Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

 

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.

 

The difference there is all in their head: it is OK that I was overcome by drugs and forced to give up information, it is not OK that I was fooled into giving it up. That just seems, well, odd to me. Mechanically there is no difference: same beginning and end and, quite probably the same in-between. I mean, it is worse in many ways because the GM is just deciding it happened. I suppose the GM could ask the player to make a Perception roll to see if he spots the drug being slipped into his drink, but then he knows something is going on, so he is on his guard. The GM can make the perception roll for him, but, well, that is pretty daft, because if he succeeds (or decides he succeeds) then the player actually gets no more information than he would have otherwise - the PC wakes next morning and has a vague recollection of boasting to his plans to the serving wench. The only difference is he is not told he did that because he failed a charm roll. He's not told why it happened at all.

 

It is almost like an inability to think of the character as real, with real lapses and foibles and moments of greatness, which I think is terribly unfortunate. The character becomes an idealised version of the player's own personality.

 

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' date=' you'll not convince me.[/quote']

 

To carry that metaphor well beyond the point of collapse, you are not going to be able to tell the difference between goose and gander with the right sauce on it. There is certainly an element of GM skill involved here. If you have a player who can not handle the truth, well, don't tell him the truth. He's already willing to believe he is infallible, so let's not burst his bubble just for the sake of verisimilitude.

 

Of course' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Again there is an element of GM skill here, and it is all in the presentation (or 'sauce'): if it is presented as 'you have to do what the dice say', they are never going to bite, whereas if you talk about the role playing potential of intelligently interpreting the actions of NPCs as determined by the outcome of a dice roll 'to keep it fair', you might get a very different response.

 

Of course the alternative is possibly worse. As a GM, if I want something to happen, well, I control the world. The Castellan might have employed a haruspex and laid in some chickens, or the discussion of plans to break in might have been overheard or, perhaps the players were not as clever as they thought and whoever the PCs got the information off were never taken in and were just playing them.

 

I do appreciate that there is no point in upsetting the players. I think the problem here, the difference between combat and social interaction, at least for some Hero players, is that it is actually relatively difficult to build a character that is hard to beat in social combat. Defences are relatively expensive and (unless you just use the combat rules and call them social combat) there is relatively little tactical input. Mind you, many social combats are probably closer to muggings anyway - it is relatively rare that two people engage in a social duel where tactical considerations would come into play in any event.

 

The other problem with 'social combat' is that it makes the whole process distant from the player. That may sound like me going back on what I said earlier, but it is not - what I mean is that it introduces a meta-element. If you have some sort of social combat and then the player knows what went on, and has to act as if the PC doesn't.

[Barwickian]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

The difference there is all in their head: it is OK that I was overcome by drugs and forced to give up information' date=' it is not OK that I was fooled into giving it up. That just seems, well, odd to me. [/quote']

 

Not to me, and not to most players I've gamed with - those I've spoken about this kind of thing, anyway.

 

The issue is one of perception. They seem quite happy to accept that a drugged PC might spill the beans. After all, in such circumstances, who wouldn't?

 

But to be told their character has spilled the beans through being careless doesn't sit right with them. Not through a dice roll, anyway. They're happy to fail a perception checkand get caught by a trap. That's physical. But fall subject to a Charm check and spill the beans, that feels like railroading to them.

 

Mechanically there is no difference: same beginning and end and, quite probably the same in-between. I mean, it is worse in many ways because the GM is just deciding it happened. I suppose the GM could ask the player to make a Perception roll to see if he spots the drug being slipped into his drink, but then he knows something is going on, so he is on his guard.

 

I usally keep a note of PC's perception (and other passive skills or attributes they may need) and just call of a roll. I've also askd for a series of rolls before then session, and scratch them off as needed.

 

The GM can make the perception roll for him, but, well, that is pretty daft, because if he succeeds (or decides he succeeds) then the player actually gets no more information than he would have otherwise - the PC wakes next morning and has a vague recollection of boasting to his plans to the serving wench. The only difference is he is not told he did that because he failed a charm roll. He's not told why it happened at all.

 

Yeah he (or she) would be. I'm far more likely to play through a drug haze than I am a sex scene.

