Is seduction all wrong?

[Vondy]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

The issue here isn't a seduction issue, but a skill system issue in general. The skill system is stat bases, and the stats are often broad, representing several possible things. Presence is one of the broadest stats in this regard. It can be force of personality, confidence, presence of mind, the ability to impose fear, the ability to charm, etc. As a result, a broad swath of skills rely on presence, even if the presence is intended to have a narrow application (such as the hulks, which isn't intended to represent his charming personality...). As a result, the skill system lacks granularity. A character with a 30 PRE has the option of acquiring a presence skill at 8- or 15-. There is no middle ground, even if that presence represents a "terrifying demeanor." There are a number of presence skills such a character would want that might not, conceptually, be 15- level skills. I recommend giving players the option of purchasing a skill at the 2/1 level for an 11- base roll, as opposed to the normal characteristic based method. It might do, however, to make characteritic based skills 3/1, and then introduce a skill roll cap, to keep everything on the up and up.

[keithcurtis]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

Like the sig, Von-D-Man.

 

Keith "Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes" Curtis

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

The issue here isn't a seduction issue' date=' but a skill system issue in general. The skill system is stat bases, and the stats are often broad, representing several possible things. Presence is one of the broadest stats in this regard. It can be force of personality, confidence, presence of mind, the ability to impose fear, the ability to charm, etc. As a result, a broad swath of skills rely on presence, even if the presence is intended to have a narrow application (such as the hulks, which isn't intended to represent his charming personality...). As a result, the skill system lacks granularity. A character with a 30 PRE has the option of acquiring a presence skill at 8- or 15-. There is no middle ground, even if that presence represents a "terrifying demeanor." There are a number of presence skills such a character would want that might not, conceptually, be 15- level skills. I recommend giving players the option of purchasing a skill at the 2/1 level for an 11- base roll, as opposed to the normal characteristic based method. It might do, however, to make characteritic based skills 3/1, and then introduce a skill roll cap, to keep everything on the up and up.[/quote']

 

I haven't encountered too much trouble with the sudden jump in Interaction Skills. To my mind, it's a can't do it at all unless the GM pitties his attempt to a full 8- for 1 point. It doesn't seem like much of a jump if he spend three times as many points to be that much better. In any case, if the Skill's not appropriate, it's not bought. You don't see the Hulk making shady deals in alleys, giving speaches and talking the meter maid out of a ticket because he hasn't bought Streetwise, Oratory or Persuasion. He can still make any kind of a PRE Attack he wants, but his Psych Limits and Reputation somewhat control how he actually comes across (mean and scary).

 

P.S.: I know we aren't trying to define the Hulk, I'm just using him as a stock example.

[Guyon]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

@Dr. Anomaly - The quote "Why are raincoats labeled Dry Clean Only?" is awesome!

 

 

@David Blue,

Let not say Joan of arc but more realistically the Hero: RagingBull (that is in a relationship) bursts into the Sirens layer. He beats up on her lackeys and before he nails her she engages him in conversation. All played out with actual talk.

If she can get him to sit on the couch, bed or whatever to talk. I say a successful enough seduction roll will be good enough to let her make an excuse to slip out of the room and to freedom.

Since he was stupid enough to engage the lovely Siren in a long enough chat her seduction wold be enough to call that the player would let her go since her roll was high enough. This time.

He should have buster her but in role playing he was dumb enough to let her get too friendly. Which lets a seduction control him, and give her the escape she wanted.

 

Pushing things, her seduction might get a +1 one bonus for each time this happened again (up to a limit), till be finally breaks the spell and halls her off to jail.

 

This could add a lot to the personal agony that may Hero campaigns lack. Many deal with fighting, and not the personal problems that occur in day to day life. a nice mix of RPG and a contorlling roll to a character that did something stupid and is now caught up in the situation.

[Vondy]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

I haven't encountered too much trouble with the sudden jump in Interaction Skills. To my mind, it's a can't do it at all unless the GM pitties his attempt to a full 8- for 1 point. It doesn't seem like much of a jump if he spend three times as many points to be that much better. In any case, if the Skill's not appropriate, it's not bought. You don't see the Hulk making shady deals in alleys, giving speaches and talking the meter maid out of a ticket because he hasn't bought Streetwise, Oratory or Persuasion. He can still make any kind of a PRE Attack he wants, but his Psych Limits and Reputation somewhat control how he actually comes across (mean and scary).

