• Player: Ok I walk up to the Rodian Diplomat and try to get him to let me into the Senate building.
• GM: Ok make a Charm check
• Player: (rolls 2 Success and 1 Advantage) Ok I do it. I use My advantage to say that He gives me the code to the door as well.
• GM: ok

Vs.

• Player: I approach the Rodian Diplomat, "Senator Beedo it is wonderful to see you here in the capitol. Did you have an uneventful journey here..." (Player Role-Plays greeting and gently broaching the subject of being let in the building)
• GM (Senator Beedo): "Thank you for your concern but I am late for a committee would you be able to meet with me later?"
• Player: "Well I would love to meet with you later but I'm afraid this problem won't wait, I wonder if I could walk with you and brief you on the way?"
• GM: (Decides that the Player has made a convincing argument) "Very well but you must speak quickly as I have much to do."

Two extremes, but my point is that I notice at times this game really seems to promote being on automatic dice check mode instead of actually playing out scenes. It's compounded when the character has some talent that makes them super convincing because often the player has no clue as to how to play out being convincing, but the dice said he is, so he Jedi Mind Tricks his way past situations without having to actually deal with that situation.

I have one player in particular who repeatedly overestimates his ability to do things because he is always banking on that Triumph.

• Player: I tell the mayor that he needs to help us with the problem
• GM: You do realize that he knows that you slept with his wife and wrecked his car right?
• Player: Yes, I will use Convincing Dialogue and make a Charm check.

Of course the GM '"No" comes out, but I feel like the game seems to sometimes promote this kind of thing with some of the social outcomes that it codified into rules.

What are some of the ways you get the players to actually role-play the situations, and do you leave out the FFG magic talking stick at times? Make them actually talk and figure out solutions?

Free and gratuitous bonuses when the players actually start to roleplay first, ask for dice situations and conditions later.

The system actually seems to encourage this, as the extra boost dice and ability upgrades you might decide to give provide all the more chaces for advantages, successes and even triumphs. More so than providing a flat +2 to any roll you deem worthy of a bonus.

Also, "Role first, Roll later" can be rewarded in other, less defined ways. When the players actually start to talk in character first, I allow the NPCs they speak to the opportunity to become so much more than just an obstacle. When they just 'roll their +20 Convincing roll', the NPC gives in, and later is the same obstacle, needing the same rolls. When actually roleplaying, I reward the players with intangible but also very much fun stuff like friendships. If every town guard is an obstacle to be rolled against every time, meh. If half of them become your friends, because you actually 'speak to them', and learn their names and families, likes and dislikes, however...

Do you make your players explain in excruciating detail how they are shooting the stormtrooper or smacking the Gamorrean guard with their vibro-sword? I get what you're asking here, but I often find that GMs penalize people playing face characters by expecting them to roleplay much more than people who play pilots, fighters, rogues, healers, or any of a number of other party roles. In other words, I'm glad the game includes mechanics to allow a shy or socially awkward player to portray a confident people person. That's a feature, not a bug.

To your example of the player trying to Charm the guy who has all rights to hate him, you're perfectly within your rights to say it's an impossible task, and that they will need to flip a DP to even try. You then give them a red or two in addition to represent the danger of this approach.

16 minutes ago, SavageBob said:

Do you make your players explain in excruciating detail how they are shooting the stormtrooper or smacking the Gamorrean guard with their vibro-sword? I get what you're asking here, but I often find that GMs penalize people playing face characters by expecting them to roleplay much more than people who play pilots, fighters, rogues, healers, or any of a number of other party roles. In other words, I'm glad the game includes mechanics to allow a shy or socially awkward player to portray a confident people person. That's a feature, not a bug.

To your example of the player trying to Charm the guy who has all rights to hate him, you're perfectly within your rights to say it's an impossible task, and that they will need to flip a DP to even try. You then give them a red or two in addition to represent the danger of this approach.

