This is a specific issue, but asks a larger question which is: in a narrative "yes and" system, when is it ok to say that something doesn't work?

My example. A character with Charm is attempting to get past Stormtroopers. Charm is opposed by Cool, based on Presence. Stormtroopers have Presence 1 and no Cool skill. This means anyone with a decent Charm skill is going to be able to charm Stormtroopers most of the time, as the difficulty is 1P. Not very tough.

Stormtroopers are described as "implacable foes" with Sergeants being "calculating fearless individuals with a reputation for efficiency and an absolute lack of mercy or any emotion in the execution of their duties".

I can imagine charm working in certain specific circumstances, but most of the time it should not even be possible against these guys. I don't think even upgrades or setbacks cover it.

What do you think? Is it ok in some situations to say thematically "That won't work" even though, mechanically, there are rules to do it?

This is where the "narrative" part comes into play. Make the player narrate their attempt at being charming and take that into account when determining difficulty, or dice pool,or if they wow you with their idea just outright deciding automatic success (or failure if they wow you with face palm).

Give the Sargent a Cool of 2 or have the check against them be done against Discipline. The Discipline skill is much more appropriate resistance to Charm against a tough drilled opponent like Stormtroopers or COMPNAR Agents.

Also, don't forget to use a destiny point to add a Red

This is where the "narrative" part comes into play. Make the player narrate their attempt at being charming and take that into account when determining difficulty, or dice pool,or if they wow you with their idea just outright deciding automatic success (or failure if they wow you with face palm).

I have never agreed with this approach as it penalizes players that are not able to quickly think on their feet and you are actually using the PLAYER'S Charm (or Negotiation et al) and not the CHARACTER'S Skills to make the judgement on.

For example, you would not recommend that a player punch you (or hit you with an axe) to modify how well their brawl or melee attack would do.

If the PC is trying to Charm an off-duty Trooper at the cantina, opposing with Cool is fine.

If the PC is trying to Charm an on-duty Trooper into disobeying his orders, oppose with Discipline.

The chart of what-opposes-what is suggestion. Go with what's most appropriate for the situation.

This is where the "narrative" part comes into play. Make the player narrate their attempt at being charming and take that into account when determining difficulty, or dice pool,or if they wow you with their idea just outright deciding automatic success (or failure if they wow you with face palm).

I have never agreed with this approach as it penalizes players that are not able to quickly think on their feet and you are actually using the PLAYER'S Charm (or Negotiation et al) and not the CHARACTER'S Skills to make the judgement on.

For example, you would not recommend that a player punch you (or hit you with an axe) to modify how well their brawl or melee attack would do.

I disagree, sure many players aren't good actors or very charming but I expect them to come up with an idea and explain it. They don't need to act it out completely but it never hurts (and I'm capable of not being swayed by a player's stutter when their character is supposed to be smooth like Calrissian).

There is a differance between having them come up with an idea to describe what they do and then letting them roll and giving them an auto pass if they manage to do a "good Job" acting it out and giving them a pass.

The "Narrative" part of the system should come into play by only giving them boost/ setback dice if they have a good/ poor description of what they are doing.

For example:

A Player wants his character to use the Inspiring Rhetoric Talent to help his allies regain stress and gain boost dice. The declaration alone should be the only thing needed to allow the action to take place.

• If the player wants to add on that they are reminding his allies of the duties that they have to the Rebellion or what ever that should net a boost die or 2
• If the player would like to recite the Saint Crispen's day speech from Henery V that should also only add a boost die or 2 NOT result in a automatic success

It is not a matter of not being able to overlook a stutter or not. It is a matter of forcing your perceived level of "acceptable" immersion on your players. If they enjoy memorizing and giving speeches or doing ad lib acting, then more power to them. However, is a player is uncomfortable doing so (for any reason) then penalizing them by not giving them boosts or even an auto failure because you dislike it is not fair to them.

I sometimes have to lay it out for my players and be honest with them. "Listen. This is a brainwashed stormtrooper. I can't think of a a good reason why he would be charmed into letting you into this restricted facility. But if you can pitch to me a good line, then we can roll with it. But I'm just not sure. Maybe deception or coercion would work better. That certainly makes a lot of sense."

