[Warmachinez]

As it is a Player, of course, if they fail the Con check, they still lie.

They just don't lie convincingly.

(I'd give bonus dice for coming up with something really good.)

((This is in direct reference to the above comments on folks who don't believe in using Social Skills vs PCs, not you specifically, Warmachinez.))

Completely agree! If my player roleplays accordingly and spits out a very convincing lie in an appropriate manner I give them bonuses.

[summers307]

Seconded. This only causes problems with players who do an absolutley terrible role-play and think they deserve an Oscar.

I settle this with a vote around the table. Thankfully my PC's can agree on "I'd believe that"' or "I think he should take a penalty on that one. That felt like one inbred cousin having sex in my left ear and another inbred cousin having sex in my right ear, and  they're meeting in the middle".

A little excessive but there you have it.

[JoeNapalm]

       

             





-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[RHat]

As it is a Player, of course, if they fail the Con check, they still lie.

They just don't lie convincingly.

(I'd give bonus dice for coming up with something really good.)

((This is in direct reference to the above comments on folks who don't believe in using Social Skills vs PCs, not you specifically, Warmachinez.))

Completely agree! If my player roleplays accordingly and spits out a very convincing lie in an appropriate manner I give them bonuses.

Of course, the problem with that style is it makes it that much more difficult to play this particular type of character as a wish fulfillment - you're effectively being penalized for not actually being as good as your character.

Besides, I prefer to see the check as having to do with every facet of communication BUT the specific words your use.

[JoeNapalm]

As it is a Player, of course, if they fail the Con check, they still lie.

They just don't lie convincingly.

(I'd give bonus dice for coming up with something really good.)

((This is in direct reference to the above comments on folks who don't believe in using Social Skills vs PCs, not you specifically, Warmachinez.))

Completely agree! If my player roleplays accordingly and spits out a very convincing lie in an appropriate manner I give them bonuses.

Of course, the problem with that style is it makes it that much more difficult to play this particular type of character as a wish fulfillment - you're effectively being penalized for not actually being as good as your character.

Besides, I prefer to see the check as having to do with every facet of communication BUT the specific words your use.

Giving someone a bonus for Roleplaying well is not the same thing as a penalty for not being as good as your character.

If I give Bob the Samurai a gold star for RP, it is not the equivalent of punching Dan the Rigger in the face for not being exceptional...though, honestly, that might motivate Dan to show up prepared to get into character. 

But then, I don't see my table as motivated by "wish-fulfillment" but rather telling interesting stories.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[RHat]

In the case of Face characters, giving a bonus for a well-crafted lie means you're denying the bonus to someone who can't put such a thing together, making them less effective at the role.  The exception, of course, is if you asess the bonus criteria in some part based on the player in question.

[Black]

This is veering dangeriously into heated debate territory...
So, the key is how do you reward good/entertaing roleplaying in a game without 'penalising' the players who don't/are unable to go the extra mile?
I think this will come down to individual groups and there playstyle.  I encourage rules light, roleplay heavy games where being stylish/entertaing/creative is rewarded with lower then expected threshold or bonus 'cool' dice.
I don't make people say the words, but it the player has worked out something about the npc and uses It? Hell, that's bonus dice. You worked out the other guy owes nuyen to the mob and you use it in your intimidation roll, that should be rewarded. Well played my friend, well played.  My group doesn't do (and this is not directed at anyone) roll some dice, your charlacter will 'know' what to say... Its just not our style.  But that's my table and I expect things to go differently elsewhere

[JoeNapalm]

 

This is heated? How so?

Seemed perfectly civil, to me.

RHat, what you're suggesting is that if I reward someone for playing a role well, I'm penalizing someone who isn't as good at that role. That's simply not true - I am rewarding the better player. I am not subtracting the dice from someone else's pool.

If you're objecting that the person who plays a role better is more effective, I don't see where that is a bad thing.

Most RPGs reward good roleplaying, and Shadowrun is no different. Look at the Karma rewards - the very first thing listed is "Good Roleplaying" followed by things like Guts, Smarts, Motivation, Humor & Drama. Pretty much all of those are rewarding behavior.

If I give a Karma reward to someone of any of those, and I penalizing the player who isn't brave, funny, or smart? No, it is a reward for exceptional play.

The concept that you can't reward someone for being good at something because that somehow takes away from someone else simply celebrates mediocrity. If your Face who doesn't come up with anything convincing to say wants bonus dice and extra Karma, he simply needs to become a better Face. He isn't penalized in any way, he gets all the dice his character earned, but to do better than that, well...he has to do better than that.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Warmachinez]

My players and I have been playing together for more then 10 years, so I know what they are capable of and as such will adjust 'reward dice' accordingly. I also suspect my group to be like Black's group, heavy on roleplay and less on rolling dice. In most situations if a player makes an argument or wants to negotiate a new fee, I ask them for a bit of explanation. If it is cursory and to the point, then he can roll his dice. If a player goes all out and gives me multiple arguments/reasons/ etc. then I could give him additional dice. It doesnt happen that often that someone really brings forward convincing and compelling reasons to recieve these bonuses, but when it happens I want to encourage it.

[JoeNapalm]

Exactly.


Example 1 - The team's Face goes up to the guy guarding the back door of the nightclub, and says:

"I try to Con my way in."

He gets his full dice pool for Con. He's just phoning it in, but his character's got skills, so he gets his basic roll.


Example 2 - The team's Face goes up to the same guy and says:

"Thank the Nine Lords of Night you're here! There's a team of Shadowrunners headed this way. Hard as coffin nails, these guys. I'm gonna go in and warn the Boss right away! You stay here, and keep your eyes open. If you see anything, anything, suspicious, you call me right away! *passes the guard an ARO of his comm number* Keep up the good work, choomba. I know talent, and you're going far in this organization!"

