I have problems with talents like this. It's something any player should just be able to say to me "I'm going to offer some money to persuade them". I should also be able to say "well-disciplined and indoctrinated storm troopers never countenance bribes" when appropriate. I don't like talents that suddenly decide how my setting or characters are.

Like the Greased Palms talent? I sometimes visualise the narrative behind the game effect of stuff like that as maybe you're not offering the NPC you're talking to a bribe. Instead maybe it's a flashback to you bribing a grunt or administrator or servant for clues about what your target's likes/needs/fears/trusts - and that is what'll help you Charm/Negotiate/Coerce/Deceive the NPC you're now talking to in the present.

Greased Palms lets you spend 50 credits per rank to upgrade your Social Interaction checks. You have to narritivly justify what you're spending the cash on.

Sound Investments grants you credits equal to your rank in the talent x100 at the beginning of each session.

And yeah, Good Cop/Bad Cop seems to just be a rules codification of something that's already well supported.

I have problems with talents like this. It's something any player should just be able to say to me "I'm going to offer some money to persuade them". I should also be able to say "well-disciplined and indoctrinated storm troopers never countenance bribes" when appropriate. I don't like talents that suddenly decide how my setting or characters are.

If you're the GM, then no player's talent or skill can override your position as the final arbiter of what happens in your game.

No talent can force you to roleplay a Stormtrooper taking a bribe if you don't feel like they would take a bribe. That's called out in the "Biggest Fan" talent, where it gives as an example that a Stormtrooper probably isn't going to suddenly be revealed as your performer's biggest fan and be willing to do you favors.

As the GM you're in charge of the game and your discretion rules whether something can happen or not.

Just like certain social checks will work well in some situations and won't in others. If a shopkeeper hates droids, your droid character might get a setback on his social checks with him. If you're talking to Lando, your sexy lady character might get a boost on social checks.

If someone were to try to seduce, bribe or charm a Stormtrooper, I'd set that at a pretty high difficulty even beyond what the Stormtrooper's Discipline or Cool might represent. If the Stormtrooper was on duty, in uniform, it'd be really tough to do, either a Hard or a Daunting check, probably with setbacks and perhaps upgraded.

No talent can override that beyond the GM's discretion.

Greased Palms lets you spend 50 credits per rank to upgrade your Social Interaction checks. You have to narritivly justify what you're spending the cash on.

Sound Investments grants you credits equal to your rank in the talent x100 at the beginning of each session.

And yeah, Good Cop/Bad Cop seems to just be a rules codification of something that's already well supported.

I have problems with talents like this. It's something any player should just be able to say to me "I'm going to offer some money to persuade them". I should also be able to say "well-disciplined and indoctrinated storm troopers never countenance bribes" when appropriate. I don't like talents that suddenly decide how my setting or characters are.

If you're the GM, then no player's talent or skill can override your position as the final arbiter of what happens in your game.

No talent can force you to roleplay a Stormtrooper taking a bribe if you don't feel like they would take a bribe. That's called out in the "Biggest Fan" talent, where it gives as an example that a Stormtrooper probably isn't going to suddenly be revealed as your performer's biggest fan and be willing to do you favors.

As the GM you're in charge of the game and your discretion rules whether something can happen or not.

Just like certain social checks will work well in some situations and won't in others. If a shopkeeper hates droids, your droid character might get a setback on his social checks with him. If you're talking to Lando, your sexy lady character might get a boost on social checks.

If someone were to try to seduce, bribe or charm a Stormtrooper, I'd set that at a pretty high difficulty even beyond what the Stormtrooper's Discipline or Cool might represent. If the Stormtrooper was on duty, in uniform, it'd be really tough to do, either a Hard or a Daunting check, probably with setbacks and perhaps upgraded.

No talent can override that beyond the GM's discretion.

I'm aware of all that. But I'm then put in the position of running a game where people have spent XP on something which doesn't do what the rules say it does. It also has the other problem I mentioned where they've spent XP on something that I have no problem with players who don't have the talent doing just as well. (Or alternately not allowing people to do everyday things without spending XP on a special talent). Allowing its effects, disallowing its effects, neither outcome is as good as no-one having it in the first place.

Your players have to take common sense into account.

I don't have Far Horizons with me, but if Greased Palms lets you spend 50 credits to upgrade your ability on a social check, does that say anything about what the difficulty is? Unless I'm mistaken the GM is in charge of setting that difficulty, right?

