Is seduction all wrong?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

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.

 

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).

 

Hmm. I think that what would happen is that you'd define your skill in terms of your basic approach, but youd need just as many skills to define what your strengths and weaknesses are in terms of that approach. I don't think that supporting skills are emphasised enough. The thing that was attractive to me about my suggestion (if that doesn't souond too conceited) was that you could decide, based on role playing the situation, which type of approach you would take to seducing your target. Moreover, the accomplished seducer would be skilled in all areas of his trade, the amateur woud probably just have one approach that had worked more often than not in the past. At the moment all you can simulate that with is a higher or lower skill role - no role playing needed.

 

Furthermore, if you had the secondary skill (chat up lines) you wouldn't necessarily need the primary skill (impress/bluster/whatever) - you'd be no good at seduction but if someone tried to use that approach on you you'd have 'heard it all before' and not be impressed. It's another layer to the build of the character if you want it. The problem to my mind is that there is so much overlap between types of social interaction but only one basic approach to resisting it: this would allow far more grittiness - some people will respond better than others to a particular approach, and the 'right' approach CAN be guessed at by role playing.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

I agree - IF - you are really being friendly. If you are just acting the part, then I think that there should be a skill roll involved to see if you are caught out.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

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).

 

A good way of thinking about it, but my problem is that, especially given that we are working with a bell curve, in superhero games, a high characteristic means that you have no incentive to actually study. Adding skill levels to differentiate between your strengths and weaknesses becomes a pointless flavouring exercise: the rolls are so high that you'll hardly ever fail.

 

Anyway, it isn't accurate. The smartest person in the class in terms of IQ is not always at the top. Always in the top 10, maybe, but not 'automatically' the best. The reason the modifier should be less is becasue you would then have a reason to colour the character with skill levels to better differentiate between relative ability. There's no magic in the 9+CHAR/5, just because that's always how it has been done. There would still be differentiation for high characteristic charactecrs, but on a shallower progression, AND it wouldn't adversely effect low point total characters: they would still get the benefits they have at present, its just that to add +1 to your INT rolls you'd need 15 INT instead of 13. It would make being good at specific skills far more meaningful. IMO, obviously

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

A good way of thinking about it, but my problem is that, especially given that we are working with a bell curve, in superhero games, a high characteristic means that you have no incentive to actually study. Adding skill levels to differentiate between your strengths and weaknesses becomes a pointless flavouring exercise: the rolls are so high that you'll hardly ever fail.

 

Anyway, it isn't accurate. The smartest person in the class in terms of IQ is not always at the top. Always in the top 10, maybe, but not 'automatically' the best. The reason the modifier should be less is becasue you would then have a reason to colour the character with skill levels to better differentiate between relative ability. There's no magic in the 9+CHAR/5, just because that's always how it has been done. There would still be differentiation for high characteristic charactecrs, but on a shallower progression, AND it wouldn't adversely effect low point total characters: they would still get the benefits they have at present, its just that to add +1 to your INT rolls you'd need 15 INT instead of 13. It would make being good at specific skills far more meaningful. IMO, obviously

 

It depends on how you view reality and how you think the rules simulate it. Of course, if you are the smartest person in your class you aren't necessarily going to be the best in the class. Being the best would be a combination of natural smarts and actually using them to learn. Obviously the smarter person has an edge, but a more determined, though not as naturally gifted, classmate could justifiably surpass him in actual skill. To me, this is just the not as smart student buying more Skill Levels than the smartest student. If the smarter student applied himself just as much, he'd be the better given his natural talent. I think the Hero System simulates this perfectly, especially since it takes superhuman levels of a Characteristic to get those 14- or higher rolls naturally.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

It depends on how you view reality and how you think the rules simulate it. Of course' date=' if you are the smartest person in your class you aren't necessarily going to be the best in the class. Being the best would be a combination of natural smarts and actually using them to learn. Obviously the smarter person has an edge, but a more determined, though not as naturally gifted, classmate could justifiably surpass him in actual skill. To me, this is just the not as smart student buying more Skill Levels than the smartest student. If the smarter student applied himself just as much, he'd be the better given his natural talent. I think the Hero System simulates this perfectly, especially since it takes superhuman levels of a Characteristic to get those 14- or higher rolls naturally.[/quote']

 

Superhero games do somewhat distort things, and super-geniuses in comics are often the masters of all they turn their attention to, but it does seem odd that people reaching their natural peak do not have to pass through all the intermediate steps. You go 8- then 11- then 18- without doing 12-, 13-, 14- etc. That rankles a bit with me.

