Handling interpersonal skills

[prestidigitator]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

To use my strategy, as I outlined it a page or two ago, Darth Sidious might try to use his Persuasion to give Mother Teresa the proper motivation to make her kill an innocent, but it would be up to Mother Teresa's player whether she actually did so or not. So, Darth Sidious might be very convincing on the matter of saving all the children if Mother Teresa does him this favor, he might be very convincing about his intent to kill her if she does not kill the innocent, he might very well convince her that he will drag the innocent's death out over 10,000 years of suffering if she does not kill that innocent in a more humane way. Ultimately Mother Teresa's player would decide which of these, if any, will push her over the edge to murder, given that she might very much believe Darth Sidious will carry through on his threats (based on his successes with Persuasion).

[Black Rose]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Englishmen and Americans' date=' two people seperated by a common language.[/quote']

Dude, Americans - one people seperated by a common language.

 

We don't even get China's excuse of our dialects sounding really different; we're just ignorant as all heck.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

And that is one big friggin' stick. Ouch... (talk about no pain' date=' no gain! )[/quote']

 

Whilst I have the greatest respect for the good Doctor's experience and opinions on the hero system, I suspect that his reputation is enhanced somewhat by his generous and ongoing contribution to the 'cat suit' thread. There's a man who knows how to give

[Sean Waters]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Normally I use American Oxford. It misses a lot of stuff, but serves my needs.

 

Stupid English has more words than any other language, more ways to say the same thing than any other language and is just generally fskd.

 

Englishmen and Americans, two people seperated by a common language.

 

A language rich in meaning and nuance, indeed. Perhaps that is why it is such a good language to use the persuade skill in: you could mean almost anything if you spin and polish it right

 

BTW I was just considering that bevvy/bevy of maidens point, and wondering if a Bloody Mary would do?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

A language rich in meaning and nuance, indeed. Perhaps that is why it is such a good language to use the persuade skill in: you could mean almost anything if you spin and polish it right

 

BTW I was just considering that bevvy/bevy of maidens point, and wondering if a Bloody Mary would do?

 

At least four... but I think you are on to something.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Whilst I have the greatest respect for the good Doctor's experience and opinions on the hero system' date=' I suspect that his reputation is enhanced somewhat by his generous and ongoing contribution to the 'cat suit' thread. There's a man who knows how to give [/quote']

"Bolstered by", yes..."completely responsible for" (as more than one disgruntled poster has claimed), no. Currently, 14% of my rep has come from cheesecake in the 'catsuit' thread...which means that 86% doesn't. So even discounting the 'catsuit' thread, I'd have a rep power of 79. (86% of my rep score, + time on boards, post count, etc.) I think that since pictures like those tend to stick in the mind (and I do post a lot of them) when someone thinks "posts by Dr. Anomaly" the first thing that comes to mind is "aha! Girlie pics!!". I do tend to find that a bit annoying, as I feel it has a tendancy to minimize the awareness of my other contributions, but since people really seem to like them, I don't plan to quit any time soon.

 

However, stuff like this doesn't have any bearing on this thread, or belong in this forum, so let's just stick to the subject at hand, shall we?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

However' date=' stuff like this doesn't have any bearing on this thread, or belong in this forum, so let's just stick to the subject at hand, shall we? [/quote']

 

So that would be a use of the 'argued persuasion' skill....

 

Seriously, I like the idea of having different styles of persuasion, conversation, seduction or whatever, and that some styles might be more effective against some characters than others. Some might go with 'argued persuasion', some might go with 'emotive persuasaion' and some might very depending on the topic and time of day.

 

Not sure how you'd model that but it's a thought....

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Seriously, I like the idea of having different styles of persuasion, conversation, seduction or whatever, and that some styles might be more effective against some characters than others. Some might go with 'argued persuasion', some might go with 'emotive persuasaion' and some might very depending on the topic and time of day.

 

Not sure how you'd model that but it's a thought....

I like that idea, too, but I'm not sure how you'd model it.

 

It's part of the problem I've had for quite a while now with the d20 system. The "Intimidate" skill is based on Charisma, but the kind of character that should be using that skill -- like orcs or half-orcs -- have generally low charisma scores, and take a penalty on that score during character generation. So a high-charisma halfling thief (who does his thieving via smooth-talking con artistry) is more intimidating than an ugly half-orc weilding a bloody ax. Yeah, right.