 

It is almost like an inability to think of the character as real, with real lapses and foibles and moments of greatness, which I think is terribly unfortunate. The character becomes an idealised version of the player's own personality.

 

That's valid, I think. I play with a number of players with strong personalities, some of whom regard RPGing as a simple game with winners and losers, some of whom enjoy pure roleplaying. None of them (with the possible exception of one), will take kindly to feeling I'm dictating their character's actions. They'd need a reason (like being drugged), to allow it with objection.

 

However, each player does tell me what lapses and foibles they're comfortable with their characters having. That's what complications are for. And I do note that some players are more likely to give their characters physical or external complications then they are mental or internal social ones.

 

I work with those. The players are their to have fun and tell their character's story, just as I'm there to have fun watching them deal with the situations I lay before them (I try to avoid telling my story).

 

To carry that metaphor well beyond the point of collapse, you are not going to be able to tell the difference between goose and gander with the right sauce on it. There is certainly an element of GM skill involved here. If you have a player who can not handle the truth, well, don't tell him the truth. He's already willing to believe he is infallible, so let's not burst his bubble just for the sake of verisimilitude.

 

Absolutely. Some players I'll discuss things with in metagame terms, others dislike that.

 

Of course the alternative is possibly worse. As a GM, if I want something to happen, well, I control the world. The Castellan might have employed a haruspex and laid in some chickens, or the discussion of plans to break in might have been overheard or, perhaps the players were not as clever as they thought and whoever the PCs got the information off were never taken in and were just playing them.

 

Yes, the potential for GM abuse is rife in any game. We just have to try to avoid rigging the games against the PCs.

 

The other problem with 'social combat' is that it makes the whole process distant from the player. That may sound like me going back on what I said earlier, but it is not - what I mean is that it introduces a meta-element. If you have some sort of social combat and then the player knows what went on, and has to act as if the PC doesn't.

 

Yeah, that's the element of distance I was talking about in Pendragon. However, there's more than one way of handling social combat.

 

APG2's first option is exactly what you and Hugh are advocating, and I've said I don't mind if it's made plain beforehand: skills rolls with PCs bound by the results. It makes specific mention that the players have to agree to rolls affecting their characters as well.

 

The more tactical option I'd only really use in a game where social thrusts and parries become important - a Dangerous Liaisons kind of game, for instance.

 

In general, I find my usual pattern - roll if the PCs try to influence an NPC, roleplay the other way round - is generally the best available option for my players.

 

That being said, we've recently been taking a close look at Burning Wheel, which not only has a more detailed social combat sustem (alongside the simple dice roll method), but is quite explicit that players are bound to dice rolls.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

The more plausible use of Charm in that example would probably be winning her way into bed with the PC, then stealing a copy of the character's notes on the plan(if any exist). I can't see a plausible way to get even a drunk character to just spill the beans about a plan, although little admissions could happen--e.g., "I've got to be up early, big day tomorrow", "Are you going by the castle?" "Oh, I might be...", etc.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Incidentally, Dangerous Liaisons is an excellent example of how "the art of seduction" works--the seducer spends a very long time studying their target and learning their personality and weaknesses, they tailor their approach to that, and then begin the slow process of getting their targets to fall in love with them. If the seduction is done properly, it won't even seem like seduction, just a natural process of becoming intrigued with someone and gradually become more and more deeply involved with them.

[Greywind]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Which has just as much chance of backfiring on the seducer.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Which has just as much chance of backfiring on the seducer.

 

Well, even Casanova was himself seduced, at least once in his life.

[Greywind]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Done properly it becomes a story point.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Done properly it becomes a story point.

 

It's one way to do it. Of course, a roll might still be required at key points, just to see if the seducee figures out what's really happening.

[phoenix240]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

The more plausible use of Charm in that example would probably be winning her way into bed with the PC' date=' then stealing a copy of the character's notes on the plan(if any exist). I can't see a plausible way to get even a drunk character to just spill the beans about a plan, although little admissions could happen--e.g., "I've got to be up early, big day tomorrow", "Are you going by the castle?" "Oh, I might be...", etc.[/quote']

 

Yeah, that seemed more like Conversation at the very least.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Not to me, and not to most players I've gamed with - those I've spoken about this kind of thing, anyway.

