Hey guys. I just hosted the first session of my new Force and Destiny game. A bunch of my close friends are playing and so far it's off to a good start, but one of my friends is already proving to be more than I think I can handle. I've played role-playing games with him before, and I knew he was a very outspoken player, but it's worse than I thought.

To give some background on the story and characters, the setting is 300 years after the events of the movies. The Jedi Order and Republic have been rebuilt and are flourishing over the past few generations. It is a time of peace, and the party are all unaware Force sensitives that ended up together for mutual benefit starting on Nar Shaddaa. One friend is a Sentinel/Shien Expert who is very cautious and focuses on melee combat. Another is a Sentinel/Artisan who also focuses on melee combat but is proficient with Mechanics. Another is a Seeker/Executioner who is always seeking to prove himself a talented killer by taking out bounties with his Slugthrower.

Last we have the trouble player. He is a Mystic/Makashi Duelist, but is absolutely garbage in combat. He put all of his experience into Presense because he wants to be good at charming people, and took a talent so that he uses his presence instead of brawn for lightsaber checks, meaning once they get lightsabers he will be the best at it (because that makes sense, right? He can't fight, yet his character will suddenly know how to when he gets a lightsaber?). Also the backstory of his character is he's very stealthy, and likes to steal and talk his way out of situations, yet he sucks at literally everything that isn't Charming. So, to me, I don't know why he went with Mystic in the first place, and his character just seems out of place with what he's trying to do with him.

So he decides to try and charm the final boss of the session, and while it altered his mood, the boss still was going to end up fighting them if they didn't leave. He got pissy and asked if he should just change his character since he can't talk his way out of major fights and he can't do anything in a fight. Then he proceeds to lie about the amount of credits he found on their bodies, got caught, and got mad when the other PCs gave him a smaller cut of the profits. He then threatened to steal the money back from them at a later date.

So someone with experience, how would you deal with this? The Sentinels are light side oriented, the seeker is neutral, and this guy is obviously going to just be a jerk to everyone (both character and pc wise).

I'd point at them and laugh.

Seriously tell they're been a tool/prick/asshat, quit it or sod off.

It's quite normal and expected for a duelist to have high Presence. Lightsaber are quite a different beast from standard melee weapons, so it's reasonable for him to find himself MUCH more naturally proficient when he starts training with lightsabers.

Re-read the Charm section of the rules. Charm doesn't just alter people's mood, it gets them to make exceptions to their normal behavior, such as stopping a fight and maybe even befriending the PCs. I'd be pretty pissed too if the GM took the one skill I didn't suck at and nerfed it into uselessness because he wanted to railroad us into a boss fight.

The rest of it sounds sh*tty, but at that point I don't blame him. It's pretty obvious that he's feeling cheated and marginalized at this point.

Overall, this entire rant reads like "A player specialized in one thing (until we get lightsabers) and then got angry when I ruled that the one thing didn't work." Which is understandable.

I would deal with this by being a better GM. Why did the boss not try to cut them into his business, or some other compromise?

Politely tell him that that's how the dice rolled. He's responsible for the choices he made in character creation, but being only one session into the campaign, if he wants to take a one time opportunity to create a new character, he's welcome to do so. Whether he takes you up on it or not, don't change your ideas and intent for the campaign - the galaxy continues to spin, regardless of who gets involved in the adventure.

5 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

It's quite normal and expected for a duelist to have high Presence. Lightsaber are quite a different beast from standard melee weapons, so it's reasonable for him to find himself MUCH more naturally proficient when he starts training with lightsabers.

Re-read the Charm section of the rules. Charm doesn't just alter people's mood, it gets them to make exceptions to their normal behavior, such as stopping a fight and maybe even befriending the PCs. I'd be pretty pissed too if the GM took the one skill I didn't suck at and nerfed it into uselessness because he wanted to railroad us into a boss fight.

The rest of it sounds sh*tty, but at that point I don't blame him. It's pretty obvious that he's feeling cheated and marginalized at this point.

Overall, this entire rant reads like "A player specialized in one thing (until we get lightsabers) and then got angry when I ruled that the one thing didn't work." Which is understandable.

I would deal with this by being a better GM. Why did the boss not try to cut them into his business, or some other compromise?