Charm isn't mind control.

A player with fairly good charm *can* convince a stormtrooper of something reasonable.

What's reasonable depends on the circumstances and does include the mindset and training of a stormtrooper.

Want access to a secure area? You'll need to make the demand/request reasonable.

Do you have faked or real (stolen) security passes?

Are you wearing Imperial uniforms?

Want a stormtrooper to be merciful and not killl you? Not going to work.

Want a stormtrooper to not kill you...convince them an ISB agent needs you for questioning. That might work. And he'll take you into custody.

If the PC is trying to Charm an off-duty Trooper at the cantina, opposing with Cool is fine.

If the PC is trying to Charm an on-duty Trooper into disobeying his orders, oppose with Discipline.

The chart of what-opposes-what is suggestion. Go with what's most appropriate for the situation.

This is pretty much what I decided in my head to go with. Discipline makes much more sense with these guys.

I sometimes have to lay it out for my players and be honest with them. "Listen. This is a brainwashed stormtrooper. I can't think of a a good reason why he would be charmed into letting you into this restricted facility. But if you can pitch to me a good line, then we can roll with it. But I'm just not sure. Maybe deception or coercion would work better. That certainly makes a lot of sense."

This is also something I've done. The PC will say "I do x" and I go "No way is that going... ok, hold on. Tell me exactly how you are doing x". Sometimes the criteria for allowing it is just because it would be cool and/or funny if they pull it off.

There is a differance between having them come up with an idea to describe what they do and then letting them roll and giving them an auto pass if they manage to do a "good Job" acting it out and giving them a pass.

The "Narrative" part of the system should come into play by only giving them boost/ setback dice if they have a good/ poor description of what they are doing.

For example:

A Player wants his character to use the Inspiring Rhetoric Talent to help his allies regain stress and gain boost dice. The declaration alone should be the only thing needed to allow the action to take place.

• If the player wants to add on that they are reminding his allies of the duties that they have to the Rebellion or what ever that should net a boost die or 2
• If the player would like to recite the Saint Crispen's day speech from Henery V that should also only add a boost die or 2 NOT result in a automatic success

It is not a matter of not being able to overlook a stutter or not. It is a matter of forcing your perceived level of "acceptable" immersion on your players. If they enjoy memorizing and giving speeches or doing ad lib acting, then more power to them. However, is a player is uncomfortable doing so (for any reason) then penalizing them by not giving them boosts or even an auto failure because you dislike it is not fair to them.

I think there's some miscommunication here. You first reply made it sound like you didn't think the players should be able to influence the roll at all, which is awfully cut and dried for an RPG. Boost and setbacks makes a lot more sense.

Additionally, I don't think that Andres was saying that if a player can't wax poetic in iambic pantameter they just fail the test, or if they can, they automatically succeed. I think he's saying, "If the player tries to charm a Stormtrooper using sensual advances, and the character is playing a Gamorrean, that might be an automatic fail." Not, "If my player's comely female Twi'lek tries to charm the guard, but can't think of anything to say, that's an automatic fail."

Except he said exactly that:

"This is where the "narrative" part comes into play. Make the player narrate their attempt at being charming and take that into account when determining difficulty, or dice pool,or if they wow you with their idea just outright deciding automatic success (or failure if they wow you with face palm)."

(Emphasis mine)

Which is pretty must stating, that if I as a PLAYER do a good job of impressing the GM as a PERSON, my CHARACTER will succeed on the skill roll over the NPC, with no roll required. As well as, if I as a PLAYER do a poor job of impressing the GM as a PERSON, my CHARACTER will Fail on the skill roll over the NPC, with no roll required.

It is really hard to read that last clause any other way. It basically states, do a good job AS A PLAYER on a Physical Action, then your CHARACTER is rewarded for that.

Charm = Being sincere and complimenting/flattering the target.

Cool (Counters Charm)= looking through the the niceness to the true intent.

Coercion = Using threats of force or physical intimidation.

Deception = Lacks legitimate leverage and must lie.

Discipline (Counters Coercion and Deception)= Resisting threats, fear, and determining when someone is lying.

