Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I'm pretty sure I saw a film once with a robot in it and it had a libido.

 

Hmm.

 

If I'd paid for Striking Appearance, I'd probably be a bit hacked off another character or an NPC could just ignore my spend because they decided it does not apply to them. It is a bit like someone deciding that they are immune to fire and not having to pay any points to make that a reality.

 

The difference, I suppose, is that we have a very different attitude towards interaction skills. Players, generally, assume that they don't apply to them anyway, whereas they are generally happy to accept that someone jut smacked them in the head and knocked them out, even though they are supposed to be the toughest dude in town.

 

I'm sorry, I probably should have quoted your post. I wasn't suggesting they get it without paying for it. I was suggesting they could buy it and justify having it with an in-game explanation.

[psyber624]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I would also think that some complications would give some resistance to control (although not much, they are complications after all). "Cold, Heartless Bastard" type complications will likely mean you are less likely to be persuaded by a pretty face...

 

Of course, if you want to buy resistances to social skill use, what about buying a Skill like Charm, with a -1 limitation (Only to oppose charm attempts) or something else along those lines (same thing could be done with any of the social skills). IE you aren't charming yourself, but you know how charm works so you know how to protect yourself from its effects. This of course requires a GM to allow you to buy skills with limitations, but that shouldn't be too tough of a sell. Then its a skill vs skill contest as normal to see if someone is affected by the social interaction skills.

[dmjalund]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

limited PRE would work as well

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I have two characters I've bought Striking Appearance for (a LOT of Striking Appearance in one case), and I wouldn't mind it having no effect on interactions with a robot, non-humanoid, or even human but asexual character concept if they're roleplayed so as to have no interest in that sort of thing consistently. I'd only be annoyed if the character were played as noticing/commenting on people's attractiveness and only wanted the benefit of lack of interest when being affected would be detrimental to them.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I would also think that some complications would give some resistance to control (although not much, they are complications after all). "Cold, Heartless Bastard" type complications will likely mean you are less likely to be persuaded by a pretty face...

 

Of course, if you want to buy resistances to social skill use, what about buying a Skill like Charm, with a -1 limitation (Only to oppose charm attempts) or something else along those lines (same thing could be done with any of the social skills). IE you aren't charming yourself, but you know how charm works so you know how to protect yourself from its effects. This of course requires a GM to allow you to buy skills with limitations, but that shouldn't be too tough of a sell. Then its a skill vs skill contest as normal to see if someone is affected by the social interaction skills.

 

You can certainly buy resistances against specific social skills (even ones that you can't normally 'defend' against), but you can not buy defences against all social skills at once: well, you can but it gets expensive as you have to do it individually.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

limited PRE would work as well

 

PRE, as far as I know, does not 'defend' against social skill use, although it would certainly help with PRE attacks and you would need it as well as skill resistance to properly defend against Striking Appearance.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I have two characters I've bought Striking Appearance for (a LOT of Striking Appearance in one case)' date=' and I wouldn't mind it having no effect on interactions with a robot, non-humanoid, or even human but asexual character concept [b']if[/b] they're roleplayed so as to have no interest in that sort of thing consistently. I'd only be annoyed if the character were played as noticing/commenting on people's attractiveness and only wanted the benefit of lack of interest when being affected would be detrimental to them.

 

Some characters, even though they are not without emotions, can be highly resistant to having their minds changed (for example Rorschach) and some characters are apparently easily manipulated by looks but do not actually drop their guard (for example Tony Stark in Ultimates 2, the comic book: he ostensibly falls for Black Widow but still does not completely trust her). The trouble is you could define a character as so socially adept that he is good at social skills and resisting social skills. That would give them the best of both worlds if they did not have to pay for the ability, and they could still be consistently role-played that way.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

If, on balance, something is more beneficial than harmful for a character, and they gain in-game benefits from it, they should have to pay points for it, imo.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

The first game designer who can convince me players remain relevant when control of character decision making and plot interaction is dictated by a roll of the dice will convince me you are correct. After all' date=' at that point you can just write some computer code and let it play out as a simulation over a span of nanoseconds without player (or maybe even gamemaster) participation. The same is true of how group-told stories evolve overall. Why not just code a plot algorithm with all likely outcomes and let it roll the dice and produce a report on what happened? The simple answer: fun. Dice don't decide what is fun. They don't provide cathartic satisfaction. They don't tell good stories. They don't make interesting in-character decisions. The people sitting at the table do those things. [/quote']

 

OK, it seems to me that success or failure in combat is adjudicated by die rolls, yet no one suggests we let that "play out as a simulation over a span of nanoseconds without player (or maybe even gamemaster) participation". Quite the contrary, we play out extensive combats in most RPG's. A lack of total control over results is not the same as a lack of input into the process, or an inability to influence the results.

 

Realistic why? Because I say their play-pretend character would do something they say he wouldn't do?

 

The same can apply to combat situations. Perhaps I think my character is tough and would not flinch in pain, yet the Wounding rules result in him doing precisely that. Maybe I envision someone who is not easily impressed, surprised or shocked, and yet the PRE Attack rules cause him to hesitate, or worse. Perhaps I envision a highly stealthy characters, or one who is well versed in all branches of science. Am I to be exempt from Stealth or Knowledge rolls, granted autosuccess because my character vision demands he succeed? Why are only social interactions exempt from undesirable/undesired results based on the character's interactions with his environment and with other characters?

