Well, look who just caught up...

[Derek Hiemforth]

I just realized that Charm is not an Everyman Skill. I don't know exactly why I assumed it was (since its predecessor, Seduction, wasn't either), but for some reason, I just assumed it was. Maybe because its definition expanded in 6E to include things like non-sexual attempts to befriend people.

 

I wonder whether it says anything (positive or negative) about gamers, that the "make a friend or find a date" Skill wouldn't be considered an Everyman Skill...

[JmOz]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

I replaced persuasion with charm a while ago...

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

I replaced persuasion with charm a while ago...

 

In the real world, I'd probably replace Deduction with Charm...

 

Seriously though, I might be inclined to grant Everyman Skill status to all the Interaction Skills that don't include specific knowledge. (Acting, Charm, Conversation, Oratory, Persuasion, and Trading.)

 

Though I could also see a strong case for saying that no Skills affecting other characters should be Everyman Skills. If that approach was adopted, none of the Interaction Skills would be Everyman except Acting...

[Midas]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

Or you could go the other way around. Give them as everyman skills to all the "normals" including heroes and superheroes.

 

The characters with exceptions buy a social complication: "Baffled by social interaction."

 

Five points: Leonard, Howard, Alan Harper, Zach Young

Ten Points: Raj, Amy Farrah Fowler, Temperance Brennan

Fifteen Points: Sheldon, (maybe Bones belongs here, too).

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

In the real world' date=' I'd probably replace [i']Deduction[/i] with Charm...

 

Seriously though, I might be inclined to grant Everyman Skill status to all the Interaction Skills that don't include specific knowledge. (Acting, Charm, Conversation, Oratory, Persuasion, and Trading.)

 

Though I could also see a strong case for saying that no Skills affecting other characters should be Everyman Skills. If that approach was adopted, none of the Interaction Skills would be Everyman except Acting...

 

 

Speaking as a Communications major, I'd be inclined to say that Oratory is in the "includes specific knowledge" category. I suspect the same could be said of Acting but I didn't waste four years of my life take a degree in it, so I won't quibble.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

Speaking as a Communications major' date=' I'd be inclined to say that [i']Oratory[/i] is in the "includes specific knowledge" category. I suspect the same could be said of Acting but I didn't waste four years of my life take a degree in it, so I won't quibble.

 

I dunno... While I wasn't a Communications major, I was a Drama major, and a speech and debate champion. I know I certainly encountered people who were effective public speakers by instinct alone, with virtually no training or experience...

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

I just realized that Charm is not an Everyman Skill. I don't know exactly why I assumed it was (since its predecessor' date=' [i']Seduction[/i], wasn't either), but for some reason, I just assumed it was. Maybe because its definition expanded in 6E to include things like non-sexual attempts to befriend people.I wonder whether it says anything (positive or negative) about gamers, that the "make a friend or find a date" Skill wouldn't be considered an Everyman Skill...

The definition was not expanded, only the name changed. 5ER even states the skill is less about sexuality than it is about making friends and getting on people's good sides. I think most people simply must ignore the actaul definition of the skill because your claim is common even though it's inaccurate.

[Midas]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

I dunno... While I wasn't a Communications major' date=' I was a Drama major, and a speech and debate champion. I know I certainly encountered people who were effective public speakers by instinct alone, with virtually no training or experience...[/quote']

 

I think you are talking about the skill at 11- at least here, though.

 

I'd say Oratory is an everyman skill, with the caveat of amenability. The average person has a 20% chance of convincing a room full of amenable people to follow his lead. I don't think just anyone should be able to sway a neutral, much less a hostile crowd, unless the entire crowd was socially challenged.

 

Charlie Harper, talking to his best (recently deceased) friend: "What's heaven like?"

(Emilio Esteves*): "The women are all beautiful :sneaky:and they believe everything you tell them!"

