17 hours ago, 2P51 said:

I don't inflict Setback dice for just choosing to roll the dice, never said that. I ask people what they're going to say in a social encounter. If they say something witty, clever, good, etc, I give a Boost, if they say something lame or silly I give a Setback. If they don't really point out what they say, they roll their dice pool whatever it is. I have guys that want to say dumb **** to actually get Setbacks because they like the tangible feedback on role playing a mouthy idiot.

I don't make anyone swing a sword at the table either, but in my combat example. One of my guys could've just said he was making a Brawl attack against the space ninja on top of the grav train and would've rolled his dice pool. What he said though was he was going to do a Captain Kirk flying drop kick at the guy. That was awesome, so I gave him a Boost.

Setbacks don't mean bad role play, Setbacks mean you're role playing badly. It's all role playing, which is the point.

It is a role playing game and people will role play to some extent if they're playing it. But at our table massive yawning would result from players trying to describe the swing of a sword with the conviction of an Oscar winner - we use our imagination, but keep it low key, to allow the action to flow.

For social interaction words are more naturally used, but we still believe the dice should determine the outcome and there is no benefit from "good acting". Cleverness can be rewarded though, but that doesn't require people to go all out soap box on the npc.

i have at times heard role players just do too much when role playing to the extent that I think in real life anyone being presented with that would laugh and think the person had some serious mental issues.

I don't like books either where 50% or more of the content is dialogue. I have often heard role players with so much in character chit chat that the story suffered severely. It became sort of a character tea party instead.

There is no right or wrong though, but there should be some common ground in a group or the game will suffer.

On 03/10/2017 at 2:09 PM, 2P51 said:

[...] I ask people what they're going to say in a social encounter [...] if they say something lame or silly I give a Setback [...] I have guys that want to say dumb **** to actually get Setbacks because they like the tangible feedback on role playing a mouthy idiot [...] Setbacks don't mean bad role play, Setbacks mean you're role playing badly. It's all role playing, which is the point.

Well, I think Threats and Despair are there to show us if something really bad happened in the scene. Being dumb or rude are just these symbols showing up in the tabletop (in social scenes). Say something lame or silly should be the Threats and/or Despair appearing in the rolls. And these symbols can appear with more frequence if the character are trying to do hard tasks (Difficult and/or Challenge dices), under difficulties (Setbacks). What can help bad results appearing in social tasks: the character has few to no ranks in Presence and Cunning, Charm, Coercion, Leadership, Negotiation or Steetwise. Setbacks are there to represent problems, minor obstacles, something hinder a character, additional circumstances and environmental effects.

Things that I believe can provide a Setback in social situations:

• The device they are using to talk has problems
• One of them (or all of them) has problems with the specie of whom is talking
• The world is burning around (fight, explosions)
• The place is noisy
• The target is angry or in rage (i.e. just after a loss, cause the moon is full, the team his support loss, etc.) (after your failure, you could have turned the target angry or in rage...)
• The character are under damage/drug/poison/sick effects
• The character are dirty, stinky, etc.
• The time is running low there
• One of them has a symbol/mark/dress that represent something bad
• The character has a bad reputation there

Things that I believe can provide a Boost in social situations:

• The character has insider/vital information to help his own side
• The character has an appreciated reputation
• The target is very very happy with something (a more generous or collaborative emotional state)
• The character is getting help from some ally (character or NPC)
• Some social pressure favors your interests (he is being pressured by someone, and even if it is a bad deal to talk to you, he does anyway because it is better than what can happen)
• The character has a good disguise that can really deceive the target
• The target has a known taste or preference for something the character has or is (specie, equipment, trophy, etc.

Speaking cool things, changing your voice, spending 15 minutes talking about the character's past, can be fun for the players, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it'll positively affect the roll of the dice, to see how the situation resolves. And roleplay something coarse or silly doesn't imply that this will be reflected in the desired way within the scene, through die rolls.

Both can represent, like people already said, a punition for who aren't social skilled. The player with more social skills, outside of the game's fantasy, is getting a bonus that directly affects his in-game success, because of that. It would be like giving bonuses to a person who understands chemistry if she explains how the bomb she wants to do will work.

A good roleplayer should deserve more XP, as an example. And if a player is being dull and talking too silly, maybe the group should talk to him to take easy. If someone just like to roleplay and no one has problem with that, he's having more fun and it's a nice reward per se.

One thing I'd try in SW is I'd have my players say what they're going to say, then make the checks - deception, whatever - and that guides the response. To the points about "well, I know a thing or two about smooth talking and that player was smooth" - to you, yes. Not to the target, if the dice say "failure".

If you think they played out their speech or pitch well or badly, you use the discretionary dice - the blues and blacks.

If they did well, got boosts, but still failed - you have full discretion to say 'they don't believe you, but admire your guts for trying" or something to that effect, rewarding their subsequent interactions with boosts or upgrades.

Really taking to heart the idea of failing forwards, the social interaction shouldn't just be "well, you rolled 2 failures, 2 threats - well done, Rain Man, they think you're weird". If you've ever negotiated in real life, or reported findings to an actual board (which is nothing like a board in a film or a TV show - though it would be much more entertaining if it was), you know that you might be gunning for an outcome such as an approval to implement a project or get funding for X. And you know that you're not going to get an approval straight away. The board/management team might be conservative; they might not see the value of investing in something they consider legacy, they might be trying to slow expenditure until the next fin year - it takes time. Just because they don't say yes as the first thing doesn't mean they're not done; GMs should have a similar approach.

So, do you want or need your players to succeed in their task? If so, how does a net result of a failure work towards that outcome?

I agree with sentiments expressed here that good acting should not be the sole determinant for good social interactions. The players with aspergers or similar social disorders - of which our hobby, as an inclusive and non-judgemental way of social engagement, has many - should be completely fine to say "I tell the lieutentant commander in charge of the Monagasque Compagnie des Carabiniers du Prince the real reason we were in that fight at the casino" instead of acting it out. The interaction itself should work with however the players are best able and how they feel most comfortable to deliver it.

But, also, when the players make a great faux pas, work with it. I had some players in an Age of Rebellion game trying to locate an Imperial subcontractor who was building bespoke virus delivery systems for probe droids. The workers were pretty repressed, and being very Rogue One level cynical the Rebels were going to use that to stage a distraction whilst also hitting the Imperial war machine in the pocket. Of course, when the team leader mentioned outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, the entire mood of the workers were sour and the party had lost its footing but everyone had had so much fun with it, and the hapless faux pas, that it still worked out well.