Kaptain O said:

Disregarding Winning Smile for the moment. There seems to be a few action cards with the Social trait that seem to be pretty well suited for use in combat. For example:

Devious Manoeuvre (Reckless side) - Effect: You use some dirty, underhanded trick to impair your enemy, such as throwing mud in his eyes or hiding a journal.

I'd say the "throwing mud in his eyes" seems like it could be allowed during combat.

Exploit Opening - Effect: You direct the efforts of those around you to optimise your advantages. *S* Up to two allies withing close range of you immediately perform a free manoeuver.

Others I think are very obviously not intended for use in combat, like Conundrum - Effect: You delay your target with an unanswerable riddle.

The social Action cards that seem like they could be useable in combat seem to be a minority though (there aren't many of them), so I guess one could as well rule that social Action cards simply aren't useable in combat. This would at least streamline the game and make it more clear for the players what they can and cannot do.

Some player groups like more definitive rules, while others are more open for GM interpretations on a case to case basis. Leaving it up to the GM for interpretation can be very detrimental to some gaming groups, and these groups should definetly do a house ruling excluding all social Action cards from combat use to make things crystal clear. Other groups might want to leave it more open (case to case basis).

I don't presume to know what the intention of the game creators are in this matter is, since i don't think the rules are clear either one way or the other on this matter (which is pretty obvious from reading the posts in this thread). The above is a mere suggetion on how a gaming group might handle this.

Kaptain O said:

Just so I know where you are coming from, are you saying that if you qua GM deem that something is 'stupid' then you would flatly refuse to allow it to be attempted?

Bear in mind that the 'action cards' are an artificial separation from the actual roleplay; in v1/2, would you have allowed a player, when facing a Beastman, bare his teeth at it in an attempt to stall it (or otherwise confuse it)?

I suppose it greatly depends on the type of game you are wanting to run. Personaly, I see great roleplay/story/humour potential in allowing an attempt like this at my table, providing I knew it was being attempted for such a reason and not to 'powergame' an encounter (for example, the player wanted to try this so he could run away...).

I am genuinely interested in the resoning you seem so passionatly against this.

The beauty of this system is that you don't have to refuse things by fiat anymore. If you think something the PC is doing is absurd, then just throw more challenge or misfortune dice at it. If you think that a beastman should be immune to a PC's charm and wit, instead of just saying 'no', you can tell the player that there will be 3 or 4 or even more challenge dice opposing him. If he still goes for it, the pile of banes he rolls will be far more satisfying to you than just refusing to let them try in the first place.

alakazam said:

If it were not on the card players wouldnt come up with the idea to do it. In all the v1 games I ran/played in I never had a player try to stop a beastman with a winning smile - or a riddle, now because its on a card in v3 a player attemped it the first encounter.

Do you know why no one tried it before?

I'll tell you, because it's stupid and no one would rp it that way. If they had said it I wouldnt have "not let them" it just would have failed. If a player now feels that due to his card he is entitled to be able to winning smile/riddle beastmen thats not rp, thats powergaming.

Sure he can waste his action on it if he really wants but its quite simply not going to stop an enraged beastman because you ask him "what do I have in my pocket?".

Kaptain O said:

Perhapse not at your table.

I have had players use social skills in v1/2 during 'combat'. Skills such as charm, command, intimidate, etc... all have possible adversarial uses. I have had an Orc jump in front of a player and let out a roar - the player wanted to use his intimidate skill to roar back and I let him as it had roleplay potential (both if he passed or failed).

Just recognise that 'combat' is (like the 'action cards') an artificial distinction and I try not to let those distinctions get in the way of a good yarn. 'Winning Smile' is simply the name of the card, imo.

But I understand your position and I guess we must agree to disagree here.

Do we actually disagree though? I have no problem with "social" skills being used in a "combat" encounter - What I do have a problem with is people wanting to use inappropriate skills either in or out of combat. Want to try to intimdate an orc - be my guest lets roll - might be difficult but possible/plausible. Otoh, telling a beastman a riddle while he charges at you to cleave your skull or giving a Troll a "winning smile" do not make sense. Now, what about a situation where some watchmen come to fight/arrest the chars? sure maybe then your winnign smile will make one of the guards think twice before swinging his blade. Im not saying these abilities have no place in combat - I'm saying they don't always have a place in combat just because they are printed on a card rather than i n the skill section.

Have you really ever had a player try to tell a riddle to a beastman in mid charge? or tried to flash a winning smile at a beastman?

I bet it hasn't happened at your table either - because it's stupid.

Seriously. If you spend more time trying to think of ways to make stuff you wouldn't expect work, instead of thinking about why it's stupid, you'll have a better time.

