So this is something that comes up fairly often in my games. Quite often a character, typically one lacking social skills, will want to “strike up a conversation,” usually to illicit information in a low-key fashion. We typically handle this through RP, but as this is a dice game, there comes a point where the player wants to throw them bones. And what dice pool to use gets pretty creative.

The arguments typically fall along similar lines. Charm is my default assumption, but that is countered by the player saying that they aren’t being flattering or flirty or using any particular social graces. They’re just talking. Not being deceptive, not being overbearing, not haggling over prices, not asserting their authority.

So now it becomes the realm of alternate social skills. If the target of the conversation is the shady sort, Streetwise becomes the obvious choice. But what about when it’s just a mechanic or a low-level bureaucrat? Or just a normal cantina patron?

We get a lot of arguments for using the Cool skill and the justification tends to be, “I’m just keeping it low-key; playing it cool, ya know?” Sometimes players argue to pair it with Cunning, because they’re trying to subtly steer the conversation to a certain topic. They’ll say, “The rules say you can sometimes use Skulduggery with Agility, so why not allow that exception with other skills?”

Others will argue for Perception as a kind of “active listening.” They let the target talk and pay attention for any hints or clues the target inadvertantly lets slip. If the target is a Mechanic, they’ll want to use the Mechanics skill to start them talking about a subject the target is comfortable with. And if the target is a bureaucrat, players will make a great argument for Knowledge (Education) since the skill itself reads “Any time a character needs to interact with a goverment entity, an Education check may be the best way to proceed.”

At our table, we tend to let these arguments ride, which allows less socially inclined characters to have something to do when words are flying instead of blaster bolts. On the other hand, it does tend to detract from players who have Diplomats or Colonists, as it’s not so simple for them to use Charm to shoot a blaster.

So how do you guys tend to handle these sort of things? Curious to know.

42 minutes ago, Atticus Havelock said:

If the target of the conversation is the shady sort, Streetwise becomes the obvious choice. But what about when it’s just a mechanic or a low-level bureaucrat? Or just a normal cantina patron?

[Snip]

If the target is a Mechanic, they’ll want to use the Mechanics skill to start them talking about a subject the target is comfortable with. And if the target is a bureaucrat, players will make a great argument for Knowledge (Education)

I hadn’t thought about it, but now that I do, I like what you’re saying here. I might say to use the Characterstic that is commonly used for the particular type of interaction, paired with whatever skill you pick, as a sort of half-measure, but the skill logic seems pretty reasonable.

Thanks! My players have also suggested there needs to be a Griping skill. They usually improvise it by using, say, Knowledge (Outer Rim). “****** fuel prices are rising across the Allied Tion again. Third time this cycle! How’s the little guy s’pose to make a living like this, ama right?” Make friends through mutual belly aching. Adding in some alcohol usually provides a blue die.

Something that helps me determine what skill to use in a given situation (especially for social checks) is to think about it from the perspective of what the character is trying to accomplish, rather than what the character is specifically doing.

Even if they are trying to acquire information in a subtle manner by 'just talking' they are still making an attempt to get information out of someone as they would be with a more overt method. And the way they approach 'just talking' determines the skill to use.

If they're striking up an honest conversation and hoping their charisma and personality will loosen the tongue of whoever their talking to, go with Charm.

If they're being boastful and trying to impress the person with tall tales to bait them into one-upping them with the information they want, it would be Deception.

If they're trying to demonstrate their relevant acumen so that the person feels they stand to gain from divulging this information (or stand to lose from not divulging it) you could use Negotiation, Coercion, Streetwise, or even a relevant Knowledge Skill.

Of course, another option could be to utilize custom skills. If the players want a 'Griping' skill to represent proficiency with small talk and idle chatter, there's nothing stopping you from making a custom skill to let them do that. If you want to you can even have it 'keyword share' with another social skill (or multiple skills) for getting it as a Career skill and/or Talent usage.

First, your players' system sounds like it's working, so that's great. It's definitely inventive, and I like it when players are creative with the rules.