No one seems to have any problems describing in excruciating detail the shooting or smacking lol. I actually think that the non-combat stuff deserves and should have it's spotlight and maybe even should be more of the game, but I also feel like that doesn't happen when Auto-Rolls are substituted for playing out these things. It's super fun to actually do the scene instead of always rolling an outcome.

Also if players can't do things then they can't and I get that, but I don't like just giving up without even trying. Many a player comes out of their shell eventually and the Auto-Rolls are good for giving that space, but if they become a permanent habit then you lose the chance to have the immediate scenes.

Well, if your goal is to get the players to roleplay more (and provided you aren't unfairly penalizing face characters), I might try a few tacts:

1) Nudge the auto-roll player for some context on the approach. Tell them that "I roll Charm against the guard" is perhaps too vague. Maybe follow that up with, "What's your general approach like? How are you appealing to his better nature?" The player may not do it in character, but perhaps they'll give you some ideas to play with. "I say he has nice eyes and that he reminds me of my dearly departed husband." Certainly better than "I roll Charm."

2) Let them roll, but then have them narrate the die results. Maybe they just auto-roll the Charm check, and it comes back with 2 Successes and 1 Advantage. Great! But now you say, "Explain a bit about what just happened. What did you say and how did the interaction go?" The player can then elaborate much as above. "Oh, I told him he reminded me of a famous holo star, and he was flattered. In fact, he wants to introduce me to another guard and he forgets to lock the cell; that's the advantage."

3) Model the kind of roleplaying you want. You provide the narration instead of the player (as in 1 and 2 above) to show them how to do this sort of thing in the first place. This is how I first learned the power of narration in RPGs. I used to play D&D very mechanistically; "I shoot an arrow and hit for 5! The bugbear is down to 2 HP now!" But then I had a very animated GM who would narrate out the results of die rolls. "You notch your arrow and let it fly with a thrum. The bugbear turns around just in time to get an arrow to the eye. He screams in pain as he yanks the shaft free and turns to face you!" I never knew this was a thing I could do in RPGs until I had it modeled for me first. Maybe something similar would work for social encounters in your game.

In short, it sounds that your issue isn't necessarily one with social checks so much as it is with players not getting into the narrative spirit of the game more generally. I don't think it's fair to expect any more out of a social check than you do out of a combat or piloting check. But no matter what the check, the players can always be coached into explaining what they're doing as if it were part of a novel or play rather than a simple mechanical exercise.

I should also say I am looking for a discussion and not help with a problem. I like to see how other people do things, but I guess I phrase these things like I am in need of help and desperate for answers. Just looking for some discussion and analysis

This is among the more hotly-contested issues among RPG players and I strongly believe that there's no right or wrong answer beyond what's right or wrong for your particular group.

My particular group is very story / character / roleplay oriented, so we always roleplay out social encounters. At the same time I try to be careful not to completely invalidate social stats, skills, and talents; especially in systems like this one which have so many of them. So we'll roleplay through it; and then at the critical juncture of getting what they want from the NPC, I'll have them make a die roll. And yes, I'll give bonuses if the player really sells it and penalties if they really stick their foot in their mouth.

Is this a little unfair to shy players? Maybe, but I don't have any in my group at this time. And I also hold the same standards when the situation is reversed. In my Dark Heresy campaign, I have a very eloquent player who's playing a sort of Judge Dredd knockoff with a very low Fellowship score. He might make a very compelling argument and still fail because, even with the bonuses, he flubs the roll. I'll tell him, "It was a good argument coming from you , but your stick-up-rear character just wasn't able to sell it as well as you did."

39 minutes ago, Vorzakk said:

This is among the more hotly-contested issues among RPG players and I strongly believe that there's no right or wrong answer beyond what's right or wrong for your particular group.

My particular group is very story / character / roleplay oriented, so we always roleplay out social encounters. At the same time I try to be careful not to completely invalidate social stats, skills, and talents; especially in systems like this one which have so many of them. So we'll roleplay through it; and then at the critical juncture of getting what they want from the NPC, I'll have them make a die roll. And yes, I'll give bonuses if the player really sells it and penalties if they really stick their foot in their mouth.