When the player throws something at you like that, it is better for the game to run with it. That doesn't mean you have to let it be out of control. Make the player justify exactly what he's trying to do and what he hope will happen. No, you don't have to let him just say 'I use winning smile to make the beastman stop attacking.' Make him say, specifically, what he's trying to do. Is he trying to confuse the beastman? Charm the beastman? Intimidate the beastman with bared teeth? Exactly how is going about it? Once you've got the player describing what he's doing in actual roleplaying terms, instead of just game terms, then you've got a guideline for how plausible or implausible the situation is. If it's implausible, then you add challenge or misfortune dice.

If there's a lot of negative dice being thrown at this task, it's quite likely to have worse results than doing nothing at all. Which means that instead of this exchange:

PC: I attempt to distract the beastman with my winning smile.

GM: No. That's stupid.

You get this exchange:

PC: I attempt to distract the beastman with my winning smile.

GM: OK, roll [the dice]. Hmm... looks like no successes, three banes, and a chaos star. The beastman seems to be immune to your charm, and roars ferociously into your face. Gain a stress, and you're so startled that you lose your balance and will need to spend a maneuver regaining your footing.

Which one looks like it's more fun and adds more to the game?

I agree with all of the above... Trying to charm someone with a winning smile in the middle of combat should be Hard at best, if not absolutely Daunting. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but that would have to be one amazing smile.

Kaptain O said:

The riddle I agree with - but I would still let them 'try' if they wanted (obviously the beastman would not understand what is happening or what is being said, but there is a slim... very slim chance that he might stop, confused why the character is not running or fighting back... in v1/2 terms it would be somewhere in the region of 5%). I would treat the 'Winning Smile' in a similar way. I would run it similiar to the example given by Chipacabara.

It is the point that players should be able to try what they like that we must agree to disagree on. I fully understand your interpretation of why it is stupid, but that should not translate into it having 0% chance of having any affect at all on the situation (wether that be a positive affect or a negative one) or not even letting a player try it in the first place, which can have a drastic affect on creativity of roleplay, imo.

It might be worth pointing out that while beastman are savage, and mostly disinterested in interacting with humans by any means except violence, that doesn't mean they're just animals. They are still perfectly capable of understanding Reikspeil if they've happened to have learned it. They're not stupid, and there's always the off chance that a particular beastman is a fan of riddles. It's not going to make him be best buds with the PC, but it might surprise him for a moment.

Ok, what if the player wanted to use "winning smile" on the 2nd round of combat - would you allow that, the card says must be done in the opening round? Do you just disregard the rule on the card? perhaps make it harder to do because you don't want to say "no"?

Is there any reference to beastmen learning reikspiel?

You say that there would be a 5% chance of a beastman not attacking if you gave them a riddle? thats 1/20 beastmen? that makes no sense.

I understand the concept of trying not to say "No" to the players as it closes doors rather than creating opportunities but what about if a player wants to cast a fireball and he has no magic training, spells etc. are you going to say no or let him roll? I bring it back to the original point, none of us has ever had a player attempt to use their charming smile to stop a beastman/troll before because no player would ever consider it because it is retarded - no high elf envoy would ever do it because its retarded BUT now it's printed on a card some players will assume that it is something they can do in any situation and should be able to use it. If the GM feels it is inappropriate they are well within their rights to say

"you flash the beastman your best smile, the one you used to bed the innkeepers daughter last night but strangely he seems not to notice and he swings at you with his rusty axe"

Without requiring a roll from the player.

Sometimes it is ok to say "No".

alakazam said:

You would possibly be moving outside of the RAW: Conundrum requires that the target can understand you to be used.

Kaptain O said:

jadrax said:

Really? thats not how I had thought it worked - beastmen were always a seperate species unto themselves that bred and had their own culture. Mutants definitely happen but their changes seem to be random and subject to chaos' fickle whim - for such a large amount of people to have mutated in the exact same way doesnt make sense. At least in my world I think they will be their own species as that makes sense and is consistent with my understanding (although I will go back and re-read my v1 bestiary and see what that says).

Another thing is I remember my realms of chaos books that really painted beastmen as separate - also they would have mutations applied to them just as humans would.

As a general rule, the RAW should always be ignored in the interests of a good story. But I did agree that 'conundrum' would be one I thought a little silly to try (better to use 'perform a stunt' to attempt to confuse the beastman) - but I would still allow the player to try to tell it a riddle...

The fireball example plays with the 'internal logic' of the world, not the rules as written, and so is a separate issue.