That said, my guess is that, per RAW, most of what you describe is supposed to fall under Charm. If the goal is to legitimately chat someone up in a congenial manner, that's plain ol' Charm. So, where does that leave your blue-collar mechanic trying to chat up the working-class moisture-vaporator tech? In that case, an alternative might be to let the PC first try a Mechanics check to establish that their character knows what common ground they share with the target. Then grant boost dice to the subsequent Charm check based on how well that Mechanics check goes.

By RAW, you can already add boosts for various circumstances. So I'd grant a boost out of the gate for being of the same social class, species, or profession as the target (no roll required). Is alcohol involved? Another boost (or more depending on how drunk the target is). Then more potential boosts for that Mechanics check I mentioned. You might even take a page from the Genesys rules and let the PC guess one of the target's motivations with a couple of Advantage, granting another boost on any subsequent checks if they pander to it. At the end of the day, you make it so that your non-face characters can have a fighting chance of passing the Charm check in a believable fashion.

That's how I'd handle this, but, again, your solution sounds fun, too.

21 minutes ago, SavageBob said:

First, your players' system sounds like it's working, so that's great. It's definitely inventive, and I like it when players are creative with the rules.

That said, my guess is that, per RAW, most of what you describe is supposed to fall under Charm. If the goal is to legitimately chat someone up in a congenial manner, that's plain ol' Charm. So, where does that leave your blue-collar mechanic trying to chat up the working-class moisture-vaporator tech? In that case, an alternative might be to let the PC first try a Mechanics check to establish that their character knows what common ground they share with the target. Then grant boost dice to the subsequent Charm check based on how well that Mechanics check goes.

By RAW, you can already add boosts for various circumstances. So I'd grant a boost out of the gate for being of the same social class, species, or profession as the target (no roll required). Is alcohol involved? Another boost (or more depending on how drunk the target is). Then more potential boosts for that Mechanics check I mentioned. You might even take a page from the Genesys rules and let the PC guess one of the target's motivations with a couple of Advantage, granting another boost on any subsequent checks if they pander to it. At the end of the day, you make it so that your non-face characters can have a fighting chance of passing the Charm check in a believable fashion.

That's how I'd handle this, but, again, your solution sounds fun, too.

This approach is more reasonable, especially with Knowledge skills

I think all of this works. RAW certainly says at times combining skills with alternate attributes makes sense.

I actually wish this was hard built into the system more so people feel freer to do it. I think it makes perfect sense to do a check ysing your skills in mechanics but presence as the base.

I think you ultimatly have to decide on the intention behind why they are chatting it up.

Most conversations should still fall on charm, doesnt need to be cloying you it can just be you being nice, coercion, even if your intimidation is only a subtle display of dominance or power to impress, deception, boasting or white lies, negotiation, even if thats for your life like Saul Goodman, streetwise or cool to speak like a local cool or if your trying to either blend in or stand out as the fonz of the party.

1 hour ago, SavageBob said:

First, your players' system sounds like it's working, so that's great. It's definitely inventive, and I like it when players are creative with the rules.

That said, my guess is that, per RAW, most of what you describe is supposed to fall under Charm. If the goal is to legitimately chat someone up in a congenial manner, that's plain ol' Charm. So, where does that leave your blue-collar mechanic trying to chat up the working-class moisture-vaporator tech? In that case, an alternative might be to let the PC first try a Mechanics check to establish that their character knows what common ground they share with the target. Then grant boost dice to the subsequent Charm check based on how well that Mechanics check goes.

By RAW, you can already add boosts for various circumstances. So I'd grant a boost out of the gate for being of the same social class, species, or profession as the target (no roll required). Is alcohol involved? Another boost (or more depending on how drunk the target is). Then more potential boosts for that Mechanics check I mentioned. You might even take a page from the Genesys rules and let the PC guess one of the target's motivations with a couple of Advantage, granting another boost on any subsequent checks if they pander to it. At the end of the day, you make it so that your non-face characters can have a fighting chance of passing the Charm check in a believable fashion.

That's how I'd handle this, but, again, your solution sounds fun, too.

This is pretty much exactly how I'd handle it, except I'd probably skip a separate roll for mechanics/knowledge/etc and just hand out some boost dice based on the character's skill level (or possibly setback dice if they're faking competence/knowledge they don't have).