 

P.S.: I know we aren't trying to define the Hulk, I'm just using him as a stock example.

 

My point has nothing to do with cost and everything to do with granularity. I don't care what it costs. I do care whether or not I'm structurally limited by the system in what I can and cannot simulate. The skill system lacks granularity.

[Fox1]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

This could add a lot to the personal agony that may Hero campaigns lack. Many deal with fighting' date=' and not the personal problems that occur in day to day life. a nice mix of RPG and a contorlling roll to a character that did something stupid and is now caught up in the situation.[/quote']

 

 

I'm sure that works fine for your group.

 

 

Pity that you're forced into a "controlling roll" in order to get your players to role-play. That's a good natured flippant way to point out that we're now in one of the evergreen rpg discussion areas. The need some gamers have for mechanics to enforce behavior on players.

 

Some, such as yourself- think it's greatness, providing for more realistic and/or genre results.

 

Others, such as myself- think that if you're going to run my character with die rolls, I may as well find something more interesting to do.

 

 

It generally isn't as cut and dry as that. For example, I completely resist being led around by the nose, my entire character history ground to dust- just because someone roll good on a 3 point skill (or any skill level for that matter).

 

I'm more forgiving of 20d6 Mind Control. Although even here, such things almost never appear in my games. It's far better to have players take such things upon themselves in my opinion.

 

HERO also provides a method for the players to note their acceptance of such things. It's called psy limits. If a HERO has 'lustful', or 'easily misled by pretty females' on his character sheet- he's given permission for certain story arcs. If he hasn't taken such a disadvantage, well then he hasn't and shouldn't be forced into acting as if he had.

 

 

 

The reason this is an evergreen subject is that we won't come to an agreement. I'm reasonable certain I already understand your PoV. I'm just making this post so you may understand mine (and I'm not uncommon IME).

[Fox1]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

My point has nothing to do with cost and everything to do with granularity. I don't care what it costs. I do care whether or not I'm structurally limited by the system in what I can and cannot simulate. The skill system lacks granularity.

 

Sounds like a great time for House Rules.

 

For myself, I've noticed the same problem. It's likely less troublesome to me because as a general rule I keep even my Superheroes rather close to the normal human stat range.

 

As a result I've never be moved to take action. If not for the trend of 2 point skills (like surivival), I may have House Rule a 1 pt 9-, 2 pt 10-, 3- Stat roll change. But even then I don't think I could work up the desire to do so.

 

But I can understand how the whole thing could be viewed as a system weakness. It exists by the way in many rpgs. It's very apparent in GURPS (so much so that I consider that game to be unplayable), and in other systems as well although most dice pool designs hide it in all the dice.

[Vondy]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

I'm sure that works fine for your group.

 

 

Pity that you're forced into a "controlling roll" in order to get your players to role-play. That's a good natured flippant way to point out that we're now in one of the evergreen rpg discussion areas. The need some gamers have for mechanics to enforce behavior on players.

 

Some, such as yourself- think it's greatness, providing for more realistic and/or genre results.

 

Others, such as myself- think that if you're going to run my character with die rolls, I may as well find something more interesting to do.

 

 

It generally isn't as cut and dry as that. For example, I completely resist being led around by the nose, my entire character history ground to dust- just because someone roll gooded on a 3 point skill (or any skill level for that matter).

 

I'm more forgiving of 20d6 Mind Control. Although even here, such things almost never appear in my games. It's far better to have players take such things upon themselves in my opinion.

 

HERO also provides a method for the players to note their acceptance of such things. It's called psy limits. If a HERO has 'lustful', or 'easily misled by pretty females' on his character sheet- he's given permission for certain story arcs. If he hasn't taken such a disadvantage, well then he hasn't and shouldn't be forced into acting as if he had.

 

The reason this is an evergreen subject is that we won't come to an agreement. I'm reasonable certain I already understand your PoV. I'm just making this post so you may understand mine (and I'm not uncommon IME).

