They don't take anything I say in character as the GM at face value.

Example 1:

They unknowingly stole the ship of a Black Sun Vigo (someone else told them it was his ship and they could have it). The Black Sun Vigo confronts them, pulls them aside with a large entourage of heavily armed men, and interrogates them. He understands the misunderstanding, but asks for 25k credits as a down payment on the ship, and requires work from them going forward.

My group has about 30k credits between them. They lie and say they only have at most, 2500 credits on them. Realistically, I couldn't think of any way the Vigo could have known they were lying outright, so I let the player roll deception. Can you believe the stats in the back of the book for Vigos have no ranks in discipline? Anyway, I add 2-3 setback dice for the situation, remembered Nobody's Fool, and the player still succeeds.

I put this encounter in there to get credits away from them as I made the mistake of giving too much to start. I put them in a room with a powerful crime lord, one of his top lieutenants, and 4 heavy blaster rifles pointed at their heads. They lie their way out of it. I think I'll have to damage their ship. Repairs are costly and don't have a lot of negotiating room.

Example 2:

They were tasked with capturing a pirate. I basically did Trouble Brewing from the back of the Core Book, except their employer wanted him dead and offered more money than the Imperials, but only if he was alive. Well they killed the guy, but got the 2k reward from the Rodian for the droid which made up most of the difference between their employer's lower price and the Imperials (they didn't realize the Imperials wouldn't pay up) and took the body to their employer.

Their employer made a simple comment lamenting that he wished he could have questioned the guy before he died, but would still pay out the lower rate. The player took this and ran with it. What did you want to know? I might know what he knew, how much would you pay me? Etc.

I stopped him before he could get all those questions out, because I knew it wasn't something that their employer would accept, but I felt like if I played it out as the employer, the player would have kept pushing, and searching for some way to get more money out of the guy without realizing the guy wasn't interested. I hate saying things like, "As the GM, no that won't get you anywhere."

Example 3:

Their ship is approaching the space station they are headed to and the docking bay hails them and reminds them of the 200 credit docking fee. The party has around 10k credits per person. The Wookiee performer immediately jumps on the comms and tries flirting with the guy to waive the fee. And he doesn't stop when the guy on the other end says that's the fee.

Everything has an angle, a sidestep, or a way for them to profit and it gets rather frustrating as the GM. I feel like I have to keep breaking character and telling them GM to player it won't work. Then the one player says when I do that he shuts down and gets less interested in doing anything, and then the group misses things they are SUPPOSED to chase after.

I'm friends with these guys, so I am comfortable talking to them, I just don't know how to get my point across without sounding like they suck at playing and need to play my way.

Honestly out of those 3 situations it seems they are trying to role play their situations. As much as I want to side with you as a fellow GM, I find it hard.

If they want to roll, let them roll. But like you are supposed to do, don't set the scene like "if you 'win' the roll you pay nothing or hide it all." set it like "The fee is lowered by 15% anything lower than that would bring imperial attention"

For the Vigo, how do they hide this money? talking doesn't make someone believe they have next to nothing especially when it is easy to check. Again the problem was how you framed what the results could be. If they have physical items they can be searched, if it is electronic it can be found.

So I think the weaseling is on your end, as you are squeezing your way out of giving them the appropriate challenges.

Think of all checks like you would a combat check. Shooting someone is normal, shooting their hand is harder. shooting their trigger finger is very hard, and shooting a slug coming out of a slug thrower is next to impossible.

So when you frame your difficulty think, "how can this be done?". Hiding a few bucks? pretty easy not even worth a roll. Hiding a wad of cash, probably a bit harder. Hiding stacks of cash? pretty difficult, Hiding Scrooge McDuck's fortune, next to impossible.

So as you see the issue isn't them trying to squeeze their way out of things, it is them perfectly role playing their characters and you not listing the correct challenge for them.

I hope this information helps a bit I wish you luck on your future endeavors.

Honestly out of those 3 situations it seems they are trying to role play their situations. As much as I want to side with you as a fellow GM, I find it hard.

If they want to roll, let them roll. But like you are supposed to do, don't set the scene like "if you 'win' the roll you pay nothing or hide it all." set it like "The fee is lowered by 15% anything lower than that would bring imperial attention"

For the Vigo, how do they hide this money? talking doesn't make someone believe they have next to nothing especially when it is easy to check. Again the problem was how you framed what the results could be. If they have physical items they can be searched, if it is electronic it can be found.

