The interaction skills

[Robyn]

Re: The interaction skills

 

But the reality is' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Most of the HERO mechanics work on NPC's and PC's alike. Social skills don't apply for a broad majority of the HERO games out there, it's true, because most HERO gamers are like you describe; but this doesn't mean there aren't any roleplayers anywhere who play HERO and find such things important. Buzz is one proof of that; I am another. The reason these skills aren't fleshed out in the main book isn't because noone cares about them, it's because the broad majority of players don't, and that space could be better used for information relevant to everyone. I do think that The Ultimate Skill book should have these rules fleshed out more, though.

[Manic Typist]

Re: The interaction skills

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

Ah, but you miss the true problem. Your problem isn't skillful roleplaying, yours is POOR roleplaying.

 

If the guy who stutters is quite debonair while speaking, he won't get jack from me, and I will be less inclined to be as generous in other circumstances.

 

However, if he constantly stutters, scuffs his feet, and looks at anywhere BUT the person he is talking to (in and out of character acting) and (especially if) he is a normally persuasive, charismatic person: he just earned himself an XP for good RPing.

 

If the guy who is shy and poor with words honestly TRIES to be better when narrating his character, he can get bonuses to his roll.

 

See, this encourages these people to actually PLAY these characters.

 

I also give bonuses to vivid descriptions of characters mannerisms and actions. I want them to be as vivid as possible. It makes it more enjoyable for everyone, on both sides of the table.

[Robyn]

Re: The interaction skills

 

If the guy who is shy and poor with words honestly TRIES to be better when narrating his character, he can get bonuses to his roll.

 

See, this encourages these people to actually PLAY these characters.

 

Same problem. You're giving bonuses based on how well the player can act in a social situation.

 

The player who has a character with atrocious charisma, bad personal habits, a lisp, the works; and roleplays all of these perfectly; should not be given any sort of bonus to their Persuasion roll. That runs contrary to the points they got for their Limitations, and it betrays the spirit of their roleplaying.

[prestidigitator]

Re: The interaction skills

 

Same problem. You're giving bonuses based on how well the player can act in a social situation.

 

The player who has a character with atrocious charisma, bad personal habits, a lisp, the works; and roleplays all of these perfectly; should not be given any sort of bonus to their Persuasion roll. That runs contrary to the points they got for their Limitations, and it betrays the spirit of their roleplaying.

True, but they're still likely to: 1.) create a more fun roleplaying experience, and 2.) generate more Experience Points for their character or for the whole group (depending on how you do awards).

[prestidigitator]

Re: The interaction skills

 

I use Interaction Skills plenty. Not always through direct rolls, but in how the NPCs react to the characters, in the kind of information the characters glean from an interaction, etc. Rolls happen frequently but not all the time. The system is loose but described well enough that I really don't need any rules clarifications (in this area it is like the White Wolf rules; pretty simple and flexible, and intuitively judgable almost all the time--at least for me).

 

In short, it is just the right balance I want behind mechanics that can complement actual roleplaying without overshadowing it.

[David Johnston]

Re: The interaction skills

 

Where does it say this in the rules? Persuasion and Seduction say they are "typically" not used on PCs' date=' but allows for their use in some circumstances, or at least their influence. [/quote']

 

It's what the rules don't say in this regard is that is more important. Sure you can make a roll on Persuasion because an NPC is trying to talk a PC into doing something. But there's no game mechanical effect, just a suggestion that the PC take notice of being Persuaded.

[CBikle]

Re: The interaction skills

 

 

The player who has a character with atrocious charisma, bad personal habits, a lisp, the works; and roleplays all of these perfectly; should not be given any sort of bonus to their Persuasion roll. That runs contrary to the points they got for their Limitations, and it betrays the spirit of their roleplaying.

 

If the character has all that, he probably shouldn't have the Persuasion skill in the first place.

 

For the most part, I think this stuff will tend to gell together and work itself out.

 

Maybe I'm not relating to this that well because I've never had a player decide to run an interaction-based character who didn't want to roleplay out a lot of that stuff.

[Dust Raven]

Re: The interaction skills

 

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

 

Look at it this way:

 

Do you have any questions regarding the use of Interaction Skills? I don't. I assume (and it is an assumption, but a fair one considering the FAQ) few people due. I assume you don't either, but I could be wrong.

[Robyn]

Re: The interaction skills

 

True' date=' but they're still likely to: 1.) create a more fun roleplaying experience, and 2.) generate more Experience Points for their character or for the whole group (depending on how you do awards).[/quote']

 

Experience bonuses are okay. Granting a "bonus" that makes no sense within the context of what they are doing and how they are doing it (i.e., improves the roll) is just plain weird.