 

These rules need not be used by a GM to screw over the PC's, any more than a good GM would have the players constantly outclassed in combat, routinely kill off the characters or keep them cowed by PRE attacks on a near-constant basis. Do we expect that, having pumped 17 points into a massive Stealth skill, all the opposition will have massive bonuses to Perception so the GM can screw with my ability to remain undetected? Is it truly so difficult to imagine a GM using social interaction challenges to enrich a game, just as he uses combat, or investigation, or other challenges? Why do we assume lack of 100% control over social interaction makes the PC's sock puppets for the GM?

 

And why is anyone so heavily invested in the player's chosen reaction to an NPCs social overtures in the first place? Control freak' date=' much?[/quote']

 

This cuts both ways - why is the player so heavily invested in control over the PC's reactions? Are you telling me that you have NEVER done something in a social situation that you wish you had not done, in hindsight, or had not planned or expected to do, in foresight? And that you have never been surprised by what others, even those you are close to, have done in such situations?

 

The simple fact is' date=' either you trust your players to role play to the best of their ability, and to make cool choices for the shared story, or you don't. And, if you don't, and its that important to you, why are you playing with such narrative-luddite morons in the first place? Remember the old addage "role playing, not roll playing." My hobby isn't roll playing, which is what your philosophy advances us to. Its role playing. And that demands the player, not the dice, take on the role.[/quote']

 

So why does this not extend to combat? Surely players will role play to the best of their ability, and not simply respond to every attack against them with "No, he missed", "it bounces off", "it was merely a glancing blow" or " 'tis but a flesh wound".

 

For other uses, I always allow the player free will over their character. This is, in part, about roleplaying the results. Say an NPC uses Intimidate on a player, and succeeds. I'd describe how mean the NPC seems, tell the player his charecter thinks the NPC means the threat. But the decision about what his or her character does remains with the player.

 

Same if it's a PvP situation. If a PC tries to influence another PC, it's still the player's decision whether to be influenced or not.

 

For me it's a non-issue. Social skills are primarily there for PCs to influence NPCs.

 

So why not apply the same logic to PRE attacks, Stealth and investigation skills and combat rolls? Why do players not get the ability to similarly define the results of their characters' interactions with the world in those situations. To me, the player gets to define (within the parameters of the game, setting and points available) the character's abilities, but not those of other characters (PC's or NPC's alike) nor their environment.

 

"Very tempting. But I spent centuries in a monastery. You're wasting your not inconsiderable talents."

 

"Fool - I fly through the depths of space and the heart of the stars themselves, and you think your puny flames will harm me?"

 

If I want my character to be resistant to damage from heat and cold, I purchase defenses to make him resistant to such attacks. If I want him to be resistant to interaction skills, why would I not then purchase resistance to interaction skills, rather than be granted blanket immunity due to what I say in my background? In the first case, the GM can either run a game which respects my character vision (such attacks are not powerful enough to have a material impact on my character) or override my vision (I routinely take significant damage from such attacks). We generally trust our GM to take the former, not the latter, approach. How is it that we cannot extend that trust to in game social situations?

 

This isn't to say one approach is the One True Way and all others are WrongBadFun, but the choice is not, to me, one indicative of the maturity of players or GM's. Immaturity can manifest in any game model.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

If' date=' on balance, something is more beneficial than harmful for a character, and they gain in-game benefits from it, they should have to pay points for it, imo.[/quote']

 

Seconded.

[Lucius]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I just don't grok/agree with the distinction between being okay with dice rolls dictating outcomes in every other situation involving PCs EXCEPT social interactions.

 

I don't see why it should be hard to understand. The two cases differ fundamentally.

 

It's arbitrary' date=' [/quote']

 

Not at all. It's not an arbitrary decision, but a distinction between cases that differ fundamentally.

 

Why are only social interactions exempt from undesirable/undesired results based on the character's interactions with his environment and with other characters?

 

Well, in the first place, what do you mean by "exempt from undesireable/undesired results?" Do you think someone is saying this should be the case?

 

This cuts both ways - why is the player so heavily invested in control over the PC's reactions?

 

I've told you before, Vondy's trying to tell you now, but I suppose it can't hurt to say it again.

 

If the player is not there to make the character's decisions, why is the player there at all?

 

Let us suppose my character decides to Dodge in combat. I make that decision.

 

I don't decide to not get hit; I can't decide that. I don't decide TO get hit. Getting hit or not is not a decision. Dodging is a decision.

 

Now, suppose someone makes a Persuasion roll to try to make my character do something and the person running the game says "Your character decides to do as asked." I know that you, Mr. Nielson, have been saying for years that this is the same as being hit, or being stunned, or failing a Perception roll, and so forth. You might continue to say it for years. It was not true the first time you said it and it will still be false if you're saying it in 2050. It's not like saying "You got hit" or "You were stunned" or "you missed the shot." It's like saying "you decided not to Dodge and you're using your Martial Strike instead" or "You don't get to make another Concealment roll with extra time because you decided to give up looking." There is a fundamental difference between saying "what you decided to do doesn't work" or for that matter "what the other character decided to do - hit you with a big stick - did work") and saying "you don't get to make decisions for your character." Taking away the right to make the character's decisions is taking away the player's reason for even being present. What, after all, do you need the player for?

 

If you can't see that, well, I can't make it any plainer.