So I think the weaseling is on your end, as you are squeezing your way out of giving them the appropriate challenges.

Think of all checks like you would a combat check. Shooting someone is normal, shooting their hand is harder. shooting their trigger finger is very hard, and shooting a slug coming out of a slug thrower is next to impossible.

So when you frame your difficulty think, "how can this be done?". Hiding a few bucks? pretty easy not even worth a roll. Hiding a wad of cash, probably a bit harder. Hiding stacks of cash? pretty difficult, Hiding Scrooge McDuck's fortune, next to impossible.

So as you see the issue isn't them trying to squeeze their way out of things, it is them perfectly role playing their characters and you not listing the correct challenge for them.

I hope this information helps a bit I wish you luck on your future endeavors.

Hey look, I framed my post wrong too!

I fully admit it is something I could be doing. How do I better emphasize story cues as to what is significant to follow and what isn't, and how do I explain dead ends without having to go OOC every single time. I think that's what I was trying to say.

I didn't even think of them being searched. Would have worked perfectly too, I think.

You can't force them not to be swindlers, just limit the opportunities and add additional consequences.

Next time you want to charge a docking fee have a droid deliver the message over a link, even a flirtatious wookie can't charm a logic processor.

Give the party a reputation as an untrustworthy bunch who'll do anything for money, suddenly you have a reason to offer them less for jobs and you can give NPC's a bonus when being lied to because they already distrust the group.

Next time you want hostile negotiations give the crime Lord inside information, plant a spy/droid close to the group or let him know how much the group got paid for their last mission. Or offer to take kneecaps as payment instead.

You can't force them not to be swindlers, just limit the opportunities and add additional consequences.

Next time you want to charge a docking fee have a droid deliver the message over a link, even a flirtatious wookie can't charm a logic processor.

Give the party a reputation as an untrustworthy bunch who'll do anything for money, suddenly you have a reason to offer them less for jobs and you can give NPC's a bonus when being lied to because they already distrust the group.

Next time you want hostile negotiations give the crime Lord inside information, plant a spy/droid close to the group or let him know how much the group got paid for their last mission. Or offer to take kneecaps as payment instead.

There was a player whose character was not in the negotiating room. He was appalled at the line of thought the guys in the room were taking. He was all for paying up, but he wasn't there to do anything about it. So I know I didn't make it super easy.

Thanks for the advice though, I appreciate it.

Avoiding an all-or-nothing approach to task resolution will help avoid situations like these.

In example one, there's no reason a single Deception result should make the Vigo drop the other 22,500 credits as if he forgot that's what was being demanded. A successful roll should mean he accepts what he thinks they have on them for now. But next time they better have the rest for sure.

Example two sounds like some form of Negotiation or Coercion attempt to keep him talking. If an action is at all possible and success vs failure will have meaningful results either way (which encounters should always be designed around such actions), the PCs should be allowed to roll against it. Even if they succeed despite the difficulty and setback, so what really? It wasn't an impossible task and it doubtfully would grind the plot to a halt. Let the NPC provide more answers to the characters, it's their story.

Thirdly, assuming the docking coordinator even speaks Wookiee, let him roll Charm with some setback. A success or two might mean they get registered incorrectly as a cheaper class of docking and save 20 credits. A Triumph and he'll grant them another favor for them in other instances. Again, not an impossible action but it doesn't have to succeed exactly as hoped.

The players are often going to have a different idea about what is a 'reasonable' action, but as long as it fits the tone just let them know whether it's either utterly physically impossible or too mundane to warrant a skill check. Everything else is a skill check.

Avoiding an all-or-nothing approach to task resolution will help avoid situations like these.

In example one, there's no reason a single Deception result should make the Vigo drop the other 22,500 credits as if he forgot that's what was being demanded. A successful roll should mean he accepts what he thinks they have on them for now. But next time they better have the rest for sure.

Example two sounds like some form of Negotiation or Coercion attempt to keep him talking. If an action is at all possible and success vs failure will have meaningful results either way (which encounters should always be designed around such actions), the PCs should be allowed to roll against it. Even if they succeed despite the difficulty and setback, so what really? It wasn't an impossible task and it doubtfully would grind the plot to a halt. Let the NPC provide more answers to the characters, it's their story.