 

Not too often a problem, but it is a bit of a ticker when you have a well conceived character in the party along the lines of Batman - no real superhuman abilities but LOTS of intensive training and skills, then you get one of the superhumans learning one of his signature skills and suddenly being better at it than him, despite his years of experience. Feels wrong, and not good for the game.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

...mind you I suppose OCV and DCV are even more extreme versions of what I'm complaining about, and I haven't complained about those yet.

 

Perhaps I should.

 

I've seen and played enough martial arts to know that someone experienced with a fighting technique will beat the inexperienced fellow nine out of ten, even though the latter maybe quicker and stronger.

 

Fighting is NOT something most people are naturally good at, and yet, certainly in superhero games, most characters rely on their basic combat values.

 

Perhaps OCV and DCV should be based on DEX/5, which would emphasise skill with combat far more.

[Guyon]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

I've seen and played enough martial arts to know that someone experienced with a fighting technique will beat the inexperienced fellow nine out of ten,

 

Being a second degree in Taekwondo I agree. Even to the point of lower belts get beat most of the time in sparing against higher ranks. Which bring up the point of how valuable skill levels are.

[Guyon]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

After thinking about "forcing" players to lose control of there character with seduction, persuasion, etc. I am still convinced that it should happen under proper circumstances.

 

First it should never be a simple roll causing the effect.

 

...but if the acting player show enough skill in pulling off the acting combined with a high enough roll, then I would rule that the result should take place.

 

As a good role player it is sometimes fun to be put in a situation (not just seduction) that you have to work with, which may not be part of your plan. It is life, and actually a big part of the comics. Many hero have problems that that they have to work through. I have found that players that get into trouble more than other, put there character into situation that they should not be in, in the first place.

 

I actually find it enjoyable when a GM puts a charter I am playing in a situation that has to be dealt with. Heck that is one thing that made Spider-man so popular.

[Warp9]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

Superhero games do somewhat distort things, and super-geniuses in comics are often the masters of all they turn their attention to, but it does seem odd that people reaching their natural peak do not have to pass through all the intermediate steps. You go 8- then 11- then 18- without doing 12-, 13-, 14- etc. That rankles a bit with me.

The problem with the jumps in progression is that sometimes your attributes apply to the skills and sometimes they don't.

 

In GURPS having a high DEX helps even if you are just "winging it." In HERO, non-skilled (or low skilled) characters find their attributes totally useless, then suddenly their attributes kick in and you get a huge unexplained jump.

 

 

Why not always use attributes, even for familiarities?

 

Take 2 different characters without the climbing skill. The first is very fit, and the second is a 400 lb couch potato. I'd say that the very fit character might have a decent chance even without any training, while the couch potato would have very little chance.

 

If attributes are always used, then you don't get those strange jumps anymore.

[Warp9]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

...mind you I suppose OCV and DCV are even more extreme versions of what I'm complaining about, and I haven't complained about those yet.

 

Perhaps I should.

 

I've seen and played enough martial arts to know that someone experienced with a fighting technique will beat the inexperienced fellow nine out of ten, even though the latter maybe quicker and stronger.

 

Fighting is NOT something most people are naturally good at, and yet, certainly in superhero games, most characters rely on their basic combat values.

 

Perhaps OCV and DCV should be based on DEX/5, which would emphasise skill with combat far more.

When you say someone who is "quicker and stronger," how much of a point spread are we talking about here?