As for the 'Beastman' issue - bear in mind that 'Beastman' is a very ambigious term. It includes 'beastmen' that have been such for many generations, as well as those recently picked up at the edge of a village, born to human parents.

alakazam said:

Which is why I would ignore the RAW that says you can use Winning Smile on anyone, ever, at any range in the interest of having a good story where retarded stuff isn't happening

alakazam said:

My world's "internal logic" says that wild beasts corrupted by chaos who only want to drink in the blood of humans do not stop attacking because someone has a nice smile.

=D

Look I did a winning smile at you!

I guess it is a case of agree to disagree, I just wanted to make sure that you understood my position is not "you can't use social actions/intimidate/winning smile in any combat" and more "you can't use social actions/intimidate/winning smile in *every* combat".

Kaptain O said:

Yes, really. They are commonly known as Turnskins. (Not to be confused with gaves, who are infents born as Beastmen to human parents).

jadrax said:

Were these changes GW made to the original lore? Im an old school v1 guy all the way and thats what I refer to as much as possible.

Kaptain O said:

No, thats the ways it has been since Realms of Chaos to Tome of Corruption. (and probably beyond in both directions too).

It's been the case for a very long time. Even in the old days, there were mentions of Empire citizens leaving their mutant children in the woods to be adopted by beastmen. The Realms of Chaos: Lost and the Damned, which pretty much established the modern version of the beastmen, established the existence of turnskins and gaves. Chaos cultists often have dealings with nearby beastman tribes.

There's a mention in the 2nd edition bestiary of a military commander whose favorite tactic in battle was to identify which beastman was the uppity young male that wanted power, and convince him to try to usurp the pack alpha. Which worked fine right up until he fought beastman that decided to tear apart the human before working out the pack differences. There's also a short blurb about a mutant that was driven out of human lands and joined a tribe of beastmen, and won their favor by leading them back to his village for a hunting raid.

Beastman are monstrous and savage, yes, but that's a far cry from mindless destroyers that only thinking about eating people. In fact, beastmen spend less time thinking about humans than humans think about beastmen.

Although the example provided was a little silly, unless you are fighting something mindless, social interaction is indeed an important part of combat.

The more socially evolved the opponents, the more likely social interaction is not only going to be a part of combat, it may well become the most important element of the fight.

You can intimidate your opponent, either to make his attacks less effective, or to convince him to run away, or perhaps even to surrender.

You can enrage your opponent, moving his stance towards recklessness.

You can appeal to your opponent, for mercy, or for a pause to talk, or to convince him that your reinforcements are on the way.

I'm a little confused. I thought Winning Smile was designed specifically for combat situations. In most social situations you aren't counting in combat rounds, right? Doesn't winning smile seem like the sort of thing you're going to use at the beginning of combat to get a quick edge? Or am I missing something and there are a lot of noncombat uses for delaying someone a round that come up regularly in your games?

If that's the case, then I would definitely allow it in almost any fight instead of arbitrarily restricting it for roleplaying reasons. As a GM I generally try to allow players to use their abilities if it seems justified by the rules, and I come up with roleplaying justifications as they seem appropriate. I'd hate for a player not to take a cool funny thematic ability like winning smile because the GM doesn't let them use it in 75% of their fights.

Social encounters are run like combat encounters: people roll for initiative (using Fel instead of Ag) and each person has an action they take on their turn.

Chipacabra said:

That's a positive GM attitude. I like it... It gets the player deeply in his character's place AND use the "opened" rules system . Really immersive, congrat'.

The "inner daughter date" description of the winning smile is great too, but I would let PC try to use it, maybe with some misfortune dice because the beast is not human...

In a Berserk-the-manga-like mood, the winning smile might awake the beastman's ferocious lust in case of failure.

Kaptain O said:

Wow, I feel sorry for you, to live in such a dull lifeless world were fairly simple concepts cannot be visualized must be a real bummer. Perhaps you should consider attenting Muppet Baby Imagination School, I feel it would do you a world of good.

As for the Winning Smile action, or action cards in general, I feel you are placing way to much emphasis on the name of the ability and not the function. Would you feel better about using this ability in combat if it was called, "As Your First Action of an Encounter Use Your Charm Skill to Cause Your Target a Momentary Pause." It doesn't sound good, but it is more descriptive, while we're at it, I guess we should call Melee Strike "Use a Phyiscal Object to Cause Harm to a Target."

The name of the ability is just that, a name, don't read too much into it, instead look more at the skills used, and the possible outcomes, the Winning Smile action represents a characters ability to use his charm skill in such a way as to get a specific result, doing it this way you leave the opportunity open, and now the onus is upon the player to have a roleplaying reason that it should work on a specific target.