As working out the result of check can be fairly complex compared to simple pass/fail checks, I usually avoid making extra checks unless they can lead to interesting results. If the case is something like a character's mechanics skill might be to their advantage in a social check, I'd cut out the middleman and just modify the social check with boost dice and possibly upgrades.

Of course, the inverse is true as well. If you're trying to bluff your way out of a situation with a faked reactor leak or weapons malfunction, but have the technical aptitude of a scruffy nerf herder, I might throw some setback dice your way.

12 hours ago, Atticus Havelock said:

So how do you guys tend to handle these sort of things? Curious to know.

Blow air out my nose at them. Greens exist; blues are the reward for creative play. I'm not okay with making the player who invested in the social side of things feel like they wasted resources getting good at something that others get to be good at for free when they had to pay for it.

As you say, the charmer faces great difficulty shooting people with Charm. It follows that everyone should have problems charming people without Charm.

In my game we played around with swapping the default characteristic for skills, but in the end we came up with a much simpler idea that we refer to as the synergy bonus. It works like this: Whenever you make a skill check where another skill could give an indirect bonus, add one boost dice for every two ranks in the other skill you have.

For example, if the group is investigating the scene of a scuffle, one player may get a synergy bonus to their perception check from having 2 ranks of melee or brawl, because that knowledge should impact how they read the clues. Or when trying to save the life of a strange organism with a medicine check, they'dt get a synergy bonus for having ranks in knowledge: xenology. With the aforementioned idle chat meant to loosen the tongue of a mechanic, the player's charm or cool roll would get synergy for having ranks in mechanics.

It's worth noting that you only get a boost dice for every two full ranks of a skill, and this is done on purpose to encourage players to invest at least two ranks in skills they're likely to use, if only to get that beautiful boost dice.

Also, it makes my job as a GM a lot easier when I can ask the players if they can imagine any skill that might synergise with their present challenge.

If they're just making conversation and looking for information, but not trying to actually influence someone else, it's not a social check at all. Social checks involve influencing people, fear, lies, flattery, etc. You're trying to make someone think/do what you want.

Just looking for info and it's whatever skill you care to use for analysis of the information they gather. It's the same sort of thing when using sensors. It's not a computer check at my table, it's what are you looking for in the data?

No different than your eyes. 2 people look at table in a room with a table cloth and centerpiece. One is an interior designer, one is a carpenter. The one sees the styles and colors selected. The other is looking at the style of construction of the table and materials used. They're seeing the same thing, but they're picking out the stuff relevant to themselves, their backgrounds, skills etc.

6 hours ago, Sunrunner said:

Blow air out my nose at them. Greens exist; blues are the reward for creative play. I'm not okay with making the player who invested in the social side of things feel like they wasted resources getting good at something that others get to be good at for free when they had to pay for it.

As you say, the charmer faces great difficulty shooting people with Charm. It follows that everyone should have problems charming people without Charm.

I don't think allowing a mechamic to use a presence/mechanic check usurps the charmer. How many people will care about their mechanics expertise?

This is how I would play it. Via a scenario:

A mechanic is wanting to talk his way past a security guard in a junkyard so he try and scavenge for spare parts. He has no ranks in any social skills and has 3 Intelligence and 2 ranks in Mechanics.

I would allow him to make a difficult Mechanics check first, to gain insight into how a mechanic might be able to talk his way through. Adding in Boost or Setback based on relevant circumstances. For the sake of the environment, he has been here before, so 2 Boost added.

Success might mean he understands what social check is best to use, and Advantages will add Boost dice to the Social checks, Triumph might mean no need to check, or an upgrade for the Social check (depending on my mood at the time)

He rolls 1 Success and 3 Advantage!

He knows the best way to get past the guard is to pretend he is a Mechanic from a gang allied to the scrapyard owner - it will be a Deception check.