Because they broke into the ship to find an artifact, killed his men, and had their weapons drawn on him. He went from "We're just going to kill you" to "I respect you, yet business is business. We'll let you leave alive if you hand over your valuables for the trouble you've caused." And I understand what you're saying, but I refuse to let him remove every boss fight in the game or get pissy when he can't. This is a campaign that will have a good amount of combat in it, and he knew that.

What was the roll? If a player got off a successful Charm roll, a more appropriate response would be "I respect you, you fight well, and I'm down a few men thanks to you. Why don't you join me, and you'll get a good cut?"

Quote

And I understand what you're saying, but I refuse to let him remove every boss fight in the game or get pissy when he can't.

So basically, you have a predetermined story that you want to railroad the players through instead of letting them use the skills and Talents they purchased to influence the world around them. If a player tries to Charm a boss in that scenario, feel free to make it a difficult roll: they should have a high Cool to start with, upgrade the difficulty, add setback die. Stack the odds against the roll to represent the difficulty of the situation, but respect the results of the roll no matter if they follow your plans or not. If it's a hard Charm roll to avoid combat, there will still be plenty of it, because he'll fail more often than he succeeds.

If you want to give him an early combat boost, have him come across a training saber. It's low damage but will let him use his primary stat early.

1 hour ago, Benjan Meruna said:

What was the roll? If a player got off a successful Charm roll, a more appropriate response would be "I respect you, you fight well, and I'm down a few men thanks to you. Why don't you join me, and you'll get a good cut?"

So basically, you have a predetermined story that you want to railroad the players through instead of letting them use the skills and Talents they purchased to influence the world around them. If a player tries to Charm a boss in that scenario, feel free to make it a difficult roll: they should have a high Cool to start with, upgrade the difficulty, add setback die. Stack the odds against the roll to represent the difficulty of the situation, but respect the results of the roll no matter if they follow your plans or not. If it's a hard Charm roll to avoid combat, there will still be plenty of it, because he'll fail more often than he succeeds.

If you want to give him an early combat boost, have him come across a training saber. It's low damage but will let him use his primary stat early.

But not every big bad guy should have that option. I would be giving him too much potential power in the overall scope of the campaign, especially with how high his skill is starting out (1 yellow and 4 green). Also, if he talks his way out of literally every fight, he is thus invalidating the other characters who spend experience in combat abilities (because I know for a fact this character will always try to be the center of attention and always attempt to charm if able).

I'm not trying to railroad them, though this was the first session and I'm trying to set up the story in the first place. There will be plenty of opportunities for him to be beneficial to the group, but the other members have to feel apart of the group as well.

7 minutes ago, Krodarklorr said:

But not every big bad guy should have that option. I would be giving him too much potential power in the overall alscope of the campaign, especially with how high is skill is starting out (1 yellow and 4 green). Also, if he talks his way out of literally every fight, he is thus invalidating the other characters who spend experience in combat abilities (because I know for a fact this character will always try to be the center of attention and always attempt to charm if able).

I'm not trying to railroad them, though this was the first session and I'm trying to set up the story in the first place. There will be plenty of opportunities for him to be beneficial to the group, but the other members have to feel apart of the group as well.

On the contrary, every "bad guy" SHOULD have the option, it just shouldn't always be a viable option. Remember that this isn't a binary pass/fail system, there are consequences to rolling really poorly that can lead to moments of "why did I open my big fat mouth."

Lets take this boss, for example. He has "men," so he's a leader. Give him a Presence of 3 to reflect that. You can also give him 2 ranks in Cool, to reflect his ability to keep calm in situations, and also happens to oppose Charm. Finally, throw in the appropriate modifiers: figures he's angry about the loss of his men, upgrade the difficulty of the roll once. He's probably also irritated about being at gunpoint, so add a setback. Suddenly, the odds look like this:

http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=1&ability=3&challenge=3&setback=1

There's a lot of chances for Despair and Threat to crop up, and the odds of success are small.

Also, keep in mind that all Charm does is avoid this combat. What does that boss want them to do to make up for the damage they caused? Probably go cause damage to an enemy of his somewhere else. If the player Charms THEM...Mr. Boss isn't gonna be happy, and he's not gonna be very willing to negotiate further.