 

I will say that some of what megaplayboy says makes sense, about the character having only a limited range of choice. As I point out, you can decide to dodge but you can't decide to not get hit. A number of game elements, such as Mind Control, Berserk, and Psychological Complications, can take choices away from the character - but again, there is a difference between "no decision to be made" and "there's a decision your character makes, but YOU don't get to make it." Nor will I deny that PRE Skills should be a factor in a player's decision making. But if the player isn't making decisions for the character, I don't see why the player needs to be there at all. Mind you, I'm not saying megaplayboy is taking such an extreme position; he seems to recognize, if I understand him, that players have to role play their own characters, or they have no role to play at all (double entendre doubly intended.) Hugh Nielson I'm not so sure about.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

It's my character, it's not Steve Long's character, it's not the President's character, it's not the palindromedary's character

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Well yes, I'm saying they have to roleplay their characters, BUT...they don't have unlimited freedom in their decision-making, even without failing to resist a PRE attack or interaction skill. Rule #1: They have to roleplay their character the way they have defined them, through their background writeup, complications and previous/initial RP.

PCs are not wholly immune to the effects of NPCs' interaction skills and non-combat PRE attacks, as I see it. When a PC is subjected to a successful attempt, they have to roleplay the result. Now, the GM cannot dictate, via the dice, precisely what they do, say, or feel. But, based on the defined character, AND the interaction/circumstances, they can tell the player the address of the ballpark they're going to be (role-)playing in. If they say, "well, my character would never do that", how does that get resolved? You look at the writeup, you look at the character background, you reflect on how the character has been roleplayed, and then you look at the NPC writeup and the circumstances and the preceding roleplay, and you as GM make a judgment call. It's either, "okay, I guess you're right, go ahead and roleplay your way out of it", or "well, the thing is, you've got this psych lim on your sheet, this note in your background, and on adventure #6 your character actually did do something similar without being subjected to a skill attempt, so I'm afraid I have to disagree here. You can roleplay your character acting according to the result, or you can roleplay OOC and lose a point. Your choice."

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I keep looking in on this thread and thinking about Pendragon.

 

I don't recall having to roll for most of our emotional responses particularly limiting our Role playing, although it did mean that sometimes our characters acted in unexpected ways and we had to handle that on the fly. If anything, I found it tended to knock players somewhat out of their RP comfort zones, which often resulted in better roleplaying.

[Greywind]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Actually, Lucius, a player CAN choose to be hit. He can interpose himself between two opponents or he can tell the GM that he is taking no defensive action whatsoever against his opponent.

[Lucius]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Actually' date=' Lucius, a player CAN choose to be hit. He can interpose himself between two opponents[/quote']

 

Probably involving a chance of failure

 

or he can tell the GM that he is taking no defensive action whatsoever against his opponent.

 

Making him DCV 0, but his opponent might still roll 18.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I choose to put a palindromedary tagline here but I can't make you read it

[Greywind]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

5thR, 394

 

Protecting Other Characters

A character can also use Dive For Cover to

protect another character from an attack. He must

Dive For Cover to a point between the attacker and

the victim. He attempts the Dive For Cover roll

normally. If he succeeds, he takes the damage from

the attack — the attacker does not have to make an

Attack Roll, he just rolls the damage, which applies

normally to the character who Dove For Cover to

“interpose” himself. If the Dive For Cover roll fails,

the attacker must make his

 

And if the character chooses to take a hit, specifically states something like "I let him hit me" as a GM I wouldn't bother to see if the 18 came up. The hero just took the hit.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I don't see why it should be hard to understand. The two cases differ fundamentally.

 

While I see that some perceive the two cases as differing fundamentally, and I do not disagree there are differences (just as there are differences between any two situations), I do not agree that the differences automatically justify a deviation from the standard that players decide the actions their characters endeavour to perform, the GM assesses the interaction of such efforts within the game environment, and the dice adjudicate the success or failure of the characters' endeavours.

 

Not at all. It's not an arbitrary decision' date=' but a distinction between cases that differ fundamentally.[/quote']

 

"Arbitrary" is a loaded word. I do not believe social interaction was selected from a hat to be the sole area not governed in any way by objective, unbiased and random adjudication. I also do not believe the decision to exempt social interaction from such arbitration is essential, obvious or necessarily the best choice.

 

Well' date=' in the first place, what do you mean by "exempt from undesireable/undesired results?" Do you think someone is saying this should be the case?[/quote']

 

I mean that the player has full veto power over the results of his character's efforts. And yes, I believe that anyone saying "social skills cannot affect my character" is saying that their character should be exempt from any results of social interaction which the player does not wish their character to be subject to.

 

If the player is not there to make the character's decisions' date=' why is the player there at all?[/quote']

 

Who is saying the player is not able to make the character's decisions. I, and I believe other poster, are saying that the player decides what the character will attempt to do, but that the player does not possess the right to decide the success or failure of that attempt. He does not possess that power in a combat situation, in a PRE attack or mind control situation or in the use of his own skills (even interaction skills). However, the opponents of social skills working on PC's feel that he should possess that power in respect of social skills directed against the PC.

 

Let us suppose my character decides to Dodge in combat. I make that decision.

 

I don't decide to not get hit; I can't decide that. I don't decide TO get hit. Getting hit or not is not a decision. Dodging is a decision.

 

Precisely.

