Squeeks1337 says:
My first Negotiation check was made after I saw your original post about making the various starting checks. I'm not sure why it ended up being posted before your current post but it was made for that purpose, which is why I didn't redo it. I can still go ahead and add a new Negotiation to the other post if you'd prefer just to let you know I already did that roll.
Okay, that roll is fine then, we'll keep it.
Squeeks1337 says:
And while I agree for the most part that character's should have agency when it comes to their character's reactions to others, I feel like that kind of makes certain talents a little useless. For instance, Nobody's Fool: Upgrade difficulty of incoming Charm, Coercion, or Deception checks once per rank of Nobody's Fool. While based on your rules, we'll still get to use the Deception portion and occasionally the Coercion part, but makes Charm pointless. It reduces the usefulness of talents like that. Just my observation.
I hear you, Squeek. At the same time, those who designed this game are only human. And forcing players to role play certain attitudes because of dice has a lot of potential to screw things up. I could have someone roll Leadership on you and, despite the fact that you want to play villains, well, now you're members of the Rebel Alliance. Or some of you are. All it would take is a Triumph against your character. It
Also, yes it reduces the usefulness of talents like that. I've got a character in a game with Nobody's Fool. But all of us are much happier that we're not forced to role play this: "Well, he succeeded at a Charm check against you. Yeah, I know it's Jabba the Hutt, but now
you have to RP as if you like this guy. Oh wait, you're actually working for him now because of his Leadership check's Triumph. You're just really buying into the fact that he's the guy to get behind." From a game play perspective for the player, this means forgetting everything you were doing, and your plans. You're now going in a whole new direction now. And you have to role play the part.
The thing is, most players, if not all, really don't want to be forced into RPing their character a certain way.
So, it's alright that my character's Nobody's Fool loses value, because
the game is better for it. I've seen posts from GM's, especially less experienced ones, asking on various GMing forums and sites, how to handle a situation where the players feel cornered into playing a character they don't want to, or they no longer feel like they're controlling their character because a character was turned (via Leadership) or Charmed to behave in a way they really didn't want to. And the answer was universally simple, from many GM's chiming in: don't have NPC's use social skills against characters (except for torture situations, for example, where it makes
a lot more sense to do so). Simply let the players use social skills as tools against the NPC's to navigate and breathe life into the game world.
Consider this: taking away the social skills would be a major change. And some players don't want to be combat oriented, infiltrators, tech types, pilots, etc. And that's where this game shines. You can make a highly socially skilled character. Which is great. But forcing players to adopt behaviors and personalities out of alignment with their interests? Not good stuff, to say the least. The thing is, the characters have a human being behind them. Taking their control of the character away could
really take the fun out of the game for them.
And, Nobody's Fool is still highly useful without the Charm component; you're turning their purple dice into reds, allowing the potential for them to roll Despair. Not to be overlooked. As far as game balance via the depreciation of Nobody's Fool, you still don't have to worry about being Charmed, which was part of the point of Nobody's Fool anyway.