Is this a little unfair to shy players? Maybe, but I don't have any in my group at this time. And I also hold the same standards when the situation is reversed. In my Dark Heresy campaign, I have a very eloquent player who's playing a sort of Judge Dredd knockoff with a very low Fellowship score. He might make a very compelling argument and still fail because, even with the bonuses, he flubs the roll. I'll tell him, "It was a good argument coming from you , but your stick-up-rear character just wasn't able to sell it as well as you did."

Yeah I like a hybrid approach as well. I have two players in my group currently who struggle with the social RP but they get Boost or Setback based on the way they present their argument or approach. Also the context is huge. I find that sometimes I have to invalidate the Talent they may have because the situation is just not one in which they can talk their way out of something completely.

I love that part about the character lol. Too funny

I don’t expect my players to actually know how to use a sword or a missile launcher for their character to be able to use them. I also don’t expect them to know exactly what to say in a social encounter, because a lot of the time it’s fun to play characters that are not actually you.

But if a character comes up with a cool idea in combat I’ll throw them a boost, then if another character actually has a neat idea on how to approach a conversation in a social encounter I’ll do the same.

So for me all I hope for is that the players will get a little inventive, then perhaps add embellishments after the dice are rolled, to me that there is where the cool story stuff comes out.

I want to be the voice of caution here for once. In a game I was in for far, FAR too long, we somehow ended up with two Faces. Not a problem, one of them developed into a battlefield leader instead of pure face (and the other was worthless because somehow that 'kept true to her character' according to the awful player that played her...). The problem came from the fact that instead of EVER using their buckets worth of dice to solve social encounters, every single one was roleplayed out in excruciating detail, and more than once rolls were just friggin omitted entirely (as you may be able to guess, I wasn't allowed to do the same by perfectly describing how I was repairing the gear of the crew...).

Bottom line, DON'T be the GM I had in that game, who made the entire game entirely around the two faces, excluded the other two party members, and made them bored out of their minds - because when we DID try to also roleplay with the rest, WE suddenly had to roll social checks for something as simple as once requesting backup from our Alliance contact despite us currently risking our lives to save a bunch of POWs.

17 hours ago, Archlyte said:

What are some of the ways you get the players to actually role-play the situations, and do you leave out the FFG magic talking stick at times? Make them actually talk and figure out solutions?

I ask them, "what does that look like?" or "tell me how that pans out in your eyes" and then we hammer it back and forth a little. I have found players to generally be quite reasonable once they establish a framework for what is possible within a given threshold, and I will agree that this system isn't absolutely clear around those finer points like we would expect a binary dice mechanic to dictate.

Sometimes it helps us to describe what we're trying to accomplish first, then we decide what makes sense in context. "That sounds like a coercion check" or "I am thinking you're trying to bypass the lock mechanically, right?"

17 hours ago, Archlyte said:

• Player: Ok I walk up to the Rodian Diplomat and try to get him to let me into the Senate building.
• GM: Ok make a Charm check
• Player: (rolls 2 Success and 1 Advantage) Ok I do it. I use My advantage to say that He gives me the code to the door as well.
• GM: ok

Vs.

• Player: I approach the Rodian Diplomat, "Senator Beedo it is wonderful to see you here in the capitol. Did you have an uneventful journey here..." (Player Role-Plays greeting and gently broaching the subject of being let in the building)
• GM (Senator Beedo): "Thank you for your concern but I am late for a committee would you be able to meet with me later?"
• Player: "Well I would love to meet with you later but I'm afraid this problem won't wait, I wonder if I could walk with you and brief you on the way?"
• GM: (Decides that the Player has made a convincing argument) "Very well but you must speak quickly as I have much to do."

Two extremes, but my point is that I notice at times this game really seems to promote being on automatic dice check mode instead of actually playing out scenes. It's compounded when the character has some talent that makes them super convincing because often the player has no clue as to how to play out being convincing, but the dice said he is, so he Jedi Mind Tricks his way past situations without having to actually deal with that situation.