Thirdly, assuming the docking coordinator even speaks Wookiee, let him roll Charm with some setback. A success or two might mean they get registered incorrectly as a cheaper class of docking and save 20 credits. A Triumph and he'll grant them another favor for them in other instances. Again, not an impossible action but it doesn't have to succeed exactly as hoped.

The players are often going to have a different idea about what is a 'reasonable' action, but as long as it fits the tone just let them know whether it's either utterly physically impossible or too mundane are to warrant a skill check. Everything else is a skill check.

Thinking about it now, they were shopping for some gear in an earlier session and wanted extreme discounts, but I held firm at the price or much closer to it if they rolled negotiation and they accepted it. I can't believe I didn't think to apply those principles to these other situations. Thanks.

Oh, and for the record, they definitely still owe the Vigo, and he is using that as leverage to get what he wants. They are actually being manipulated by two different Vigos, but they don't know enough about the other guy.

In example one, there's no reason a single Deception result should make the Vigo drop the other 22,500 credits as if he forgot that's what was being demanded. A successful roll should mean he accepts what he thinks they have on them for now. But next time they better have the rest for sure.

Some bad guys shouldn't flinch in the face of negotiations.

If the party convinces him that they only have 2,500 don't just accept what he thinks they've got, turn out their pockets and take their credit sticks. It's an action he can take regardless of whether he believes them or not, he'll just be expecting to see 2,500 instead of 25,000.

If he's particularly evil he'd take their credit sticks worth 30,000, after the party said they only have 2,500, and tell them he'd collect on the other 22,500 next time. Instant broke and in debt to a crime boss.

It's like trying to convince someone pointing a gun at you that their safety is on.

Some people will check the safety, giving you an opening to act, but others will just pull the trigger (the quickest way to check).

You need to figure out which kind of person the NPC is before the players start to negotiate.

Convincing an NPC of something doesn't mean he has to act in a way that is favourable to the players. In this case the players convinced the crime Lord they couldn't pay the 25,000 he demanded for the use of the ship, he could have turned around and said he had no choice but to take the ship back.

Avoiding an all-or-nothing approach to task resolution will help avoid situations like these.

(snip)

Example two sounds like some form of Negotiation or Coercion attempt to keep him talking.

Exactly. The problem with Deception is if the Vigo finds out, the PCs are either dead, or the Vigo pulls a Jabba..."ho ho ho, these are my kind of scum", and they now have a ridiculous obligation.

I sometimes have had to step out of game to put boundaries on what the players are asking. The NPC in my last game wanted the PCs to take a shipment, and they'd get 10% of the proceeds. They countered with 50%...which was way outside the ballpark of "standard practice". So I had to step out of game and say the most anybody ever gets for this kind of thing is 20-25.

But actually the important part is to try to bring these kinds of things down to one die roll, after explaining the parameters and depending on how they want to approach the situation. You rarely want to role-play out the whole conversation unless you have a specific agenda or goal with it. If it's just a random thing the players picked up on, summarize the whole process down to one roll. So for your second example, you could let the player roll once, with success and advantage getting them a bit further. But you don't need to let the players badger you with all the possible questions they can think of, with a roll for each. Insightful or witty or thoughtful questions might get a boost die for the one roll, but that's it. That way you still control the flow of the game, and you control the information/credits/whathaveyou that get disseminated.

For the third example, you don't even have to give them an option. Sometimes you can allow it, but you're never obligated to. You can allow it when maybe you initiate it, like when the station guy says "nice to see some action, sure is quiet out there". But if there's a star destroyer hovering nearby, you're not going to get any station guy to budge. At best, if they come up with a *great* story, he'll boot it upstairs, to the station chief (who has appropriate levels of Discipline and/or Greed ), or the ISD captain hovering nearby.

And just a final comment on using social skills against minions: the way the dice pools are set up, if you aren't careful, anybody with a Charm of YYG can start to feel like Obiwan against the weak-minded. It's not supposed to work that way. These social skills aren't replacements for the Influence power. People don't do whatever they say just because they have a fetish for Wookiee growls over an intercom. If the players are just doing it for "what the heck" reasons, IMHO that's just bogging down game play, so feel free to demand whatever DP flips or red dice upgrades you want.

