2 hours ago, Benjan Meruna said:

I agree there, especially on things like "I stab the other PCs in their sleep." However, in those cases I don't say no because it's impossible, I say no because I'm kicking them out of the game.

I'm this case, the heinous crime the PC committed was wanting to use a skill exactly the way it was intended to be used. If the other players and GM were really so upset about him getting to contribute for the first time that session, then he needs to find a better group.

I think you're being a little unfair to the GM here in this situation.

First, based on the details given, I can't really say the PC in question "used a skill exactly the way it was intended". Not only are there not enough details to really fully understand the scenario, I don't really see Charm existing as a method of getting out of a BBG fight; if it were then those Signature Abilities that let you turn combats into social encounters lose a lot of their value. Also, it sounds like the PCs busted the BBG's place up before meeting him/her and took out lots of his/her troops. That is going to seriously complicate **any** attempts at a peaceful end to the encounter. Could there be options for using Charm in a fight? Sure there could be, but if we are going to rail on players for building combat builds that can one-shot a Nemesis character using bogus combat abilities, why would it suddenly be OK to allow a single Charm check to effectively neutralize the BBG in a similar manner?

Second, this system is a lot of fun, but the narrative style and skill check system means there is a lot of burden on the GM to adjudicate things. Sometimes there just isn't time for the GM to come up with something on the spot in this situation. It can been extremely jarring with one or more PCs does something so completely off the wall unexpected, and lets just understand sometimes GMs have to make a decision to keep the game moving, and sometimes that decisions is "no, that skill doesn't work here." I've gotten better at handling it with my group, because I swear it happens every week, and we've been playing over almost two years now. Yet still, every so often, I am at a loss of how to deal with some of the players ideas. Sometimes I just have to say "That is a great idea, but that isn't a skill check; its a story arc!" and we move on.

Suggesting the player in question needs to "find a better group" I think is being a little too disparaging to the GM and the the rest of the table. It was the first session, sometimes it takes awhile for everyone to find their groove. Also, if the player in question plans on using charm to talk his way out of everything, then I think it is incumbent on this player to tell his GM what his plan is. It makes it easier for the GM to plan how to use these cool PC skills during the adventure. I'd also point out the player in question was trying to steal from his party; to me that is player shenanigans that should not take place. PC vs PC stuff will ruin a table faster than anything else out there.

One last thing I would point out is that for this player in question, I would certainly find a way to get him a weapon that uses the lightsaber skill, whether it be a training saber or an ancient sword. I think they will appreciate having more skill in combat. If nothing else they can use Charm to sucker people into dueling with them, and then trounce them in single combat!

8 hours ago, DaverWattra said:

Yeah, I don't like this rule and would never abide by it. It prevents the GM from creating checks that are so difficult that highly skilled players are likely to fail, but which don't have an absurdly high chance of rolling Despair. If a player with 5Y in Knowledge (Education) tries to solve a nearly impossible math problem that no one could realistically solve, that should've have to mean that they roll 5 despairs.

Got curious how much difficulty it would really take to make a character with maxed-out skills very unlikely to succeed on a check. To get them below a 10% chance of success requires 18 Difficulty dice: http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=5&ability=1&difficulty=18

Or 11 Challenge dice (which means a 60% chance of Despair and more than a 20% chance of double Despair): http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=5&ability=1&challenge=11

To get it below 5% requires Difficulty 21: http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=5&ability=1&difficulty=21

So...

9 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

it could be 20 Challenge dice & 2 Difficulty if the GM wanted to be that stupid.

I thought this was hyperbole, but it's actually about what you'd need to reliably prevent a highly skilled character from succeeding on a check! (And God help you if they're also adding Force dice to their skill. You might have to go up to Difficulty 30.)

One lesson I take from these numbers is that at high XP levels, you might have to set a house rule that Triumphs and Despairs can cancel each other. Otherwise you'll be rolling multiple Triumphs *and* multiple Despairs about every other roll, on any check that has a chance of actually challenging a maxed-out PC.

19 minutes ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

I think you're being a little unfair to the GM here in this situation.