 

Even if you don't throw the dice, the skill roll gives us a general notion of how good / charming / seductive the character is. The player needs to give some specific details and definately should try to roll play it out, but characters are often more competent, more charming, and better looking than their players are - lets face is: most characters have a greater force of personality, better looks, and a greater degree of competence than their players. As a gamemaster I have to take this into account. I players to role play such situations (generally in the third person), but the skill level gives me an idea of how much leeway in terms of performance value the character should recieve so as not to suffer for their players sometimes poor performance.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

Pity that you're forced into a "controlling roll" in order to get your players to role-play. That's a good natured flippant way to point out that we're now in one of the evergreen rpg discussion areas. The need some gamers have for mechanics to enforce behavior on players.

 

Some, such as yourself- think it's greatness, providing for more realistic and/or genre results.

 

Others, such as myself- think that if you're going to run my character with die rolls, I may as well find something more interesting to do.

 

It generally isn't as cut and dry as that. For example, I completely resist being led around by the nose, my entire character history ground to dust- just because someone roll good on a 3 point skill (or any skill level for that matter).

 

I'm more forgiving of 20d6 Mind Control. Although even here, such things almost never appear in my games. It's far better to have players take such things upon themselves in my opinion.

 

HERO also provides a method for the players to note their acceptance of such things. It's called psy limits. If a HERO has 'lustful', or 'easily misled by pretty females' on his character sheet- he's given permission for certain story arcs. If he hasn't taken such a disadvantage, well then he hasn't and shouldn't be forced into acting as if he had.

 

On the one hand, I don't like throwing out estabkished character personality at the toss of the dice, so I agree. On the other hand, if PC's get an automatic "bye" from the results of interaction skills used against them, and NPC's do not, these skills become far more valuable to PC than to NPC. This is a nasty continuum, making for a tough balancing act.

 

Certainly, the personality of both PC and NPC must be taken into consideration. Trying to "interaction skill" someone into violating a Psych Lim should be at least as difficult as the player trying to viokate it hiomself. In my games, that means a "total commitment" psych lim is going to be impossible, under normal circumstances, to convince someone to violate. The Priest has a Total Commitment to his vows. At best, an extreme success on your interaction skill (say 1/2 of the roll needed, already penalized because the target does not wish to violate his principals) would be needed just to cause him to make the required Ego roll to violate the limitation.

 

A Strong psych limit would still require a very good interaction roll (not just a "just made it" success) simply to provide the character with the motivation to attempt an ego roll to violate his psych limit. Even a "moderate" would require both successful, penalized skill use and an Ego roll bgy the target.

 

In my games, I would modify difficulty based on role playing. If the player has consistently role played his psych, I might consider a greater penalty to the interaction skill. I might even consider "impossible - he cannot be persuaded to take such an out of character action". On the other hand, if the player has been consistently trying to sideline the limitation, avoid its impact and make ego rolls to resist it, it should not be as difficult for someone else to persuade him to go against his principals - just once more.

 

This would be excellent material for the Ultimate Skill - are you listening, Steve?

[Fox1]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

On the one hand, I don't like throwing out estabkished character personality at the toss of the dice, so I agree. On the other hand, if PC's get an automatic "bye" from the results of interaction skills used against them, and NPC's do not, these skills become far more valuable to PC than to NPC. This is a nasty continuum, making for a tough balancing act.

 

In general I treat my noteable NPCs the same way I would treat my Players.

 

Most NPCs are not made of high quality steel anymore than most people are, and due to the lack of personality given at their creation are thus are subject to PRE skill rolls by nature.

 

Key NPCs with a defined personality however will act according to that personality.

 

Thus the PRE skill roll is only a measure of how good a case the character made for his cause, not really the determining factor.

 

If for example a PC was to make a pass (seduction) at the pure, noble and proper princess the result wouldn't be anything like a romp in the hay no matter how well he rolled.

 

A good roll (with significant modifiers, she's see these tricks before in her position) would result in an amused princess. He's caught her eye, and from there she's going to make an effect to determine how best to respond. It's now question of what would this NPC do, not the roll made- but the roll made was needed for her to take any action at all.

 

A failed roll would brand him as a jerk best kept at a good distance, good thing her guards are near by. Failed badly enough, and he may have a difficult time remaining in the city.

 

 

The same roll made with a professional mistress on the other hand would produce quite different results.

 

And so on.