 

And it seems like if skill was the most important element involved in fighting, then most of the champion boxers, kick-boxers, etc. . ., would be the older, more experienced fighters. But that does not seem to be the case, at least from my observations.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

The problem with the jumps in progression is that sometimes your attributes apply to the skills and sometimes they don't.

 

In GURPS having a high DEX helps even if you are just "winging it." In HERO, non-skilled (or low skilled) characters find their attributes totally useless, then suddenly their attributes kick in and you get a huge unexplained jump.

 

 

Why not always use attributes, even for familiarities?

 

 

...because then high stat characters would only ever need familiarity?

 

You make a good point witht he couch potato/fit bloke thing, but: 1 Isn't climbing an everyman skill?

 

2. It is a question of balance: in the situation you describe the GM could apply penalties to the couch potato, or make END an important consideration in the climb, or...well, wing it to make it work out right.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

When you say someone who is "quicker and stronger," how much of a point spread are we talking about here?

 

And it seems like if skill was the most important element involved in fighting, then most of the champion boxers, kick-boxers, etc. . ., would be the older, more experienced fighters. But that does not seem to be the case, at least from my observations.

 

There is a limit to how much you can learn: at some point you'll know most, if not all of it.

 

Now in SOME martial arts, the softer ones or the ones relying more on technique than power, older practitioners often are better than yournger ones, BUT skill is a combination of ability and experience. If there is a ceiling on experience then those with sufficient experience but more ability will triumph.

 

My root point though is that natural ability, whilst it can help you learn and excel in a skill, is no real substitute for the actual learning bit.

[Kristopher]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

What if there were a middle ground, say spending 2 pts for 9+(CHAR/6) or something? That gives you 11- for the average PC Characteristics at 10, right?

[Warp9]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

...because then high stat characters would only ever need familiarity?

As long as you make sure that there is a place for higher skill values, it should not be a problem.

 

In other words, there is always room for improvement; no matter how high you start you could always go higher.

 

You make a good point witht he couch potato/fit bloke thing, but: 1 Isn't climbing an everyman skill?

Yes, climbing is an everyman skill.

 

However, everyman skills are familiarities. Both characters in my example would have climbing at 8 or less. Now if attributes were allowed to impact familiarities, the fit character would be better, but that is not how things currently work in HERO.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

However' date=' everyman skills are familiarities. Both characters in my example would have climbing at 8 or less. Now if attributes were allowed to impact familiarities, the fit character would be better, but that is not how things currently work in HERO.[/quote']

 

Nah, penalise the spud.

 

There's nothing wrong with saying that certain skills need certain minimum abilities to be used. That would be a better approach IMO.

 

Otherwise you have 1 point familiarities or 3 point skills. That extra 2 points gives you +3 on the skill, which is a bargain for a single skill, or even a couple. If you have a lot of skills it would be far cheaper to buy familiarities and skill levels with the points saved.

 

That is silly, and doesn't reflect the way it works in reality, IMO.

[Warp9]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

Nah, penalise the spud.

 

There's nothing wrong with saying that certain skills need certain minimum abilities to be used. That would be a better approach IMO.

To me it seems like it should be more of a continuum. Your way, the potato would have more trouble climbing than the average person, but then after that physical qualities would have no more impact.

 

But what about a character who is super strong and super agile, shouldn't that character be a better climber than Joe Average? (even if neither had training)

 

After all, relative to a super human character, Joe Average is probably worse than a couch potato.

 

Otherwise you have 1 point familiarities or 3 point skills. That extra 2 points gives you +3 on the skill, which is a bargain for a single skill, or even a couple. If you have a lot of skills it would be far cheaper to buy familiarities and skill levels with the points saved.

 

That is silly, and doesn't reflect the way it works in reality, IMO.

You are correct, but of course, the same thing applies at higher levels of skill. I see many HERO characters with a list of identical skills all at 9 + CHAR / 5, and then the character just buys skill levels.