I'm probably going to give this guy something for the effort. This encourages him to keep it up, and the guy from Example 1 sees there's a benefit to actually becoming engaged in the game.


The most common mistakes GMs make is no positive reinforcement for quality play (Carrot) and using punishment, rather than consequences, for negative actions (Stick). You reward people for doing well - you're not punishing anyone, you're encouraging. The Stick is letting them face the music when they really botch things up, you don't punish players. You allow there to be fair and reasonable consequences for completely screwing the barghest.

The bottom line is, giving the guy from Example 2 props isn't a penalty on Guy 1. There's no negative dice. If he wants positive dice, he just needs to actually step into the role a little.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Mystalya]

Exactly.


Example 1 - The team's Face goes up to the guy guarding the back door of the nightclub, and says:

"I try to Con my way in."

He gets his full dice pool for Con. He's just phoning it in, but his character's got skills, so he gets his basic roll.


Example 2 - The team's Face goes up to the same guy and says:

"Thank the Nine Lords of Night you're here! There's a team of Shadowrunners headed this way. Hard as coffin nails, these guys. I'm gonna go in and warn the Boss right away! You stay here, and keep your eyes open. If you see anything, anything, suspicious, you call me right away! *passes the guard an ARO of his comm number* Keep up the good work, choomba. I know talent, and you're going far in this organization!"

I'm probably going to give this guy something for the effort. This encourages him to keep it up, and the guy from Example 1 sees there's a benefit to actually becoming engaged in the game.


The most common mistakes GMs make is no positive reinforcement for quality play (Carrot) and using punishment, rather than consequences, for negative actions (Stick). You reward people for doing well - you're not punishing anyone, you're encouraging. The Stick is letting them face the music when they really botch things up, you don't punish players. You allow there to be fair and reasonable consequences for completely screwing the barghest.

The bottom line is, giving the guy from Example 2 props isn't a penalty on Guy 1. There's no negative dice. If he wants positive dice, he just needs to actually step into the role a little.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

This is an awesome post. About the only thing I would add is knowing the players you're playing with. For example, if you know someone in your group absolutely fails at acting but is giving their all the best they can then don't be a "DBag GM" and make things hard on them. It will only discourage them from trying. I've always felt the real world qualities shouldn't affect things in the RP - Universe. Assuming folks are trying of course.

[RHat]

Exactly.


Example 1 - The team's Face goes up to the guy guarding the back door of the nightclub, and says:

"I try to Con my way in."

He gets his full dice pool for Con. He's just phoning it in, but his character's got skills, so he gets his basic roll.


Example 2 - The team's Face goes up to the same guy and says:

"Thank the Nine Lords of Night you're here! There's a team of Shadowrunners headed this way. Hard as coffin nails, these guys. I'm gonna go in and warn the Boss right away! You stay here, and keep your eyes open. If you see anything, anything, suspicious, you call me right away! *passes the guard an ARO of his comm number* Keep up the good work, choomba. I know talent, and you're going far in this organization!"

I'm probably going to give this guy something for the effort. This encourages him to keep it up, and the guy from Example 1 sees there's a benefit to actually becoming engaged in the game.


The most common mistakes GMs make is no positive reinforcement for quality play (Carrot) and using punishment, rather than consequences, for negative actions (Stick). You reward people for doing well - you're not punishing anyone, you're encouraging. The Stick is letting them face the music when they really botch things up, you don't punish players. You allow there to be fair and reasonable consequences for completely screwing the barghest.

The bottom line is, giving the guy from Example 2 props isn't a penalty on Guy 1. There's no negative dice. If he wants positive dice, he just needs to actually step into the role a little.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

What I'm more getting at, however, is if a player tries to come up with a good con, but can't - I, for one, don't ever want to see a situation where a player doesn't get to play what he wants because another player is better at it.

[Mystalya]

What I'm more getting at, however, is if a player tries to come up with a good con, but can't - I, for one, don't ever want to see a situation where a player doesn't get to play what he wants because another player is better at it.

I totally have this problem I can't face worth a crap because of my IRL charisma of 2. 

[JoeNapalm]

"Making things hard for them" implies penalties or punishment. Penalties are okay for the right reasons - the guard is on high alert, doesn't like Orks, you don't look like you belong there, you are carrying three Assault Cannons, etc. - but penalizing someone because they're trying and just aren't there, yet, is obviously a bad call.

As for another player being better at it, that kind of thing needs to be worked out during CharGen and team creation. If, in the examples above, I throw a couple of bonus dice to Example 2, and he is playing anything but a Face, he's still not going to be more effective than a Face who rolls their base dice pool.

Unless the Face is a total gimp, their Social dice pool should crush that of any other teammate. A Heavy Weapons Troll doesn't out Con a Dryad (extreme example, but you get my point). A team certainly shouldn't have two Faces, in most circumstances, and if it does, they should have complimentary Specializations, not overlapping ones.

People have natural strengths and weaknesses, and they don't necessarily coincide with those of their character. Some people will gravitate toward certain roles, while others will branch out and try things they might not be great at. If someone is trying to play a role well, I'm going to encourage that.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Glyph]

Being a face should be like being any other character in Shadowrun - dice pools give you raw ability, but tactics can make you more effective.  Combat is the same way.  Hand a brand new player and a veteran player the same badass sammie with 20 dice for automatics, and chances are the veteran player will be more effective.  He will know how to do things like use full defense as an interrupt action or duck behind a wrecked car for some partial cover.  The newbie will just charge in, guns blazing, and get dropped in the first round.