 

The issue is one of perception. They seem quite happy to accept that a drugged PC might spill the beans. After all, in such circumstances, who wouldn't?

 

But to be told their character has spilled the beans through being careless doesn't sit right with them. Not through a dice roll, anyway. They're happy to fail a perception checkand get caught by a trap. That's physical. But fall subject to a Charm check and spill the beans, that feels like railroading to them.

Your example keeps coming back to the GM screwing the player over with a single roll of the dice. The issue you keep describing is a bad GM, not a problem inherent with having PCs effected by Social Skills.

[Greywind]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Yeah' date=' that seemed more like Conversation at the very least.[/quote']

 

Conversation is a key point in Seduction, unless the target is known for not being a great conversationalist.

[Barwickian]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Your example keeps coming back to the GM screwing the player over with a single roll of the dice. The issue you keep describing is a bad GM' date=' not a problem inherent with having PCs effected by Social Skills.[/quote']

 

Fair point. I have been using an extreme example.

 

But whether it's one roll or six, the idea that PCs should be affected by social skills just as NPCs because that's the equitable or logical way to handle things rests on the underlying assumption that PCs and NPCs are equal.

 

I don't believe they are. PCs are protagonists. NPCs are adversaries or supporting cast.

 

As a GM, I play many different characters. I'm not emotionally committed to any of them the way a player is to a PC. I don't know any of them as well as a player knows his or her PC. None of them get the screen time that a PC does. And if we let a PC push their buttons with a dice roll (or series of dice rolls), I don't have any problem with that.

 

As I've said many times, I don't mind social skills affecting PCs if everyone agrees to it. But I do not regard it as the default style of play.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

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.

 

I always sprinkle a few color elements around to obscure occasions like the spy example above. The heroes occasionally chat with their friendly/annoying neighbor in the elevator, meet the kids in their neighborhood/where they patrol, encounter celebrities by sheer coincidence, etc. Very few of these should ever be the result of nefarious workings, unless you are intentionally stoking the fires of your players' paranoia (in which case, carry on).

 

If your players are accustomed to these light bits that give them a window on the world they occupy and some of the bit players in it, when you really do need Doctor Unsanitary to disguise himself as Little Timmy to charm Lassie into giving away all her secrets ("Woof! Woof!) you can, but I wouldn't overuse it.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Fair point. I have been using an extreme example.

 

But whether it's one roll or six, the idea that PCs should be affected by social skills just as NPCs because that's the equitable or logical way to handle things rests on the underlying assumption that PCs and NPCs are equal.

 

I don't believe they are. PCs are protagonists. NPCs are adversaries or supporting cast.

 

As a GM, I play many different characters. I'm not emotionally committed to any of them the way a player is to a PC. I don't know any of them as well as a player knows his or her PC. None of them get the screen time that a PC does. And if we let a PC push their buttons with a dice roll (or series of dice rolls), I don't have any problem with that.

 

As I've said many times, I don't mind social skills affecting PCs if everyone agrees to it. But I do not regard it as the default style of play.

Why do you get to declare what the "default style of play" is? Obviously if some people didn't think it is, or should be, the default than this conversation would not be happening.

[phoenix240]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Conversation is a key point in Seduction' date=' unless the target is known for not being a great conversationalist.[/quote']

 

I mean the skill Conversation. Sorry for being unclear.

[Greywind]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

So did I. A lot of the PRE skills are complimentary depending upon the audience.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Charm, Persuasion and Conversation can also be complementary to Interrogation--befriending a suspect to get them to let their guard down; telling them something misleading to get them to make an unwanted admission; and engaging them in light conversation to get subtle little reveals from them.

[Greywind]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Good cop. Bad cop.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Fair point. I have been using an extreme example.

 

But whether it's one roll or six, the idea that PCs should be affected by social skills just as NPCs because that's the equitable or logical way to handle things rests on the underlying assumption that PCs and NPCs are equal.

 

I don't believe they are. PCs are protagonists. NPCs are adversaries or supporting cast.