 

For example a character might buy PRE 18 and have the following:

13 or less ---Conversation

13 or less ---Persuasion

13 or less ---Oratory

13 or less ---High Society

13 or less ---Seduction

13 or less ---Trading

3 Levels with PRE based Skills

 

Rather than increasing some skills past the 3 point value, characters just increase a whole batch of skills at once (through skill levels). This leads to lists of almost identical skills, rather than having a more unique list of skill ratings.

 

 

And even going back to your base point: the only difference in what I'm suggesting is that characters would have lower base skills and higher numbers of levels. Instead all the character's skills would be at 10- base and the character would have 6 Levels with PRE based skills. Having those 6 skills at 1 point (familiarity) rather than 3 points would be a difference of 12 points (6X1 vs 6X3), and buying 3 more levels with PRE based skills would be a difference of 15 points. The character would still be ahead by going with the 3 point skills rather than the extra levels.

 

I might suggest starting at a roll of 6 + (CHA / 5), and rather than jumping +3 for the first 2 points, and then +1 per 2 points, you could instead just have a simple smooth curve of +1 per 1 point.

 

1 point = 6 + (CHA / 5)

2 points = 7 + (CHA / 5)

3 points = 8 + (CHA / 5)

4 points = 9 + (CHA / 5)

5 points = 10 + (CHA / 5)

6 points = 11 + (CHA / 5)

 

That would lead to a smooth continuous pattern starting at 6 + (CHA / 5) and it would make it more likely that characters would increase single skills rather than buying skill batches.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

For the super strong/super agile character: remember to buy the climbing skill!

 

I think your skill suggestion addresses some of my concerns but you still wind up with some very high and very low numbers and nothing in-between.

 

Ah well, don't suppose it'll kill me...

[Warp9]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

I think your skill suggestion addresses some of my concerns but you still wind up with some very high and very low numbers and nothing in-between.

 

Ah well, don't suppose it'll kill me...

If you have a high enough attribute, you'd start out pretty high, after that everything goes smoothly with the progression I suggested.

 

Costs for various DEX based skill levels at DEX 25:

 

1 point = 11- (or everyman skill)

2 points = 12-

3 points = 13-

4 points = 14-

5 points = 15-

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

The problem with the jumps in progression is that sometimes your attributes apply to the skills and sometimes they don't.

 

In GURPS having a high DEX helps even if you are just "winging it." In HERO, non-skilled (or low skilled) characters find their attributes totally useless, then suddenly their attributes kick in and you get a huge unexplained jump.

 

 

Why not always use attributes, even for familiarities?

 

Take 2 different characters without the climbing skill. The first is very fit, and the second is a 400 lb couch potato. I'd say that the very fit character might have a decent chance even without any training, while the couch potato would have very little chance.

 

If attributes are always used, then you don't get those strange jumps anymore.

 

This I agree with. I've always though it was odd that a character with a 34 DEX only gets an 8- for 1 point in Acrobatics, though the GM might allow him to make certain acrobatic/gymnastic feats with just a DEX roll with a penalty.

 

It's hard to work out a system of default rolls though. Technically we have Everyman Skills to show which skills are considerd usable without training, but most of those are logical things that everyone (litterly) does and can do with some level of proficiency. Granted, a charismatic person should be better an Persuasion than a dolt, but he isn't unless he pays the points to be. In that respect we're back to the keystone metarule "you don't have it unless you pay for it." Would it be fair to the 20 DEX acrobat if the 45 DEX had a better base acrobatic ability without paying for it even though the 20 DEX acrobat did? Certainly not, at least not in my opinion.

 

I'm not sure if using default rolls based on Characteristics would work given the current (and historically consistant) metarule of the Hero System. Granted, that doesn't solve the granularity of Skills jumping from 8- to 14- when you have a 23 in the Characteristic. Then again, I don't see that as a problem. A character with a 23 should be that good after basic study.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

I've seen and played enough martial arts to know that someone experienced with a fighting technique will beat the inexperienced fellow nine out of ten' date=' even though the latter maybe quicker and stronger.[/quote']

 

Being a second degree in Taekwondo I agree. Even to the point of lower belts get beat most of the time in sparing against higher ranks. Which bring up the point of how valuable skill levels are.