 

Players get to determine their own reaction to successful and failed rolls on them as they, and not I are the controlling factor of their personnality. In the case of a seduction roll and some characters- the best one could hope for would be a "yep, she's hot" passing shrug. You want more on PCs or NPCs of that type, take it to Mind Control.

[Vondy]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

Sounds like a great time for House Rules.

 

For myself, I've noticed the same problem. It's likely less troublesome to me because as a general rule I keep even my Superheroes rather close to the normal human stat range.

 

As a result I've never be moved to take action. If not for the trend of 2 point skills (like surivival), I may have House Rule a 1 pt 9-, 2 pt 10-, 3- Stat roll change. But even then I don't think I could work up the desire to do so.

 

But I can understand how the whole thing could be viewed as a system weakness. It exists by the way in many rpgs. It's very apparent in GURPS (so much so that I consider that game to be unplayable), and in other systems as well although most dice pool designs hide it in all the dice.

 

I let my players purchase:

 

8- at a cost of 1 point.

 

11- at a cost of 2/1.

 

9+(stat/5) at a cost of 3/1.

 

There are some limitations on how high skills can go.

[Fox1]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

I let my players purchase:

 

8- at a cost of 1 point.

 

11- at a cost of 2/1.

 

9+(stat/5) at a cost of 3/1.

 

There are some limitations on how high skills can go.

 

Did you ignore the cost difference between 2 and 3 points skills in the game treating them all as 3 point skills?

 

Survival and Navigation is the example on my mind although it looks like Animal Handler, Forgery, Gambling and Weaponsmith all share this feature.

[Vondy]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

Did you ignore the cost difference between 2 and 3 points skills in the game treating them all as 3 point skills?

 

Survival and Navigation is the example on my mind although it looks like Animal Handler, Forgery, Gambling and Weaponsmith all share this feature.

 

I charged them three points for the first category (i.e., gambling: poker), and normal cost for additional categories (2 points) and subcategories (1 point). It makes the buy in for a one-category skill a point more expensive, but advancement is cheaper, so there's nothing to complain about.

[Fox1]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

I charged them three points for the first category (i.e.' date=' gambling: poker), and normal cost for additional categories (2 points) and subcategories (1 point). It makes the buy in for a one-category skill a point more expensive, but advancement is cheaper, so there's nothing to complain about.[/quote']

 

 

Yes, that would work nicely.

 

Even so, I think I'll leave it as it is. I'll mess with construction and mechanical in-play rules till the cows come home.

 

Messing with costing however puts me even more out of sync with the rules than I already am. The gain for me isn't worth the cost.

[SuperPheemy]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

The solution is very simple, and doesn't require kludging the Hulk's PRE (which he would also be able to use to resist intimidation at any rate).

 

Don't buy Seduction for the Hulk.

 

It's like saying Energy Blast is broken, because 60 points would give the Hulk powerful optic blasts. He does not need Seduction by concept, so don't buy it for him.

 

Keith "QED" Curtis

 

Hulk doesn't have powerful optic blasts? Hulk ANGRY! HULK WANT OPTIC BLASTS! (Leaps off in search of Scott Summers)!

[Guyon]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

This was a nice conversation about how games rules work and how pepple solve them.

 

Originally Posted by FOX1

I'm sure that works fine for your group.

 

Pity that you're forced into a "controlling roll" in order to get your players to role-play.

 

 

@FOX1 - When you get off you high and mighty soap box, you might find a better way to get your point across. But I am sure you are as great as you sound so I humbly back down.

[Fox1]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

This was a nice conversation about how games rules work and how pepple solve them.

 

 

 

@FOX1 - When you get off you high and mighty soap box, you might find a better way to get your point across. But I am sure you are as great as you sound so I humbly back down.

 

Hey, I followed that quote with a statement that it was meant in a good natural flippant way?

 

Can't a guy be less then serious even when he goes to the trouble to point it out! Man.

[Fox1]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

Hulk doesn't have powerful optic blasts? Hulk ANGRY! HULK WANT OPTIC BLASTS! (Leaps off in search of Scott Summers)!

 

Ack!

 

Scott runs behind Jean...

 

Wait is she Phoenix right now with real mental powers... or dead again... or...

 

(too late. Confused by the story twists Scott is hammered into the ground by angry Hulk.)

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

Ack!