 

*third best bit of stunt-casting on that show (following Martin Sheen as Rose's father: "Just call me 'Dad'"), and Denise Richards as Charlie's ex, who left him because of his drinking and womanizing - love to have been a fly on the wall during rehearsals for that!.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

[/hijackon]

1. Decouple all skills from characteristics.

2. A 'bought' skill will start at 11-.

3. A 'non-bought' skill will start at 7-, unless otherwise defined in the skill description.

4. You can apply appropriate skill levels to any skill attempt, whether you bought the skill or not.

[/hijackoff]

 

Yes, I know.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

The definition was not expanded' date=' only the name changed. 5ER even states the skill is less about sexuality than it is about making friends and getting on people's good sides. I think most people simply must ignore the actaul definition of the skill because your claim is common even though it's inaccurate.[/quote']

 

Sorry, I was being lazy. I didn't mean to imply that its definition first changed in 6E (though I see now that's certainly what I said). I meant the Skill's name and definition are both different in 6E than they were when it first appeared in the core rules (4E). The name change occurred from 5ER to 6E, and the definition change occurred from 4E to 5E.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

I dunno... While I wasn't a Communications major' date=' I was a Drama major, and a speech and debate champion. I know I certainly encountered people who were effective public speakers by instinct alone, with virtually no training or experience...[/quote']

 

So you've encountered people with, say, a Familiarity, Proficiency or outright Skill in Oratory. Everyman means virtually everyone has at least a Familiarity, not that a few people have a natural aptitude.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

So you've encountered people with' date=' say, a Familiarity, Proficiency or outright Skill in Oratory. Everyman means virtually everyone has at least a Familiarity, not that a few people have a natural aptitude.[/quote']

 

On this basis, I would absolutely argue that Deduction should not be an Everyman Skill.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

6.1.60

Despite the name, Everyman Skills

are really Everycharacter Skills. Not every

single person in a given society has these

Skills, but every PC and prominent NPC

does. Heroes, after all, generally tend to be

more competent at a wide variety of abilities

than the average person.

 

I would suggest that most PCs have the Deduction skill, or should - because you can guarantee that the players who play them will be making deductions although, I grant you, not all of them skilled...

 

On another point: is there any reason you can think of, other than 'game balance' that skill levels should not apply to skills with which you have Familiarity, or for that matter, skills with which are untrained?

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

6.1.60

Despite the name, Everyman Skills

are really Everycharacter Skills. Not every

single person in a given society has these

Skills, but every PC and prominent NPC

does. Heroes, after all, generally tend to be

more competent at a wide variety of abilities

than the average person.

 

I would suggest that most PCs have the Deduction skill, or should - because you can guarantee that the players who play them will be making deductions although, I grant you, not all of them skilled...

 

I guess I'm not as obvious as I think I am when I'm joking.

 

On another point: is there any reason you can think of' date=' other than 'game balance' that skill levels should not apply to skills with which you have Familiarity, or for that matter, skills with which are untrained?[/quote']

 

Conceptually, I think most Skill Levels involve somehow distilling the essential commonalities between tasks in different Skills, and learning to deal effectively with those commonalities directly. With a Skill you don't actually know, you don't know enough about it to identify those commonalities, so you don't know how to apply your expertise usefully. Granted, this line of argument would be difficult to apply to Overall Skill Levels, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around those conceptually anyway. They strike me as a very metagame mechanic that it's hard to really imagine a Special Effect for (except perhaps "Hi, my name is Mary Sue" or something... )

 

EDIT: Or, in fairness, "I have multiple Skill Levels and/or Combat Skill Levels already, and it's easier/simpler to combine them into one game mechanic, even though I conceptually have different reasons for being able to apply it to different things."

[Christopher]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

I dunno... While I wasn't a Communications major' date=' I was a Drama major, and a speech and debate champion. I know I certainly encountered people who were effective public speakers by instinct alone, with virtually no training or experience...[/quote']

Then the Speical effect of thier skill is "natural ability to Convince", not "went to a school and studied it". Like a power, a skill can have many special effects.

 

The one who went to school is more likely to have picked up complimentary skills (readin body language, psychology, ability to plan speeches) at least on the familarity level.

