But if you know you were speeding and trying to "charm" your way out of consequences, you're still being deceptive as you're trying to avoid consequences by lying. Even if you're letting your charming personality work via innocent acts and/or flirting, you're still trying to lie your way out, and that's Deception.

Frankly I don't see Charm being very applicable in most contentious circumstances where, in all likelihood, you ARE doing something improper and trying not to face consequences for it. That's why I see it as misnamed at best and underpowered at worst given these readings.

My example didn't have a dishonest element to it. It was a straightforward attempt to get a break based only on appealing to the officer's good nature.

Frankly I don't see Charm being very applicable in most contentious circumstances where, in all likelihood, you ARE doing something improper and trying not to face consequences for it. That's why I see it as misnamed at best and underpowered at worst given these readings.

On its own it's not a tool for a strait Deception, Deception is.

Trying to get someone to do what you want isn't just a single action, or at least it shouldn't always be. Being charming should be used to open doors and grease wheels (adds bonuses). Charm is useful like Knowledge skills are useful; to give the PC tools and information to get better results from other actions. Successfuly Charm someone before you Negotiate and you're more likely to get a better deal than if you just start bargaining. Same goes with the right Knowledge skill; to know something about the object or seller that enhances your bargaining position.

What Charm should not be is a catch all social skill that can work alone for any encounter.

What Charm should not be is a catch all social skill that can work alone for any encounter.

I never said it should be. As it stands I don't think Deception should be a catch-all, and yet from both example in here and real experience, it is much more of one than Charm.

Mostly I think some interpretations for Charm in this thread are either too loose or too tight. Haven't seen one that's just right yet.

And I believe the intent of the rules is to roll that "being charming and then negotiating" thing into a single roll, not multiple successive rolls. Maybe if you're trying to really be a charmer while negotiating you get a number of Boost die equal to your ranks in Charm. That's cleaner than two rolls.

Mostly I think some interpretations for Charm in this thread are either too loose or too tight. Haven't seen one that's just right yet.

And I believe the intent of the rules is to roll that "being charming and then negotiating" thing into a single roll, not multiple successive rolls. Maybe if you're trying to really be a charmer while negotiating you get a number of Boost die equal to your ranks in Charm. That's cleaner than two rolls.

I dunno what to tell you, but most of the interpretations given in this thread sound to me very consistent with the way Jay Little, the lead designer of the game, described their use in Episode 6 of the Order 66 podcast. In fact, I listened to this episode again today because I was curious about it.

I don't believe that Jay would agree with you that the "intent of the rules" is to roll that "being charming and then negotiating" thing into a single roll, not multiple successive rolls, given that he described just this type of interpretation a number of times.

Again, this system is VERY flexible, and is designed to cover a lot of ground, from very broad rolls that cover hours of game time with a single skill check, to micro-narrating individual exchanges and performing skill checks for each.

Jay Little described a scenario where you might play out an interrogation of a PC by an Imperial different ways depending on the context of the game. If the PC had been in the spotlight for much of the session, it might be enough to perform a single Discipline Check opposed by the Imperial's Coerce skill. This would be one skill check representing the entire interrogation.

On the other hand, if the PC hadn't been featured much in the session, Jay Little and GM Chris described how you might play out the interrogation as a series of skill checks, representing the interrogation in much finer detail.

The way Jay Little described the intent of the social skill checks in the system, these are all an intended part of it, and it is intended to be very flexible.

I feel absolutely confident that the designers of the game would agree that it's perfectly intended that you as a GM and player have the option to make a Charm check to butter up a guard, followed by a Negotiation check to offer them a bribe, possibly followed by a Coerce check to threaten them to get out of the way.

Or a series of actions where one PC might do a Leadership check on the guard, to instill a sense of respect in the guard, another PC might perform a Charm check to sweet-talk the guard, and a third PC might do a Deceit check to lie to the guard and mislead them into opening the door. A GM would be well within their rights to play out such a scenario, providing bonuses to each successive roll based on the results of the previous ones.

I just think this game is much more flexibly designed than you are giving it credit for. It does not require such incredibly literal readings of the rules.

We're talking about a game that encourages the players to justify that skill for what they're trying to do. Seriously, go check page 237 - a whole table of suggestions for non-traditional uses of skills. I mean if one could use Athletics to fix a ship's hull by going "Okay, I'm hefting this massive piece of metal into place over the hole in the hull and welding it in place!" then certainly someone should be able to bull their way past a guard by buttering him up with charm, scaring the piss out of him with intimidation, or using Leadership to look important and shout with a great deal of authority:

Yeah, one could argue that it was a con job, but mostly the Doctor just simply steamrolls over the soldier trained to accept orders from someone in authority.

What Charm should not be is a catch all social skill that can work alone for any encounter.

I never said it should be. As it stands I don't think Deception should be a catch-all, and yet from both example in here and real experience, it is much more of one than Charm.

Mostly I think some interpretations for Charm in this thread are either too loose or too tight. Haven't seen one that's just right yet.

And I believe the intent of the rules is to roll that "being charming and then negotiating" thing into a single roll, not multiple successive rolls. Maybe if you're trying to really be a charmer while negotiating you get a number of Boost die equal to your ranks in Charm. That's cleaner than two rolls.

I'm not sure what the obsession is with getting things down to a single roll, it hardly seems worth it. Regardless all these rolls are Opposed rolls and generally have different opposing Skills so you can't just lump two together unless you're going to try and figure out how to deal with the opposing Skill as well. At this point it's easier (and in my opinion just makes more sense anyway) to make separate rolls that influence each other.

In our game, if the PCs were in a firefight and the hyperdrive was malfunctioning, and the Pilot roleplayed his character threatening his ship "You worthless bucket of bolts, if you don't start working right this minute, I will break you down into scrap, and stomp on the pieces!" and it made everyone at our table laugh, I'd even consider giving the Pilot a Coercion check to repair the ship