 

Scott runs behind Jean...

 

Wait is she Phoenix right now with real mental powers... or dead again... or...

 

(too late. Confused by the story twists Scott is hammered into the ground by angry Hulk.)

 

That reminds me of these two short X-Men cartoons (in Flash format):

 

X-Men: Death Becomes Them

 

X-Men: Dark Phoenix Rising

 

They are tounge-in-cheek, and funny.

[Fox1]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

 

That reminds me of these two short X-Men cartoons (in Flash format):

 

X-Men: Death Becomes Them

 

X-Men: Dark Phoenix Rising

 

They are tounge-in-cheek, and funny.

 

Oh, Love them I do.

 

Mailing them to all my friends now.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

Couple of things:

 

1. I didn't think PCs were subject to the results of a lot of PRE based rolls. If Smudger is a criminal who is being interrogated by the police and the Inspector has a ludicrously good persuasion roll, Smudger (a PC) is NOT obliged to admit guilt. Never seemed quite fair, but that's the way i think it works, otherwise it'd just be a real cheap way of doing mind control. So on the Joan of Arc point, assuming she's the PC, her virginity is safe. Mind you, I do let NPCs make social skill rolls against players: even if the Inspector can not get his confession, he becomes ever more convinced of Smudger's guilt - and maybe picks up a few clues as to where he might find some hard evidence.

 

2. Character interaction skills probably don't require seduction, conversation, oratory or many of the as a skill at all. In my ideal worls there should be one (Bluff or Reason, or somesuch) resisted by INT, another (Persuasion, perhaps) resisted by Ego and POSSIBLY another (Impress, maybe) that is resisted by Pre. The tack you take would depend on your personal style. Seduction would be a combination of one or more of these skills, not a skill on its own. You'd buy KS: Seduction techniques, or PS: Seducer, or whatever, to act as complimentary skills.

 

Asssuming you want to have sex with your target, if you combined Reason with KS Chat-up Lines then you'd basically be making them laugh, tricking them into agreeing to sleep with you.

 

Combine Impress with KS: Seduction and you sweep the target off their feet.

 

Combine Persuade with KS: Psychology and you can use a sort of mental judo to undermine the target's confidence and make yourself seem attractive, with much the same result.

 

The point is that 'seduction' is NOT just a single technique, and that what might work with one target might backfire on another. in fact if one technique does backfire then you might HAVE to try another to have any chance - and then at a penalty for multiple attempts.

 

In addition I would rather not see something like 'seduction' as a single roll in most cases, but as a series of rolls - a complex action, requiring a certain level of success to overcome inhibitions, and maybe also requiring extra time (possibly months) depending on psychology and beliefs of the target. As a GM you should define, at least in your own mind, whether a target is seduceable by the character and to what extent. Assuming that Joan of Arc is a NPC, the character may be able to succeed in making her fall in love with him, but it would be virtually impossible to make her sleep with him. Skills can only be exercised within the realms of possibility: it doesn't matter how high your lockpick skill, you can't get through a wall. Never be afraid to set limits, implicit or explicit, on what a character can accomplish through skill use.

 

This is a more generic approach to interaction skills, but I think it is potentially a better role playing tool. You try to solve a social problem with intellect, self confidence or the force of your personality (INT, EGO or PRE) as your 'basic approach' and the icing on the cake would be the complimentary skills that you can bring to bear.

 

Surely that would allow far better tuning of a character and far better role playing: some characters could seduce the intelligent but low-self esteem (high INT, low EGO) lab assistant, others would be better with the determined but timid (high EGO, low PRE) reporter.

 

I've only just thought of this, so it's probably full of holes, but it seems like a logical and workable system. What do you think?

 

3. Finally, the HULK example? Well, the HULK (as has been pointed out) has no social interaction skills anyway, and all kinds of disadvantages that make social skills difficult to use even as familiarities.

 

On the other hand, he does have massive presence. If he tells you to strip, bend over and grit your teeth, you'll probably obey through fear (a PRE attack at the +30 level), not because you're turned on by his technique (well, you might be, but let's not worry about that now, eh?), because your will has been over ruled on a pretty visceral level: you're terrified of saying 'No'.