While I can see the side saying to counter the charm with Discipline, I'd rather ask, should Charm have been used at all? Seducing a trooper might make him think of you later and want to meet at the cantina when he gets off duty, but may not do much to have him risk the horrible painful death he faces for letting an unauthorized individual past. If so, should there have even been an opposed check? Many times, especially when dealing with minions, a difficulty check can be more appropriate.

It's hard for me to see when sleezing past troopers would work and equally hard for me to see characters being sincere in their advances. If there's no sincerity, then it's deception after all. It's much more likely, IMHO, a deception roll, which against a group of troopers, especially if they have a sergeant, is at least average difficulty. That's before the pile of setback dice they get to throw on from all the brainwashing, threats of death, fear of failure, etc.

Discipline is also linked to Willpower. Even if you're a really, really charming person, a stormtrooper, even though he is a sad, lonely person, simply through his own sense of duty and his military discipline he'll say no to your charming, wily ways, because his job is to not let anybody in, no matter how nice their smile is.

Cool can be used to ward off Charm attempts that could come from anywhere, such as running into a used car salesman and resisting a scam. Discipline could easily be used in any situation where your duty (your job or assignment, not the mechanic) is concerned, where you absolutely have to do/prevent something, and you have to resist attempts by others to charm/deceive/threaten you away from it.

This is a specific issue, but asks a larger question which is: in a narrative "yes and" system, when is it ok to say that something doesn't work?

"Yes, you charmed him, and he's still not going to let you through the door."

As many have stated here already, Charm isn't a super power and wont get you absolutely anything and everything you want. It will be somewhat situational such as, convincing a trooper you're an innocent who just happens to be passing by and to let you past a cordoned off area might be possible.. convincing a stormtrooper to let you walk into the restricted zone is far less likely especially if there's a reasonable chance that his punishment for failure is that he will be killed. But, if you have paperwork that is expired or has the right clearance but in a different station your charm might get them to make a special exception and let you in anyhow.

Charm is about convincing someone to make a special exception within reason. They're not likely to go and die for you or throw away their sense of duty completely. You have to be in a position that the bending of the rules can seem relatively small.

This is where the "narrative" part comes into play. Make the player narrate their attempt at being charming and take that into account when determining difficulty, or dice pool,or if they wow you with their idea just outright deciding automatic success (or failure if they wow you with face palm).

I have never agreed with this approach as it penalizes players that are not able to quickly think on their feet and you are actually using the PLAYER'S Charm (or Negotiation et al) and not the CHARACTER'S Skills to make the judgement on.

For example, you would not recommend that a player punch you (or hit you with an axe) to modify how well their brawl or melee attack would do.

Gotta disagree with this. I think it's a great approach.

"I attempt to charm the guard." roll dice - result....ugh, boring and unimaginative.

"I make some flirty eyes at the guard and ask him when he gets off duty." Interesting, now I have an idea of what's happening. He's young, single, and gets off duty soon.. blue die! He's married, and extremely loyal to his spouse and his employer.. black die!

As for stormtroopers, I think a lot would be based on location. Central worlds, likely unable to bribe or charm. Outer rim, more possible. Some distant posting in the middle of nowhere, or on a planet run by corrupt officers, there might be a possibility.

As for combat. I'll do the same thing. If the player comes up with something creative to do during combat, I'll allow them and give them blue or black dice accordingly.

"Yes and..." is rule number 1 of improv. It still has to make sense in the story and don`t break the scene and narrative. If you are being shot at, you will need a **** good explanation and description of why it should work!

Player: "I flip a destiny point, suddenly the seargent realize that my character really reminds him of his daughter. -you don`t have to do this, sir- I say, never thinking it will work, having no idea I look like the person he loves the most in the Galaxy"

Gm: "Wow!.. I mean yea, and add two black dice for the situation and his position and add 1 blue for that great story element, well done! This wouldn`t work if you didn`t flip the point"

Player: " I got 1 success and a threat on my charm roll"

Gm: "Ok.. The seargent shouts -Men, hold your fire!- He looks at you and says -Run, get out of here, don`t let me catch you here again-. If you don`t run they will continue to shoot at you. Some of the men are looking at eachother, the seargent, you, and wondering what the Sith just happened!.."

