Balancing social skills and role playing

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I'm right there with you up til this point. The whole idea of ratcheting up the skill rolls is to be able to succeed under adverse conditions. If you can shoulder the penalty for a well-lit, open space with nothing to hide behind while people are watching you, and still succeed, then that makes you a force to be reckoned with and those were points well spent. Batman's disappearing in plain sight shtick and such.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42702[/ATTACH]

 

Most just punt this kind of thing to a Skill constructed as a Power but I've never been a fan of that.

 

I have no problems with powers as unbelievable skills, but that's not really the issue here: certainly high level skills let you succeed under adverse conditions. So under most circumstances then you can disappear with your 18- stealth roll: situations where no normal person could hope to succeed. But there are times when the GM can - legitimately, I think - say "Nope, ain't happening". In such a situation, you can skip the roll. That's not limited to skills: there are times where the same applies to powers.

 

cheers, Mark

[Greywind]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Batman doesn't disappear in plain sight. He disappears when no one is looking at him.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

If you simply state what you are doing' date=' that's the base case. Bonuses are for doing something more. The overall tenor about adding bonuses however, when looked at [i']in toto [/i]is pretty damn conclusive. Taking one comment out of context, it may not seem conclusive, but it's hard to read the rules and get any impression other than that roleplaying and tactical bonuses should range from +1 to +3 with the higher end being for unusual actions.

 

I think we still get the question of how often even a +1 is appropriate, and how often it is appropriate to push it up. And that is where the player who is a **really good speaker** gets that advantage over the wallflower player. It is, however, much more mitigated if we ensure that a +1 bonus requires something beyond the norm, perhaps for the specific player, and a +2 and +3 are that much more difficult to obtain. Not really dissimilar from bonus PRE attack dice, another social skill.

 

Yes' date=' I think that appropriate. It's also RAW: there are comments about skill checks that are failed by small amounts being potentially regarded as "partial success". This however, is very context dependant, IMO. In normal social interactions, a "near success" is unlikely to have drastic consequences. However, high-stress, high risk situations like someone hanging by one hand from a rope below a speeding helicopter, might well. A near success might mean you can't pull yourself up, but there should be a point at which you simply fall off.[/quote']

 

I think these could be adjudicated in many different ways. We've discussed the Captain of the Guard, and three degrees of success, being "he accepts there is a plot and informs the King", "the PC's are permitted to attend the meeting with the King" and "The PC's may retain their weapons during the meeting with the King". We could provide that persuading the Captain to inform the King of the alleged plot is a standard success, persuading him there IS a plot and the King should be informed immediately takes, say, a -2, including the PC's in that meeting takes a further -3, and persuading him they may retain their weapons for said meeting an additional -5. The written evidence provides, say, a +2 bonus overall (we could make it +2 to the first, +1 to the second and no impact on the rest as it just proves there is, or could be, a plot). Persuasive Pete has a 15- roll, and the evidence, so if he rolls a 17-, the Captain believes the allegations merit discussion with the King, a 15- persuades him there IS a plot, a 12- persuades him that the PC's should be included in the meeting and a 7- persuades him they may maintain their weapons.

 

Or we could set the roll on the basis that they want to see the King. That's a 15, -5 (combined penalties) = 10 + 2 for the evidence = 12- to get in to see the King. On a roll failed by 3 or less, the Captain still believes there is a plot and hastens to inform the king (partial success) and if they fail by 4 or 5, he at least sees merit in investigating. And if the PC's succeed by 5, they can meet with the King with their weapons. Same rolls, just a different definition of "failure" and "possible success".

 

Similarly, perhaps you need a Climbing roll to hold the rope at all and a climbing roll at -4 to climb up - failure means you can't hang on. Or perhaps the roll is a climbing roll at -4 to climb up and, if you fail by 4 or more, you fall off. Again, same rolls, just a different definition of baseline success.

 

Agreed: GM's who persecute players for not knowing or remembering things their PCs should logically know is a pet peeve of mine. The fact that having skills grants basic competency in the area is a clear assumption of the rules and simply makes sense.

 

This also dovetails with the later issue of "roll for everything". If we make the PC roll to climb a ladder in his back yard, with no bonus or penalty, then surely climbing a rope is much tougher and should have penalties. So, if you have a 14- skill, climbing a rope in the wind requires a 9- roll. However, when we accept climbing the ladder is so routine it must have at least a +5 bonus, and you are taking your time, so that's a further +2 bonus, that's a 15- with your 8- Everyman Skill. With no stress, the worst that can happen is you roll an 18, your foot slips, you right yourself and continue up. So why roll?

 

Given a 14- is a very high level of skill, per the RAW, needing a 9- to climb a rope and a 14- to climb a ladder is not an appropriate result, so the ladder is routine - no roll. Climbing the rope in the wind? Probably a -1 penalty at worst for extreme wind. That's 13-. If you're not pressured or distracted, 13- is reasonably automatic success as well. If you have to do this under pressure, OK let's get the dice out - but this guy is extremely skilled, so he still has a 5 in 6 or so success chance, his 13- roll.

 

I'm with CasualPlayer on the extreme skill uses. That's also in the books as extraordinary skill. Now, with a -10 penalty ("sheer folly"), I don't like your odds - 8- is not a great chance. At a 20 skill, a 50% chance at success where normal men scoff "impossible" seems quite cinematic. Now we get to your differentiation between a grim and gritty procedural and a space opera - but maybe the difference should not be the ability to perform such feats, but the capping of skill levels at a more "realistic" level. A 15- is world-renowned, so the local police investigation team, one of four such units, should not be chock full of characters with skills at 15-.