 

(And before people mention 'situational modifiers', I know all about those...I just feel that's a kludge and that "Intimidate" is handled wrong from the get-go.)

 

Something along the same lines bugs me here, but I can't quite place my finger on it. That's why I am having a tough time imagining how you'd do those various kinds of persuasion in a way that made logical sense for each kind.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

I like that idea' date=' too, but I'm not sure how you'd model it.[/quote']

 

I had the thought that skills should be annotated to indicate the number fo levels bought with the skill, eg, Persuasion [4] 17-

 

I would use the [#] for two purposes. The first would be to indicate depth of knowledge and for some purposes the ability to even have a roll of the dice.

 

In Treb's Combat Piloting example it would mean that just buying the basic skill would give the ability to do basic stuff really well - like flying under bridges - it is just flying but needs good physical abilities to pull it off. For flying the plane while one wing was falling off and needing to conserve fuel the basic skill would be valueless - you'd need [2] or [3] depending on how much knowledge was required.

 

The second would be to indicate breadth. For each level you take you could choose a different facet of the skill, like the persuasion example above.

 

Persuasion [fast-talk] 14-

 

This is quite like the Decipher system Steve Long was involved in. It would indicate where your strengths in a particular skill lay. The GM could then decide on whether you should be able to contemplate trying or whether it was simply necessary to impose a large penalty to the roll.

 

For each skill level purchased with the skill I would allow the player to improve either the breadth or the depth of the skill.

 

Persuasion [fast talk 2, Intimidate, Cajole 3] 18-

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

I like that idea, too, but I'm not sure how you'd model it.

 

It's part of the problem I've had for quite a while now with the d20 system. The "Intimidate" skill is based on Charisma, but the kind of character that should be using that skill -- like orcs or half-orcs -- have generally low charisma scores, and take a penalty on that score during character generation. So a high-charisma halfling thief (who does his thieving via smooth-talking con artistry) is more intimidating than an ugly half-orc weilding a bloody ax. Yeah, right.

 

(And before people mention 'situational modifiers', I know all about those...I just feel that's a kludge and that "Intimidate" is handled wrong from the get-go.)

 

Something along the same lines bugs me here, but I can't quite place my finger on it. That's why I am having a tough time imagining how you'd do those various kinds of persuasion in a way that made logical sense for each kind.

 

I'm pretty sure the dnd rules allow you to use strength as the guiding characteristic for intimidate in appropriate situations, so the Half-orc trumps the Half-ling.

 

Speaking of halflings....(or hobbits, at least)...

 

http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/oa/*http://uk.download.yahoo.com/pr/fu/oa/comedyveryfunnylordoftheringsparodyratedr.wmv

 

I think a certain flexibiliy about guiding characteristics is useful.

 

Say, for instance, you have Acrobatics. If you want to do a backflip, use 9+DEX/5. If you want to remember soething about an acrobat, use 9+INT/5...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

I had the thought that skills should be annotated to indicate the number fo levels bought with the skill' date=' eg, Persuasion [4'] 17-

 

I would use the [#] for two purposes. The first would be to indicate depth of knowledge and for some purposes the ability to even have a roll of the dice.

 

In Treb's Combat Piloting example it would mean that just buying the basic skill would give the ability to do basic stuff really well - like flying under bridges - it is just flying but needs good physical abilities to pull it off. For flying the plane while one wing was falling off and needing to conserve fuel the basic skill would be valueless - you'd need [2] or [3] depending on how much knowledge was required.

 

The second would be to indicate breadth. For each level you take you could choose a different facet of the skill, like the persuasion example above.

 

Persuasion [fast-talk] 14-

 

This is quite like the Decipher system Steve Long was involved in. It would indicate where your strengths in a particular skill lay. The GM could then decide on whether you should be able to contemplate trying or whether it was simply necessary to impose a large penalty to the roll.

 

For each skill level purchased with the skill I would allow the player to improve either the breadth or the depth of the skill.

 

Persuasion [fast talk 2, Intimidate, Cajole 3] 18-

 

 

Doc

 

Oh I like this.

 

Consider skill levels to be specialisations. Fantastic.

 

Also work really well for (say) science skills, and would allow you to be good at a range of skills without it costing the earth.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Oh I like this.

 

Consider skill levels to be specialisations. Fantastic.

 

Also work really well for (say) science skills, and would allow you to be good at a range of skills without it costing the earth.

