If the PCs try charm a NPC to stop fighting, would that still be an opposed check? Or charm a NPC into giving them his starship, I’m assuming you don’t use opposed skill check then, but rather something more difficult?

Charm should always be opposed unless the PC is targeting a large group. Then the GM can set the difficulty based on the group size.

If the PCs want to Charm an opponent to end a fight, you are within your rights to put several setbacks on such a thing, or to say it's impossible. It depends on the foe's demeanor. Are they overtly hostile? Are they neutral and there was a misunderstanding? Are they friends but had a squabble? Depending on the situation, I'd either say it's impossible, or add several black dice.

That is, social checks are not mind control. The PCs should never be able to Charm an NPC our of their ship unless the NPC is somehow really open to the idea already. In other words, if they barely know the NPC and say, "I roll Charm to have him give us his ship," you can tell them that's simply not possible. However, if they lay an elaborate plan to make it work, that's a different story: They buy the NPC nice gifts over time. They get the NPC drunk. The get the NPC to fall in love with one of them. They convince the NPC that their cause is worthwhile, and the ship will help them accomplish it. Whatever their plan happens to be.

6 hours ago, SavageBob said:

Charm should always be opposed unless the PC is targeting a large group. Then the GM can set the difficulty based on the group size.

If the PCs want to Charm an opponent to end a fight, you are within your rights to put several setbacks on such a thing, or to say it's impossible. It depends on the foe's demeanor. Are they overtly hostile? Are they neutral and there was a misunderstanding? Are they friends but had a squabble? Depending on the situation, I'd either say it's impossible, or add several black dice.

That is, social checks are not mind control. The PCs should never be able to Charm an NPC our of their ship unless the NPC is somehow really open to the idea already. In other words, if they barely know the NPC and say, " I roll Charm to have him give us his ship ," you can tell them that's simply not possible. However, if they lay an elaborate plan to make it work, that's a different story: They buy the NPC nice gifts over time. They get the NPC drunk. The get the NPC to fall in love with one of them. They convince the NPC that their cause is worthwhile, and the ship will help them accomplish it. Whatever their plan happens to be.

Thank you. I often find that people will try to do the D&D Command/Charm Person spell with a social skill check, sometimes in the middle of a firefight. Look, I didn't mean to shoot you several times just then, we can be friends now.

**** you could upgrade the difficulty because a charm to end a fight in combat most certainly has the potential to go hilariously wrong.

Book rules don't have a great solution for player actions like this other than changing the base definition of an opposed check or flat-out telling players no.

What I've tried is assigning a number, 0-5, to how much a player action counters the target's self-interest: 0 for reasonable, 5 for totally unacceptable; then adding more for each source of physical consequence to agreeing or conceding. I add Setbacks equal to that number , but also require extra Success symbols for full success equal to that number . Any other net Success is partial success.

Most of the time I might add a couple Setbacks and ask for a few extra Successes; and more often I just do a straight opposed check. But this does allow me to model the crazy attempt at persuasion in a methodical way that gives players even a little something if short of total success.

The other time I chimed in with this, one poster expressed concern over an Advantage overlap, but I think that depends on a table's interpretation as pseudo-success (which I try to avoid).

RAW says to just add Setback but I will generally upgrade the difficulty of a check if it is something that the target is emotionally against (like in a fight scenario) or if it goes against their nature or common sense (like giving up his ship for free). Social Checks should enhance the game but should not be used as a blank check for the characters to win other wise every character would maximize their Negotiation Skill and nothing else.

In the cases like listed in the OP, they both warrant a chance of a Despair. If they were trying to buy a ship and used a Charm check to try and get it for Free, a Despair would mean the owner is so insulted that he refuses to deal with them or his cost goes up 50%.

20 hours ago, Darth Poopdeck said:

If the PCs try charm a NPC to stop fighting, would that still be an opposed check?

Typically yes. Though realistically another skill would probably be a better option. Intimidating, Deceiving, or Ordering an opponent to stop fighting mid-combat is usually easier than being really really good looking at them.

But...

20 hours ago, Darth Poopdeck said:

Or charm a NPC into giving them his starship

Assuming that's even possible.

I mean think about it, how charming would someone have to be for you to just GIVE them your car?

This is a "Yes, and/but" system, but you don't have to violate basic logic and common sense. There are some things that are just literally impossible.

5 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

I mean think about it, how charming would someone have to be for you to just GIVE them your car?

This is a "Yes, and/but" system, but you don't have to violate basic logic and common sense. There are some things that are just literally impossible. 