As for setting up the story, you need to make your story more malleable to what the players do instead of trying to force it into specific outcomes like "they MUST fight this person."

11 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

On the contrary, every "bad guy" SHOULD have the option, it just shouldn't always be a viable option. Remember that this isn't a binary pass/fail system, there are consequences to rolling really poorly that can lead to moments of "why did I open my big fat mouth."

Lets take this boss, for example. He has "men," so he's a leader. Give him a Presence of 3 to reflect that. You can also give him 2 ranks in Cool, to reflect his ability to keep calm in situations, and also happens to oppose Charm. Finally, throw in the appropriate modifiers: figures he's angry about the loss of his men, upgrade the difficulty of the roll once. He's probably also irritated about being at gunpoint, so add a setback. Suddenly, the odds look like this:

http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=1&ability=3&challenge=3&setback=1

There's a lot of chances for Despair and Threat to crop up, and the odds of success are small.

Also, keep in mind that all Charm does is avoid this combat. What does that boss want them to do to make up for the damage they caused? Probably go cause damage to an enemy of his somewhere else. If the player Charms THEM...Mr. Boss isn't gonna be happy, and he's not gonna be very willing to negotiate further.

As for setting up the story, you need to make your story more malleable to what the players do instead of trying to force it into specific outcomes like "they MUST fight this person."

The campaign will be very open, I just normally have the players play a session or two as the "starting zone" equivalent before I let them loose to do as they choose. But that aside, you make some good points, but if I let him roll for every boss, even if they have a high skill, there is the potential for him to pass. And he could end up doing that quite often. Therefor invalidating the other party members. I have no problem with him doing whatever he wants in the streets of Nar Shaddaa, but I feel as a GM, if combat is important at an a specific point, and the boss wouldn't have a reason or motivation to back down, why should he have the option to charm him?

15 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

On the contrary, every "bad guy" SHOULD have the option, it just shouldn't always be a viable option. Remember that this isn't a binary pass/fail system, there are consequences to rolling really poorly that can lead to moments of "why did I open my big fat mouth."

Lets take this boss, for example. He has "men," so he's a leader. Give him a Presence of 3 to reflect that. You can also give him 2 ranks in Cool, to reflect his ability to keep calm in situations, and also happens to oppose Charm. Finally, throw in the appropriate modifiers: figures he's angry about the loss of his men, upgrade the difficulty of the roll once. He's probably also irritated about being at gunpoint, so add a setback. Suddenly, the odds look like this:

http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=1&ability=3&challenge=3&setback=1

There's a lot of chances for Despair and Threat to crop up, and the odds of success are small.

Also, keep in mind that all Charm does is avoid this combat. What does that boss want them to do to make up for the damage they caused? Probably go cause damage to an enemy of his somewhere else. If the player Charms THEM...Mr. Boss isn't gonna be happy, and he's not gonna be very willing to negotiate further.

As for setting up the story, you need to make your story more malleable to what the players do instead of trying to force it into specific outcomes like "they MUST fight this person."

I disagree, not every 'bad guy' should be charmable, just like not every skill check requested by the PCs should be possible. Sometimes, the skill check falls into the 'impossible' category and the GM is within their rights to not allow the check. A BBG who is in a strong position of power sometimes just isn't going to give up and the let the PCs go just because they have a gift of words.

Now that said, allowing some flexibility is a good thing. Perhaps the BBG appreciates the boldness of the PCs in this situation, and offers them a one time take or leave it offer. Do something for the BBG and they will repay the favor by letting the PCs live. The task could even be something that is easy and not 'distasteful' making it a completely legitimate option for the players.

Just now, Krodarklorr said:

The campaign will be very open, I just normally have the players play a session or two as the "starting some" equivalent before I let them loose to do as they choose. But that aside, you make some good points, but if I let him roll for every boss, even if they have a high skill, there is the potential for him to pass. And he could end up doing that quite often. There for invalidating the other party members. I have no problem with him doing whatever he wants in the streets of Nar Shaddaa, but I feel as a GM, if combat is important at an a specific point, and the boss wouldn't have a reason or motivation to back down, why should he have the option to charm him?