He has a Cunning of 2, and he is taking 3 Boost from the Advantages. The guard has a Discipline of 3. The Mechanic can add a boost as he knows the rival gang well, so can talk the talk. The guard is naturally entrusting, so add a Setback. The player really needs these parts so he flips a destiny point. That makes the roll 1 Proficiency die + 1 Ability dice + 3 Boost versus 3 Difficulty dice + 1 setback.

He rolls 2 success and an advantage! Not only does he succeed, but the guard tells him where to look. Add a Boost to his check to find what he needs.

This is why I love this system. It allows the players and GM to think outside the box to help add to checks.

It is important to play the scene, not the stats. This was discussed in a d20 Podcast and I took it to heart...at least I would have if I had actually listened to it...

By RAW and by default, I as a GM would say, if your conversation does not involve falsehoods (Deception), power plays (Coercion), negotiation (Negotiation, duh), or illicit activities (Skullduggery or Streetwise), than it's Charm. It's irrelevant how well you might know a subject matter if you're unable to communicate that knowledge effectively, and that's where Charm comes in. Not just relating information in an understandable way, but, especially in casual conversation, an interesting way. A charming way, one might say. A way that makes the person you're talking to want to keep talking to you, and not wander off and go do something more interesting.

I'm going to talk about the Firefly episode "Shindig" here a moment. If you have no idea what that is, shame on you. Anyway, Mal needs to go to a fancy party to talk to a contact about some extralegal cargo transportation, and he brings Kaylee, ship mechanic, with him to appear a bit more respectable. We see Kaylee get insulted by some of the rich, fancy women at the party, before an older gentleman comes in and drives them off with a well-placed barb. Back to Mal and our A-plot for a bit, then we catch up with Kaylee, in a brief bit, surrounded by young men and the older gentleman from before, talking about various machines, and Kaylee giving her expert opinions, including that the new machine one of the guys wants to buy is actually the same machine, "they just changed the plating and hoped no one'd notice." Now, we all know Kaylee knows her machines, but here we see her communicating that knowledge in an interesting and entertaining (and a bit uncouth around these fancy young gentlemen) way, and this gets her not only this gaggle of boys hanging on her every word, but one of them actually asks her dance, before another insists she keep talking (applicable result of a Triumph if you ask me). If Kaylee had all Mechanics and no Charm, then she's just quoting from the manual, and no one wants to sit around listening to that.

Now, if a topic of conversation is covered by a skill a character is really good at, maybe some upgrades to the roll relating to their ranks in that skill. Like, if Kaylee has 5 Mechanics and 3 Charm, maybe let her upgrade her Charm roll twice (the difference between Mechanics and Charm) or something like that. But Charm shouldn't just be about flattery or flirting or even, really, knowing etiquette and courtesies. It's about being interesting, charming company. Kaylee in the above example talks like she normally does to these fancy young gentlemen. . . rapid-fire mechanical jargon mingled with generous Chinese cursing, totally inappropriate for the setting she's in (and she's, if I recall correctly, actually sitting on a table noshing on some fruit while she's talking, another social faux pas), but the men are enraptured by her, because, well, she's Kaylee, and Kaylee is awesome.

Trying to sneak your guy on board via a job interview. Mechanics/presence makes more thematic sense than charm.

RAW points out more than once that you can combine different skills and attributes. I think handling everything with a blanket charm is boring. It also has nothing to do with game balance. Its also not raw to just lump it as charm thats your assumption.

You guys have a lot of great ideas! I really like the idea of using the “alternative” social skill to generate boost dice for the actual social check. I agree that Charm is the default “conversation” skill. I think the solutions you guys present are a good use of the game mechanics as presented. The Firefly example with Kaylee at the fancy party is a good one.

I also like 2P51’s idea that a comversation without an attempt to “influence” uses other skills not for the act of conversing, but rather for the act of interpreting the information. That’s a great idea too.

Thank you much! I think these ideas will be well received at our table. A very solid sort of compromise.

7 hours ago, Kthonian said:

In my game we played around with swapping the default characteristic for skills, but in the end we came up with a much simpler idea that we refer to as the synergy bonus. It works like this: Whenever you make a skill check where another skill could give an indirect bonus, add one boost dice for every two ranks in the other skill you have.