First, based on the details given, I can't really say the PC in question "used a skill exactly the way it was intended". Not only are there not enough details to really fully understand the scenario, I don't really see Charm existing as a method of getting out of a BBG fight; if it were then those Signature Abilities that let you turn combats into social encounters lose a lot of their value. Also, it sounds like the PCs busted the BBG's place up before meeting him/her and took out lots of his/her troops. That is going to seriously complicate **any** attempts at a peaceful end to the encounter. Could there be options for using Charm in a fight? Sure there could be, but if we are going to rail on players for building combat builds that can one-shot a Nemesis character using bogus combat abilities, why would it suddenly be OK to allow a single Charm check to effectively neutralize the BBG in a similar manner?

Second, this system is a lot of fun, but the narrative style and skill check system means there is a lot of burden on the GM to adjudicate things. Sometimes there just isn't time for the GM to come up with something on the spot in this situation. It can been extremely jarring with one or more PCs does something so completely off the wall unexpected, and lets just understand sometimes GMs have to make a decision to keep the game moving, and sometimes that decisions is "no, that skill doesn't work here." I've gotten better at handling it with my group, because I swear it happens every week, and we've been playing over almost two years now. Yet still, every so often, I am at a loss of how to deal with some of the players ideas. Sometimes I just have to say "That is a great idea, but that isn't a skill check; its a story arc!" and we move on.

Suggesting the player in question needs to "find a better group" I think is being a little too disparaging to the GM and the the rest of the table. It was the first session, sometimes it takes awhile for everyone to find their groove. Also, if the player in question plans on using charm to talk his way out of everything, then I think it is incumbent on this player to tell his GM what his plan is. It makes it easier for the GM to plan how to use these cool PC skills during the adventure. I'd also point out the player in question was trying to steal from his party; to me that is player shenanigans that should not take place. PC vs PC stuff will ruin a table faster than anything else out there.

One last thing I would point out is that for this player in question, I would certainly find a way to get him a weapon that uses the lightsaber skill, whether it be a training saber or an ancient sword. I think they will appreciate having more skill in combat. If nothing else they can use Charm to sucker people into dueling with them, and then trounce them in single combat!

Charm is absolutely a skill that can turn a combat encounter into a social one! That's the beauty of it! This isn't a video game where you have dungeons and trash mobs and raid bosses; this is a living breathing world populated by sapient beings with their own goals, agendas, and dreams. Having a player try to interact with this world on a more complex level than "I shoot it!" should make any GM ecstatic. There is nothing more cancerous to fun in an RPG than a party of murderhobos just just go around killing people because "he's the bad guy!"

The purpose of Diplomatic solution is to take the Charm check and, instead of making it opposed and affecting only 1 target, it's a set difficulty against the entire encounter (which can be reduced even further with upgrades). It's not the ONLY way to turn a combat check into a social check any more than the Bounty Hunter Signature ability is the only way to kill minions.

If the GM can't come up with something on the spot, he can always ask the player how they want to use their positive results from the die roll. In fact, it's pretty standard anyways to try to do this to make things easier for the GM. In any case, a GM suddenly going "no that skill doesn't work" in a situation where it clearly could is dubious, and only more so when combined with the preceding whining about the player being bad at combat (because the GM didn't think to give him a weapon that uses his main combat stat). And if that skill check is the gateway to a story arc...that's fantastic! Why are you just brushing it off and telling a player "Sorry, you can't affect the world in ways I didn't plan for"?!

It's pretty clear from the OP that the GM and rest of the table was being pretty disparaging to the player first. Acting like he was some kind of fool for being a Makashi Duelist with a high Presence (it's their main stat! ) and wanting to actually Charm people instead of just shooting them 24/7, ugh. I agree the stealing is a lousy thing to do, but given that that happened after the GM and the rest of the table basically denied the player any chance at being useful and gave him a hard time when he dared to complain about it...I can't say I'm surprised.

That's a really good idea, and one I've been espousing. But combat really shouldn't be the end-all-be-all. If you're fighting reasoning, sapient creatures you should have the chance to say "Wait, let's make a deal" and have enough force of personality to at least buy the time needed to make the check.

Quote

I thought this was hyperbole, but it's actually about what you'd need to reliably prevent a highly skilled character from succeeding on a check! (And God help you if they're also adding Force dice to their skill. You might have to go up to Difficulty 30.)

That's brilliant, I didn't even know you could adjust the die roller that way! As for the odds, that's if you don't use Setback. With Setback, you get something like:

http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=5&ability=1&challenge=8&difficulty=1&setback=5

For an NPC like Palps, that's a presence of 8, Cool skill of 7, and two upgrades (1 destiny point flip, 1 from circumstances). That is a wholly reasonable dice pool to come up with. And of course as previously mentioned that's not taking into account Talents like Nobody's Fool which will make things even harder.