So I'm generally (and pretty emphatically) on the side of "social skills aren't mind control". You can't Coerce Darth Vader into dropping his lightsaber "just because" you made a good roll, or any such dumb BS like that. And yet, the minute you gave that car example I thought of the scene from the movie Bandits:

The PCs have just escaped from jail and ditched their escape vehicle, a cement truck. Running down to the road into a suburban area they see a lady driving a car. They jump in front and wave her down. She's got that classic "nice suburban I-want-to help" vibe. The Bruce Willis PC leans in and somehow manages to convey authority, intensity, urgency, and sexual magnetism as he explains there's an emergency and they have to "borrower" her car. The PC's matching uniforms (even though they are prison gear and have the word "Inmate" stitched on the back) lend to the air of authority. She is completely baffled and gets out, and then the cherry on top is he says "Oh, ma'am, don't forget your purse"...and she is grateful. Then she's standing there, clutching her purse, confused...has she just been carjacked? But she still has her purse...what is going on??

If I was GM'ing and the players came up with that, I'd totally roll with it. But it also meets certain criteria, and one of the main ones is that the assets so acquired are temporary. They didn't just walk up and charm her to sign the registration over to them. It was a one-off and there were extenuating circumstances. The touch with the purse grants them extra turns of confusion in their favour, but it too is temporary.

The main point is: context is king, and how the players approach the situation makes all the difference to whether I say "Yes", "and/but", or just "No".

28 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

Typically yes. Though realistically another skill would probably be a better option. Intimidating, Deceiving, or Ordering an opponent to stop fighting mid-combat is usually easier than being really really good looking at them.

Charm could end a flight, but it has to make sense logically. The example that comes to mind is from ROTS, when Obi-Wan and Anakin are having their duel on Mustafar. Obi-Wan repeatedly appeals to Anakin's/Vader's better nature. Ultimately, his Charm checks fail, but it's at least logical for him to try that route of persuasion. Then in ROTJ, Luke tries the same trick and succeeds. I think those appeals fall into Charm's wheelhouse.

I could also see it being used to end a fight if the PCs are surrendering. "We give up!" But then the GM would be fully within their rights to end the fight then anyway. Maybe it comes into play for an opponent with bloodlust or something, or a reputation for taking no prisoners.

The Opposed Check is the base difficulty. You then increase or upgrade the difficulty, or add setbacks, based on the situations. This way, it is much more difficult to put the charm on a Disciplined pirate captain than a lowly deckhand.

• For example: you have a high-ranking NPC businessman with 3 Willpower and 2 ranks in Discipline. You try and convince him to spill some piece of information by seducing him. The base difficulty of CC D could be modified by how closely he guards that secret (increased difficulty), how much he dislikes something about you (setbacks), and/or the proximity of his colleagues/coworkers (difficulty upgrades). It could also be modified by how intoxicated he is, or by how much he already likes you (boost dice).

In the example of stopping a fight using Charm, you would use the base (opposed) difficulty, then modify things per the situation. If the fight is in progress, that's a ton of setbacks right there, like four of them, with liberal upgrades based on how intense the fight is. You could just go straight to the "Impossible check" rules and require the players to spend a destiny point to even attempt it. Deception or Coercion, on the other hand, might have a much better chance of succeeding in stopping a fight (all things being equal).

In the example of the trying to obtain a ship using Charm, it would first greatly depend on the value of the ship, the attachment the NPC feels to the ship, how much the NPC likes the player characters, and what the terms are—like, if it's a permanent transfer of ownership, an indefinite loan, or a temporary lease. Or if they are part of a crew and they are trying to convince the NPC to step aside as captain but remain the owner of the ship. If they're trying to just outright convince some random NPC to give up his starship, then that sounds more like a specific mini adventure. Like a long con, rather than a single Charm check. Unless, again, you wanted to get into Impossible check territory with the right set of circumstances.

Something fun I always enjoy is allowing my players to do opposed social checks vs each other. Character 1 with 4 ranks in persuasion wants to convince character 2 with 2 in willpower. Go for it, then roleplay the consequences. If you don't want your character to be gullible or stupid, put some ranks into those mental skills. Also works wonders with NPCs, like Jedi Exiles, who mind trick the player. "You suddenly feel a great urge to leave this guy alone and go back down the alley." It DOES take some of the player agency away, and I use it all sparingly. Most players enjoy that their characters have actual weaknesses and are more than happy to roleplay what I tell them they are thinking in those circumstances. Fighting an inquisitor or dark jedi and want a moment of interesting Roleplay? As a dear friend once said, "You want to kill your friends!"