[Christopher]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

EDIT: Or' date=' in fairness, "I have multiple Skill Levels and/or Combat Skill Levels already, and it's easier/simpler to combine them into one game mechanic, even though I conceptually have different reasons for being able to apply it to different things."[/quote']

I see Combat Skill Levels as small Multipowers. Two CSL roughly equate +2 OCV, +2 DCV and +1 DC, 0 END Slots respectively.

The guy with OSL just bough additional Slots for +5 to Charactersitcs, Only to improve Rolls.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

It may not be an everyman skill, but it would certainly be a common skill in many background packages.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

Social interaction is part of human culture, so on one level I can see a good argument for making some Interaction skills Everyman skills. But as a GM, if I want an NPC to be good at some Interaction skill, I will certainly buy it for him. And as far a PCs are concerned, if they want to try an use an Interaction skill they don't have, well, that is what role-playing is for. Act it out and convince me, the GM, and I will consider it. If the PC happens to have said Interaction skill and he makes the dice roll, then I will be more lenient in deciding how the target of the skill reacts, but you still need to play it out.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

[/hijackon]

1. Decouple all skills from characteristics.

2. A 'bought' skill will start at 11-.

3. A 'non-bought' skill will start at 7-, unless otherwise defined in the skill description.

4. You can apply appropriate skill levels to any skill attempt, whether you bought the skill or not.

[/hijackoff]

 

Yes, I know.

 

Then this rebuke should come as no surprise.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

Social interaction is part of human culture' date=' so on one level I can see a good argument for making some Interaction skills Everyman skills. But as a GM, if I want an NPC to be good at some Interaction skill, I will certainly buy it for him. And as far a PCs are concerned, if they want to try an use an Interaction skill they don't have, well, that is what role-playing is for. Act it out and convince me, the GM, and I will consider it. If the PC happens to have said Interaction skill and he makes the dice roll, then I will be more lenient in deciding how the target of the skill reacts, but you still need to play it out.[/quote']

 

I run in-character games, so I basically agree with you in the general sense.

 

However, there is the classic argument that a player character is separate from the player of that character, and has different skills and abilities. A socially maladroit player may want to play a smooth talking gadfly, and vice versa a glib tongued witty player may be playing a brutish thug with the social skills of a wood chipper.

 

The skills of the character are like an aperture or filter through which a player projects themselves into the setting. It's a difficult tightrope to balance on to avoid letting one player get the benefit of free social capabilities due to their real-world savvy when their character has no such ability, and the other player to not benefit from their character's abilities because they are incapable of mustering sufficient stage presence or witty word play to portray it.

 

I tend to try to typecast up front by subtly discouraging a player I know to be a lump from playing a Harold Hill "face" type character, but ultimately if a player wants their character to be a certain way even if they can't really pull it off, you have to let them go with it.

 

As a parallel, we don't make a player demonstrate their character's amazing Whisper of the Five Lethal Slashing Stabbing Cutting Crushing Contusing Sword Winds maneuver to help determine if they hit and skewer yon orc. We might ask them to DESCRIBE it, to the best of their narrative elan, but their character's ability to do it is a matter of having paid for the effect rather than the player's actual capabilities.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

[Christopher]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

I run in-character games, so I basically agree with you in the general sense.

 

However, there is the classic argument that a player character is separate from the player of that character, and has different skills and abilities. A socially maladroit player may want to play a smooth talking gadfly, and vice versa a glib tongued witty player may be playing a brutish thug with the social skills of a wood chipper.

 

The skills of the character are like an aperture or filter through which a player projects themselves into the setting. It's a difficult tightrope to balance on to avoid letting one player get the benefit of free social capabilities due to their real-world savvy when their character has no such ability, and the other player to not benefit from their character's abilities because they are incapable of mustering sufficient stage presence or witty word play to portray it.

 

I tend to try to typecast up front by subtly discouraging a player I know to be a lump from playing a Harold Hill "face" type character, but ultimately if a player wants their character to be a certain way even if they can't really pull it off, you have to let them go with it.

 

As a parallel, we don't make a player demonstrate their character's amazing Whisper of the Five Lethal Slashing Stabbing Cutting Crushing Contusing Sword Winds maneuver to help determine if they hit and skewer yon orc. We might ask them to DESCRIBE it, to the best of their narrative elan, but their character's ability to do it is a matter of having paid for the effect rather than the player's actual capabilities.