For example, if the group is investigating the scene of a scuffle, one player may get a synergy bonus to their perception check from having 2 ranks of melee or brawl, because that knowledge should impact how they read the clues. Or when trying to save the life of a strange organism with a medicine check, they'dt get a synergy bonus for having ranks in knowledge: xenology. With the aforementioned idle chat meant to loosen the tongue of a mechanic, the player's charm or cool roll would get synergy for having ranks in mechanics.

It's worth noting that you only get a boost dice for every two full ranks of a skill, and this is done on purpose to encourage players to invest at least two ranks in skills they're likely to use, if only to get that beautiful boost dice.

Also, it makes my job as a GM a lot easier when I can ask the players if they can imagine any skill that might synergise with their present challenge.

I like this idea too. We’ve used it from time to time, but never really codified the actual in-game mechanic. It’s come up most often when trying to impersonate a certain profession, typically of the Imperial sort. Very common with those Rebel characters who are Imperial defectors and want to go undercover using knowledge from their former lives to enhance the disguise.

Using Knowledge (Warfare) or (Education) you can get a boost to Deception or Skulduggery checks by virtue of knowing something about the job you’re impersonating. Warfare for military officers, Education for bureaucrats.

In considering the responses many of you have given, it would appear the consensus is that Charm is the default “conversation” skill. I am prone to agree with this assessment. However, for the sake of discussion, let me pose a counter-argument.

Social interaction is a subtle give and take. When people engage in conversation, and overt attempts to influence through flattery or deception or intimidation are not present, it is expected that all engaged parties interact with one another with the expectation they will obtain some benefit from doing so, even if said benefit is intangible.

People talk to gain social acceptance, to seek validation for their beliefs, for catharsis, or because they simply like the sound of their own voice. If you can determine what a person expects to get out of a conversation, you can provide that to them and they will talk. If you misinterpret their desires, they will lose interest and break away from the conversation.

If a person wants to share their ideas with a kindred soul, they might clam up if you are argumentative or present an alternate point of view. If they crave a debate, but you simply agree with them, they will become disinterested and cease the conversation. If they just want a shoulder to cry on, they might be put off if you pipe up too often. If you reveal an opposing set of beliefs, they may no longer be friendly or receptive to speaking with you.

Understanding what your target wants and giving it to them in exchange for what you want is Negotiation. The default “conversation” skill.

Edit: To expand upon this further by using the game mechanics as presented, a social interaction where both participants are angling to get a benefit could be Negotiation versus Negotiation. If one participant has no overt agenda and is being unwttingly negotiated against, it would be Negotiation versus Cool. Conversely, the player could be using Cool versus the target’s Negotiation to determine what benefit the target desires. A successful check would identify that desire and the conversation could then cater to it. In any case, trying to get information out of a target is a Negotiation check to barter this intangible benefit. If the player fails the check, the target gets wise to the player’s motivations. Then the player might have to change tactics or resort to flat out bribery of tangible benefits (i.e. credits) to continue the Negotiation. Or, worse, might have to give up some information they’d rather not.

Too much of a stretch?

15 hours ago, penpenpen said:

This is pretty much exactly how I'd handle it, except I'd probably skip a separate roll for mechanics/knowledge/etc and just hand out some boost dice based on the character's skill level (or possibly setback dice if they're faking competence/knowledge they don't have).

As working out the result of check can be fairly complex compared to simple pass/fail checks, I usually avoid making extra checks unless they can lead to interesting results. If the case is something like a character's mechanics skill might be to their advantage in a social check, I'd cut out the middleman and just modify the social check with boost dice and possibly upgrades.

Of course, the inverse is true as well. If you're trying to bluff your way out of a situation with a faked reactor leak or weapons malfunction, but have the technical aptitude of a scruffy nerf herder, I might throw some setback dice your way.

It's so much simpler, great thought!

23 minutes ago, Rimsen said:

It's so much simpler, great thought!

And it has the advantage of keeping dice rolls to a minimum, which keeps the game moving. Very smooth use of rules as they currently exist.

6 hours ago, Rimsen said:

It's so much simpler, great thought!