[prestidigitator]

Re: The interaction skills

 

Experience bonuses are okay. Granting a "bonus" that makes no sense within the context of what they are doing and how they are doing it (i.e.' date=' improves the roll) is just plain weird.[/quote']

Yeah. A good roleplayer will probably even appreciate penalties assigned to his/her roll based on this roleplaying. Take it in stride and have fun with it. Some day you may even be able to use that stutter to your advantage (like when no one can tell if you're lying because you always stutter and fumble with expressing yourself...).

[Manic Typist]

Re: The interaction skills

 

Same problem. You're giving bonuses based on how well the player can act in a social situation.

 

 

False. I'm giving bonuses to people who are demonstrating that they are trying to improve their roleplaying abilities and create a better gaming atmosphere.

 

I just need to see that the guy is honestly trying, not that he suddenly becomes Casanova.

 

Edit: the bonus being extra XP. I don't know how I feel about bonuses to rolls.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The interaction skills

 

False. I'm giving bonuses to people who are demonstrating that they are trying to improve their roleplaying abilities and create a better gaming atmosphere.

 

I just need to see that the guy is honestly trying, not that he suddenly becomes Casanova.

 

Edit: the bonus being extra XP. I don't know how I feel about bonuses to rolls.

 

Extra XP for good role playing makes sense. A bonus to his interaction skill rolls doesn't.

 

I would suggest that a bonus to an interaction skill roll for a good speech, creative use of the skill, etc. may be appropriate in some circumstances, however it should be no greater than the bonus that would be given for a similarly great tactic/surprise move/what have you in combat. One character paid points for interaction skills, and the other for combat skills. The second character shouldn't be able to offset his non-combat deficiencies with good tactics/good role playing/whatever to any greater extent than the first character's combat deficiencies can be offset.

 

And what's all this "if we roll the dice, we can't role play" nonsense. Consider:

 

Combat option #1:

 

I hit him with my eb. Rolled a 10. Hit. Damage is 42 stun and 12 BOD. Knockback of 5".

 

Combat option #2:

 

Raising my arms, I gather the Cosmic Forces, which coruscate around my arms and torso. I lower my arms and channel the massive cosmic forces towards my adversary [roll - 10 - hits]. The cosmic forces sear through his armored suit, scorching the man inside [roll - 42 STUN, 12 BOD, 5" knockback], as the vast forces hurl him bodily backwards

 

Both involve dice, but one is far better role played.

 

Similarly:

 

Interaction option #1

 

I sit down at the bar and pump him for info on the CEO. I'll buy him a beer; maybe that will get me a bonus. rolled an 8. GM tells me "The boss is having an affair with the secretary".

 

Interaction option #2

 

Player: I sit down at the bar beside him. "Hey, buddy - why the long face? Rough day at the office?"

 

GM: he just grunts

 

Player: I'll nod in sympathy. "I hear that. Hey barkeep, a draft, and another for my buddy here - he's having a rough day. So, boss giving you grief, pal?" rolls conversation skill - an 8

 

GM: He seems to open up to you a bit. "You know how it is, man. Can you believe I got passed up for a raise - after working like a dog for a month to get that bid in, and landing the Albion account! 'Money's tight, Charlie" he tells me "and the shareholders are screaming for cuts. Shyeah, right - lots of bucks for that skank secretary of his to get a raise. She's taking a lot more than dictation in that corner office, if ya catch my drift."

 

Again, both use the dice and the rules, but one has role playing and the other does not.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: The interaction skills

 

And what's all this "if we roll the dice' date=' we can't role play" nonsense. [/quote']

I don't think anyone was saying they were mutually exclusive. But if the only thing that matters is the dice roll, then as a GM you have no way to reward good roleplaying or penalize poor roleplaying.

 

Interaction skills get quite a lot of play in my games, using both dice rolls and RPing. If a player does a great job or RPing a conversation attempt, but his PC is No Charisma Man, then yeah I might give him a +1 or +2... to his 5- untrained roll. "Nice roleplaying! Too bad your character isn't half as articulate or convincing - she ignores you." Conversely, if a player does a lousy job of RPing his very charismatic PC, he might get a -1 or -2 to his 14- roll. "OK, not your most convincing argument ever, but you're so darn charming she buys it anyway."