Why not let them loose from the beginning? That's the part that I don't understand, especially because an interesting situation cropped up that immediately got shot down for no other reason than "I don't want you to." That's not good GMing.

Yes, he should have a chance (even if slim) to Charm pretty much every enemy that's sapient. However, there's a few things to keep in mind:

1. If they're difficult rolls, he's fail these checks often, and risk making the situation worse. And the few times he does succeed, he'll basically spare the party a potentially lethal combat and get to feel like a hero. He can't "do that quite often" unless you didn't balance the rolls well.
2. The party members should have other specializations besides combat. Otherwise, you tend to end up with bored murderhobos who just play on their phones until it's time to kill things. What's nice about this system is that even combat-focused characters can be useful in other ways: Brawn-heavy characters can resist poisons and chase down a fleeing enemy that was too weak or cowardly to fight. Agility heavy characters can sneak around and pilot ships well. Intelligence characters have a heck of a lot of utility both in knowledge skills and things like Medicine, Computers, and Mechanics (which one of your players is). Cunning characters are good at spotting things or deciding others. Willpower characters are excellent at spotting lies and intimidating those who tell them. And, as you've found, Presence characters are good at getting people to like, trade with, and follow them.
3. Combat can and will still happen. Just like a combat monster can't just kill everything he sees to solve all his problems, a charming rogue is going to get his back against a wall if he keeps trying to sweet-talk his way out of everything. Don't force it by not allowing a roll, give him the rope to hang himself with.
4. The whole purpose of the Charm check is to give that motivation where none existed before.

At this point, you'll have to give some details on how the encounter went down before I can give more specific advice. What did the duelist say to the boss for the Charm check?

Here's a question too, did he have a chance to 'shine' before this? It sounds like there had already been some combat (breaking into the base, killing the mooks), so he may have been particularly looking forward to breaking out his specialty, only to get slapped down after making the roll. If you feel like there's a character that absolutely would not listen... why did he get a chance to charm? If they've been going through the base, wreaking havoc, could the bbeg have set up an ambush? If they broke through and got all the way to the center of the base, wouldn't they be in a position of some power to negotiate? As it is, it kind of seems like you went 'lol, sure, roll charm. Haha, psych, it didn't work.'

Just going to point out on using Presence instead of Brawn with Lightsaber checks; the Ancient Sword uses the Lightsaber skill, so they could just of started with that weapon and been pretty decent with it. So unless you're ruling that this specifically doesn't work, it would be an option for them (obviously the sword pales in comparison to what a lightsaber can do, but its at least an option that is otherwise being ignored; they could at least participate with some effectiveness in combat).

On charming the big bad, I'd have to hear more specifics on the exact angle they were going with, the motivations for the big bad, and just exactly how well they rolled that charm check. At this point it might be a bit difficult to alleviate the pressure as to what happened (especially if you didn't give them anything for succeeding the check), but it certainly shouldn't be viewed as a regular thing they can do to just convince their opponents to lay down arms and surrender. The thing I would stick with is that their actions of killing his men do indeed have consequences, and at that point there wasn't going to be a way to have him fully stand down through just the use of charm (outside of a pretty spectacular result).

3 minutes ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

I disagree, not every 'bad guy' should be charmable, just like not every skill check requested by the PCs should be possible. Sometimes, the skill check falls into the 'impossible' category and the GM is within their rights to not allow the check. A BBG who is in a strong position of power sometimes just isn't going to give up and the let the PCs go just because they have a gift of words.

That's like saying that a boss isn't going to just give up and die if the PCs roll enough hits in combat. You're negating the entire purpose of rolling in the first place.

Note that a successful Charm check doesn't mean that everything is hunky-dory, situation normal. All it means is that combat is momentarily off the table while the party tries to negotiate with their enemy for what they want (negotiation roll). Saying that there are some enemies you can't charm is like saying that there are some enemies you can't fight: it's railroading. Sure, there are some enemies it would be a very bad idea to fight. But it's always left to the decision of the players to try.

Quote

Now that said, allowing some flexibility is a good thing. Perhaps the BBG appreciates the boldness of the PCs in this situation, and offers them a one time take or leave it offer. Do something for the BBG and they will repay the favor by letting the PCs live. The task could even be something that is easy and not 'distasteful' making it a completely legitimate option for the players.