 

That leads to the final form of social interaction, the one just short of a power, that CAN effect PCs directly - the PRE attack. In most situations, between 'normal' people, it won't be enough to 'force' a situation, and you'd be better off using your 'Impress' skill, but if it is high enough (and if you've just shredded a main battle tank between your fingers), it'll substitute nicely.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

My point has nothing to do with cost and everything to do with granularity. I don't care what it costs. I do care whether or not I'm structurally limited by the system in what I can and cannot simulate. The skill system lacks granularity.

 

I would think the mechanics lack granularity, but you are still able to simulate anything you can think of with those mechanics. If the character has PRE that doesn't apply to certain Skills, it's bought with a Limitation. Viola, you've got your "granularity".

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

I would think the mechanics lack granularity' date=' but you are still able to simulate anything you can think of with those mechanics. If the character has PRE that doesn't apply to certain Skills, it's bought with a Limitation. Viola, you've got your "granularity".[/quote']

 

I think that part of the problem with skills is the effect that characteristics have on them. In a superhero campaign this can be utterly disproportionate, and mean that just learning a skill makes you a world authority.

 

I wouldn't mind experimenting with a skill being 10 + CHAR/10, which would make skill levels far more meaningful, which would be good for granularity: you could build what you want directly. Even the average superhero would have unenhanced skills in the 12-13 region rather than the 13-15 region.

 

Moreover you could split up skill levels a bit. FIRST OFF buy INT/DEX/PRE skill levels as 5 point levels.

 

Then, instead of JUST having skill levels with INT have skills levels with MEMORY and REASONING (at 3 points each - like a 5 point level with a -1/2 limitation). If you have skill with (say) KS: Heiroglyphics, you could roll skill+MEMORY to see if remember what they mean or Skill+REASONING to try and work it out from first principles. The knowledheable old boy would have plenty of MEMORY levels, the genius young buck with a lot to learn would have plenty of REASONING levels.

 

DEX could be divided into MANUAL and BODILY (Agility) skill levels. The uses would be pretty obvious. You could even add FLEXIBILITY, if you like.

 

PRE could be divided into PERSONALITY and CHARISMA, the former being used to defend skill v skill rolls and to form long term relationships, the latter for more immediate 'aggressive' social interactions where you are trying to get the target to do something.

 

None of this would require much of a change in the system, but could add a lot in terms of defining the characters. I'm sure you can all come up with other categories.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

Couple of things:

 

1. I didn't think PCs were subject to the results of a lot of PRE based rolls. If Smudger is a criminal who is being interrogated by the police and the Inspector has a ludicrously good persuasion roll, Smudger (a PC) is NOT obliged to admit guilt. Never seemed quite fair, but that's the way i think it works, otherwise it'd just be a real cheap way of doing mind control. So on the Joan of Arc point, assuming she's the PC, her virginity is safe. Mind you, I do let NPCs make social skill rolls against players: even if the Inspector can not get his confession, he becomes ever more convinced of Smudger's guilt - and maybe picks up a few clues as to where he might find some hard evidence.

I like this take on interaction skills. It might not dictate the actions of the target character, but it might still trick the target into giving something away regardless of their reaction.

 

2. Character interaction skills probably don't require seduction, conversation, oratory or many of the as a skill at all. In my ideal worls there should be one (Bluff or Reason, or somesuch) resisted by INT, another (Persuasion, perhaps) resisted by Ego and POSSIBLY another (Impress, maybe) that is resisted by Pre. The tack you take would depend on your personal style. Seduction would be a combination of one or more of these skills, not a skill on its own. You'd buy KS: Seduction techniques, or PS: Seducer, or whatever, to act as complimentary skills.

 

Asssuming you want to have sex with your target, if you combined Reason with KS Chat-up Lines then you'd basically be making them laugh, tricking them into agreeing to sleep with you.

 

Combine Impress with KS: Seduction and you sweep the target off their feet.

 

Combine Persuade with KS: Psychology and you can use a sort of mental judo to undermine the target's confidence and make yourself seem attractive, with much the same result.

This part is making things differently complex. You would essentially be replacing a larger number of skills for a small number that are rolled in various combinations for different tasks. It's easier to just have a different single skill for a single type of task.

 

The point is that 'seduction' is NOT just a single technique, and that what might work with one target might backfire on another. in fact if one technique does backfire then you might HAVE to try another to have any chance - and then at a penalty for multiple attempts.