 

Now' date=' suppose someone makes a Persuasion roll to try to make my character do something and the person running the game says "Your character decides to do as asked." I know that you, Mr. Nielson, have been saying for years that this is the same as being hit, or being stunned, or failing a Perception roll, and so forth. You might continue to say it for years. It was not true the first time you said it and it will still be false if you're saying it in 2050. It's not like saying "You got hit" or "You were stunned" or "you missed the shot." It's like saying "you decided not to Dodge and you're using your Martial Strike instead" or "You don't get to make another Concealment roll with extra time because you decided to give up looking." There is a fundamental difference between saying "what you decided to do doesn't work" or for that matter "what the other character decided to do - hit you with a big stick - did work") and saying "you don't get to make decisions for your character." Taking away the right to make the character's decisions is taking away the player's reason for even being present. What, after all, do you need the player for?[/quote']

 

And this is where we clearly differ. The player can decide that his character does not wish to be hit, and is so opposed to being hit that he chooses to use an action to Dodge. He can choose to define his character as being extremely good at avoiding being hit, and can buy extra DCV, Martial Dodge, Dodge skill levels or even Desolidification to simulate a SuperDodge, creating a character very able to avoid being hit. He cannot state "my character is missed because that is my conception of my character". If this character, who clearly is intended and envisioned as very difficult to hit, is routinely struck by mooks, then the GM is a jerk, but the player does not possess the ultimate veto power to decide that his character dramatically avoids any specific attack.

 

Now, suppose someone makes a Persuasion roll to try to make my character do something. I, as a player, could decide this is something my character would wish to do - no special effort needed to persuade him. Or I could decide, based on my vision of the character, that this is something my character does not, and would never, wish to do. My vision of the character is that he would not wish to do such a thing. I can therefore choose to have my character resist this persuasion.

 

The difference in viewpoints is that those who oppose social interaction working on PC's believe that the player should be able to veto the persuasiveness of the other character, and be exempt from being persuaded. That is not, to me, how reality works. People are persuaded, charmed, seduced, intimidated, etc. into doing things they don't want - even things they think at the time "why am I doing this?". By comparison to the Dodge, I can build a character with a 3 DCV who is easy to hit, or one with a 15 DCV and a Superdodge who is extremely difficult to hit. Similarly, I can build a low PRE, low EGO character with a complication like "weak willed - interaction skills against him get a +3 bonus". Or I can build a high PRE, high EGO character with skill levels devoted to resisting interaction skills. It is still possible he will be some day persuaded to take an action he will initially oppose and ultimately regret.

 

Once again, if my character decisions are routinely overridden by interaction rolls by mooks, then the GM is a jerk. However, there is no reason the player must possess the ultimate veto power to decide that his character dramatically and automatically avoids the effects of social skills. Maybe it's not persuasion to take action, but just letting a bit of info slip in a discussion with a skilled interviewer. It should be no easier for interaction skills to persuade a PC to violate his deep-seated beliefs than it should be to persuade an NPC to do the same. However, it should be no more difficult either.

 

If you can't see that' date=' well, I can't make it any plainer.[/quote']

 

Ditto

 

 

Probably involving a chance of failure

 

Like resisting persuasion, intimidation or conversation.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I've told you before, Vondy's trying to tell you now, but I suppose it can't hurt to say it again.

 

If the player is not there to make the character's decisions, why is the player there at all?

 

Let us suppose my character decides to Dodge in combat. I make that decision.

 

I don't decide to not get hit; I can't decide that. I don't decide TO get hit. Getting hit or not is not a decision. Dodging is a decision.

 

Now, suppose someone makes a Persuasion roll to try to make my character do something and the person running the game says "Your character decides to do as asked." I know that you, Mr. Nielson, have been saying for years that this is the same as being hit, or being stunned, or failing a Perception roll, and so forth. You might continue to say it for years. It was not true the first time you said it and it will still be false if you're saying it in 2050. It's not like saying "You got hit" or "You were stunned" or "you missed the shot." It's like saying "you decided not to Dodge and you're using your Martial Strike instead" or "You don't get to make another Concealment roll with extra time because you decided to give up looking." There is a fundamental difference between saying "what you decided to do doesn't work" or for that matter "what the other character decided to do - hit you with a big stick - did work") and saying "you don't get to make decisions for your character." Taking away the right to make the character's decisions is taking away the player's reason for even being present. What, after all, do you need the player for?

 

If you can't see that, well, I can't make it any plainer.

 

.....

 

Two people in a 'social' situation. One is a PC, the other a NPC. Let us say it is a bar, and the NPC is trying to get some information out of the PC by using the Charm skill, and succeeds with a good roll. The NPC is actually an enemy, but is also using the Acting skill to hide any tells, and succeeds with that roll too. As far as the PC is concerned, he (let us say it is a 'he') is having a quiet drink and has been approached by an attractive female (let us say). He is, in any kind of reality, likely to be flattered and, if he is not attached (or is, perhaps) probably happy to engage her in conversation and may give away information without meaning to, perhaps without even realising he has*. That is the 'reality'. That is what would happen if we role played it according to the actual personality of the PC, not the suspicious meta-personality of the player.

 

Same situation but this time the GM says to Player 1. While you are having a quiet drink after work you are approached by an attractive woman who invites herself to sit down, flirts and engages you in conversation about work and where you spend your time. What do you tell her?

 

Any player will already have alarm bells ringing. He (let us assume it is 'he') will probably suspect that something is going on because, well, the GM never plays out casual bits of people's social lives that have no relation to the plot. Anyway, the GM's acting and social skills are not good enough to get the player relaxed and drunk and unsuspecting, least not at the gaming table.