I have one player in particular who repeatedly overestimates his ability to do things because he is always banking on that Triumph.

• Player: I tell the mayor that he needs to help us with the problem
• GM: You do realize that he knows that you slept with his wife and wrecked his car right?
• Player: Yes, I will use Convincing Dialogue and make a Charm check.

Of course the GM '"No" comes out, but I feel like the game seems to sometimes promote this kind of thing with some of the social outcomes that it codified into rules.

What are some of the ways you get the players to actually role-play the situations, and do you leave out the FFG magic talking stick at times? Make them actually talk and figure out solutions?

IRL I'm an engineer. I could tell you step by step how to repair a jet or starfighter translating my knowledge to Star Wars.

However I couldn't convince a 5 year old to give me his candy even if my life depends on it XD

The point is skill checks are there because the player can't possibly know what the character knows. That's why you roll. It's great if you can roleplay it, but they should still make the check because the characters skill is shown on the dice, not by narrating. It's for the players to make it more interesting.

I've also fallen victim to the "let's all act out social encounters, and if your approach is good, I'll give you a boost die" school of GMing. I was playing an Entrepreneur with gobs of Negotiation, but every time I tried to actually negotiate, I'd represent it as hard-nosed business dealing. The GM thought the character was a jerk and routinely gave him setbacks for this tact. I had a hard time explaining that my character's the expert negotiator, not me.

This idea of separating player ability from character ability is one of the reasons I like how Genesys has modified the social encounter rules a bit. Now, NPCs have Motivations, and PCs get bonuses or setbacks for working for or against an NPC's Motivations, whether willingly or unwillingly. The system thus prevents the most egregious cases of "I Charm him with my 5 Yellows!" and instead requires the player to at least say how they are charming the NPC, or what their general pitch is.

21 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Two extremes, but my point is that I notice at times this game really seems to promote being on automatic dice check mode

I don't see how this game is different from any other...at some point in a dice-based game you roll for your result, and some people are more comfortable rolling than role-ing. Depends on the player and your table.

I grant boosts if the player is clever/entertaining in their approach. I might even ask if they want to "earn" a boost by asking if there's anything they say in particular to get what they want. But I don't push it, and to @SavageBob 's point, you have to separate the intent of the player's application of their PC's skill vs their own (possibly dismal ) execution of that intent when awarding dice.

13 minutes ago, whafrog said:

I don't see how this game is different from any other...at some point in a dice-based game you roll for your result, and some people are more comfortable rolling than role-ing. Depends on the player and your table.

I grant boosts if the player is clever/entertaining in their approach. I might even ask if they want to "earn" a boost by asking if there's anything they say in particular to get what they want. But I don't push it, and to @SavageBob 's point, you have to separate the intent of the player's application of their PC's skill vs their own (possibly dismal ) execution of that intent when awarding dice.

Oh by that I mean they built classes around doing those kind of checks for each environment, and I have noticed that in other groups I have watched play they will use a skill and not play out or describe what is happening. It's the old "I use my sword. I rolled a 17."

I agree that being clever and/or entertaining is always great and I feel it should be rewarded mechanically.

2 hours ago, SavageBob said:

I've also fallen victim to the "let's all act out social encounters, and if your approach is good, I'll give you a boost die" school of GMing. I was playing an Entrepreneur with gobs of Negotiation, but every time I tried to actually negotiate, I'd represent it as hard-nosed business dealing. The GM thought the character was a jerk and routinely gave him setbacks for this tact. I had a hard time explaining that my character's the expert negotiator, not me.

This idea of separating player ability from character ability is one of the reasons I like how Genesys has modified the social encounter rules a bit. Now, NPCs have Motivations, and PCs get bonuses or setbacks for working for or against an NPC's Motivations, whether willingly or unwillingly. The system thus prevents the most egregious cases of "I Charm him with my 5 Yellows!" and instead requires the player to at least say how they are charming the NPC, or what their general pitch is.