 

Player #1 gets rewarded for good roleplaying, but is still constrained by his character's abilities. Player #2 feels like he got his money's worth for the points he spent on interaction skills, yet is motivated to do a better job of roleplaying next time. It's really not that different from giving an OCV bonus to the player that comes up with a clever surprise move, or an OCV penalty to the player that keeps using the same attack over and over.

 

Alternately, you can reverse the order: roll the dice before the conversation starts, to determine how well the player needs to roleplay the encounter. With a good roll, pretty-much any decent roleplaying attempt will work. With a crappy roll, the player had better be pretty darn compelling to even have a chance, or may have no chance at all regardless of how well he roleplays it. The roll is still based on the character's stats, so a charismatic player with a charisma-challenged character will still have a much harder time than a charisma-challenged player with a charming character.

 

I've done it both ways, depending on the players. As game mechanics go, it's a little subjective; but subjective isn't always a bad thing.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: The interaction skills

 

Oh, and I should've said: as with most skills, I don't always make players roll. If a character has great Conversation skill, and is talking to someone they really should be able to convince, then we just roleplay it out -- I'll make it fairly easy on them, but they still have to ask the right questions. OTOH, if a character has no interaction skills and is talking to someone they really shouldn't be able to convince, then we'll roleplay out how badly the conversation goes. Which can be just as entertaining!

[Robyn]

Re: The interaction skills

 

But if the only thing that matters is the dice roll' date=' then as a GM you have no way to reward good roleplaying or penalize poor roleplaying.[/quote']

 

Sure you do - with XP bonuses.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: The interaction skills

 

Sure you do - with XP bonuses.

Well, yes. But I can't hand out XP for every single instance of better-than-average roleplaying, or some players would be doubling their point totals every few sessions. (Yes, I'm exaggerating.) I save the XP bonuses for really memorable instances, typically when someone plays off their character's Disads particularly well. Not just "Bob, you made a good argument when talking to that warehouse guard back there - take an extra XP." To return to my previous analogy: if a player comes up with one clever move in combat, that's worth an OCV bonus. If a player comes up with something so innovative (and so in-character) that it alters the course of the game session, that's worth an XP bonus.

 

Lemme try it this way: a character with decent interaction skills has a Psych Lim of "Treats Women Like Sex Objects." The character tries to get some information out of a female CEO, but he keeps staring at her tits and calling her "babe." Now that's great roleplaying -- possibly worth some extra XP -- but it gives him a minus-several penalty to his Conversation roll. So there's roleplaying (talking out the scene) and there's Roleplaying (being the character); two different things.

 

I guess I'm kinda surprised this is even an issue. If a character is trying to convince a guard to let him through, and comes up with a particularly compelling bluff, why shouldn't he get a bonus? Now if I have a player whose PC is a charmless slob, but the player keeps playing him like he's Carey Grant, then it's time to have a little chat about staying in character. And yeah, if I have a player who is charisma-challenged, I'll likely cut him some slack under the assumption that "my character says this, only more eloquently." To me, ALL roleplaying is about interaction: between characters and, yes, between players. Otherwise, we're just roll-playing.

 

Again, not saying you can't do it that way; just explaining why I don't.

[buzz]

Re: The interaction skills

 

False. I'm giving bonuses to people who are demonstrating that they are trying to improve their roleplaying abilities and create a better gaming atmosphere.

So the PC earns XP based on your assessment of the player's attempt to grow as a gamer?

[buzz]

Re: The interaction skills

 

Do you have any questions regarding the use of Interaction Skills? I don't. I assume (and it is an assumption' date=' but a fair one considering the FAQ) few people due. I assume you don't either, but I could be wrong.[/quote']

It's hard for me to say, as my group has yet to ever use them. I guess I must have some questions, as I specifically requested elaboration in the TUS forum.

[Robyn]

Re: The interaction skills

 

False. I'm giving bonuses to people who are demonstrating that they are trying to improve their roleplaying abilities and create a better gaming atmosphere.

 

I just need to see that the guy is honestly trying, not that he suddenly becomes Casanova.

 

Edit: the bonus being extra XP. I don't know how I feel about bonuses to rolls.

 

That's all I was speaking about:

 

If the guy who is shy and poor with words honestly TRIES to be better when narrating his character, he can get bonuses to his roll.

 

See, this encourages these people to actually PLAY these characters.

 

XP bonuses are okay, though I would prefer that they be for "thinking of good ideas" rather than "good roleplaying" (which the Casanova player of a Hunchback of Notre Dame character is not). Giving bonuses to the roll is the problem Hugh was speaking of.