To me, this is the difference of having the Seduction Skill and not having it. If you have it, you know the techniques that work for you, if you don't, the best you can do is make a Persuasion roll and that almost always comes across as a clumsy attempt (but might still work depending on the target). Having the Seduction Skill also gives you a little insight as to how to handle different people for this purpose, which a person without it might not (or may, if they do have that KS but no Seduction).

 

In addition I would rather not see something like 'seduction' as a single roll in most cases, but as a series of rolls - a complex action, requiring a certain level of success to overcome inhibitions, and maybe also requiring extra time (possibly months) depending on psychology and beliefs of the target. As a GM you should define, at least in your own mind, whether a target is seduceable by the character and to what extent. Assuming that Joan of Arc is a NPC, the character may be able to succeed in making her fall in love with him, but it would be virtually impossible to make her sleep with him. Skills can only be exercised within the realms of possibility: it doesn't matter how high your lockpick skill, you can't get through a wall. Never be afraid to set limits, implicit or explicit, on what a character can accomplish through skill use.

I think Interaction skills are all about doing it now. They give you near instant results. All it takes is a single conversation, not hours, days or months. If you want to make a friend or earn someone's trust, anyone can take a few months to prove themselves and earn that trust, but a character with Seduction can garner that trust with just a few well placed words.

 

This is a more generic approach to interaction skills, but I think it is potentially a better role playing tool. You try to solve a social problem with intellect, self confidence or the force of your personality (INT, EGO or PRE) as your 'basic approach' and the icing on the cake would be the complimentary skills that you can bring to bear.

 

Surely that would allow far better tuning of a character and far better role playing: some characters could seduce the intelligent but low-self esteem (high INT, low EGO) lab assistant, others would be better with the determined but timid (high EGO, low PRE) reporter.

 

I've only just thought of this, so it's probably full of holes, but it seems like a logical and workable system. What do you think?

I think it's how role-playing should be done, but role-playing doesn't involve making Skill rolls just to interact with people. Skill rolls should be used to influence people in the short term, while role-playing influences them in the long term.

 

3. Finally, the HULK example? Well, the HULK (as has been pointed out) has no social interaction skills anyway, and all kinds of disadvantages that make social skills difficult to use even as familiarities.

 

On the other hand, he does have massive presence. If he tells you to strip, bend over and grit your teeth, you'll probably obey through fear (a PRE attack at the +30 level), not because you're turned on by his technique (well, you might be, but let's not worry about that now, eh?), because your will has been over ruled on a pretty visceral level: you're terrified of saying 'No'.

 

That leads to the final form of social interaction, the one just short of a power, that CAN effect PCs directly - the PRE attack. In most situations, between 'normal' people, it won't be enough to 'force' a situation, and you'd be better off using your 'Impress' skill, but if it is high enough (and if you've just shredded a main battle tank between your fingers), it'll substitute nicely.

 

Yes, if the Hulk came smashing down near you and started barking orders, you'd probably listen. You'd also probably move with much haste is he started breaking things if you didn't move fast enough. Then again, what kind of orders would the Hulk actually make. He might demand people run from him, get out of his way, or even demand that they keep fighting him so he still has a target to vent his anger. I doubt he'd suggest someone strip and dance for him.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

I think that part of the problem with skills is the effect that characteristics have on them. In a superhero campaign this can be utterly disproportionate' date=' and mean that just learning a skill makes you a world authority.[/quote']

 

The logic behind this is sound however. If someone is that quick mindind and perceptive, everything they learn based on that will logically be very high skilled. Same thing with skills based on an extremely high level of charisma. The character is that charismatic, so when he learns how to be seductive specifically, he's that good.

 

Think of Skills that are based on Characteristics as Adders for the Characteristic. If you have an INT of 30, you have a 15- PER Roll and INT Roll, so you are really perceptive and have a really good memory. You can then spend 3 points for the "adder" Computer Programming, which lets you use your INT Roll for figuring out computers and software. You are that perceptive, and your memory is that good, so when you start looking at the code you can keep track of it better and remember what parts of the code mean what while you work. You roll is really that high just because you have that high of an INT. There is no reason it should be less (unless the INT itself was Limited in some way).