Sorry if it's not working out for you, it seems pretty manageable to me. Any talent in the game is under the GM's discretion, and common sense applies as well.

I have problems with talents like this. It's something any player should just be able to say to me "I'm going to offer some money to persuade them".

As in Col. Orange's example:

Like the Greased Palms talent? I sometimes visualise the narrative behind the game effect of stuff like that as maybe you're not offering the NPC you're talking to a bribe. Instead maybe it's a flashback to you bribing a grunt or administrator or servant for clues about what your target likes/needs/fears/trusts - and that is what that'll help you Charm/Negotiate/Coerce/Deceive the NPC you're now talking to in the present.

Also, where is this notion that Stormtroopers are emotionless robots come from? Can they not care? Can they not feel? Do they not have needs, and wants, and desires?

If I blast them, will they not bleed?

I have problems with talents like this. It's something any player should just be able to say to me "I'm going to offer some money to persuade them".

They still can. The Talent just overrides "world reality" in some way to allow it when you the GM would normally say no.

Yes, but these are all things a player should be coming up with the way I play. Implacable, disdainful of money official? Then players start imagining other ways they can gain leverage. Now they're being creative. That's how I like my games to run - you don't spend XP and get a "clever plan" button. You work it out yourself. And there is still the problem of why you need the talent to do this. If an official will look the other way for 50 credits then they're willing to look the other way for 0 credits. It's up to the players to think of trying it and risk causing offense. You don't need to spend XP in my game to think of bribing someone.

Also, where is this notion that Stormtroopers are emotionless robots come from? Can they not care? Can they not feel? Do they not have needs, and wants, and desires?

If I blast them, will they not bleed?

Oh I was just picking an in-universe example of someone I thought would probably be fairly professional. And, no they probably wont bleed if you blast them. I would imagine plasma wounds are pretty much self-cauterizing and any actual blood left will probably rapidly become an explosive red steam cloud.

Yes, but these are all things a player should be coming up with the way I play. Implacable, disdainful of money official? Then players start imagining other ways they can gain leverage. Now they're being creative. That's how I like my games to run - you don't spend XP and get a "clever plan" button. You work it out yourself. And there is still the problem of why you need the talent to do this. If an official will look the other way for 50 credits then they're willing to look the other way for 0 credits. It's up to the players to think of trying it and risk causing offense. You don't need to spend XP in my game to think of bribing someone.

It's the player who maybe isn't so quick thinking or suave or cunning, to be able to play the cunning, suave, quick thinker.

There's nothing stopping the 'extraneous' planners from planning, but I'm of the feeling this system is meant to "speed things along" and have "players stop worrying about crossing every 'i' and dotting every 't'".

Which will completely fall flat for some groups.

Oh I was just picking an in-universe example of someone I thought would probably be fairly professional.

But it's one I made at my table when our GM first had a bit of snit over the Stormtroopers being completely hoodwinked into letting my Jawa go, when they had him dead to rights on completely coincidental evidence. Rolling that many dice for Deceit should be a sin.

And, no they probably wont bleed if you blast them. I would imagine plasma wounds are pretty much self-cauterizing and any actual blood left will probably rapidly become an explosive red steam cloud.

The thing is, I don't think Greased Palms actually represents just 50 credits. That's what the PC has to have, but the Spec is meant to have a lot of money and contacts at their disposal, given that they've got investments constantly paying out and what-not. Not only that, but if it represented you paying off the NPC you're dealing with.. I don't think that would require a check? I mean, you might need a check to see if they'll take the bribe.. but if they don't, you wouldn't be out the credits, and if they did take the bribe, then why do you need to check to charm them or whatever?

I'd absolutely interpret this as a flashback, or as an example of the Entrepreneurs extended resources that exist behind the scenes.

I like this new book. Problem is, I have a munchkin in the group I run. First question he asked was whether or not the defensive bonuses from the riot shield stack with those given by armour or cover. I figure it doesn't, because armour defense and cover don't stack, but I figure I ought to ask the forums.
So, would the riot shield's bonuses stack with armour or cover?

I like this new book. Problem is, I have a munchkin in the group I run. First question he asked was whether or not the defensive bonuses from the riot shield stack with those given by armour or cover. I figure it doesn't, because armour defense and cover don't stack, but I figure I ought to ask the forums.

So, would the riot shield's bonuses stack with armour or cover?