The interaction skills

[buzz]

Looking through the 130+ page 5ER faq document, I noticed that skills get about seven pages. In those seven pages, none of the questions cover any of the interaction skills (e.g., Conversation, Seduction, Acting). It's almost entirely combat-related skils, KS, and TF. Since the questions in the FAQ are (AFAIK) generally fan-submitted, it made me curious...

 

Do you use these skills in your game? If so, how? If not, why not, and what do you do instead?

 

My group has been playing FREd/5ER for three years now (mostly Champs), and these skills have never once come up.

[ghost-angel]

Re: The interaction skills

 

They get used on a semi-regular basis for us. Usually when we don't feel the need to roleplay out a scenario.

[David Johnston]

Re: The interaction skills

 

There are no real questions to ask about interaction skills because there are no real mechanics for them. It's as if combat was resolved by saying:

 

"OK, what's your DEX? You rolled 9 or less? You beat the bad guy."

[buzz]

Re: The interaction skills

 

There are no real questions to ask about interaction skills because there are no real mechanics for them.

I can see your point. Still, Fast Draw has an entry, and it's got just a couple paragraphs of rules, same as many of the Interaction skills.

 

I suppose that's part of the reason for my asking: are they self-evident in use, or just rarely used?

[Robyn]

Re: The interaction skills

 

There are no real questions to ask about interaction skills because there are no real mechanics for them. It's as if combat was resolved by saying:

 

"OK, what's your DEX? You rolled 9 or less? You beat the bad guy."

 

That's not a fair analogy. In combat, we roll dice and[/i] play out the SFX those mechanics reflect.

 

In conversation, the same can be true. Don't be so nervous about adding any mechanics to social interaction, that you confuse "has mechanics which reflect the roleplaying" with "has mechanics that replace the roleplaying".

[buzz]

Re: The interaction skills

 

Don't be so nervous about adding any mechanics to social interaction' date=' that you confuse "has mechanics which reflect the roleplaying" with "has mechanics that replace the roleplaying".[/quote']

Excellent way to put it, Robyn!

[David Johnston]

Re: The interaction skills

 

That's not a fair analogy. In combat' date=' we roll dice [b']and[/i] play out the SFX those mechanics reflect.

 

In conversation, the same can be true. Don't be so nervous about adding any mechanics to social interaction, that you confuse "has mechanics which reflect the roleplaying" with "has mechanics that replace the roleplaying".

 

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. What I was saying is that the only mechanic for interaction skills in the book is "make a success/fail roll". Maybe two if you have a complimentary roll based on COM or something. There are no equivalents to the rules for range, knockback, impairing, casual strength, velocity, coordinated attacks, manuevers, damage calculation, bleeding, disablement, hit locations. That you roleplay as well is beside the issue, which is mechanics, not roleplaying.

[Robyn]

Re: The interaction skills

 

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. What I was saying is that the only mechanic for interaction skills in the book is "make a success/fail roll". Maybe two if you have a complimentary roll based on COM or something. There are no equivalents to the rules for range' date=' knockback, impairing, casual strength, velocity, coordinated attacks, manuevers, damage calculation, bleeding, disablement, hit locations. That you roleplay as well is beside the issue, which is mechanics, not roleplaying.[/quote']

 

Ahh okay, I see it now, sorry. I thought you meant that combat would be resolved in the sense that the players wouldn't even need to bother asking what happened during the fight, just know who won.

 

If you're interested, buzz, the Dying Earth RPG has very interesting rules for conversational skills.

[buzz]

Re: The interaction skills

 

There are no equivalents to the rules for range' date=' knockback, impairing, casual strength, velocity, coordinated attacks, manuevers, damage calculation, bleeding, disablement, hit locations.[/quote']

I brought up the idea of these equivalents (or seconded them, as Hugh Nielson brought them up first) on the TUS forum. I'd really like to see this sort of thing in that book.

 

Robyn: I've heard a lot of good things about Dying Earth. I'll likely pick it up at some point.

[Robyn]

Re: The interaction skills

 

I brought up the idea of these equivalents (or seconded them' date=' as Hugh Nielson brought them up first) on the TUS forum.[/quote']

 

The TUS forum? I'm having trouble matching the initials to anything here.

 

Robyn: I've heard a lot of good things about Dying Earth. I'll likely pick it up at some point.

 

I've also thought up some guidelines for handling conversations that aren't in the Dying Earth sourcebook. Send me a Private Message if you'd like some of those, though I'm not sure off the top of my head how useful they'll be without the Dying Earth mechanics.

[buzz]

Re: The interaction skills

 

The TUS forum? I'm having trouble matching the initials to anything here.

The Ultimate Skill.