 

Of course if we're talking about "normal" real world people, how much of a point spread are we talking. I'm sure that most of the practicioners of a martial art have between an 11 and 14 DEX. Some might have up to a 16 or 17 at most. Jet Li, Bruce Lee and any action hero martial artists might have up to a 20. (I know many will disagree, but check the statistics against the goons they fight and you don't need more than a 20, and a 23 is only appropriate if the people they are fighting have at least 20 themselves, which I doubt they do.)

 

STR is probably even tighter. I've known enough martial artists to know they have the same build. Sure, there is a lot of variance, but you're talking about a difference of less than 50 pounds bench on average. That looks like the same STR for game purposes to me.

 

So the primary difference between the martial artists, Characteristic-wise, is a single point of CV. A single CLS makes up for that instantly, and two overcomes it. Absolutely the more experienced, better trained fighter will win most of the time.

 

Now say one of these high ranked martial artists had to fight the Flash HTH. Who would win? If the Flash is just faster than them to the point where their levels don't matter anymore, the Flash will likely win. Granted, the martial artist can get lucky, trick the Flash into doing something that makes him vulnerable, but most of the time the Flash would win. Of course, even though the Flash is the better puncher and dodger and blocker, the martial artist may be the better fighter if he can anticipate the Flash's moves and plan for them. But that's a matter of tactics and planning, something that isn't taken into acount using points in the Hero System.

 

Same thing goes with any other skill. If a person's natural ability to perform that Skill is just better than someone who's trained for years, the person with the natural ability would likely be better. There is little (if any) middle ground.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

This I agree with. I've always though it was odd that a character with a 34 DEX only gets an 8- for 1 point in Acrobatics, though the GM might allow him to make certain acrobatic/gymnastic feats with just a DEX roll with a penalty.

 

It's hard to work out a system of default rolls though. Technically we have Everyman Skills to show which skills are considerd usable without training, but most of those are logical things that everyone (litterly) does and can do with some level of proficiency. Granted, a charismatic person should be better an Persuasion than a dolt, but he isn't unless he pays the points to be. In that respect we're back to the keystone metarule "you don't have it unless you pay for it." Would it be fair to the 20 DEX acrobat if the 45 DEX had a better base acrobatic ability without paying for it even though the 20 DEX acrobat did? Certainly not, at least not in my opinion.

 

I'm not sure if using default rolls based on Characteristics would work given the current (and historically consistant) metarule of the Hero System. Granted, that doesn't solve the granularity of Skills jumping from 8- to 14- when you have a 23 in the Characteristic. Then again, I don't see that as a problem. A character with a 23 should be that good after basic study.

Here's an idea (though a potentially expensive one): after Familiarity, have the Skill increase by +1 for one Character Point (or +2 for one Character Point for KSs, PSs, etc.) until you reach your Characteristic roll, then have it cost two Character Points (or one for KSs, etc.) for a +1. Also consider this to be rather intuitive leaning in story, so that it is, "easier," to pick up as bonuses for which you don't have the, "natural talent" (though of course it will still all be highly up to interpretation). Require that at least 3 CPs (or 2 for KSs, etc.?) be spent on a Skill before Skill Levels can apply to it.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

Here's an idea (though a potentially expensive one): after Familiarity' date=' have the Skill increase by +1 for one Character Point (or +2 for one Character Point for KSs, PSs, etc.) [i']until you reach your Characteristic roll[/i], then have it cost two Character Points (or one for KSs, etc.) for a +1. Also consider this to be rather intuitive leaning in story, so that it is, "easier," to pick up as bonuses for which you don't have the, "natural talent" (though of course it will still all be highly up to interpretation). Require that at least 3 CPs (or 2 for KSs, etc.?) be spent on a Skill before Skill Levels can apply to it.