Really, what it comes down to is that any enemy that can be defeated by the players in combat, should be able to be defeated in other ways. A GM should always count on players coming up with clever, batshit insane solutions that "just might work!" and do their best to facilitate this sort of thing, because that's where memorable games come from.

22 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

Got curious how much difficulty it would really take to make a character with maxed-out skills very unlikely to succeed on a check. To get them below a 10% chance of success requires 18 Difficulty dice: http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=5&ability=1&difficulty=18

Or 11 Challenge dice (which means a 60% chance of Despair and more than a 20% chance of double Despair): http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=5&ability=1&challenge=11

To get it below 5% requires Difficulty 21: http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=5&ability=1&difficulty=21

So...

I thought this was hyperbole, but it's actually about what you'd need to reliably prevent a highly skilled character from succeeding on a check! (And God help you if they're also adding Force dice to their skill. You might have to go up to Difficulty 30.)

It was an exaggeration to show there is no limit for Impossible checks, though as I said, it would be a stupid difficulty to present to a player.

16 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

One lesson I take from these numbers is that at high XP levels, you might have to set a house rule that Triumphs and Despairs can cancel each other. Otherwise you'll be rolling multiple Triumphs *and* multiple Despairs about every other roll, on any check that has a chance of actually challenging a maxed-out PC.

All I can really say is that Star Wars is a series about extraordinary people doing the impossible when the need arises. Every main character is an example of someone who accomplishes the impossible at least once, usually multiple times. Sometimes their success comes with a cost or unforeseen complications though and I'm perfectly fine if the players succeed a lot but generate a ton of Despair. I can do some fun things with that.

OP, I think you handled things the way they should be handled - the GM determines the range of what is possible with a check, not the players, and not the book. You did not railroad, you were not unfair. You are not obligated to allow "the Pornomancer" to be a thing at your table - in any system - ever.

Flipping a Destiny Point next time a similar situation arises may soften the blow though...

As for how to handle the situation moving forward, it sounds like you know the guy, is he a friend? Just have a talk, explain your reasoning, apologize about the way the decision came off, but also make it clear that this is how you (and many many MANY other GMs) run a game. And will continue to run it.

And it's not about making your story happen the way you want it to, it's about having a rational, consistent gameworld (when appropriate).

I would recommend the mystic to get a new group. One which does not have boss fights.

15 hours ago, Benjan Meruna said:

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.

Social Encounters are fun and can be even dealt in similar ways to combat encounters, dealing strain to each other until one side goes down. Though what I find most irritating is that a Nemesis NPC is bringing himself into a situation which has him at a disadvantage, but still insist on fighting AFTER one of the PCs made clear that a fight might be avoidable. Not even attempting to make a deal.

For the check:

A bog standard Pirate Captain has already presence 3, cool 3. Making the check 3 reds + at least 4 setbacks. Upgrade once maybe on top for the situation, spend a destiny point and consider it make it an social encounter and consider it as combat check and you are down to 5 reds thanks to adversary 2. Good luck for a starting character, even one focused on charm, and presence. So better forget about adversary and make it just 4 reds. http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=2&ability=3&boost=1&challenge=4&setback=5

Now a smuggler baron is already presence 4, makes 5 reds if we don't ignore adversary this time. And while we are at it, lets call the check impossible on top, and get make the players pay for that destiny point you spend just make it harder for them.

http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=2&ability=3&boost=1&challenge=5&setback=5

Note here especially that as usual, that with success comes a higher chance for threat, meaning that while you charm their boss, his second in command becomes more likely to start a firefight instead or throw other obstacles into the characters way. ;-)

13 hours ago, DaverWattra said:

A sane GM would never allow Luke to Charm Palpatine into letting him live.

Isn't this statement ironic in context that Luke did charm Vader into killing Palpatine. Even more so as Palpatine's plan was to charm/coerce/deceit and negotiate Luke into killing Vader and take his place. The confrontation between Palpatine and the Skywalkers certainly looked more like a social encounter than a combat encounter.

What certainly was impossible was redeeming Palpatine to the lightside at that moment, joining him was always an option for Luke.