The beauty of the transparent dice rolls is that you get to show them, but you don't always have to explain it, or you can explain it later. Why are they rolling their YYGG Charm against 4 red dice and 2 setback? Because they aren't just rolling against the station guy (who knows he's being watched), they're rolling against:

- the station chief, who is nervous because of the ISD and he doesn't want any show of incompetent in his sector, especially not since he made that deal a while ago to let some ships dock for free...thank the Force those guys haven't shown up

- the ISD captain, who has heard of dubious activity in this sector, and suspects the station chief of being a Rebel agent

- the ISD communications lieutenant, who's a rising star and eager to make his mark even if it means trampling over this old idiot captain. Time to refresh the ranks...

...etc

Basically, minions have motives too, and all the Charm in the world won't get a minion to act as if under the Influence power.

Obligation. Give them all a crazy Debt or Favour Obligation to the Vigo, or say that he found out about their deception and is gunning for their blood. Hello Bounty Obligation!

Obligation. Give them all a crazy Debt or Favour Obligation to the Vigo, or say that he found out about their deception and is gunning for their blood. Hello Bounty Obligation!

The party is already at a total of 86 obligation between 5 players, though we seem to only ever get 4 to come to a given session. They still owe this guy, I'm just not putting a mechanical number on it as I feel the consequences outweight the narrative.

1. If I was selling my car I would have an idea just how much a comparable car would have sold for or the house up the street if I was selling my house. Until the players get into the ball park run it like a normal negotiation. Ask for $30k get offered $2.5k laugh and wait. When they come up to $20k come down to $27k once the gap between the players low and the desired high seems reasonable roll for it. At this point set the parameters as you would and give black dice or blue dice if they have negotiated in good faith or not.

You could also barter with goods or services, and while this may look like obligation it doesn’t have to be an obligation as such. It may if the players don’t perform or act on the promise.

2. So your employer turns and walks out of the room. Perhaps he now sees the PCs as duplicitous money grubbers and will never work with them again. Slowly allow the players reputation precede them. NPC’s will refuse to employ them unless they can’t avoid it, or start the bidding very low. (I have a $30k job: Let me start at $2.5k.

3. I can flirt with the girl at McDonalds and maybe get a smile from her. Sometimes it is what it is. Excuse me sir the docking fee is 200cr and it is unpaid. My manager will not allow me to change this, and until the fee is paid I am not allowed to release the docking clamps. Again apply reputation penalties and such.

Put up an NPC crew to bid against the characters, if the players are too good at raising the payment they expect just have the employer say thanks but he will pass on the players and go with Captain Jur’all and his crew. Now the players risk having their competitors crew gain reputation for being a good job for a fair price and after a time they could perhaps end up sub-contracting to the PC’s for a fee less than they took the job for.

If the players miss 4-5 jobs and have nothing to show for it but the docking fees and berthing costs then even allowing Captain Jur’all a 10% finders fee for the same job they were passed over on will seem like a good plan.

In some regards a social encounter could happen without any dice rolls. Say you were the checkout chick at McDonalds and any shortfall in a payment was yours to pay would you allow any discounts? If you say no, then accept that no matter what the players do they either pay up or get no soup.

Also keep in mind that the players reputations will travel faster in a small village or space station. If the players keep going on and on like this you could run reputation as a morality type of game mechanic. And at <30 apply bad effects or at 80+ apply good effects.

I'm going to take a different line and suggest that perhaps you should consider being more flexible and working with your players, not against them. None of the actions you have described seem like they threaten a storyline or force things to grind to a halt, unless the narrative is already firmly on rails, and any deviation, as you say, is designed to get them nowhere. Basically, any time you need to go out of character to say "That won't work" or "There's nothing behind that door", view it as a storytelling opportunity to put something behind that door. What if it does work?

Instead of their employer simply having no interest in information they are trying to offer, have him express his concerns or doubts. Allow your players to negotiate with him, either hoodwink him with false intel (that he may well figure out later, to their peril), or go out of their way to track down what he wants, or have an actual conversation that leads them to understand why continuing to press him won't work.

Flirting with a traffic controller to waive a docking fee is hardly a big game issue: why not let your players try it? Worse case scenario, they save a few hundred credits. Your players sound like they're roleplaying scoundrels quite well, and it sounds like you're frustrated with them for not doing what you expect. Yes, you put them in a tough situation against a Black Sun Vigo and they lied their way out of it! This should be cause for celebration all round. They pulled it off! Why get mad at them for not rolling over and giving in like you anticipated? Edge is a RPG system that particularly encourages the GM working with her players, not against them.