[Vurbal]

Re: The interaction skills

 

Looking through the 130+ page 5ER faq document, I noticed that skills get about seven pages. In those seven pages, none of the questions cover any of the interaction skills (e.g., Conversation, Seduction, Acting). It's almost entirely combat-related skils, KS, and TF. Since the questions in the FAQ are (AFAIK) generally fan-submitted, it made me curious...

 

Do you use these skills in your game? If so, how? If not, why not, and what do you do instead?

 

My group has been playing FREd/5ER for three years now (mostly Champs), and these skills have never once come up.

I suspect there are 2 major reasons why interaction skill questions don't come up very often. Either people don't use them (ie they use pure roleplaying to resolve those situations) or they don't assume any official mechanic would be helpful in resolving issues they might have with those skills. Probably the latter for most people.

 

Every character I make has interaction skills. In fact the one I'm playing now has 30 points in them. Generally we don't make a lot of rolls for them, relying on the level they're bought at vs. the subject's inherent interest in doing what I want them to. When there's a question of whether my roll should be enough to get the desired affect (or when someone is actively trying to resist my influence) we start rolling dice.

[David Johnston]

Re: The interaction skills

 

I can see your point. Still, Fast Draw has an entry, and it's got just a couple paragraphs of rules, same as many of the Interaction skills.

 

I suppose that's part of the reason for my asking: are they self-evident in use, or just rarely used?

 

Ah, but Fast Draw actually had _mechanics_. What happens when you make a Fast Draw roll is clearly and specifically defined. You get to take out a "holstered" focus without using a half-phase. Those are mechanics. But when you look at, say, Conversation, if you use the skill successfully, then someone _might_ enjoy talking to you. Then again they might enjoy talking to you even if you don't make a roll. Or they might not enjoy talking to you just because they hate you no matter how conversational you are being.

 

 

Essentially what happens when a character is subjected to straight Conversation, or Oratory, or Seduction is totally up to the whim of the person playing that character. They don't really have mechanics except when used as a chaser to a Presence attack. Then it does have precisely defined game mechanical effects, but there are actually several FAQ questions dealing with Presence attacks.

[Ndreare]

Re: The interaction skills

 

I do not know if it is on topic or not so if not just ignore it and I will not continue.

 

What we do in our games is use Interaction skills as the only way to active PRE attacks. I works and give Interaction skills a little use. We also use the Criticle success = Max effect option.

We also treat PRE attacks as time based skills, so a character can spend time working on an interagation or seduction to increase his, or her chances. Character who do not buy interaction skills may default to everyman levels of -8 when it makes sense.

 

Although I would like to See official rule for interation and PRE. I would treatit like combat rules, normaly we use the bare bones with an idea of the complex in our minds, but when on a Big Bad we will get carried away and involve te full spectrum.

[CBikle]

Re: The interaction skills

 

Here's how I run interaction skills:

 

Most significant in-game interaction is role-played. If a PC tries to do something that requires a skill like streetwise, the degree of success is determined by:

 

- Appropriateness of setting. (using the Bribery skill in the middle of a televised congressional hearing)

 

- How well the PC role-plays (dialogue) the situation (generally, this means how charismatic the player is in making his best argument as his character).

 

- How huge the task/info the pc is trying to attain (using the seduction and/or bureaucratic skills to convince the police impound clerk to let you have 5 minutes alone in the evidence locker).

 

- Whether the PC has the relevant skills (this part is very important).

 

- How much the PC makes the skill(s) by.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The interaction skills

 

Here's how I run interaction skills:

 

Most significant in-game interaction is role-played. If a PC tries to do something that requires a skill like streetwise, the degree of success is determined by:

 

- Appropriateness of setting. (using the Bribery skill in the middle of a televised congressional hearing)

 

- How well the PC role-plays (dialogue) the situation (generally, this means how charismatic the player is in making his best argument as his character).

 

- How huge the task/info the pc is trying to attain (using the seduction and/or bureaucratic skills to convince the police impound clerk to let you have 5 minutes alone in the evidence locker).

 

- Whether the PC has the relevant skills (this part is very important).

 

- How much the PC makes the skill(s) by.

 

OK, some of this I agree with. However, I'll retate the crux of my problem with this approach here:

 

- How well the PC role-plays (dialogue) the situation (generally, this means how charismatic the player is in making his best argument as his character).

 

Why should the PLAYER skills and abilities be allowed to supplement or even override the CHARACTER skills. If Bob is inarticulate and shy, but he's playing Snake Oil Sam who has numerous interaction skills, a 23 PRE and 5 levels with interaction skills, Sam should succeed when using interaction skills - no matter how poor Bob's own skills are. If Brian is articulate, outgoing and an excellent speaker, and he's playing Nebbish Ned, with PRE 8, no intereaction skills beyond the Everyman level and the Phys lim "Stutters and stammers", Ned should not have his success with interaction skills enhanced because Brian, his player, is charismatic.