 

There is a fundamental difference between the player and the PC. They are not the same person, not as far as I am concerned. It is more like the relationship between a director (the player) and an actor (the PC): you can determine what they do broadly, even give finely detailed direction, but what actually happens is up to them. Yes you 'control' the PC, but through the interface of dice rolls.

 

Another example, the PC is strapped to a chair being tortured by an NPC. Should he be able to simply ignore those interrogation rolls?

 

Another: a (military) PC is standing guard at a door when he is approached by a general in full uniform and told to get out of the way. The player is convinced that the general is a villain in disguise, but the PC had not succeeded in any perception rolls to confirm that. What would the player do? What would the PC do?

 

The player is there to role play. It is a role playing game. Social skills leave plenty of wriggle room, even if the NPC has just made a stunning Oratory roll to convince you that you should take up evangelical christianity, does the PC have to testify? Well, that is certainly something the player should consider having the PC do, and whatever option the player does decide to make should be role played based on what and who the PC is and what the PC believes at the time. The decision about the action the PC takes as a result should be informed by and consistent with the beliefs and understanding of the PC.

 

If you have built the character with a Psychological Limitation that they are a christian, how is that any different from the PC being persuaded by argument, in game, that he should become a christian?

 

Control seems to be the only answer. I'll role play the Complication because I put it there and I got points for it, but why should I role play what happens to me in game?

 

Because it is a role playing game.

 

 

 

*She's after the location of the secret base and, whilst he will never simply tell her, she can find out where his favourite bars and restaurants are and so can get an idea of which area he works in, she can perhaps regale him with an (entirely false) anecdote of what happened to her at work today and he may let slip something about the people he works with and so on. She picks up clues which, with the application of deduction, can give a pretty accurate idea of where he works and who he works with.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Two people in a 'social' situation. One is a PC, the other a NPC. Let us say it is a bar, and the NPC is trying to get some information out of the PC by using the Charm skill, and succeeds with a good roll. The NPC is actually an enemy, but is also using the Acting skill to hide any tells, and succeeds with that roll too. As far as the PC is concerned, he (let us say it is a 'he') is having a quiet drink and has been approached by an attractive female (let us say). He is, in any kind of reality, likely to be flattered and, if he is not attached (or is, perhaps) probably happy to engage her in conversation and may give away information without meaning to, perhaps without even realising he has*. That is the 'reality'. That is what would happen if we role played it according to the actual personality of the PC, not the suspicious meta-personality of the player.

 

Same situation but this time the GM says to Player 1. While you are having a quiet drink after work you are approached by an attractive woman who invites herself to sit down, flirts and engages you in conversation about work and where you spend your time. What do you tell her?

 

Any player will already have alarm bells ringing. He (let us assume it is 'he') will probably suspect that something is going on because, well, the GM never plays out casual bits of people's social lives that have no relation to the plot. Anyway, the GM's acting and social skills are not good enough to get the player relaxed and drunk and unsuspecting, least not at the gaming table.

 

There is a fundamental difference between the player and the PC. They are not the same person, not as far as I am concerned. It is more like the relationship between a director (the player) and an actor (the PC): you can determine what they do broadly, even give finely detailed direction, but what actually happens is up to them. Yes you 'control' the PC, but through the interface of dice rolls.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head with that dichotomy. The PC is approached by, and interacts with, dozens or hundreds of people a day. But the player is only made aware of a small fraction of these interactions, because we simply do not play through every trip to the grocery store, stop at the gas station and ride up an elevator. The player knows that the scenes played out are somehow relevant, even if he has no idea why this particular scene is of such relevance. This makes "realistic" role playing pretty tough.

 

I also question how the PC detects that he is being "mind controlled" with a power holding the "character remembers and thinks it was his own idea" adder, rather than being "persuaded" by a highly persuasive individual. Both would seem, at least to me, indistinguishable to the victim - to the point that the former is a plausible "superskill" mechanic for the special effects of the latter.

[phoenix240]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Two people in a 'social' situation. One is a PC, the other a NPC. Let us say it is a bar, and the NPC is trying to get some information out of the PC by using the Charm skill, and succeeds with a good roll. The NPC is actually an enemy, but is also using the Acting skill to hide any tells, and succeeds with that roll too. As far as the PC is concerned, he (let us say it is a 'he') is having a quiet drink and has been approached by an attractive female (let us say). He is, in any kind of reality, likely to be flattered and, if he is not attached (or is, perhaps) probably happy to engage her in conversation and may give away information without meaning to, perhaps without even realising he has*. That is the 'reality'. That is what would happen if we role played it according to the actual personality of the PC, not the suspicious meta-personality of the player.

 

Same situation but this time the GM says to Player 1. While you are having a quiet drink after work you are approached by an attractive woman who invites herself to sit down, flirts and engages you in conversation about work and where you spend your time. What do you tell her?

 

Any player will already have alarm bells ringing. He (let us assume it is 'he') will probably suspect that something is going on because, well, the GM never plays out casual bits of people's social lives that have no relation to the plot. Anyway, the GM's acting and social skills are not good enough to get the player relaxed and drunk and unsuspecting, least not at the gaming table.

 

There is a fundamental difference between the player and the PC. They are not the same person, not as far as I am concerned. It is more like the relationship between a director (the player) and an actor (the PC): you can determine what they do broadly, even give finely detailed direction, but what actually happens is up to them. Yes you 'control' the PC, but through the interface of dice rolls.

 

Another example, the PC is strapped to a chair being tortured by an NPC. Should he be able to simply ignore those interrogation rolls?