5 hours ago, Robin Graves said:

Let him try. The PC's will catch and kill him. He gets to make up a new character and you (GM) won't get blamed for assassinating his char. Easy.

Maybe sit down with him and ask him what he wants to get out of his character and give him some advice on what class to play and stuff like that. If he's still a d*** with his new character, kick him.

Murder for a minor offence. Way to go to the darkside

I clearly see it for my inner eye, Han tries to scam Obi-Wan out of an enormous credit sum for transporting them to Alderaan, Obi-Wan see through Han's bull right from the start and had planned to kill an when they arrive at Alderaan and never pay up anyway. Poor Han. Ben was destined to kill him.

4 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

Murder for a minor offence. Way to go to the darkside

I clearly see it for my inner eye, Han tries to scam Obi-Wan out of an enormous credit sum for transporting them to Alderaan, Obi-Wan see through Han's bull right from the start and had planned to kill an when they arrive at Alderaan and never pay up anyway. Poor Han. Ben was destined to kill him.

Players don't like getting their stuff/loot taken away. It's bad enough if the GM does it, but when it's another player... Yeah, all of a sudden, the "let's not try to get each other killed" house rule goes out the window. Espcially if the thief is the PC who is a bit of a scrub and the player won't stop complaing about it.

1 minute ago, Robin Graves said:

Players don't like getting their stuff/loot taken away. It's bad enough if the GM does it, but when it's another player... Yeah, all of a sudden, the "let's not try to get each other killed" house rule goes out the window. Espcially if the thief is the PC who is a bit of a scrub and the player won't stop complaing about it.

I am not sure if your generalisation is legit. At least I never played with such childish players. Quite to opposite actually. But my sample size is small enough for 25 years and the world is a big place with different cultures, even gamer cultures.

If players can't separate their own hurt from that of the characters, then lots of problems are going to get worse. If they're willing to escalate to murder to deal with petty theft then they're more of a problem by far than the thief.

Thank you everyone for the replies. Between work and the gym I didn't get on much during the afternoon yesterday.

I like the idea of having a successful Charm check giving the PCs bonuses on the first round of combat, due to the enemy letting their guard down for a second. I could definitely compromise there. But I still hold true that, for example, a Sith Lord whom had been tasked with eliminating the PCs isn't going to have much to negotiate. Not all encounters will be ignorable simply by being Charming.

I will admit I've never had a character try social encounters before, at least to any decent extent, and turning some boss encounters into a back and forth negotiation would be very enticing for everyone, I think. I'll definitely give that a go.

Also, to everyone mentioning it, I specifically started everyone with low rarity weapons (pistols, knives, and one Slugthrower), so at least for awhile, he's aware he won't find an Ancient Sword, or have access to training sabers.

Aye thats the important thing here. The players ARE NOT their characters but rather the players are the script writers. Players can and should act against one another on occasion but only if it's the characters, NOT THE PLAYERS that are doing it. Player's being tools to one another isn't ok, but characters can and should as it makes for hilarious story telling and can be a driving force in character development. In addition, characters can and should gain and lose equipment on a regular basis; think Shadow Run where guns are a dime a duzon and

My PC is a right bastard to other members in the party sometimes without them ever finding out about it; he informed an inquistor precisely where the group had taken his masters holocron and had gone behind their back to recruit slavers, because in his opinion a bunch of outlaw techs and a handful of mandolorians wasn't enough. Even as a lightsider paragon, some of the lessons that his sith master (a disembodied spirit within a old lightsaber) have still stuck with him. Further more he allowed his pupil to be registered captain of his personal ship, only to find out much later that the ship was stolen directly from a Hutt and he very much still wanted to kill him, which resulted in a dramatic and funny break down in relationship in the time span of a meal with Lando Calcrisian. The main reason he gets away with it? They either never find out, but most of the time it's because these things are often done with the good of the party in mind, even if the reason for doing so seems a bit hard to handle.

This guy is a charmer and while I usually would never dream of allowing any non-jedi developing a lightsaber tree in a beginners campiagn, he should be given something to do. Ancient swords are horrible weapons anyway that is only one tier above a unskilled brawl check, so I would see no harm in giving him one of those.

32 minutes ago, Krodarklorr said:

I like the idea of having a successful Charm check giving the PCs bonuses on the first round of combat, due to the enemy letting their guard down for a second. I could definitely compromise there. But I still hold true that, for example, a Sith Lord whom had been tasked with eliminating the PCs isn't going to have much to negotiate.