 

I think possibly more useful for KS stuff than more directly applicable skills - though being able to use the numbers to 'allow' a roll is useful for everything.

 

I tend towards adding specialisations coz I like my players to have LOTS of stuff on their character sheets - the more stuff they have the more information I can dish out directly.

 

 

Doc

[RDU Neil]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

I think possibly more useful for KS stuff than more directly applicable skills - though being able to use the numbers to 'allow' a roll is useful for everything.

 

I tend towards adding specialisations coz I like my players to have LOTS of stuff on their character sheets - the more stuff they have the more information I can dish out directly.

 

 

Doc

 

While I think you idea has merit (for listing specialties... easy to do without changing any costs or the like... rep for that)... your statement about "LOTS of stuff..." is where we differ.

 

As a player... sure, I like stuff on the character sheet to fill me in and develop... but as a GM... no way. It's more I have to keep track of, more to worry about. I like nice, short, clean PC sheets that is easy to interpret on a glance, without 20 minutes of "I know I've got that on my sheet somewhere..." moments.

 

Put down three skills, and I'll interpret them quite liberally... just keep up the speed and flow of play as much as possible.

 

Probably why I'm turned off by any of these "Let's make skill lists more complicated" discussions.

[zornwil]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

While I think you idea has merit (for listing specialties... easy to do without changing any costs or the like... rep for that)... your statement about "LOTS of stuff..." is where we differ.

 

As a player... sure, I like stuff on the character sheet to fill me in and develop... but as a GM... no way. It's more I have to keep track of, more to worry about. I like nice, short, clean PC sheets that is easy to interpret on a glance, without 20 minutes of "I know I've got that on my sheet somewhere..." moments.

 

Put down three skills, and I'll interpret them quite liberally... just keep up the speed and flow of play as much as possible.

 

Probably why I'm turned off by any of these "Let's make skill lists more complicated" discussions.

 

"interpret them liberally" and complication is why I have been reticent towards core rules skills change, and also relates directly to this thread. I find it easiest to interpret social interactions along the same way. To some extent, skill roles aren't needed but are good to give a basis for how an NPC might approach a PC and give the GM guidelines (bad Persuasion roll, give a bad case, great Persuasion roll, lie and nod and make the player feel like it "really makes sense" what this guy is saying). Once in a while, if there's no reason otherwise, I will say to a player "your PC is definitely convinced that such-and-such must be correct and that there's an innocent victim," and so on. I won't generally force action, but want to ensure that we share the idea as to what the PC really thinks.

[zornwil]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

My character's death doesn't really bother me, as long as it's a "good death". I'm willing to take a KIA result, especially if it's either "cinematic" or "plot advancing", but even an inglorious bullet at a bad time is, to me, just part of the game; that's what lethal combat is about, isn't it? I would be just as irritated as anyone to be given "Oops, that's a natural 18 on your driving roll, you crash through the guardrail and are killed on your way to work this morning." But I trust my GMs in heroic-flavor campaigns not to do that to a character that is intended to be ongoing.

 

Something that has influenced our group's thinking is from the old TORG game, where there were "subplot" cards that influenced actions. One of those was the "Martyr" card, which had some interesting in- and meta-game effects. In effect, the player and GM cooperate in getting the PC killed in a meaningful-to-the-story-arc way: a glorious or meaningful death. "Playing the Martyr Card" is a byword in our group, though it has happened very few times in actual play.

 

On the other hand ... I do NOT have a problem with having my character being manipulated in ways that aren't directly opposed to core ideals. I may have come across that way, but that's not what I was trying to say. And I have very little problem with many of the posters' suggestions for ways to go about the Sidious/Teresa cartoon situation I set out. I can see Sidious slowly getting Teresa to send children from her orphanage to his slave-labor death-camp factory, or to a "girls school" that turns them into crack whores ... just as I can see Teresa doing something brilliant, after discovering what's happened and living with the self-loathing that follows, such as converting the guards and staff of the camp so that no one actually dies there, and turning the "school" into a miracle site where the drugs lose their addictive quality and the girls become secure, successful, and devout members of society who ultimately bring about Sidious's downfall.

 

Zornwil had a sig line, quoting someone else, something to the effect of "That's what heroes do. They make choices from a lot of bad options." Having the GM steer characters toward bad options that advance the plot, or otherwise make the game fun for all involved, is an EXCELLENT thing in a game, and that IS a big part of what I game for. It is incumbent upon both players and GMs to recognize that and cooperate in agreeable ways. If need be, a private OOC discussion can get a lot of things clear and keep the game going.