 

Another: a (military) PC is standing guard at a door when he is approached by a general in full uniform and told to get out of the way. The player is convinced that the general is a villain in disguise, but the PC had not succeeded in any perception rolls to confirm that. What would the player do? What would the PC do?

 

The player is there to role play. It is a role playing game. Social skills leave plenty of wriggle room, even if the NPC has just made a stunning Oratory roll to convince you that you should take up evangelical christianity, does the PC have to testify? Well, that is certainly something the player should consider having the PC do, and whatever option the player does decide to make should be role played based on what and who the PC is and what the PC believes at the time. The decision about the action the PC takes as a result should be informed by and consistent with the beliefs and understanding of the PC.

 

If you have built the character with a Psychological Limitation that they are a christian, how is that any different from the PC being persuaded by argument, in game, that he should become a christian?

 

Control seems to be the only answer. I'll role play the Complication because I put it there and I got points for it, but why should I role play what happens to me in game?

 

Because it is a role playing game.

 

 

 

*She's after the location of the secret base and, whilst he will never simply tell her, she can find out where his favourite bars and restaurants are and so can get an idea of which area he works in, she can perhaps regale him with an (entirely false) anecdote of what happened to her at work today and he may let slip something about the people he works with and so on. She picks up clues which, with the application of deduction, can give a pretty accurate idea of where he works and who he works with.

 

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Sean Waters again"

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Got him for you

[Barwickian]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I think we're talking at cross purposes a little here.

 

Some of the examples of things where players don't get a choice, or where the dice determine the outcome, are coming from the tactical environment. The battleboard is a very specific place, where actions are broken down in great detail and the consequences determined by dice rolls at many of the steps involved. PCs and NPCs have a number of ways to earn bonuses or penalties to their rolls, inluding spending character points, and tactical stuff like using the environment, trying to engineer a situation or selecting specific manoeuvres.

 

There is an underlying assumption that every character on the board abides by the results of the rolls (though there's also a rival assumption that the GM will fudge rolls in the PCs favour; each group will find its own way on which they prefer).

 

The major use of social skills on the battleboard is the Presence Attack. It's designed to create a temporary tactical advantage. IN this situation, yes, the PCs are affected by the dice rolls (and charm and attractive Striking Appearance CAN win you bonus dice in a tactical combat if used creatively, just as imposing Striking Appearance and intimidation attempts can - think of Batman tussling with Catwoman. Mrrrraoow!)

 

Away from the battleboard, social skills are generally used as a shorthand. We have no disagreement on whether PCs can use them on NPCs and be bound by the dice roll. Of course they can. You want to charm knowledge of the guards' movements out of the servant girl? Roll away. Add your bonuses. We roleplay the results. You win, she spills what she knows.

 

Where we disagree is whether the same applies in reverse. Will a PC spill the party's plan to attack the castle to the secret agent masquerading as a servant girl on the basis of a single dice roll? (OK, in this circumstance, two dice rolls - she'll have to make her Acting roll to be convincing before making her Charm attempt.)

 

Picture this: A beautiful servant girl walks into the bar. GM rolls some dice and asks you to make a roll. She comes and sits next to you, bats her eyelids, puts her hand on her forearm and asks you to buy her a drink. GM rolls some dice and asks you to make a roll. GM tells you it's now morning and the girl is gone. He asks you to make an INT roll. He tells you that during the throes of passion you vaguely recall telling the girl about yours and your friends' plans to break into the castle by scaling the walls near the badly guarded South Tower, so you can sneak in and take out the Evil Baron.

 

"But I wouldn't tell a stranger that," cries the player.

 

"She's got, like Charm 20. You failed the roll."

 

"Sure, she gets me into bed, but spill plan details? My character's not that stupid!"

 

"You failed the roll."

 

"No fair!"

 

In this case, the player has a very valid point, I think.

 

On the other hand, a different player might have a totally different response. Rewind scene to morning. The GM askes you to make an INT roll and tells you you vaguely recall spilling the plans.

 

Player: "I gave up our plans for a night of squelchy? Oh, man, the others are going to be so pissed at me if they find out. OK, I can work with this."

 

How would your players react to the railroading? Would they object to it or would they go with the flow? I can't say. I judge that one of my players would go with the flow, but the rest would object strenuously, to the extent of argument and possibly storming off if I tried it.

 

This is why I suggested using the APG2 social combat rules for this kind of thing, when NPCs try to manipulate PCs. Either let the player dictate his character's actions as a blanket refusal to spill the beans, no matter how good the roll, or take it to the social battleboard.

 

Amadan makes a very good point about Pendragon's emotional traits. I agree, they are great for pushing your roleplaying into new areas, taking you out of your comfort zone. But the very fact that they're there means I, as a player, know that the dice are going to dictate a lot of my character's actions. I consent to that by playing that game. When I play Pendragon, I do feel very much more like I'm acting the response of a playing piece rather than playing a character of my own creation or concept. It's great fun, and very liberating, and when I want that, I play Pendragon.

 

I'm not saying binding PCs into the results of social skill roles made against them is wrong. I'm saying it doesn't work for the style of play that my group regards as the default. For myself, I wouldn't like to play that way all the time either, though I could have a lot of fun with it in small doses.

 

But if I make it clear before a game that I'd like us to do it, and the players agree to try it, fine. We've made a social contract. We're on the same page.