 

Of course, if you also apply the same rules to other skills, I suppose some measure of fairness is achieved, but I've never seen a GM require a player to role play:

 

- a triple somersault followed by a leap up to the balcony when his character uses Acrobatics

 

- dislocation of his shoulder, followed by slithering out of the ropes and chains when his character uses Acrobatics

 

- firing a bow and arrow to hit a moving target at 75 meters when his character uses his No Range Modifier Archery skills.

 

If we're going to give Brian's character an advantage/penalize Bob's character on interaction skills due to the personal attributes of their players, then Bob's character should be a much more skilled fighter than his character sheet indicates if Bob has a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, and Brian's character's five combat skill levels should be heavily mitigated by the fact Brian himself is morbidly obese and requires ten minutes to haul himself up a flight of stairs. Since Tom is a gun nut IRL, should his fantasy character should be able to mix up the appropriate chemicals and create poison gases/discover gunpowder?

 

Much of the allure of RPG's is in playing characters who are different from ourselves. Sometimes, that means characters who have powers and abilities far beyond our own in combat. Other times, it means characters whose ability to influence others go far beyond, or fall well short of, our own. I don't care what the PLAYER'S skills and abilities are. The CHARACTER has the skills and abilities noted on his character sheet, and paid for with character points.

[Robyn]

Re: The interaction skills

 

OK, some of this I agree with. However, I'll retate the crux of my problem with this approach here:

 

- How well the PC role-plays (dialogue) the situation (generally, this means how charismatic the player is in making his best argument as his character).

 

Why should the PLAYER skills and abilities be allowed to supplement or even override the CHARACTER skills.

 

It has to do with the crux of your examples; what the player can, and cannot, do. Most players cannot leap up to the balcony, dislocate their own shoulders just to wriggle out of chains, loose an arrow at a target 75 yards away, while moving, and strike; we find it comfortable to do these things only in our imaginations, relying on and trusting in the dice for our measure of success.

 

But we can talk, and generally find it uncomfortable to refrain from improving our character's chances of success, just because our character's effectiveness would be curtailed. This is a stumbling block in GM narration; do I let players talk it out, and then have them roll dice for the success of the arguments (possibly resulting in arguments that seemed utterly reasonable to the players, coming off as utterly ridiculous to their characters, and arguments that were blatantly false to the players, convincing their characters), or do I have them roll dice first, and then make an argument in line with their roll (which is difficult if they only have good arguments left and they've been rolling poorly, since those good arguments must again seem bad to the characters, and if they have bad arguments left but roll well).

[BlackSword]

Re: The interaction skills

 

Ah' date=' but Fast Draw actually had _mechanics_. What happens when you make a Fast Draw roll is clearly and specifically defined. You get to take out a "holstered" focus without using a half-phase. Those are mechanics. But when you look at, say, Conversation, if you use the skill successfully, then someone _might_ enjoy talking to you. Then again they might enjoy talking to you even if you don't make a roll. Or they might not enjoy talking to you just because they hate you no matter how conversational you are being. [/quote']

I see that as potentially more reason for calrification on social skills. Fast Draw is fairly black and white, you make, you fail it. Conversation could cause you to sour a friend (botch), win over someone that didn't like you (critical success), and the gammit between. I am not suggesting set effects for how well the player rolls conversation, and would encourage role-playing mixed in with the rolls, but social skills have a wide range of effects. Even without set rules there should be guidance on how the skills will improve a PC in different environments.

 

In our gaming group we also use different skills to reflect different social interactions. Etiquette helps one move through more formal social situations and upper class circles, while streetwise helps a person move through criminal connections and talk to the mob boss.

[Robyn]

Re: The interaction skills

 

In our gaming group we also use different skills to reflect different social interactions. Etiquette helps one move through more formal social situations and upper class circles' date=' while streetwise helps a person move through criminal connections and talk to the mob boss.[/quote']

 

Etiquette could be considered the written rules, streetwise the unwritten rules. Which could go with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle nicely; the more your character has the laws of the street explained to them, the less they actually know about it

[CBikle]

Re: The interaction skills

 

Why should the PLAYER skills and abilities be allowed to supplement or even override the CHARACTER skills. If Bob is inarticulate and shy, but he's playing Snake Oil Sam who has numerous interaction skills, a 23 PRE and 5 levels with interaction skills, Sam should succeed when using interaction skills - no matter how poor Bob's own skills are. If Brian is articulate, outgoing and an excellent speaker, and he's playing Nebbish Ned, with PRE 8, no intereaction skills beyond the Everyman level and the Phys lim "Stutters and stammers", Ned should not have his success with interaction skills enhanced because Brian, his player, is charismatic.