And at that point, the player could throw in a negotiation roll to bargain for something they want (like the artifact), or they could just go with what they got and try to sneakily steal it later. It opens the door for all sorts of interaction beyond just "Roll for initiative."

3 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

Here's a question too, did he have a chance to 'shine' before this? It sounds like there had already been some combat (breaking into the base, killing the mooks), so he may have been particularly looking forward to breaking out his specialty, only to get slapped down after making the roll. If you feel like there's a character that absolutely would not listen... why did he get a chance to charm? If they've been going through the base, wreaking havoc, could the bbeg have set up an ambush? If they broke through and got all the way to the center of the base, wouldn't they be in a position of some power to negotiate? As it is, it kind of seems like you went 'lol, sure, roll charm. Haha, psych, it didn't work.

As I said before, the boss was going to kill them where they stood when they entered the room. But instead, the successful charm check made it so that he respected the party, but said that business is still business. He gave them the option of handing over their valuables and leaving in one piece.

And there was combat prior, and the PC specifically did nothing to help the party. He snuck a different way, and when the party got caught, he stayed back and did nothing.

Caption: Bugs Bunny being give a pair of cement shoes by some gangsters.

That's how we do things around here.

5 minutes ago, Krodarklorr said:

As I said before, the boss was going to kill them where they stood when they entered the room. But instead, the successful charm check made it so that he respected the party, but said that business is still business. He gave them the option of handing over their valuables and leaving in one piece.

And there was combat prior, and the PC specifically did nothing to help the party. He snuck a different way, and when the party got caught, he stayed back and did nothing.

Ok, "leave and I take all your stuff" is obviously not a viable option for PCs that have a reasonable chance at killing the boss. You negated the roll by making it something no PC would ever take, rendering his investment into Charm pointless.

You said he sucks in combat, so it makes sense that he didn't throw himself into it. His way of helping the party (right now, before he gets to use his main stat for combat) is by charming people.

What was the difficulty of the roll? What were the exact results? (successes, advantage, triumphs?) What did the player say that his character said to the boss?

2 hours ago, Krodarklorr said:

1. Last we have the trouble player. He is a Mystic/Makashi Duelist, but is absolutely garbage in combat.

2. He put all of his experience into Presense because he wants to be good at charming people, and took a talent so that he uses his presence instead of brawn for lightsaber checks, meaning once they get lightsabers he will be the best at it (because that makes sense, right? He can't fight, yet his character will suddenly know how to when he gets a lightsaber?).

3. Also the backstory of his character is he's very stealthy, and likes to steal and talk his way out of situations, yet he sucks at literally everything that isn't Charming. So, to me, I don't know why he went with Mystic in the first place, and his character just seems out of place with what he's trying to do with him.

4. So he decides to try and charm the final boss of the session, and while it altered his mood, the boss still was going to end up fighting them if they didn't leave.

5. He got pissy and asked if he should just change his character since he can't talk his way out of major fights and he can't do anything in a fight.

6. Then he proceeds to lie about the amount of credits he found on their bodies, got caught, and got mad when the other PCs gave him a smaller cut of the profits. He then threatened to steal the money back from them at a later date.

So someone with experience, how would you deal with this? The Sentinels are light side oriented, the seeker is neutral, and this guy is obviously going to just be a jerk to everyone (both character and pc wise).

1. Not every character is going to be super combat focused. If the player was informed ahead of time that the campaign is combat focused then it's on them for being defficient. TBH I'd suggest that a character starting off with one of the Lightsaber Spec trees either have a training saber, training stick or an Ancienct Sword so they can use their Lightsaber skills early on and not feel like all their XP going into talents is a huge waste.

2. Charming people is fun, as others have stated it will make NPCs make exceptions to their normal behavior but as the GM you get to choose exactly how far those exceptions go. Sometimes this would involve ending the combat, sometimes it would involve turning a combat encounter into a social encounter and now there needs to be a series of social checks, modifying the Negotiation roll at the end to finalize the deal.