 

I like the existing system, and the sudden jumps. What I don't like is the lack of detail concerning default skills (like the example of a stronger, more agile character not being able to climb any better than a whimp who can barely lift his own weight, given that neither of them have trained in climbing). I understand why such detail is lacking, however, as a Skill doesn't necessarily represent what you've studied, but it can also represent what you can do. If you think the strong agile guy should be a good climber, buy him climbing. He need not have studied or practiced climbing, he's just better at it and so has the Skill.

[Warp9]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

It's hard to work out a system of default rolls though. Technically we have Everyman Skills to show which skills are considerd usable without training, but most of those are logical things that everyone (litterly) does and can do with some level of proficiency. Granted, a charismatic person should be better an Persuasion than a dolt, but he isn't unless he pays the points to be. In that respect we're back to the keystone metarule "you don't have it unless you pay for it." Would it be fair to the 20 DEX acrobat if the 45 DEX had a better base acrobatic ability without paying for it even though the 20 DEX acrobat did? Certainly not, at least not in my opinion.

 

Fact: If my character has FAR more DEX than your character, he can be a better Acrobat, even if I've spent less points in Acrobatics. Thus you do not get what you pay for (or so it would seem).

 

But actually you do get what you pay for, a character who spends many points in DEX is investing points toward being good at all DEX based skills. So he has just invested "indirectly."

 

So I would not have a problem with the 45 DEX Acrobat having a better Acrobatics skill for less points. And if your character has spent 5 more points on Acrobatics but still has a lower skill rating, I don't see that it should matter is the point costs were 3 and 8 respectively, or 0 and 5 respectively.

 

Five points is five points (IMO).

 

Side note: normally Acrobatics is not a skill that you'd be as likely to have by default, although I guess it is possible.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

This isn't going to be easy as we are (as always) running a race between logic and game balance.

 

I haven't quoted anyone specifically, but I've read what you've written...

 

The Flash is an experienced combattant. If you were building The Flash, you probably wouldn't buy any CSLs at all as he has a massive DEX. You MIGHT buy a 'speed combat' martial arts package, but it would be pretty basic: flying dodge, passing strike and whatever you need to make up the points. In reality (that's a laugh!) The Flash couldn't help but to have picked up some CSLs over the years, but you'll never build him that way or spend your XP on them. He probably has at least as many CSLs as a decent normal martial artist.

 

It doesn't make sense that a superfit superagile superstrong person can only climb as well as an unfit, shaky weak 400lbs couch potato, but that is not a problem with the system, it is a problem witht he character design. You don't need to add characteristic modifiers to familiarities (although, aside, I've often thought about allowing 10 point 'good at everything' levels to be added to familiarities), you need to spend more time thinking the character through before committing him to paper.

 

The current progression (8-, 11- 18-, or whatever) does not mirror any kind of real life learning curve. OK we don't have real world supercharacteristics, and the smartest person in the class will always do better than the dumbest, but I don't think that the best way to model that is by STARTING with characteristics added in: if I was going to change anything then it would be that everyone starts learning a skill at the same level (8-, probably) for 1 CP, and then you can add +1CP to the skill to improve the skill by +2 so long as your current skill level is less than 9+CHAR/5. Thereafter it costs 2CP to increase your skill roll by +1.

 

To take an example, and given that, in practice, noone will ever start with a negative characteristic, assuming 4 people with INT 5, 13 and 23 learning maths (that was a joke):

 

For 1 CP they each get a roll of 8-

 

For 2 CP they each get a roll of 10-

 

For 3 CP the first stays at 10-, the others go up to 12-

 

For 4 CP the first has 11-, the second has 12- and the third has 14-

 

For 5 CP the first has 11-, the second has 13- and the third has 14-

 

UNDER HERO as it is, the 5 CP scores would be 12-, 13- and 15-

 

...and so on. The high-characteristic character has had to spend more points than previously to get that 14- skill (4 rather than 3) BUT still has a clear advantage over the low characteristic character putting in the same amount of effort (XP).

 

It will, in effect be as if a high characteristic is a skill modifier (like linguist or scientist) with a 'cap'. If you wanted to, you could allow high-characteristic characters with a skill modifier to increase at 2 points per CP until they reach their characteristic cap, so there is still a point and purpose in buying Scientist for smart characters.