In summary, the players aren't meant to take what you say as GM at "face value", in as much as they go along with everything without trying to weasel out of it. Look at how many things Han Solo weaselled his way out of: just because they end up telling a story you didn't entirely plan, doesn't mean it can't be a great story that everyone has fun telling.

There is nothing wrong with any of this.

Your players are doing great.

You are doing great throwing these situations at them.

You have a series of stories of how you tried to beat the players down and they find (or try to find) some way around it all. That's not a problem, that's some good gaming.

I'm going to take a different line and suggest that perhaps you should consider being more flexible and working with your players, not against them. None of the actions you have described seem like they threaten a storyline or force things to grind to a halt, unless the narrative is already firmly on rails, and any deviation, as you say, is designed to get them nowhere. Basically, any time you need to go out of character to say "That won't work" or "There's nothing behind that door", view it as a storytelling opportunity to put something behind that door. What if it does work?

Instead of their employer simply having no interest in information they are trying to offer, have him express his concerns or doubts. Allow your players to negotiate with him, either hoodwink him with false intel (that he may well figure out later, to their peril), or go out of their way to track down what he wants, or have an actual conversation that leads them to understand why continuing to press him won't work.

Flirting with a traffic controller to waive a docking fee is hardly a big game issue: why not let your players try it? Worse case scenario, they save a few hundred credits. Your players sound like they're roleplaying scoundrels quite well, and it sounds like you're frustrated with them for not doing what you expect. Yes, you put them in a tough situation against a Black Sun Vigo and they lied their way out of it! This should be cause for celebration all round. They pulled it off! Why get mad at them for not rolling over and giving in like you anticipated? Edge is a RPG system that particularly encourages the GM working with her players, not against them.

In summary, the players aren't meant to take what you say as GM at "face value", in as much as they go along with everything without trying to weasel out of it. Look at how many things Han Solo weaselled his way out of: just because they end up telling a story you didn't entirely plan, doesn't mean it can't be a great story that everyone has fun telling.

The way that I see it, it's more a problem that this gets in the way of "the game" where the game is the adventure the GM had planned. They challenge every little premise that the adventure is built on seeing if they can break it / get around it / exploit it. And I can well see how that would become annoying very quickly. I've had players like this and they're really bothersome. The GM has planned out this adventure and...

GM: "The figure sits back in light of the tavern's fireside, his glittering eyes just visible within his hood as he rasps: 'I have a bag of gold for any who can bring me the goblin chief's head."

Player 1: "I want to see if I can flirt with the tavern keeper to get our ales for free."

Player 2: "I demand five bags of gold. I'm rolling Charm."

Player 3: "I'll help player 1 with his flirting."

Player 2: "Actually, forget that, I'm going to go and find a poverty-stricken peasant who'll take a message to the goblin chief and see how much he'll pay for this stranger".

Player 4: "I pull back his hood. What do I need to roll to pull his hood back?"

It gets old fast when you just want to run your adventure that you've written.

KnasserII has got it.

I have been in that situation, and it is terribly frustrating. So, no, it is not the GM's fault. On the other hand, maybe it isn't the players' fault either.

I would say, talk to them. Tell them, that roleplaying is not players vs. GM. Some players seem to think so. My players used to think so. They kept their plans secret, so they could catch me unprepared. And they haggled and lied about everything to get rich and get better equipment for next to nothing.

Tell them that your game is not only about them getting rich quick or trying to scam every person in the galaxy.

Plus there are consequences to doing so. You mentioned their obligation is rather high. Eventually, they can neither spend their xp or trade with anyone, because of their rotten reputation.

I'm going to take a different line and suggest that perhaps you should consider being more flexible and working with your players, not against them. None of the actions you have described seem like they threaten a storyline or force things to grind to a halt, unless the narrative is already firmly on rails, and any deviation, as you say, is designed to get them nowhere. Basically, any time you need to go out of character to say "That won't work" or "There's nothing behind that door", view it as a storytelling opportunity to put something behind that door. What if it does work?