3. Stealth is based on Agility, so if the player has a low Agility/not many ranks in Stealth, that doesn't fit with their concept. Some players min/max when they create their character, allowing something like that is up to the GM and the type of game that's going to be run. Presence covers more than just Charm, it also covers Cool & Negotiation, so this character should have a few skills that they are at least naturally good with.

4. I had a situation in which a group was fighting 4 recently revived from stasis Clone Commandos who were worlds stronger than the group, downed a player in 1 hit, almost downed another with 1 hit (was at his threshold). The group's Commanding Officer stepped in and wanted to use his Leadership skill to calm them down in a commanding way & explain to them what they missed in the last 20 years. The player got a ridiculously good roll, which was pretty sweet and unexpected for me, as I intended these guys to be adversaries that showed up every now and then to mess with the group's new pilot who's also a Clone Trooper. It wasn't an easy check but it succeeded, completely deflated the combat and turned unfortunate enemies into useful allies. The point is that it can still serve for a better story if sometimes the adversary stops fighting for a minute and talks it out or if they drastically change their behavior.

5. Talk with the player. Explain that while Charm will sometimes let people make changes in their behavior, it is not mind control, nor is it Coercion (threats of violence to force someone to act according to your will [which can still sometimes backfire if you don't know how they'll react] or Negotiation (making a deal, trading, coming to an agreement between the involved parties) and it's definitely not the Influence Power, which removes an NPC's free will & forces them to do what you say.

6. This is somewhat of a different situation than it seems the majority of the discussion is about but it apparently added to your frustration or you'd not have added it in. If the character is starting to make selfish choices, reflect that with the amount of Conflict you award to the character, specifying why they are taking the Conflict (lying for personal gain, stealing from the party, etc...)

5 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

Ok, "leave and I take all your stuff" is obviously not a viable option for PCs that have a chance at killing the boss. You negated the roll by making it something no PC would ever take, rendering his investment into Charm pointless.

Yeah, might of been better to let the charm result be "I respect you and will let you leave," or "I respect you, and request you return X percentage of the loot and leave." Hell, at least then you could turn it into a Negotiation check, which the player may have less skill ranks in.

At which point its a matter of the party making the call to accept less loot, let the guy go, and maybe not accomplish their whole goal, or risk gaining Conflict at opting to escalate to combat in the face of working negotations.

5 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

What was the difficulty of the roll? What were the exact results? (successes, advantage, triumphs?) What did the player say that his character said to the boss?

It was a few nights ago, so I don't remember the specifics.

Just now, Kommissar said:

Yeah, might of been better to let the charm result be "I respect you and will let you leave," or "I respect you, and request you return X percentage of the loot and leave."

At which point its a matter of the party making the call to accept less loot, let the guy go, and maybe not accomplish their whole goal, or risk gaining Conflict at opting to escalate to combat in the face of working negotations.

Exactly. It's a starting point for the party to try to use words to get what they want, and not just brute force. They already got to do that, it was the social character's turn to shine for the session, and he got the door slammed in his face hard.

56 minutes ago, Krodarklorr said:

But not every big bad guy should have that option. I would be giving him too much potential power in the overall scope of the campaign, especially with how high his skill is starting out (1 yellow and 4 green). Also, if he talks his way out of literally every fight, he is thus invalidating the other characters who spend experience in combat abilities (because I know for a fact this character will always try to be the center of attention and always attempt to charm if able).

I'm not trying to railroad them, though this was the first session and I'm trying to set up the story in the first place. There will be plenty of opportunities for him to be beneficial to the group, but the other members have to feel apart of the group as well.

The converse is that non-combat characters may well feel invalidated if combat characters have the option of turning everything into a combat encounter. Imagine if they always try to kill if able, and whether this would be a good thing. If you agree that it is not a good thing, then the same applies for the converse about Charm.

19 minutes ago, Krodarklorr said:

It was a few nights ago, so I don't remember the specifics.

Unfortunate, but there are only a few ways the roll could of played out anyway:

-Success, net advantage: This is a tricky case as here the result is totally in favor of the player. The excuse here could be that they didn't get enough advantage to get them to surrender, but the offer that was made doesn't sound all that advantageous either.

