's hands are clean."

I don't know, a politician being all talk and easily swayed with even the simplest arguments seems pretty realistic to me.

They're good at dishing it out, but don't they hold up their hands and run for the limo yelling "No comment" when they're on the receiving end.............

Their Signature Ability could be 'No Comment', 'Improved No Comment', and 'Supreme No Comment'........................

I would actually love something like that. "No Comment; the PC is exceptionally good at creating distance from potential problems. Once per game session the player may flip two Destiny Points and make a hard Deception check. Whether it be by spinning the PR machine to put them in a good light, calling in big favors, or making sure not a trace of evidence remains on those bodies in the river, the PC's hands are clean."

Hahaha, feel free to take credit and use it.............

Yeah, I avoid using Charm/Deceit/Coercion checks against my PCs.

In most cases, if the player makes a comment that it seems too good to be true, or that they think its a lie, I'll have them roll against Charm/Deceit, with a fail just being "You have no idea" and plenty of times a success being that the NPC is being honest. My players tend to be aware of this, so if they get suspicious, they say something. But, at the same time, what I love about this system is that Threat and Despair is also a risk, and so you'll see them being pretty cautious about asking for a roll if they aren't sure.

Makes for great bit of table interaction as they become paranoid without being willing to risk finding the proof.

May be it would fit me better, for my idea of social interactions, to oppose each skill with itself (Like Negotiation, which is Negotiation vs Negotiation (or Cool). In a similar way I could do Coercion vs Coercion (or Disciplpine)

Deception vs Deceptcion (or Discipline)

Leadership vs Leadership (or Discipline)

Charm vs Charm (or Cool)

Thoughts ideas? Which is your vision of this aspect of the game?

Actually we've been doing the thing you've proposed. Or a variant of it. We use Negotiation vs. negotiation, charm vs. discipline, deception vs. perception (a L5R lefover I guess). Usually our politico doesn't complain.

And we're also from the school of RPG that says that "your character is not you. But RPG allows the shy guy to play an outspoken charmer - that's what the stats and narrative descriptions are for!".

I don't know, a politician being all talk and easily swayed with even the simplest arguments seems pretty realistic to me.

In a lot of cases, yeah. And if I were building that guy, I wouldn't invest in the skills that'd make me capable in those areas, even if they were career skills.

But if I were making the an astute social animal I'd like the rules to help me with that (like they help a Mechanic be better at fixing stuff, and a Mercenary be better at killing stuff (and resist attempts to change their mind (Discipline))).

Like Skie, we've been doing Deception vs. Perception, too. It's not really a perfect fit, but something based on Cunning seems a good thing to model a sharp operator knowing when they're being led down the garden path.