 

I believe I took that sig from Von D-Man.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

I think that since pictures like those tend to stick in the mind (and I do post a lot of them) when someone thinks "posts by Dr. Anomaly" the first thing that comes to mind is "aha! Girlie pics!!". I do tend to find that a bit annoying....

Ahem.

 

...

Come visit Castle Walls for all kinds of beautiful women!

...

It's not like you remind people with every post or anything.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Ahem.

 

 

It's not like you remind people with every post or anything.

Very, very true!

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

So that would be a use of the 'argued persuasion' skill....

 

Seriously, I like the idea of having different styles of persuasion, conversation, seduction or whatever, and that some styles might be more effective against some characters than others. Some might go with 'argued persuasion', some might go with 'emotive persuasaion' and some might very depending on the topic and time of day.

 

Not sure how you'd model that but it's a thought....

 

Wear Down = Resistance Stat is EGO

 

Interrogate = Resistance Stat is STR

 

Bluff = Resistance Stat is INT

 

Something like that? And use a variant of the EGO effect and PRE effect rules for adjuducation?

 

Hawksmoor

[Sean Waters]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Wear Down = Resistance Stat is EGO

 

Interrogate = Resistance Stat is STR

 

Bluff = Resistance Stat is INT

 

Something like that? And use a variant of the EGO effect and PRE effect rules for adjuducation?

 

Hawksmoor

 

Sounds good to me

 

There'a a game called 'Dying Earth', or something like that: role playing in the world of Jack Vance. Robin D Laws who also wrote Feng Shui, a splendid game in its own right, is one of the authors. It uses very different mechanics from almost everything else I've seen, but it has six 'styles' of persuasion (I'll have to wait to get home, and then actually try and find the book, to enumerate them) and six 'styles' of resistance to persuasion. By and large it makes no difference which style you use BUT each style has a correspnding 'resistance' which trumps it and another that it is weak against.

 

To take this idea to its esoteric extreme, when you buy persuade (or any such skill) you could have a 'free' speciality. You could name them, if you like or just number them: 1 to.....(let's call it six).

 

When you try to persuade someone then you roll 1d6. If you MATCH your own speciality, then you add 2 to the peruasion roll (they are particularly susceptible to your particular approach). If, OTOH, they have (7-speciality) then

 

Style................Trumps.......Trumped by

Overbearing.1...........1............6 intellectual

Intimidatory.2...........2............5 passionate

Flattering....3...........3............4 reserved

Cajoling......4...........4............3 distant

Logical.......5...........5............2 tough

Charismatic.6...........6............1 reactionary

 

You'll understand this is just made up based on an idea I read some time ago....

 

Each time, in fact, you try to persuade someone of something, you have to make a decision what style you are going to use.

 

Each skill level you buy allows you to select a new style (but gives no guidance as to when to use it: for that you'll need to fo that 'role playing thing )

 

Of course the GM can choose a style for an NPC rather than rolling for it.

 

If you allow NPCs to influence PCs then each PC should have a 'style' of resistance and when they get a new level of a social skill should be able to choose EITHER a new 'offensive' or 'defensive' style.

 

It is all a bit nascent and airy-fairy at present but the bones are there if anyone is in the mood to wrap them in flesh

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

hmm interesting.

 

So would you make characters pay points as in the resistance Perk on a 1 for 2 points of effect for this? 5 CPs buys 10points of Intellectual which counters Bluffing?

 

We're going to need bigger characters if the rules for Interaction are fully fleshed out.

 

Hawksmoor

[Silbeg]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

I thought that the player defines the character and the character defines the game actions.

Exactly!!

 

The player should be interpreting what the character would do, not just do what is most strategically sound. Some times it makes more sense to pull a Foxbat and glide around the room, just because it is cool, or have the wool pulled over your eyes by the obvious (to the player) con artist.

 

Last session, in my Champs game, a situation came up that the player decided that the character would just give up, and take a nap. He hadn't exhausted all of his options, but just felt that since the character felt comfortable in the situation, there was really no reason for him to try and free himself.

[Black Rose]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

I had the thought that skills should be annotated to indicate the number fo levels bought with the skill' date=' eg, Persuasion [4'] 17-

 

I would use the [#] for two purposes. The first would be to indicate depth of knowledge and for some purposes the ability to even have a roll of the dice.

