NEWS

Con and Specializations

  • 33 Replies
  • 7304 Views

忍

  • *
  • Guest
« on: <06-03-16/1925:15> »
I imagine Con to encompass lying to NPCs. I know con is short for confidence, and the term refers to scamming someone. I just wish there were more examples for specializations than Fast Talking and Seduction.

Does anyone have any more to add or perhaps have some perspective as to what all it could include.

fseperent

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
« Reply #1 on: <06-03-16/2010:59> »
What pops to mind is poker and other games where you can bluff.

bangbangtequila

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 442
« Reply #2 on: <06-03-16/2039:16> »
The Long Con: Planned, carefully constructed lies. These are the lies like accidentally meeting the woman manager, spending a long night talking about your burgeoning career as a lawyer and listening to her confide her feelings that she's unappreciated at work, and coyly squeezing a kiss at the end of the night leaving her weak at the knees and waiting by the phone for days. This would apply to any con extended test.

The Limp: In the same way seduction applies to inducing feelings of attraction and lust, this is garnering sympathy. A faked broken leg, holding your dog struck by an exec's car, or tricking that secretary into thinking you are a new hire and if you can't deliver the package in person you'll be fired and your sick mother won't get the care she needs.

Just a couple examples.

Glyph

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1661
« Reply #3 on: <06-03-16/2109:11> »
The two listed specializations cover a lot, and the impersonation skill might also be frequently used by a con artist (in SR4, it was a con specializsation rather than a separate skill).  Other specializations could possibly be fraud, extortion, and gambling (which would cover cheating and shell games as well as bluffing).

&#24525;

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #4 on: <06-04-16/1428:12> »
How do y'all feel about misdirection? Kind of like deflecting a question to change the subject. It could be done by replying with a tangential question or answering with something barely relevant. Well hell, what about straight up lying? EX:

KE: "Why do you have a gun?"
PC: [bold face lie]

Would you as the GM have the player roll con? Would you rather restrict con to actively fooling someone to release valuables such as nuyen or expensive things?

fseperent

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
« Reply #5 on: <06-04-16/1452:54> »
How do y'all feel about misdirection? Kind of like deflecting a question to change the subject. It could be done by replying with a tangential question or answering with something barely relevant. Well hell, what about straight up lying? EX:

KE: "Why do you have a gun?"
PC: [bold face lie]

Would you as the GM have the player roll con? Would you rather restrict con to actively fooling someone to release valuables such as nuyen or expensive things?

With that example, I would call for a fast talk roll.
Con should be used if the PC has to deal with questions from people he/she wants to lie to.

Reaver

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
  • 60% alcohol 40% asshole...
« Reply #6 on: <06-04-16/1808:47> »
Both fast talk abd seduction cover a LOT of ground for the average runner....

Especially when you consider that Con schemes are usually long haul affairs that take days to months to really pull off.... which would almost make them Shadowruns in an of themselves.

But for the 'quick' couple of tests to get past the guard/secratrary? Fast talk and Seduction are the soecialities you are most likely to use...
Where am I going? And why am I in a hand basket ???

Remember: You can't fix Stupid. But you can beat on it with a 2x4 until it smartens up! Or dies.

Aaron

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #7 on: <06-04-16/2250:05> »
I imagine Con to encompass lying to NPCs. I know con is short for confidence, and the term refers to scamming someone. I just wish there were more examples for specializations than Fast Talking and Seduction.

Impersonation used to be a specialization, I think, but now it's its own skill.

FancyDerek

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 50
« Reply #8 on: <06-09-16/1606:25> »
How do y'all feel about misdirection? Kind of like deflecting a question to change the subject. It could be done by replying with a tangential question or answering with something barely relevant. Well hell, what about straight up lying? EX:

KE: "Why do you have a gun?"
PC: [bold face lie]

Would you as the GM have the player roll con? Would you rather restrict con to actively fooling someone to release valuables such as nuyen or expensive things?

It's a con roll, however, the more implausible the lie, the bigger DP penalty...

&#24525;

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #9 on: <06-09-16/2035:19> »
Well sure. I'm just inquiring whether con includes all lies and if so to what depth in regards to specializations. The above example was off-the-top and not likely to represent an actual scenario; twas merely rhetorical. I wouldn't have any KE believe PC trying to justify their having a gun because being hunted by a dragon or such (neg DP) :P

Edit: However, if the PC had Con (Sympathy) I would allow the +2 provided they wanted to say that were being chased by an abusive ex-lover. 

Do y'all think targeting emotions warrants being a specialization?
« Last Edit: <06-09-16/2039:18> by 忍 »

Reaver

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
  • 60% alcohol 40% asshole...
« Reply #10 on: <06-09-16/2201:12> »
Well sure. I'm just inquiring whether con includes all lies and if so to what depth in regards to specializations. The above example was off-the-top and not likely to represent an actual scenario; twas merely rhetorical. I wouldn't have any KE believe PC trying to justify their having a gun because being hunted by a dragon or such (neg DP) :P

Edit: However, if the PC had Con (Sympathy) I would allow the +2 provided they wanted to say that were being chased by an abusive ex-lover. 

Do y'all think targeting emotions warrants being a specialization?

hmmmm....

As a GM, I'd allow it....You still have to figure out how to play off/generate that emotion in the target, and the same trick isn't going to work on all the time so it's not too over balanced.

Where am I going? And why am I in a hand basket ???

Remember: You can't fix Stupid. But you can beat on it with a 2x4 until it smartens up! Or dies.

Glyph

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1661
« Reply #11 on: <06-11-16/0653:48> »
Specialization by specific emotion - that's a good idea.  Sympathy is good, you could also have greed (a lot of financial scams hinge on this), and hate (things like Humanis demagoguery).

adzling

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #12 on: <06-11-16/1211:23> »
We use con:seduction for any time you are promising favors in exchange for something.
So we allow con: seduction to be used for non-sexual seduction i.e. power, wealth, privilege, access etc.
Using it effectively  depends upon finding the pressure point for the mark but they all are variants of seduction.
So in our game con:greed is already covered by con:seduction.

Con: fast talk covers almost any option where improvisation and short-term goals are the outcome but NOT con attempts that revolve around the exchange of something sought after by the target (that's con:seduction, see above).

hope that helps in your game!

Beta

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • SR1 player, SR5 GM@FtF & player@PbP
« Reply #13 on: <06-11-16/2041:21> »
I'm honestly not sure if this is a reasonable specialization or not -- we struggled to figure out what skill it should be, and settled on con, but others may not agree.

Specialization: the truth.

Sometimes it is hard to convince people of the truth (or what you view as the truth).  "We are here to help you.". "Your uncle is a blood mage.". "I really don't know where the black bishop is.". "there was no experimental prototype, the whole lab was empty."
Tipperman  --
speechthoughtmatrix

Glyph

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1661
« Reply #14 on: <06-11-16/2120:26> »
I would say that's a reasonable specialization.  Sometimes it is harder to get someone to believe a hard truth than it is to get them to accept a comforting lie.