 

The advantage of giving experience specifically for coming up with good ideas is that, if the player decides that the character wouldn't follow up on it (through, for instance, integrity; Kaja once thought of sneaking into a room to observe a suspicious character meeting with Foxbat, but chose not to, and, sure enough, that person tied up Foxbat and proceeded to call in reinforcements to take on the rest of the group), or has their character give the idea to someone else as "Here, you should have a better chance of pulling this off.", they still get the XP for it.

[Dust Raven]

Re: The interaction skills

 

It's hard for me to say' date=' as my group has yet to ever use them. I guess I must have some questions, as I specifically requested elaboration in the TUS forum.[/quote']

 

I expect TUS to expand greately upon all Skills enough to cause a number of clarification questions to pop up.

 

As it is, I've just throught of one question that I can't come up with an obvious answer for: When a character uses an Interaction Skill, does he know if it was successful or not? If so, how is this indicated in game, and if not, how does he determine this?

 

I thought of this because I can see any number of situations where a character might use an Interaction Skill but not necessarily know if it succeeded or not (the player might unless the GM was rolling the dice behind the screen, or it was an oppose roll). For example, if you use Persuasion to convince someone to do something for you, how do you know you've actually convinced him? Does his unchanged expression mean that he bought your story hook, line and sinker or that he wasn't swayed? Is his complete acceptance of your explination an expression of his sincere belief, or just a sarcastic ploy to make you go away? And does the other guy need to make an Acting roll to pull any of the above off?

 

Okay, that's more than one question. I suppose I understand now how these the use of these Skills could be more complicated than they are described. Perhaps many gamers just take them for granted (like myself).

[buzz]

Re: The interaction skills

 

Perhaps many gamers just take them for granted (like myself).

Based on a discussion I'm having on another forum, I wonder if it's mainly because most HERO players don't make use of any mechanics that are not directly combat- or Power-related.

[Dust Raven]

Re: The interaction skills

 

Based on a discussion I'm having on another forum' date=' I wonder if it's mainly because most HERO players don't make use of any mechanics that are not directly combat- or Power-related.[/quote']

 

It's possible, but I doubt it. I know some treat HERO as a wargame with extra talking, but I know many more that don't. My own experience with the game and its players have led me to believe the majority of players are hardcore roleplayers who want a system that lets them do what they see their character as being capabile of. Or it could just be the guys I know in Phoenix. In a campaign I'm currently in, I think I've utilized "combat mechanics" about a 10th of the time I've used mechanics that don't to anything combatwise (Characteristic Rolls and Skills rolls mainly). We still see combat, but seem to be spending the majority of our time interacting with other characters out of combat and finding out what's all going on in the world around our characters, and trying to change it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The interaction skills

 

It's really not that different from giving an OCV bonus to the player that comes up with a clever surprise move' date=' or an OCV penalty to the player that keeps using the same attack over and over. [/quote']

 

I agree - not that different at all. My suggestion is that either type of bonus shuld be equally valuable, and equally common. If "No CHA Man" is able to get results that match or better those obtained by "No CHA Player" because his player is eloguent, similar bonuses should be available to "No CHA Player"'s character in combat.

 

This is the same whether you reserve such a bonus for truly exceptional events (great speeches or amazing combta moves) or routinely hand out a +2 for a half hearted attempt.

 

It should be no easier, and no more difficult - and neither more nor less frequent - for good role playing to overcome character deficiencies in combat than it is to overcome deficiencies in interaction skills.

[David Johnston]

Re: The interaction skills

 

 

As it is, I've just throught of one question that I can't come up with an obvious answer for: When a character uses an Interaction Skill, does he know if it was successful or not? If so, how is this indicated in game, and if not, how does he determine this?

 

Okay, that's more than one question. I suppose I understand now how these the use of these Skills could be more complicated than they are described. Perhaps many gamers just take them for granted (like myself).

Actually it is just one question. How do you know what someone else is thinking? You know what you rolled for your Persuasion attempt. You know what your Persuasion skill is. You don't know how persuadable the person you talk to is. So you know what someone's thinking the same way you do when you aren't trying to Persuade them.

[Robyn]

Re: The interaction skills

 

You know what you rolled for your Persuasion attempt. You know what your Persuasion skill is. You don't know how persuadable the person you talk to is.

 

This almost sounds like "opposed skill rolls", but I don't think that's the right term. A combat-like OCV versus DCV is what it sounds like, a roll that would normally fail your skill being able to succeed if their gullibility is high