Instead of their employer simply having no interest in information they are trying to offer, have him express his concerns or doubts. Allow your players to negotiate with him, either hoodwink him with false intel (that he may well figure out later, to their peril), or go out of their way to track down what he wants, or have an actual conversation that leads them to understand why continuing to press him won't work.

Flirting with a traffic controller to waive a docking fee is hardly a big game issue: why not let your players try it? Worse case scenario, they save a few hundred credits. Your players sound like they're roleplaying scoundrels quite well, and it sounds like you're frustrated with them for not doing what you expect. Yes, you put them in a tough situation against a Black Sun Vigo and they lied their way out of it! This should be cause for celebration all round. They pulled it off! Why get mad at them for not rolling over and giving in like you anticipated? Edge is a RPG system that particularly encourages the GM working with her players, not against them.

In summary, the players aren't meant to take what you say as GM at "face value", in as much as they go along with everything without trying to weasel out of it. Look at how many things Han Solo weaselled his way out of: just because they end up telling a story you didn't entirely plan, doesn't mean it can't be a great story that everyone has fun telling.

The way that I see it, it's more a problem that this gets in the way of "the game" where the game is the adventure the GM had planned. They challenge every little premise that the adventure is built on seeing if they can break it / get around it / exploit it. And I can well see how that would become annoying very quickly. I've had players like this and they're really bothersome. The GM has planned out this adventure and...

GM: "The figure sits back in light of the tavern's fireside, his glittering eyes just visible within his hood as he rasps: 'I have a bag of gold for any who can bring me the goblin chief's head."

Player 1: "I want to see if I can flirt with the tavern keeper to get our ales for free."

Player 2: "I demand five bags of gold. I'm rolling Charm."

Player 3: "I'll help player 1 with his flirting."

Player 2: "Actually, forget that, I'm going to go and find a poverty-stricken peasant who'll take a message to the goblin chief and see how much he'll pay for this stranger".

Player 4: "I pull back his hood. What do I need to roll to pull his hood back?"

It gets old fast when you just want to run your adventure that you've written.

I had to laugh, this is so what GM-ing is like for me. Too bad the only reasonable PC is a wookiee so no-one can understand him anyway. Its just a shame that they don't take the source material seriously. I know in games like Dark Heresy they say "feel free to kill your PCs!" but some PCs get really sulky and feel really betrayed if they don't get what they want, or if you shut them down instantly. But its the dice, man.

Everything has an angle, a sidestep, or a way for them to profit and it gets rather frustrating as the GM. I feel like I have to keep breaking character and telling them GM to player it won't work.

Okay, my question for you is: why are you trying to railroad your players like that? If I'm playing a Face, my job - the very point of my entire existence - is to get us out of trouble by smooth talking, lying and turning us a profit without the mark being any the wiser. If the blaster fire starts, then I screwed up somehow. If We don't come away with that Vigo not only giving us a healthy return, but feeling like he got the better end of the deal on us, then I dropped the ball.

If I was a player and you were pissed about me "undercutting" your plot like this, I would walk the the hell away from the table. So no, the issue isn't on them - it's on you. You need more flexible plotting.

Everything has an angle, a sidestep, or a way for them to profit and it gets rather frustrating as the GM. I feel like I have to keep breaking character and telling them GM to player it won't work.

Okay, my question for you is: why are you trying to railroad your players like that? If I'm playing a Face, my job - the very point of my entire existence - is to get us out of trouble by smooth talking, lying and turning us a profit without the mark being any the wiser. If the blaster fire starts, then I screwed up somehow. If We don't come away with that Vigo not only giving us a healthy return, but feeling like he got the better end of the deal on us, then I dropped the ball.

If I was a player and you were pissed about me undercutting your plot like this, I would walk the the hell away from the table. So no, the issue isn't on them - it's on you. You need more flexible plotting.

What you are describing is exactly that, undercutting.

Of course the GM is going to be annoyed if players are doing that non-stop. And it is not only on the GM.

Rowdy: It sounds like there is a need to sort out what kind of game you are playing. If the players think they are playing MMO, board games or video games, there will be conflicts. If they are just roleplaying, that's great. Make sure they understand that this situation will resolve nothing and move on.

It makes perfect sense that you can't just grab every single encounter and run with it. That's not railroading, that's prioritizing. Small encounters are great, but if the ruin the entire adventure, cut some of them loose.