 

In Treb's Combat Piloting example it would mean that just buying the basic skill would give the ability to do basic stuff really well - like flying under bridges - it is just flying but needs good physical abilities to pull it off. For flying the plane while one wing was falling off and needing to conserve fuel the basic skill would be valueless - you'd need [2] or [3] depending on how much knowledge was required.

 

The second would be to indicate breadth. For each level you take you could choose a different facet of the skill, like the persuasion example above.

 

Persuasion [fast-talk] 14-

 

This is quite like the Decipher system Steve Long was involved in. It would indicate where your strengths in a particular skill lay. The GM could then decide on whether you should be able to contemplate trying or whether it was simply necessary to impose a large penalty to the roll.

 

For each skill level purchased with the skill I would allow the player to improve either the breadth or the depth of the skill.

 

Persuasion [fast talk 2, Intimidate, Cajole 3] 18-

 

 

Doc

Beautiful! Takes the "skill depth" and "skill level" ideas I was working on and makes them work in such a way as to not jostle the "core values". The really nice thing about these "optional rules" is that, if you-the-GM don't want to use them, you can simply ignore them; they don't actually change anything points-wise.

 

Side note: you notice how much like SAS's skill system this looks? I happen to think this is a good thing; while I don't care overmuch for roll-high Target Number task resolution systems, the idea of specialties within a skill makes a lot of sense. If you have Acrobatics ("swashbuckler stuff" 4) 16-, I-the-GM know you can pull off that "leap off the roof, grab the flagpole and pivot into the open window, tuck and roll to a standing position with weapons drawn" with little more than a roll, maybe a -1 penalty. If you had Acrobatics (tumbling and dodging 4) 16-, you'd be in for more penalties IMO, but if you wanted to go all Drunken Monkey, I'd be with you.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

To Black Rose's point above and others...

 

Specialties are great... but defining these specialties lies in the realm of Game Rules... as opposed to Mechanics.

 

What are the specialties? What does each one grant that the others don't? What game benefit does each one grant that others don't? What is the expected play experience of the specialty?

 

One can't assume that everyone agrees that "swashbuckling" is significantly different than "tumbling." To my mind, it is style more than anything... and would have no game effect one way or another.

 

Remember... that is what Hero is... a system for generic effects... which are interpreted "as needed" in a game for the right feel.

 

You can take seven identical character sheets, but run them as a villain team with unique styles and SFX and they all come across very differently. It is all in the description. I like Hero because I don't have to lock myself into an extensive skill list of specialties... I just make up what seems most appropriate at the time. Very free form. YMMV of course, but creating and defining all the possible specialties for every possible skill is quite a bit of work, and it will be very setting/game world dependent. You have moved from Mechanics to Game Rules.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

To Black Rose's point above and others...

 

Specialties are great... but defining these specialties lies in the realm of Game Rules... as opposed to Mechanics.

 

Personally I see them as more detailed guidance to teh GM as to where the player believes his characters strengths are. It means the player would like lesser penalties in certain areas while accepting this would mean greater penalties in others.

 

I think that it would be of more use in genres where skills are more important or 'realistic'.

 

I would also provide bonuses in skill versus skill contests where the specialities differed.

 

As I say - eventually it is all guidance to the GM. Hopefully helpful rather than a hindrance.

 

 

Doc

[Mister E]

Re: Handling interpersonal skills

 

Personally I see them as more detailed guidance to teh GM as to where the player believes his characters strengths are. It means the player would like lesser penalties in certain areas while accepting this would mean greater penalties in others.

 

I think that it would be of more use in genres where skills are more important or 'realistic'.

 

I would also provide bonuses in skill versus skill contests where the specialities differed.

 

As I say - eventually it is all guidance to the GM. Hopefully helpful rather than a hindrance.

 

 

Doc

Obviously people should be able to invent specialties, but it would be nice if there were at least a basic selection of three or more choices for each skill.

 

Question: Does anyone think they could come up with such a list? I imagine it looking something like this:

 

Acting: (Vocal Impersonation, Theatrical Performance, Method Acting...)

 

Concealment: (Traps, Camouflage, Secret Doors, Hidding...)

 

SS: Biology (Anthropology, Bacteriology, Botany, Ecology...)

 

The last one, using a Science Skill as an example, is maybe a little more dicey.