I'm not wholly against the thing of the character being more capable than the player, as I am a Simulationist myself and would rather have the character be represented appropriately, but I notice that sometimes the disconnect becomes profound between player and character.

The first and most important road block to players using social skills like magic, or the Force, is called a GM. Just like I am not letting someone Pressure Point a Rancor on Crack into unconsciousness, I am not letting someone in the middle of a gun fight use their suave Charm to get people to lower their weapons. Is that RAW? Probably not. Is it how things are going to work? You bet your couch tool it is.

I also like the nuancing in Genesys.

Some players (and some groups) are just happier rolling the dice and providing the bare minimum of "role" playing in their RPGs. While it's not my preferred style of gaming (I very much prefer to add role-playing elements when and where I can), that doesn't mean it's an inherently "wrong" or "bad" way to play RPGs.

As has been mentioned, some players just aren't comfortable giving all the extra fluff for social interactions that a face character would know how to say. To quote Krista (wife of GM Chris of the Order 66 podcast) with regards to an old Saga Edition campaign he was running where she played a Twi'lek Noble (who was indeed the party face), "I don't know the exact right words to say, but my character sure as **** would" at a point when the GM (Chris) was trying to get her to engage in deeper social interaction with an NPC, and at that point in the night she really wanted to just roll the dice against what was ultimately a throw-away character with minimal plot relevance at that point.

I honestly feel the best approach is to just require the bare minimum of how the PC wants go about the social check, such as a general gist of the dialogue or a summary sentence, and not penalize them or harangue them for not being interested or capable of getting into a deeper social interaction with an NPC, especially if that NPC isn't uber-critical to the campaign's plot. And if the player is willing to get more into the dialogue exchange or even comes up with some really choice lines prior to making the skill check, then toss them a boost die or two.

It's not unlike the way 7th Sea 2nd edition handles skill checks, namely that while you really don't need much to determine what it is your rolling, going the extra mile for a cool description of how you're doing it is worth a bonus to the roll, with a better and more evocative description potentially being worth a bigger bonus to the roll.

As for the "well my players have no problem describing their attacks in combat," I think a part of that is it is the very rare RPG player that's not seen a decent volume of action movies (fantasy, historical, modern, sci-fi, etc) where combat occurs, and thus can use those as a reference point even if the player themselves has no actual combat training. I myself have no training in classical fencing, but I've seen enough films featuring such things that for a swashbuckler character I can give at least a half-way decent description of how my swordsman goes about dueling his foe. And while a great many of those films do feature dialogue exchanges, such scenes tend not to stick out in most viewers' minds save for the ones where there's some really cool and/or funny one-liner. After Blade and the Matrix came out, the Shadowrun games I was in was almost drowning in PCs who described their actions in combat by drawing from those films, and I'm sure the John Wick film inspired characters who attack with near-clinical efficiency. Over in Legend of the Five Rings during the time AEG owned the property, various samurai anime were a big influence to both characters and how they attacked, with Rurouni Kenshin and Samurai Champloo being particularly notable.

I guess something else to keep in mind is that Star Wars is primarily about action, about the heroes (the PCs) doing things. I remember one of the complaints when the prequels came out was that there was too much talking in TPM and AotC about what were plot-trivial matters (YMMV on how much of that is true.) There's probably a great many players that view conversation-based encounters as akin to cut-scenes in an action-orientated video game; something to endure or preferably skip through as quickly as possible to get back to the action.

10 hours ago, Richardbuxton said:

I don’t expect my players to actually know how to use a sword or a missile launcher for their character to be able to use them. I also don’t expect them to know exactly what to say in a social encounter, because a lot of the time it’s fun to play characters that are not actually you.

But if a character comes up with a cool idea in combat I’ll throw them a boost, then if another character actually has a neat idea on how to approach a conversation in a social encounter I’ll do the same.