If I'm playing a Face, my job - the very point of my entire existence - is to get us out of trouble by smooth talking, lying and turning us a profit without the mark being any the wiser. If the blaster fire starts, then I screwed up somehow. If We don't come away with that Vigo not only giving us a healthy return, but feeling like he got the better end of the deal on us, then I dropped the ball.

Key words missing here are "within reason". You might be the Face with a Charm of YYYYY, but you can't look at the Vigo and go "D-d-dad? Don't you recognize me?"

I always want to find a way to say "yes, but...", but sometimes players are just way outside the boundaries. It's important to be flexible, but it's also important that the players respect the boundaries. If the GM is always having to push the players back inside the boundaries, it's no longer fun.

What you are describing is exactly that, undercutting.

Okay, lets take a look at the three examples -

1) Pulling the wool over the eyes of a Vigo was probably a pretty major turning point for the game. Obligation, angry vigo, repercussions. However, not planning for The Face doing their job - baffleing them with bullshittery - and forcing the game to go one way because Thats What The Script Says is poor planning.

2) The "Perhaps I know something" lie - that seems a perfectly reasonable scam and I'm faliuing to see how it's game breaking. It's at the end of the an adventure, everything is wrapping up, it's not going to derail anything (and if anything, it'll add complication down the road when this dude figures out that he was had) - so how is this scam a bad thing?

3) Getting someone to wave the docking fee is game breaking? Really? Let the Face be as useful penny pinching as the Marauder is at killing mooks.

Unless the game is a Sandbox, yes there has to be some kind of buy-in from everyone at the table that when an NPC comes up to the party in the cantina and goes "The Imperials have stolen the Lost Ark of Zodin. Go get it." that everyone goes and gets the MacGuffin. I have no issue with that. However, if the GM didn't want him playing a Face that's going to bamboozle everyone left, right and center, why did he sign off on the character?

Key words missing here are "within reason". You might be the Face with a Charm of YYYYY, but you can't look at the Vigo and go "D-d-dad? Don't you recognize me?"

I always want to find a way to say "yes, but...", but sometimes players are just way outside the boundaries. It's important to be flexible, but it's also important that the players respect the boundaries. If the GM is always having to push the players back inside the boundaries, it's no longer fun.

Well, depends - if someone has 5 yellows, they probably also have a healthy selection of talents to support those dice and possibly the Unmatched Expertise sig ability to boot. If someone has that level of points sunk into a Lie To People skill, then yes they should be very good at their profession.

Okay, lets ask this - does Roudy have an issue with a Marauder absolutely destroying all minions in every fight they get in? Does he have an issue with the pilot dominating every dogfight that comes their way? Does he have an issue with any other archtype in their game doing their chosen profession very, very well?

If not, then why is saving 200 bucks on a landing fee that big of a deal.

I'm not saying that he should roll over for everything - that Vigo? Oh hell yes there should have been a fist full of purples and a bunch of upgrades and a ton of black dice. If you're trying to sell sand to Jabba, it is going to be a tough roll - but that's what the face does, makes the bad guys smile while taking their fibs at face value.

We disagree. That's fine.

Rowdy came here for help, you only offered that he "was pissed" with his players, wanted to "walk the hell away from the table" and that the problem was him. Decidedly not helpful. Very far from the fun roleplaying is supposed to be.

I just offered a way to try and resolve the issue. Take it or leave it.

Well, depends - if someone has 5 yellows, they probably also have a healthy selection of talents to support those dice and possibly the Unmatched Expertise sig ability to boot. If someone has that level of points sunk into a Lie To People skill, then yes they should be very good at their profession.

Of course, but the player has to make it somewhat reasonable, and it's not a replacement for Influence.

Perhaps I read wrong, bit to me it sounded more like the OP was having problems with players continuing along exhausted lines of action. To take the second example, if I was running. I wouldn't have an issue with "Maybe I know something." I have a problem if the Face insists on talking and and bartering it for half an hour of real-time. Its the same problem one can have with a slicer that wants to spend all his time slicing into the kitchen computer.

To get out of these, I usually provide extended time narration after the first roll. Take the same example, if he made a decent roll, I'd say something akin to "At first he seems rather hopeful, but as his questions get more and more specific you are forced to backpedal and cover your tracks before he realized you were lying. He pays you an extra 150 credits for the info as you leave.