I am not 100% sure if this is an attempt at charm or negotiation …but when I search my feelings, I think it is negotiation.

edit:

And BTW, we have an official adventure with a social encounter as boss battle

Don't want to spoil the adventure and can not find the new spoiler tag right now, so that is all I am saying on that

1 minute ago, SEApocalypse said:

I am not 100% sure if this is an attempt at charm or negotiation …but when I search my feelings, I think it is negotiation.

Because he had something to gain.

1 minute ago, Krodarklorr said:

Because he had something to gain.

See, how did it turn out for your "Boss" when he forced the fight instead of trying to recruit or negotiate with the group … most people consider "keep breathing" something which they really want.

54 minutes ago, Krodarklorr said:

But I still hold true that, for example, a Sith Lord whom had been tasked with eliminating the PCs isn't going to have much to negotiate. Not all encounters will be ignorable simply by being Charming.

I will admit I've never had a character try social encounters before, at least to any decent extent, and turning some boss encounters into a back and forth negotiation would be very enticing for everyone, I think. I'll definitely give that a go.

Also, to everyone mentioning it, I specifically started everyone with low rarity weapons (pistols, knives, and one Slugthrower), so at least for awhile, he's aware he won't find an Ancient Sword, or have access to training sabers.

I'm glad you're willing to expand your horizons a bit to give social characters a chance to contribute too. But please take what I've said to heart and don't just translate Charm into "Gives you a bonus in combat" all the time. Some fights, hell, MOST fights are entirely avoidable. The group should be able to make new and interesting contacts out of former enemies. Trust me, this won't lead them to having fewer enemies. There are no shortage of opponents for players!

54 minutes ago, Krodarklorr said:

But I still hold true that, for example, a Sith Lord whom had been tasked with eliminating the PCs isn't going to have much to negotiate. Not all encounters will be ignorable simply by being Charming.

Well, it doesn't help that the only piece of information you've given about this character is a Sith Lord. In actual play, this would be an NPC with ambitions, goals, desires. The idea that the PCs couldn't find out and use those desires to make (even a temporary ally) out of him or her is very limiting.

Hell, even going off of what you just said, I can think of something. If it's a Sith Lord getting ordered around, chances are he's an Apprentice. Apprentices are always on the lookout for ways to betray and usurp their master, often by taking NEW apprentices. If the PCs proved skilled and bold enough, they may be able to Charm him into taking them on.

Of course, if this is a Bane-era Sith Apprentice, now the PCs have to fight to the death to prove who is strongest (only one apprentice at a time and all that), and that's where you can use the natural limits of Charm against players: if players are unwilling to work with the opposition, then all the Charm in the world won't matter because they won't use it. If you're so truly worried about that player charming every encounter, you just need to think up an NPC that he despises, and would never work with or for. Now if he wants to use a social skill against him, it's going to be Deception or Coercion, neither of which he's skilled at.

Edit: Also, as someone else mentioned, the Ancient Sword is a pretty terrible weapon. Pretty much its sole purpose is to let someone use the lightsaber skill without having to use an actual lightsaber. By denying him this weapon your're screwing over that player, again. It would be like limiting your other players to weapons that only use Cunning (or whatever their lower stats are). If you REALLY want, give him a knife with a knifes stats and let it use Lightsaber. Call it a dueling knife.

*grin* It would be even such a strong scene with one PC joining his new master, thanks to his charm check, trying to backstab him later, but having trouble with that thanks to influence , charm, coercion and deception of his new masters.

Maybe someone should write a star wars story about such a scenario?

Sounds like you have yourself someone who thinks social checks = mind control, who can't deal with the fact that in order to have anyone else but the face character play the game there just have to be limits to what you can accomplish with social skills.

The one giant thing to keep in mind about social checks is, they simply aren't mind control. You can't just roll social checks at people to make them do whatever you want. Charm, Deception, Negotiation, and Leadership can all be countered by simply not listening to whoever is attempting the check. In order to convince someone of anything they have to be willing to hear you out first. Even if they do talk to you and allow you the chance to sway them, the NPCs should always act within their nature, and not simply become a different person because you made a social check against them. The nature of a stormtrooper is fanatical loyalty to the Empire, so making social checks against them won't ever make them flat out disobey their orders or sabotage their own people. You can lie about having orders that countermand theirs, or you can convince them that bending the rules is in the best interest of the Empire, or try to make a deal with them for information that will make them look better to their superiors, but whatever you do has to fall within the nature of the person you're dealing with, otherwise it's not a social check, but a mind trick, and mind tricks only last a couple rounds!!