That is exaclty the problem I see with "you have to roleplay it" approaches.

I am not adept at talking/social interaction or combat (I never had a fight, not even as child). But if I make a character and spend points on social skills and comabt skills, I should get the effect I paid for on both sides. Not just the combat abilities.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

Well of course if the character paid points for the skill or power I will let them use it. But I want an attempt at Persuasion to be more than "I want to persuade the security guard to open the door. Okay, I made my Persuasion roll, we're in."

 

Generally if the character makes the roll, then they succeed. But if they really screw up the role-playing part, I might suggest they reconsider their approach or possibly assign a negative modifier to the roll, especially if they are being flip about it. The example that comes to mind was a gun-slinger character trying a Seduction roll on an NPC heroine that had a strong feminist streak with the pick-up line "Why don't we meet later, sweet cheeks, and I'll let you polish my pistol." The fact he made his roll meant that he didn't get punched in the kisser, but she didn't go out with him because it would be totally out of character.

[Christopher]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

Well of course if the character paid points for the skill or power I will let them use it. But I want an attempt at Persuasion to be more than "I want to persuade the security guard to open the door. Okay' date=' I made my Persuasion roll, we're in."[/quote']

the first sentence and the rest to not fit together.

You say just roling persuasion is wrong, but would you accept "I try to hit him with my Blast." "Roll." "You hit and knock the guard out."?

 

Generally if the character makes the roll' date=' then they succeed. But if they really screw up the role-playing part, I might suggest they reconsider their approach or possibly assign a negative modifier to the roll, especially if they are being flip about it. The example that comes to mind was a gun-slinger character trying a Seduction roll on an NPC heroine that had a strong feminist streak with the pick-up line "Why don't we meet later, sweet cheeks, and I'll let you polish my pistol." The fact he made his roll meant that he didn't get punched in the kisser, but she didn't go out with him because it would be totally out of character.[/quote']

He has built a character that is good a seduction, despite himself being obviously not good at it. Obviously his character would have never said something such stupid. So actually taking such a failed pickup line as his characters words was totally out of character.

 

Not only does this "you have to roleplay it" (as opposed to "you can to get a bonus, but don't screw up then") penalty his character, it creates a problem if the speech is a success but the roll is a total fail:

You can either let the atempt fail, depiste the word being just right.

Or let him succed, but wich in turn means that skills are totally worthless and your first statement in the last post was a direct lie.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Well, look who just caught up...

 

the first sentence and the rest to not fit together.

You say just roling persuasion is wrong, but would you accept "I try to hit him with my Blast." "Roll." "You hit and knock the guard out."?

 

 

He has built a character that is good a seduction, despite himself being obviously not good at it. Obviously his character would have never said something such stupid. So actually taking such a failed pickup line as his characters words was totally out of character.

 

Not only does this "you have to roleplay it" (as opposed to "you can to get a bonus, but don't screw up then") penalty his character, it creates a problem if the speech is a success but the roll is a total fail:

You can either let the atempt fail, depiste the word being just right.

Or let him succed, but wich in turn means that skills are totally worthless and your first statement in the last post was a direct lie.

 

I have to agree that there's a conflict here, though I think would subtract too much from the game to leave the roleplaying out of it entirely. (To be honest, I don't even like the "I try to blast him" stuff; in my Challenge of the Super Friends games, characters had to make soliloquies in order to take actions.)

 

I think the best way to resolve it is to turn it around. Rather than having the roleplaying affect the dice roll (such as getting a bonus for good roleplaying), instead let the dice roll affect the roleplaying; have your character say different things or behave differently, depending on whether the roll succeeded or failed.

 

For example, if you roll Charm for a seduction attempt and blow it, then you come out with the "I'll let you polish my pistol" line and get slapped. If you succeed with the Charm roll, then even if the player's initial "seduction line" doesn't fit, you keep roleplaying (perhaps with the GM subtly guiding the player toward a more suitable exchange, based on how the target reacts) until you have portrayed an interaction that's more believable as a success.