 

(I'd still say that putting them up against a vamp with Charm 20 is railroading - but maybe I can justify it if she's a major NPC and the PC involved will have a shot at revenge...)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I think we're talking at cross purposes a little here.

 

...)

 

I have not quoted the whole post as it is pretty long, but I agree with the contents. A GM has to know his players and vice versa, and they all have to work with each other's expectations.

 

In addition I agree that basing major plot stuff on a single die roll can be frustrating. Mind you, that's dice. Would making the path to the result more elaborate make people feel better about the end result? I don't know. Some people, it would.

 

Equally a Charm 20 serving girl is a bit like the 1200 point version of Doctor Destroyer coming to beat up your 400 point based team. You may wriggle on the hook for longer using the combat rules, but you are still going down. So to speak.

 

Of course the serving girl could be Charm/11 and just made a couple of lucky rolls: same result. Personally I think this is about trust and control.

 

You have to trust your GM to be running a good and fair game, and not to simply be grandstanding their storytelling or trying, in some perverse way, to beat the players. You also have to divorce yourself from the idea that your character IS you (or an idealised you), just with superpowers (or whatever). If you are playing 'you with superpowers', it can be difficult to accept that your behaviour and responses are being determined by other factors, but if that is the game everyone wants to play, fine. The difficulty is getting agreement from everyone. Whilst having complete control of the character sounds attractive, I don't find it that interesting any more. The character definitively does things that I would not in a 'positive' way - for instance running into combat - why should the character not react in a 'negative' way in a fashion I hope I would not, but, well, might if the circumstances were right? The fact that, when I go out tonight, I'm determined not to get drunk does not necessarily mean I will not be waking up with a hangover tomorrow. Perhaps I should accept that my character may not always stick to the plan. I think there is a lot more fun to be had that way. To me, that is what role playing is about: if I was playing the sort of character who likes alcohol and serving girls, I would hope that, even though I know that getting tipsy and familiar the night before a major mission is not the best way to proceed, if that is how my character would react, or it may react, well, I hope I might even suggest that he wakes up hungover and guilty then next morning, even if we were playing diceless.

 

Of course I would be very hacked off it the GM pulled the same trick with my tee-total, chaste paladin character. That is simply not in the realm of realistic results, no matter what the serving girl rolls and no matter what her Striking Appearance and Charm skill.

 

Of course, if the paladin was approached by someone who is apparently a priest of his religion, who offers counselling and advice, well, perhaps the paladin's trusting nature would mean that he opens up about things it would be better to keep quiet. As a role player, even if I had 'perfect control', I hope I would consider that a possible outcome.

 

I would hope the GM would only do this though if he were either warning the players of a foolish course of action (they are unaware the castle they intend to sneak into is now staffed by a battalion of elite Watchers) or he is setting up a future scene where the PCs wind up captured or running for their lives. Which comes back to trust...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Some of the examples of things where players don't get a choice' date=' or where the dice determine the outcome, are coming from the tactical environment. The battleboard is a very specific place, where actions are broken down in great detail and the consequences determined by dice rolls at many of the steps involved. PCs and NPCs have a number of ways to earn bonuses or penalties to their rolls, inluding spending character points, and tactical stuff like using the environment, trying to engineer a situation or selecting specific manoeuvres.[/quote']

 

And we have ways to earn bonuses and penalties to interaction rolls, including spending character points (on skills, skill levels, EGO, PRE, the Resistance talent and/or similar builds for other interaction resistances as suggested in the sidebar) and tactical stuff (environment? the seductress approaching the character in a bar might use those drunken louts to attract his attention so he can "rescue the poor helpless girl", or cleverly position herself so he can "accidentally" cause her to spill her drink; engineer a situation? she waited to meet him in a bar, not in a church; specific maneuvers? she's not Interrogating him...).

 

There is an underlying assumption that every character on the board abides by the results of the rolls (though there's also a rival assumption that the GM will fudge rolls in the PCs favour; each group will find its own way on which they prefer).

 

Just as each group can find its own way in respect of social skills.

 

The major use of social skills on the battleboard is the Presence Attack. It's designed to create a temporary tactical advantage. IN this situation' date=' yes, the PCs are affected by the dice rolls (and charm and attractive Striking Appearance CAN win you bonus dice in a tactical combat if used creatively, just as imposing Striking Appearance and intimidation attempts can - think of Batman tussling with Catwoman. Mrrrraoow!)[/quote']

 

Perhaps we'd like a game where challenges are resolved by means other than combat.

 

Away from the battleboard, social skills are generally used as a shorthand. We have no disagreement on whether PCs can use them on NPCs and be bound by the dice roll. Of course they can. You want to charm knowledge of the guards' movements out of the servant girl? Roll away. Add your bonuses. We roleplay the results. You win, she spills what she knows.

 

Where we disagree is whether the same applies in reverse. Will a PC spill the party's plan to attack the castle to the secret agent masquerading as a servant girl on the basis of a single dice roll? (OK, in this circumstance, two dice rolls - she'll have to make her Acting roll to be convincing before making her Charm attempt.)

 

Picture this: A beautiful servant girl walks into the bar. GM rolls some dice and asks you to make a roll. She comes and sits next to you, bats her eyelids, puts her hand on her forearm and asks you to buy her a drink. GM rolls some dice and asks you to make a roll. GM tells you it's now morning and the girl is gone. He asks you to make an INT roll. He tells you that during the throes of passion you vaguely recall telling the girl about yours and your friends' plans to break into the castle by scaling the walls near the badly guarded South Tower, so you can sneak in and take out the Evil Baron.