The only social check that can make people do things against their nature and can't be ignored is Coercion, but since it's flat out the threat of hostile action, the consequences of failing at coercion tend to involve initiative rolls and making lasting enemies. Even succeeding at coercion will leave people hating you and trying to get back at you the second they no longer think you're an immediate threat to them.

Give the player an ancient sword so they can use the lightsaber skill with it, that way they can use the duelist tree. I would seriously question why someone is building up skills they can't use though. How is their character training lightsaber forms without a weapon that uses the lightsaber skill? I mean there is technically no rule against buying stuff your character would have no way to train yet, but if you're running a tight game people should have to be able to explain where their abilities come from, because that's just part of the roleplaying. Half the fun of playing the story of a questing Jedi is to find out the secrets of force and saber techniques, so not letting people buy whatever they have the XP for can actually make the game more interesting.

Sounds to me like that player just kind of built their character in a dumb way though. If they had started out with Advisor or even Mystic, and put some XP in Influence they would probably be twice as effective at manipulating people instead of floundering around stupidly trying to perfect a saber technique they shouldn't even have any way of training themselves in.

On 15/02/2017 at 1:46 PM, Krodarklorr said:

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?).

I require players to justify purchases, both during character creation and after it - it helps to avoid things like this. Had the player been in my group, I would have asked him to explain to me where he learned a talent that focuses on an aspect of lightsaber combat when he's never picked up a weapon like that before - or perhaps has never even seen one.

When it comes to players complaining, I try to take them aside and let them air their grievances; but if he's bitching purely for the purpose of being a pain, then I'd remind him that he's not being forced to remain at the table. Everyone's there for a good time. That said, I would say that if the player had NO chance of succeeding with the end antagonist, then perhaps a roll shouldn't have been allowed - unless there was some other tangible benefit to him attempting it.

To avoid situations like the above, I tend to be very upfront with players about everything - for example, if they come up with a character that is very one-dimensional, I make it clear that they're not going to be a lot of use in situations where anything else is required, and further remind them that this is Star Wars, and combat is GOING to happen eventually no matter how silver tongued you are (if Leia and Lando couldn't avoid all fights, then I doubt a PC can). I LOATHE one-trick ponies, metagaming, and min-maxing, so I tend to stamp them out from the off anyways.

On 2/16/2017 at 9:37 AM, Aetrion said:

Sounds like you have yourself someone who thinks social checks = mind control, who can't deal with the fact that in order to have anyone else but the face character play the game there just have to be limits to what you can accomplish with social skills.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. All we know is that he used Charm on the "final boss" of the session. How is that out of line?

Quote

The only social check that can make people do things against their nature and can't be ignored is Coercion,

This is flat out wrong. From the description of Charm:

Quote

• Persuading an individual to make a special exception to his usual practices through flattery, flirting, and grace typically relies upon Charm.
• Appeals to a target's better nature—even if it does not exist—generally require a character to use Charm. These sorts of requests may require the target to go out of his way to aid the characters, without any hope of remuneration.

Charm fits perfectly: appeal to the bosses better nature to make an exception to his usual practice of shooting first before trying diplomacy.

Now, if the player had said "I want to use Charm to convince the Boss to give us his valuables, clothes, and lick my feet," then the GM would have a case. But all the player did was try to use a social skill to avoid a combat situation, which is exactly what they're meant for:

Quote

Not every conflict must be resolved by force of arms. In fact, it can often be in a character's best interest to resolve a situation amicably. Whenever one character attempts to convince another character to act in a specific way, it requires an Influence check. These checks are commonly used to determine how the target reacts to the attempt. They are often opposed checks, although not when dealing with groups. If the acting character is successful, the target is swayed to his point of view—at least for the duration of the scene. Upon failure, the arguments presented fail to influence the opposing character. If the characters have a previous relationship, this may add Setback or Boost to the check. If the target has prior evidence that the acting character is trustworthy, then he is much more likely to cooperate. However, if there are prior acts of betrayal, the situation may become far more challenging. Ultimately, the different social skills are indicative of the way that a character might attempt to manipulate his target. Charm governs trying to persuade a target by being nice to him. Coercion represents efforts to scare an opponent into submission. Deception entails lying to the target so that he might cooperate. Leadership reflects the use of authority, real or imagined. Negotiation covers persuading someone to cooperate by offering him something that he wants. Table 3-2: Social Skill Interactions illustrates the social skill oppositions. Refer to the individual skill descriptions for additional details on the various social skills involved.