 

It will make skill based characters more meaningful - they won't keep getting overshadowed by the MutantBrain, and it will encourage people to actually think a bit more about the character build.

 

One example that comes to mind is Acting: charisma certainly helps but it doesn't make you a great actor. You might fill the theatre becasue people come to see you, but everyone knows it's you, the actor - they never, even for a moment, believe that the character has come to life.

 

Now I know this is never going to be adopted in the core rules: we've always done it another way and we always will, but I do think that this addresses a lot of the concerns on this thread (including my own) that the skill system doesn't allow a great deal of customisation and favours high characteristics over expenditure on skills.

[Bartman]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

PRE works as a baseline to indicate how well one does with what one has.

 

I've always ran the result as character's choice, same with all the PRE based skills. A good roll means a good attempt- it doesn't really mean that I should toss out years of character history if we're dealing someone who's committed to their wife or an oath. So I look at the rolling character what it brings to the table and what the 'defender' brings to the table. Sometimes the roll is just icing, other times it won't work not matter what- but it will get you noticed.

 

If one whats to overide that and say I must succeed at this no matter how faithful that guy is... well that's what Mind Control is for now isn't it?

 

Exactly. My group recently finished Shades of Black. And at the end the evil sorceress attempted to 'seduce' each of the male players to help her escape. She made her roll by at least 10 in each case. But it was all for naught.

 

The first player she attemped to seduce into helping her was the husband of the teammate who's body she had stolen. A wife he is utterly devoted to. Needless to say he was unwilling to help her escape with his wife's body.

 

Next she turned her charm on a character who had recently spent a good several weeks as Talisman's love slave. He had turned on the entire team, and being basically grounded in 1950s morality he was about as horrified at the love slave bit as the betrayal. He obviously was highly disinclined to turn into another sorceress' plaything, regardless of how enticing it might seem.

 

And finally she tired to seduce the mystic, who happens to be generally opposed to very existance of most other mystics. The idea of letting a 'foresworn enemy' escape with a teammate's body was a bit repugnent.

 

Now in each case she impressed the charcters highly. But seduction is not mind control. and it should be allowed to replace it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

 

....

 

Now in each case she impressed the charcters highly. But seduction is not mind control. and it should be allowed to replace it.

 

Everything you say makes good sense. There is a bit of a dichotomy though: players can nearly always find a reason not to follow an unfavourable skill roll by an opponent NPC (or even PC!), whereas NPCs generally do not have that luxury. Even if the GM treats important NPCs in the same way he would players then he is in the unenviable position of having to fluff the situation on the fly, and it runs the risk of feeling like the GM has simply taken over and is denying success on an ad hoc basis: there needs to be middle ground.

 

OTOH I quite agree that seduction is not cheap mind control, so you need to, IMO, get a bit creative.

 

In the example that you give, the seduction attempts were made very successfully. The players shouldn't just get away with saying 'well, I don't like her, so I'm not going to do what she says'. Taking the first example - the chap whose wife's body was stolen by the sorceress. Even though he isn't going to want to let the body leave, a seduction attempt, correctly pitched (perhaps coupled with Acting to make him think his wife has temporarily gained ascendancy) might distract him long enough for the sorceress to at least make an attempt to escape. A successful seduction roll doesn't mean that the parties fall into bed: it means that the subject is taken in on an emotional level.

 

Similarly if a character has a really good persuasion roll against a villain, the villain isn't just going to decide to go straight, but they may hesitate long enough to give the hero a chance to do something or change their plans in a minor way, mitigating some of the mayhem that would othewise have ensued.

 

Looking at the levels of effect on the PRE attack table might be a good starting place.

 

I think the problem with skill use, especially PRE skills, but also INT skills and to a much lesser extent DEX skills is that they are often seen as black or white, all or nothing - you either get what you want or you don't. In fact all 'real world' skill use has that grey fuzzy logic area where the effect is what your after, basically, but not necessarily by the route intended...