Cool is used to resist impulses that come from within a character. IOW, it's used to keep yourself from doing something that you want to do but might regret (like a seduction, a great deal at the market, or taking that tempting shot in your crosshairs right now). Conversely, Discipline is used to resist impulses that try to make you do something you don't want to do. If your characters are trying to get the Stormtrooper to do something that they don't want to do, it's far less likely to be Charm and more likely to be Deception and thus resisted with Discipline.

THX-1138 isn't going to let you into the secure room, but you did get a date for tonight!

This is where the "narrative" part comes into play. Make the player narrate their attempt at being charming and take that into account when determining difficulty, or dice pool,or if they wow you with their idea just outright deciding automatic success (or failure if they wow you with face palm).

I have never agreed with this approach as it penalizes players that are not able to quickly think on their feet and you are actually using the PLAYER'S Charm (or Negotiation et al) and not the CHARACTER'S Skills to make the judgement on.

For example, you would not recommend that a player punch you (or hit you with an axe) to modify how well their brawl or melee attack would do.

Gotta disagree with this. I think it's a great approach.

"I attempt to charm the guard." roll dice - result....ugh, boring and unimaginative.

"I make some flirty eyes at the guard and ask him when he gets off duty." Interesting, now I have an idea of what's happening. He's young, single, and gets off duty soon.. blue die! He's married, and extremely loyal to his spouse and his employer.. black die!

As for stormtroopers, I think a lot would be based on location. Central worlds, likely unable to bribe or charm. Outer rim, more possible. Some distant posting in the middle of nowhere, or on a planet run by corrupt officers, there might be a possibility.

As for combat. I'll do the same thing. If the player comes up with something creative to do during combat, I'll allow them and give them blue or black dice accordingly.

Did you actually read any of the thread after this post?

As I said, there is a difference between describing an action and giving a player a automatic success or failure on the roll because they, the PLAYER impressed you, THE GM with what they did.

So Player X wishes to attempt a social action, say a seduction attempt on a young princess to get into the court and pulls out a Shakespeare Sonnett and delivers it with passion and impresses the GM. Bravo...however that is the PLAYER doing the action not the CHARACTER doing so. At best it should be a boost die and NEVER an automatic success, which is what I was objecting to.

Except he said exactly that:

"This is where the "narrative" part comes into play. Make the player narrate their attempt at being charming and take that into account when determining difficulty, or dice pool,or if they wow you with their idea just outright deciding automatic success (or failure if they wow you with face palm)."

(Emphasis mine)

Which is pretty must stating, that if I as a PLAYER do a good job of impressing the GM as a PERSON, my CHARACTER will succeed on the skill roll over the NPC, with no roll required. As well as, if I as a PLAYER do a poor job of impressing the GM as a PERSON, my CHARACTER will Fail on the skill roll over the NPC, with no roll required.

It is really hard to read that last clause any other way. It basically states, do a good job AS A PLAYER on a Physical Action, then your CHARACTER is rewarded for that.

This sort of thing can be taken too far - particularly when a non-charismatic player wants to play a charismatic one and the GM "punishes" them for it.

But I like throwing out mechanical benefits - even automatic success sometimes - for good role playing.

I don't necessarily just base it on how amazing the idea is but how engaged the player is in the story.

Sometimes a player has just ended a very long day at work and they have a hard time articulating what they want much less "role playing" it out but if the gist of what they want shows good engagement with the story then a boost die seems appropriate.

Player: "Hey, man, you are really good at your job! I get why you are the seargent. I bet you get tired from all this hard work out here on the edge of the Empire! I couldn`t do what you do, for sure!.."

Roll = Success and threat

Gm: "He sighs and says - Ok, tell you what, I`ll let you off the hook this time, but you`ll have to pay a 200 credits fine and I`ll take those death sticks off your hand!-"

THX-1138 isn't going to let you into the secure room, but you did get a date for tonight!

Image: "I don't need to see your identification. You can go about your business."

Colonist: Performer^