So for me all I hope for is that the players will get a little inventive, then perhaps add embellishments after the dice are rolled, to me that there is where the cool story stuff comes out.

I agree, but there is a lot of air between "I roll for charm" and "I try to talk to this guy about why he wants so much money for that landspeeder. I also try to ask him about his business here on Tatooine."

7 hours ago, Archlyte said:

I agree, but there is a lot of air between "I roll for charm" and "I try to talk to this guy about why he wants so much money for that landspeeder. I also try to ask him about his business here on Tatooine."

Agreed, I don't think I'd let anybody get away with "I roll for charm" if the encounter is supposed to have some duration. As a GM I need some idea of subject matter, approach, etc so I can riff off it and create a more compelling encounter. A good encounter is a two-way street, as we all know.

However, I might allow it if we chose to shortcut the scene or fast-forward to another time.

"I roll for charm: uh oh, I got 2 successes, 2 threat, and a despair."

"Okay, you spend the night carousing the bars, looking for someone who can get you closer to the Cobra King. Looks like you ran into one of his many ex's, a Devaronian by the name of Katrice. Unfortunately, she's somewhat reluctant to talk about him. But, more disturbing, you feel itchy in your nether regions..."

Time and a place. Stand up comedy at a memorial service? Maybe I suppose, depending the decedent, but in general? Nope.

Charm, certainly not while weapon fire is going off, even if they're potentially willing to listen most people are focusing on leaving with the same number of holes in them they walked in with, not your bubbly effervescent wit. Even Scathing Tirade and Inspiration Rhetoric need at least for people to be able to hear you realistically.

Charm check for getting the price down on an item? In reality maybe, but in game mechanics it's supposed to be Negotiation, because when it's time to talk money, bidness is bidness.

Just like the Deception conversation, using Charm to lie, in reality it's the smart way to lie and get away with it, but we aren't talking about actual definitions of words, we are talking about mechanics in game terms, so what it is, not how you're doing it.

Too thin a line between all the social skills imo, if you let them blur a little you might as well not bother. I tend to insist on the Skill required simply because there are too many Talents focused on specific Skills, and if I let the player who didn't invest in being business savvy suddenly able to do it in another way the merchant character is slighted.

Pretty much goes for all the Skills, you blur lines and you might as well toss em all and just go with a few Skills. Kill, Move, Talk, Think, and Touch, and call it done....

The way I look at it is that a player willing to even give it an attempt, whether it's eloquent, cheesy, or head-scratching confusing, should be worth some bonus since they are putting in some effort. At the same time, players that are willing to to do a little role playing, whether it's describing some fancy shot or a bit of verbal banter should get a bonus on attacking.

And since GMs should be throwing in setbacks whenever possible, even just withholding a few as a reward for role playing is a good way to get players to open up a bit.

Just now, Ahrimon said:

The way I look at it is that a player willing to even give it an attempt, whether it's eloquent, cheesy, or head-scratching confusing, should be worth some bonus since they are putting in some effort. At the same time, players that are willing to to do a little role playing, whether it's describing some fancy shot or a bit of verbal banter should get a bonus on attacking.

And since GMs should be throwing in setbacks whenever possible, even just withholding a few as a reward for role playing is a good way to get players to open up a bit.

You should extend that to other skills too. The player that whips out a handgun and fires off a few shots deserves a Boost on his Ranged (Light) check... right before you call the cops.

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

You should extend that to other skills too. The player that whips out a handgun and fires off a few shots deserves a Boost on his Ranged (Light) check... right before you call the cops.

I'd smack him upside the head a few times first. Those things are loud indoors :)

I'm not going to make a player narrate out everything to do anything. If the player wants to, that is great, some of the best moments in role playing come when someone comes up with a killer idea, but having to come up with a way to be charming to a throw away NPC is mostly a waste of time. If they say just 'I roll charm' my response in invariably 'To do what?', but if you say I want to charm the bartender into letting us know when the target shows up' is fine. I dont need details on how. Its nice when you get them, but hardly essential.