9 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. All we know is that he used Charm on the "final boss" of the session. How is that out of line?

This is flat out wrong. From the description of Charm:

Charm fits perfectly: appeal to the bosses better nature to make an exception to his usual practice of shooting first before trying diplomacy.

Now, if the player had said "I want to use Charm to convince the Boss to give us his valuables, clothes, and lick my feet," then the GM would have a case. But all the player did was try to use a social skill to avoid a combat situation, which is exactly what they're meant for:

You can roll charm to change someones disposition toward you, but you can't roll charm to change who they are. I mean don't get me wrong, including a way to redeem the big bad of the story is awesome and big props to the GM if they can pull it off in a good way, but it shouldn't simply come down to a single charm check. Think Fallout 1, where if you spend the entire game learning about the world you can construct a bomb proof argument why humanity must survive to the final boss and cause him to give up. You have to put that into motion throughout the whole game by inquiring and researching rather than just shooting everyone though. Being able to convince the boss required evidence that would have reasonably convinced him, it didn't just require a social check.

Of course social checks are meant to avoid combat, but letting people roll social checks to lobotomize their enemies isn't how the game is supposed to work. Sometimes there have to be enemies you just can't reason with for the game to stay interesting. I mean if Palpatine could have been convinced to restore the democracy don't you think one of the thousands of senators who made this case to him repeatedly over the 20 years before he finally dissolved the Senate would have gotten a lucky roll?

On 19.2.2017 at 10:24 AM, LadySkywalker said:

I require players to justify purchases, both during character creation and after it - it helps to avoid things like this. Had the player been in my group, I would have asked him to explain to me where he learned a talent that focuses on an aspect of lightsaber combat when he's never picked up a weapon like that before - or perhaps has never even seen one.

When it comes to players complaining, I try to take them aside and let them air their grievances; but if he's bitching purely for the purpose of being a pain, then I'd remind him that he's not being forced to remain at the table. Everyone's there for a good time. That said, I would say that if the player had NO chance of succeeding with the end antagonist, then perhaps a roll shouldn't have been allowed - unless there was some other tangible benefit to him attempting it.

To avoid situations like the above, I tend to be very upfront with players about everything - for example, if they come up with a character that is very one-dimensional, I make it clear that they're not going to be a lot of use in situations where anything else is required, and further remind them that this is Star Wars, and combat is GOING to happen eventually no matter how silver tongued you are (if Leia and Lando couldn't avoid all fights, then I doubt a PC can). I LOATHE one-trick ponies, metagaming, and min-maxing, so I tend to stamp them out from the off anyways.

Are you suggesting that a makashi duelist is not actually trained in makashi, the lightsaber style which uses the makashi technique? The lightsaber specialisation for well, makashi, which comes with lightsaber as career skill and actually ranks in the skill as well.

Assuming that the character never had a lightsaber in his hand would be indeed very odd and the explanation why such a PC can actually fight with lightsabers despite not currently owning one should be rather obvious. Which leaves indeed a communication problem, when the GM told that player that he will not get to use his lightsaber skill for a long time while the player decides to choose a lightsaber spec as his first specialisation. Or well, maybe the player assumed that he could just use influence, charm, leadership and a small dose of stealth until he manages to get finally his hands again on a lightsaber and boy was he wrong with that GM *grin*

A non-combat character is afterall a absolutely valid character concept, you don't need to be good in everything, and most groups would be happy with a face character, no matter if he can use a weapon or not, as long as he knows where to find good equipment for them, helps them to pay just half-price on most of their shopping, is the guy who gets the correct informations out of that cutie from the ISB office about that shipment of children to Mustafar …

A good face character will make so many things, so much simpler, he is a party resource multiplier, can increase party performance with leadership, can acquire informations, can change alignment of npcs, manipulate events into favor for the group, avoid a lot of combat for the whole group, etc … our group is currently missing it's face character as her newborn does not leave her much time, nor sleep and it has been hell without her. We literally build a protocol droid to be able to do at least our usual basic shopping without her, but we still are not able to get most of the stuff we were used to get without problems, and don't get me started on missions when we need to infiltrate a party or attend on social events to gather informations. It is terrible without a good face in the party, life has been so hard for us poor guys with presence ratings between 1 and 2 and no social skills. ;-)

edit: BTW, not a fan of computer game logic. ;-)

24 minutes ago, Aetrion said:

You can roll charm to change someones disposition toward you, but you can't roll charm to change who they are.