-Success, net threat: This sounds like the closest fit to the ruling you gave. They managed to avoid outright combat, but were given a fairly sub-par option (as in previous posts though, you probably shouldn't have made it "leave everything" (hope you meant "leave all loot", as "leave all your personal gear is just plain objectionable to players)).

-Failure, net advantage: Isn't what was rolled as you said they succeeded, but something like this would be like the players have a boost on the initiative check for getting the jump on the big bad as this turns into combat.

-Failure, net threat: Again, isn't what was rolled, but play it as the opposite of above, it turns into combat and the big bad has the jump on the players.

-Above + Triumph: If they did roll a triumph, you probably should of let them avoid a combat encounter, although remember triumph on its own isn't necessarily success; it could still entail things the players may not want to do, such as an offer to join the big bad. Doubt this was rolled as you would of remembered a triumph.

-Above + Despair: Easily could turn into a combat, or at least greatly escalate the situation (e.g. imperials show up and start attacking the base, explosions everywhere). Doubt this was rolled as you would of remembered a despair.

That's a pretty good breakdown of the possibilities, Kommissar. I'd agree that the success and net threat sounds the closest to what happened, but it still should have been something less obviously "lol no" for the players. It could have meant more social rolls were needed ("Well, now he's willing to talk, but he just wants you to leave. How do you want to try to convince him to give you a better deal?") or that the players could abort the mission and think up a new angle of attack to take their enemy by surprise instead of just charging in headfirst.

Edit: another possibility for success with threat is that the boss likes you, but something comes up like a rival gang attacking at that moment. Boss naturally asks players to help out (since they made a big hole in his manpower) and afterwards they'll talk business. Boom, you still have combat, and the Charm-focused character got to be useful.

Moving on from the charm test, another big concern here is the attempt to embezzle loot and lie to the party (which then in turn leads to the rest of the party retaliating with a reduced share).

You have to be extremely careful with situations like this. This very easily could lead to arguments out of game (sounds like it did already), and could easily escalate to worse than arguments (to my shame, I actually had a player storm out and leave the gaming group as a whole, due to a lack of fostering good party communication). Generally players will assume that other players won't take actions against the good of the party. Personally if I was the GM in this situation, I would treat the attempt at the theft of loot as the player joking and trying to play up their character. And sure, we could all have some laughs over it, even act like it did happen in the narrative of the game, but at the end of the day give the players an equal share of the loot (unless you're running your game a bit differently, but this should be an intentional decision, not simply being a slave to the whims of the players). If the player confirmed they actually did want to steal the item, I would take the player aside and try to talk them down. And certainly, as in above posts, this sort of selfish activity easily should be rewarded with some Conflict.

That said, I'm not sure how I feel about the other players retaliating and giving a lesser share. Obviously it makes sense, and is ostensibly the appropriate thing to do, especially if the theft was actually happening. But its the sort of thing that is just going to make this situation worse (as seen in the threat of stealing it back later). Its fine they're trying to work this out in-character, but it just seems like its singling out the mystic player, and he's not going to react well to it. Personally, I would again rule here as I said above; let them say and narrate whatever, but at the end of the day, treat it as the players cooperating equally and the characters get a share of the loot. If it doesn't make much sense, explain it off as the players doing side work having the money from other sources.

The point is, it sounds like you have a powder-keg of party in-fighting waiting to go off, so be sure to nip this one in the bud, unless you actually are OK with the players rolling initiative against each other.

EDIT: I would advise the following overall:

-The player seems to feel their only (current) ability is to use Charm. While this may be the case, perhaps they can get their hands on an Ancient Sword or Training Saber so they can stop using the excuse that they're useless in combat. Hell, advise they use a blaster pistol. Unless they're agility 1, they can still get in close range, and if they aim they're firing at 1 < X green + 1 boost vs. 1 purple. Also, more XP will quickly alleviate this issue. At which point you should strongly encourage them to branch out from merely charm.

-Agree to be more open about the capabilities of charm, but make no promise that its mind control. Advise that going down that path may put the party into situations where they must make difficult choices (we can charm our way out of fighting the slavers, but then we're letting them get away with slavery).

-Encourage inter-character antics and playing up of joking actions, but at the end of the day treat the party as a cooperative unit and strongly discourage party friction (i.e. tell the player "no, you're not actually going to steal credits from another player").