 

I get what you're saying.

 

When I GM, I don't expect the player to be an academy award winner in playing their characters, but I at least expect the effort and as long as they do that, I'm

not really a harsh critic.

 

I do think that role-playing does play into the success of interaction-based skills, but not to the degree where the game turns into a single-room LARP.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The interaction skills

 

I get what you're saying.

 

When I GM, I don't expect the player to be an academy award winner in playing their characters, but I at least expect the effort and as long as they do that, I'm not really a harsh critic.

 

I do think that role-playing does play into the success of interaction-based skills, but not to the degree where the game turns into a single-room LARP.

 

What I don't like to see is the player who spends all his points on combat skills being allowed to slide in other areas because "he role played it well". if we have two otherwise identical characters, except that one has a 12d6 EB and spent 15 points on interaction skills, and the other has a 15d6 EB and no interaction skills, the second character should not get to achieve results similar to the first because "he role played it". The second character doesn't get +3d6 to his EB for standing up, thrusting out his arms and yelling "ZZZZZZZZZAAAAAAAP". Why does the first character get more than he paid for?

 

I have no problem with EITHER character making a good point in their presentation (eg. "Your majesty, it is in your best interests to aid us now - if we are defeated, he will clearly turn to your borders next") and getting a bonus for that. However, with an equal number of valid points for and against them, the character who paid the points to be good at interacting with others should be head and shoulders more successful with such interactions than the character who did not make such a point investment.

 

Frankly, if you're trying to play your 8 PRE schlub as a great orator, I suggest your reward should not be a bonus to your skill roll, but an XP penalty for poor role playing.

 

Alternatively, simply tell players "Don't bother buying interaction skills. Success or failure in these areas will be judged by your role playing."

[buzz]

Re: The interaction skills

 

I didn't want to derail too much into the issue of using mechanics for social interaction, but... I tend to agree with Hugh. The numbers on the sheet should mean something; it shouldn't be about who can impress the GM the most.

 

That said, there are RPGs out there that have intricate social skill mechanics that don't impede "roleplaying" at all: e.g., the aforementioned Dying Earth, Burning Wheel's "Duel of Wits", and conflict resolution in general in Dogs in the Vineyard.

 

As I mentioned, interaction skills and personality-related mechanics (INT, PRE) go virtually unused in our games, and, well, I don't really like that. Points spent on anything that is not combat-related are pretty much a waste. It seems like a lot of groups play this way. At least, I'd like to find out if this is so or not and see how people handle things in their games.

[David Johnston]

Re: The interaction skills

 

I see that as potentially more reason for calrification on social skills.

 

But the reality is, there's nothing there to clarify. Players don't care because none of the skills work on them and if they muff a social skill roll, then maybe they get into a fight. And there are mechanics for fights. GM's don't care because they can't use social skills on PCs and any results of PC use of social skills on NPCs are totally optional while NPC uses

of social skills on NPCs aren't even worth rolling for. They'll do what you want them to do.

 

In our gaming group we also use different skills to reflect different social interactions. Etiquette helps one move through more formal social situations and upper class circles, while streetwise helps a person move through criminal connections and talk to the mob boss.

 

Well of course. High Society works on high society and Streetwise works on the streets. It's right there in the names.

[CBikle]

Re: The interaction skills

 

I have no problem with EITHER character making a good point in their presentation (eg. "Your majesty, it is in your best interests to aid us now - if we are defeated, he will clearly turn to your borders next") and getting a bonus for that. However, with an equal number of valid points for and against them, the character who paid the points to be good at interacting with others should be head and shoulders more successful with such interactions than the character who did not make such a point investment.

 

I didn't say they were equal. A player trying to do streetwise stuff without the skill, will only have marginal success at best.

 

Frankly' date=' if you're trying to play your 8 PRE schlub as a great orator, I suggest your reward should not be a bonus to your skill roll, but an XP penalty for poor role playing.[/quote']

 

I agree with this.

 

Alternatively' date=' simply tell players "Don't bother buying interaction skills. Success or failure in these areas will be judged by your role playing." [/quote']

 

I wouldn't put it like that. Probably more like: "Occasionally, Good role-playing could greatly assist in your success with these skills".

[buzz]

Re: The interaction skills

 

GM's don't care because they can't use social skills on PCs...

Where does it say this in the rules? Persuasion and Seduction say they are "typically" not used on PCs, but allows for their use in some circumstances, or at least their influence. Only Conversation states explicitly, "You should roleplay most conversations without using Conversatoin rolls."

 

Which begs the question as to why the skill exists in the first place...