I think this talent is overpowered as well but because of the Charm immunity. The 1 DoS on any WP is also quite powerful. In my opinion too powerful.

Personally there shouldn't be immensities there anyway like that, at the most it should be one degree of success on charm tests at the most.

The Charm immunity here confuses me. Is that part of this talent for players? Do people actually have NPCs use Charm et al. against players?

The Charm immunity here confuses me. Is that part of this talent for players? Do people actually have NPCs use Charm et al. against players?

Why wouldn't you? Don't you let NPCs fight back in combat encounters?

It's one thing to shoot a PC, and a whole different thing to force them to roleplay a certain way. I've always been opposed to using social skills against PCs, except for the odd deceive vs scrutiny.

It's one thing to shoot a PC, and a whole different thing to force them to roleplay a certain way. I've always been opposed to using social skills against PCs, except for the odd deceive vs scrutiny.

The distinction may be subtle, but it makes a massive difference: the PC isn't forced to behave a certain way, he or she is forced not to behave in a certain way.

Say a NPC successfully uses charm against your PC. Your PC hasn't been suddenly been hypnotised. The NPC can't take charge of your PC. All that has happened, is that the range of behaviour available to your PC has shrunk a tiny bit.

Whether it's a PC or a NPC really makes no difference. Social skills aren't shackles for either one.

It's more that I don't understand why I, as a GM, would roll Charm against one of the PCs. I'll either say "Yeah, he seems on the level," or "This guy is a shifty-eyed slimeball." NPC Deceive vs PC Scrutiny I can see, but actually rolling Charm, the "How much do I like this person?" skill just doesn't make sense to me.

Of course you can "shoot back" with Charm ;-). That's what Social Encounters are for. Tome of Excess is introducing quite good Social Encounters mechanic. I introduced something similar in my games long time ago.

With the talent itself I don't like the immunity fact that doesn't exist with any other skill.

Ah, the good ol' Tome of Excess rap battle simulator.

It's more that I don't understand why I, as a GM, would roll Charm against one of the PCs. I'll either say "Yeah, he seems on the level," or "This guy is a shifty-eyed slimeball." NPC Deceive vs PC Scrutiny I can see, but actually rolling Charm, the "How much do I like this person?" skill just doesn't make sense to me.

To me as a GM, the primary use of using social skills is to avoid "truth". When I tell my players stuff, I'm establishing the non-negotiable and fundamental nature of the fiction. It is very, very important to playing the game that the players know that what their GM tells them is 100% reliable.

However, as a GM of a game of mystery, intrigue and horror, reliability, facts & so on, is my worst enemy. Which means I actively try to tell my players as little as possible as a GM, and instead provide whatever information I wish through my NPCs to their PCs, often with a lot of tests involved.

It keeps my players nice & paranoid, and allows me to change my mind about things I otherwise couldn't, should I suddenly wish to.

I guess the classic example is that the players have unknowingly been working for the Big Bad, and only discover this in the 11th hour. It's an classic that a lot of roleplayers hate, because it depends on betrayal by the GM and betrayal is hard not to screw up as a GM - exactly because it's hard for a GM to clearly communicate to the players where the line between absolute truth and unreliable information is drawn.

Besides that, though, you seem to be assuming your players won't want to have their PCs use social skills against each other. Mine do quite frequently.

Your perspective is.... odd, honestly. My players pretty clearly know that, when I'm speaking as a character, not as myself, it's the character talking, and should be taken as such. This has been the case in every game I've played, too.

Your perspective is.... odd, honestly. My players pretty clearly know that, when I'm speaking as a character, not as myself, it's the character talking, and should be taken as such. This has been the case in every game I've played, too.

Our bafflement is mutual

What do you do when you have NPCs that lie, cheat or mislead?

What about NPCs that threaten or want something of or from one of more PCs?

I get that CPS's approach is to dish out fact when prompted, presumably along the lines of this:

A street urchin has engaged a PC on the street, babbling some outlandish story that makes the player ask what's up - to which the GM responds that the urchin is trying to distract the PC while his mate lifts his laspistol.

Because having a NPC use Blather against a PC is.. A worse idea, somehow. But I can't say that I understand it. To me it seems that if you limit who can use social skills, you put some very hardcore constraints on the agency of those characters, and on whomever runs them.

Or alternatively, you shift mundane system tasks to special subsystems for no particular reason. I know that in D&D it's a long held tradition that only PCs can use social skills, with the result that situations like the thieving urchins I just brought up, is resolved by an alternative set of rules created specifically for that one encounter - even though the social skill system could have resolved it, if it wasn't PC-only. To me this is bad because it sucks the transparency and reliability out of the meta, and because it is basically make-work for the GM.

Ah, the good ol' Tome of Excess rap battle simulator.

I skipped BC but if this is in it I think I need to buy this book.

What do you do when you have NPCs that lie, cheat or mislead?

What about NPCs that threaten or want something of or from one of more PCs?

I just make it clear that I'm speaking as the character, not me. If there's reason to suspect some sort of deceit, I prompt players to make a scrutiny test. If it's a bit more subtle, and generally less plot critical, I might not prompt them, but still allow it if they explicitly ask.

In terms of intimidation, and most other social encounters, I generally leave it up to players to evaluate the situation purely based on the words used. Do they find the burly goon with a bolter intimidating? If so, they'll likely play along.

Ah, the good ol' Tome of Excess rap battle simulator.

I skipped BC but if this is in it I think I need to buy this book.

Have a go with BC. I think it's quite a good system and setting.

Ah, the good ol' Tome of Excess rap battle simulator.

I perceive it more as Fencing with Words or Duel of Wits but everyone has their own definition. I like social encounters and the fact social skills can be used by both PCs and NPCs. I like it because it's a good balance for meta as mentioned earlier and allows people who in life don't have Deceive +20 and Fel 50 to play such characters and have fun from it. It also constrains players who in life are well versed and outspoken but are playing characters with Fel 15 and no social skills.

To use your rap analogy, with social encounters we, GM and players, can play rappers and do rap battle without knowing a lot about how to rap. The important bit is NPC and PCs knows how to thourgh their skills and characteristics.

Some people will say it kills role play. No, it doesn't. It forces players to accept that someone outspoke their character or convinced their character to something and they have to role play it. It creates very interesting situations.

From my experience as GM and player I've noticed that the most excitement that players have is with a challange. With social encounter the challange is clear, the rules are clear and there is a room for joe or despair when the dice roles to win an important stake are going well or bad.