 

"But I wouldn't tell a stranger that," cries the player.

 

"But that is pretty much the same way you obtained the guard schedule to determine the South Tower was badly guarded, isn't it?"

 

If Charm 20 can't get the details out of the PC, why should it be able to get the details out of the NPC? What makes the PC immune to the effects of social skills?

 

"No fair!"

 

In this case, the player has a very valid point, I think.

 

Sure. But I think an assertion by the GM that a romantic gesture and a roll in the hay with the cleaning wench from the castle would not get them the location of the Baron's room and the guard shifts to select the easiest Tower to penetrate. I also think the GM deciding this more or less typical serving girl has a Charm roll of 20, which the rule book describes as "The character amazes even other skilled practitioners. He’s perhaps the greatest master of the Skill in history. This is the realm of superheroes, gods, heroes of myth, and supergeniuses.", strains credibility. If the game is one where skill rolls of 20 are commonplace, then the PC's, if expected to be above the norm, should have resistances to match. If it is one which follows the rulebook's description of skills, then this "servant girl" seems credible only if she is the Mata Hari/Black Widow of the campaign setting - a unique, legendary, nearly mythical Superspy. Boy, that Baron must be worth a LOT to someone for them to bring her in. Seems this mission just got a whole lot more complicated.

 

To return to the battleboard by way of comparison, I think the player would be just as justified in crying "No Fair" when the Baron's Guard Minion in this Standard Heroic game rolls a 16, easily hitting the PC's campagn max 7 DC, augmented to 12 by his Martial Dodge, since he has an OCV of 20 when using his Thrust Fencing maneuver (which, after all, is a +1 OCV bonus!), rolling an above average roll of 20 BOD on his 5d6 total killing damage with that maneuver - oh, and no need to check for hit location, since he uses his 8 penalty skill levels to always go for the head shot. Hey, you can't be a Junior Guard without some training, right?

 

How would your players react to the railroading? Would they object to it or would they go with the flow? I can't say. I judge that one of my players would go with the flow' date=' but the rest would object strenuously, to the extent of argument and possibly storming off if I tried it.[/quote']

 

Would their reaction to the Baron's Guard be different?

 

Perhaps a more reasonable approach would have been a 14- roll for the Very Skilled spy posing as a serving girl to try to gather intel on these threats to the Baron's rule managing to learn that the PC's were indeed planning an infiltration of the castle to bring down the Baron, rather than the PC mapping out the planned infiltration on the bedclothes in the afterglow. But then, perhaps the PC's own use of their 14- interaction skills should have netted them some limited information on the Baron's plans to send a significant contingent of guards on a mission to a distant location, possibly stretching their remaining forces thin, rather than a complete map of the castle interior, secret passages included, and a copy of the guard schedule for the next three months. Again, the results social skills can achieve should not vary widely between PC and NPC use of such skills.

 

Why is it that we can accept a GM will be reasonable, and use the rules to present a challenging, interesting and fair adventure to the players, until we bring in rules for interaction skills that can affect a player character?

 

(I'd still say that putting them up against a vamp with Charm 20 is railroading - but maybe I can justify it if she's a major NPC and the PC involved will have a shot at revenge...)

 

Sure. And a powerful combatant who's a major NPC, and who will form part of the campaign arc, with the PC's involved eventually getting the opportunity to bring him down, would not seem unjustifiable either. But placing those levels of skill and power on a rookie castle guard and his serving wench girlfriend as a matter of course is an entirely different situation. Whether physical or social, either is simply placing the PC's in an unwinnable situation for no discernable enhancement to the quality or enjoyability of the game.

[Barwickian]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

If Charm 20 can't get the details out of the PC, why should it be able to get the details out of the NPC?

 

OK, disregard the skill level. She's got charm skill. She makes her roll. You spill the plans. "No fair," cries the player. "My character wouldn't be that dumb."

 

What makes the PC immune to the effects of social skills?

 

Because unlike very other inhabitant of the game world, they're not controlled by the GM, they're controlled by players. They're heroes. Protagonists. It's them against the world, and the world is a big place.

 

In this situation, PCs getting the plans may be a minor thing. It may be a major thing. If it's minor, I'll let a Charm roll carry it. If it's major, we'll go into it in more depth: how do we find out who's got the info we need. How to we get it from them? Acquiring the info becomes a major focus of the game.

 

And as far as I'm concerned, an NPC getting info out of a PC is not a minor thing. If I want a PC to divulge info in the sack (I have no idea why I'm concentrating on pillow talk in this thread; character flaw I guess), I'll run through a courtship. Establish trust with the NPC. Then let the PC curse their sudden but inevitable betrayal.

 

There are very many ways I can give them challenges without taking away their free will with a dice roll. I can have someone overhear them while they're discussing their plans. I can give them a shot at noticing that. What they do about it is their choice - chase the eavesdropper down; let the eavesdopper continue and feed him false information; change their plans after the eavesdropper's left.

 

If I really want them to get into trouble with loose lips, I can have an NPC slip them a mickey or truth serum. That kind of thing seems to sit better with most players I've known than being beating mined for info with a Charm roll.

 

You tell me that logically what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. But if I like putting one sauce on geese and another on ganders, you'll not convince me.

 

Of course, this is all with my usual caveat: if I sit down with my players beforehand and agree that social skill rolls will apply against the PCs, I have no problem with it. That approach can be fun. It's just not our default approach.