Yeah, I like this, too. It actually matches what @Kthonian was suggesting about "synergy bonuses," only Kthonian has codified it a bit more. I still think there's potential to allow a roll for common ground in some instances, just because I like my players to get to use skills they've put points into more actively. Like they're trying to talk up a rich socialite, and the guy with three ranks in Knowledge (Core Worlds) wants to identify her accent to use it as an icebreaker. "You're from Chandrilla, huh?" But I'm not sure where the line would be.

I try to keep dice rolling to a minimum. And encourage role-playing. If someone wants to assist another party member with a task, I want to know *how* before I hand out boost dice. And if the player can actually role-play out the interaction, I might just let them succeed without a roll of dice, depending on what they say, what the NPC's attitude is toward them, what kind of effect it will have for the NPC, etc. Any time the player touches dice, failure is on the table. I saw a D&D session once that took about two hours to get *anything* accomplished because the GM made them roll dice to find objects, hair samples, etc, of a kidnap victim. In their own home. And because they rolled like crap, they couldn't find loose hairs. In a hairbrush. In the victim's bedroom.

I also want to reward role-play. If players have to roll whenever they want to talk to someone, once they fail enough times they'll just lead with grabbing dice.

10 hours ago, Atticus Havelock said:

In considering the responses many of you have given, it would appear the consensus is that Charm is the default “conversation” skill. I am prone to agree with this assessment. However, for the sake of discussion, let me pose a counter-argument.

Social interaction is a subtle give and take. When people engage in conversation, and overt attempts to influence through flattery or deception or intimidation are not present, it is expected that all engaged parties interact with one another with the expectation they will obtain some benefit from doing so, even if said benefit is intangible.

People talk to gain social acceptance, to seek validation for their beliefs, for catharsis, or because they simply like the sound of their own voice. If you can determine what a person expects to get out of a conversation, you can provide that to them and they will talk. If you misinterpret their desires, they will lose interest and break away from the conversation.

If a person wants to share their ideas with a kindred soul, they might clam up if you are argumentative or present an alternate point of view. If they crave a debate, but you simply agree with them, they will become disinterested and cease the conversation. If they just want a shoulder to cry on, they might be put off if you pipe up too often. If you reveal an opposing set of beliefs, they may no longer be friendly or receptive to speaking with you.

Understanding what your target wants and giving it to them in exchange for what you want is Negotiation. The default “conversation” skill.

I think that's an interesting take, but I think that allowing Negotiation to go too far into intangibles treads on Charm's territory. The thing to remember is that Charm is not just about "flattery" in the sense of complimenting someone until they like you enough to do what you want, but also encompasses appeals to a character's better nature. "Look, one mechanic to another, is there anything to those rumors about new jobs in the Imperial weapons factory?" is a Charm-based approach because you are appealing to a sense of shared identity to get information without making any kind of explicit offer. You can frame that as transactional, as one character offering recognition of another's abilities in exchange for continued conversation on a given topic, but if that's the case, so is flattery, at which point why would you ever use Charm? There's always potential for overlap between social skills because situations can be fuzzy, but I think it helps preserve some kind of a niche for each if Negotiation is used primarily when there's an explicit offer on the table, and Charm is used when the only "offer" is warm fuzzy feelings or a sense of satisfaction. Otherwise characters might end up ignoring Charm entirely on the grounds that any social interaction can be characterized as a transaction, allowing them to use Negotiation all the time.

All that being said, others have made good points about keeping dice rolling to a minimum, and along those lines, it's a good idea to ask yourself as a GM whether a roll to get information is even needed in the first place. If the NPC has no motivation or special consideration that makes them inclined to hide information from the PCs, then getting them to reveal it in the course of conversation should be a straightforward proposition that doesn't require picking up the dice. You call for a social roll when the PCs need to work for it.

The whole point is that most skills overlap. Thats like, part of the whole idea behind the system. Different ways to do things... Say there is a rope bridge thats out. Both coordination abd athletics are both fine, however the possible outcomes or difficulties might be different. During a shootout i may allow both negotiation, deception or coercion to try and talk your way out depending on the context, maybe all of the above... Not all with the same difficulty.