And where does it looks like the player tried to change who the mob boss was? Where did he say "Hey, I want you to retire and live as a monk"?

All it does is make someone favorably disposed for an encounter so that they make an exception to their usual practices, which is what the player tried to do by Charming the Boss into talking before fighting for once.

Quote

I mean don't get me wrong, including a way to redeem the big bad of the story is awesome and big props to the GM if they can pull it off in a good way, but it shouldn't simply come down to a single charm check.

If you had read any of my posts in the thread, you'd see that I agreed with that. The Charm roll isn't a 'winner take all' deal where the players get everything they want in one fell swoop. It's just an opening to a social encounter with Negotiation, Coercion, or Deception depending on how the players want to handle it from there. But this wasn't posed as a case where a player was upset because he didn't autowin an encounter with Charm; he was upset because the GM just flat out denied the use of ANY social checks because "This is a boss fight! You have to fight him!"

Quote

Of course social checks are meant to avoid combat, but letting people roll social checks to lobotomize their enemies isn't how the game is supposed to work.

And that would be relevant if that even remotely what the player was trying to do.

Quote

Sometimes there have to be enemies you just can't reason with for the game to stay interesting.

Bull. There are tons of ways to encourage players to have to fight their enemies without railroading.

• Charm won't be used if the players aren't genuinely willing to compliment/work with the enemy in question.
• Deception won't be used if the players aren't willing to lie to the enemy.
• Coercion won't be used if the players don't want to threaten the enemy.
• Negotiation won't be used if the players don't want to offer anything to the enemy.

And this is of course ignoring the fact that some of these checks, even if the players ARE willing to make them, can be made very difficult to reflect the monumental task they're trying to achieve.

Quote

I mean if Palpatine could have been convinced to restore the democracy don't you think one of the thousands of senators who made this case to him repeatedly over the 20 years before he finally dissolved the Senate would have gotten a lucky roll?

Well, given the amount of Red Die and Setback accumulated by the previous failed attempts, Palpatine's sky-high Presence and Cool skill, Force-know how many ranks in Nobody's fool, and situational modifiers for being directly opposed to Palpatine's life long ambitions and work....I'd say it explains why he was able to sway so many senators over to his side. They went in to convince him, and instead came out convinced themselves.

23 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

Are you suggesting that a makashi duelist is not actually trained in makashi, the lightsaber style which uses the makashi technique.

If the character has no ranks in the Lightsaber skill? Then yes I am.

It'd be like saying that someone who takes the Pilot spec for the skill array and odd talent should immediately be the best pilot encountered by the group despite having no skills in any Piloting areas. By spec? Yes, they should be, but without the skill ranks to back it up then the character merely has potential, and no actual skill.

Sure, you COULD handwave it and say that bugger it, they still are pilot aces because they have the spec regardless of skill allotment, but when the dice fall the results will more frequently tell a different story.

But justification is just my way of doing things. Each GM to their own.

1 minute ago, LadySkywalker said:

If the character has no ranks in the Lightsaber skill? Then yes I am.

It'd be like saying that someone who takes the Pilot spec for the skill array and odd talent should immediately be the best pilot encountered by the group despite having no skills in any Piloting areas. By spec? Yes, they should be, but without the skill ranks to back it up then the character merely has potential, and no actual skill.

Sure, you COULD handwave it and say that bugger it, they still are pilot aces because they have the spec regardless of skill allotment, but when the dice fall the results will more frequently tell a different story.

But justification is just my way of doing things. Each GM to their own.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the Career and the ingame RP don't necessarily have to align. You don't have to have the Bounty Hunter Career to hunt bounties, you don't have to have the Smuggler Career to smuggle, etc. In the case of the Makashi Duelist, there's a number of way to 'fluff' it out, but the simplest to me would be a fencer used to a foil. In this way, despite having no ranks in Lightsaber their natural potential (granted in part by the Talent that lets them use Presence) shines through.