 

So how far do we take that? It's exciting for a PC to slay a dragon in a single blow, but sad to lose a favoured PC, so maybe only PC's should be allowed to roll critical hits. I think 4e D&D took the "mooks are not important so a single hit will always lay them low" approach - combat in Hero could certainly be run the same way.

 

I'm not sure why we come back to "one roll and the PC lays out all his plans to the NPC". Would the NPC provide the PC's with his full playbook on a single roll? If not, then we're back to equal results for all parties. If so, then why should the players be upset that an NPC can do the same thing to them.

 

Your example keeps coming back to the GM screwing the player over with a single roll of the dice. The issue you keep describing is a bad GM' date=' not a problem inherent with having PCs effected by Social Skills. [/quote']

 

Agreed. Would a single stealth roll allowing an NPC to slip through the PC's cam, rifle their belongings and make off with anything and everything of value somehow be more acceptable? One roll in combat and the PC is beheaded is somehow more reasonable?

 

If the mechanic makes so much difference, then the issue would go away if we just tell the player it wasn't REALLY a Charm roll, but a Mind Control mechanic with the SFX of a charm roll and now all's right with the world? Why not just roll the Charm skill and, when the player says "no fair", reply "say, maybe she used Magic Truth Serum". She didn't, but clearly the PC can't imagine himself being Charmed without such a magical aid, so he deludes himself.

[phoenix240]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

So did I. A lot of the PRE skills are complimentary depending upon the audience.

 

OIC. Gotcha. I would have handled it as multiple skill checks as described. Acting, Seduction and Conversation possibly as an extended roll where the serving girl/had to accrue so many pips during the encounter.

[Barwickian]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Why do you get to declare what the "default style of play" is? Obviously if some people didn't think it is' date=' or should be, the default than this conversation would not be happening.[/quote']

 

I don't. My group generally decides that. If I want to vary from established custom, I have to make sure they buy into a change, or at least consent to it.

 

I'm certainly not trying to dictate any other group's style of play.

[Barwickian]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

So how far do we take that? It's exciting for a PC to slay a dragon in a single blow' date=' but sad to lose a favoured PC, so maybe only PC's should be allowed to roll critical hits. I think 4e D&D took the "mooks are not important so a single hit will always lay them low" approach - combat in Hero could certainly be run the same way.[/quote']

 

It certainly can - it's even an optional rule in Fantasy Hero, IIRC.

 

I'm not sure why we come back to "one roll and the PC lays out all his plans to the NPC". Would the NPC provide the PC's with his full playbook on a single roll?

 

Charm skill description, Hero System Skills, p293: Gaining trust task, Very difficult favour (reveal top secret information), base time 6 hours, modifier -4.

 

If not, then we're back to equal results for all parties. If so, then why should the players be upset that an NPC can do the same thing to them.

 

We're back to the same underlying issue. If there's no difference between PCs and NPCs, your conclusion is impeccable. If there is a difference between the two (and the basic assumption among most of the people I game with is that there is), we arrive at a different conclusion.

 

I do understand where you're coming from, Hugh. I've tried your suggested style of play, and find it a lot of fun when everyone agrees to it, though it puts some distance between player and character. I've also had groups where trying it would lead to arguments around the game table and angry players. My current player pool is (one aside) of the PCs First opinion.

 

Mind you, that may be because my players have never really given it a fair crack at the whip, or even really thought about it. I'll add this issue to my copy of the Same Page Tool, and see what comes up in the pre-game discussion.

[Barwickian]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

OK, after a little thought, here's what I've come up with to add to my version of the Same Page Tool.

 

Attempts to influence other characters through social or interaction mechanics are things that…

a) …PCs can do to NPCs, but not the other way around. Players must be allowed to play their characters’ personalities without being dictated to by dice.

…both NPCs and PCs can do to each other. It gives PCs the opportunity to develop in ways the player never anticipated, which is fun to play out.

c) …is something PCs can do to NPCs, but NPCs can only do to PCs in minor scenes such as haggling; major plot twists or character development shouldn’t be forced by dice.

d) …is something that should be handled entirely through roleplaying. No dice should ever be involved.

 

 

Can anybody suggest additions or improved phrasing? Remember that the Same Page Tool isn't a list of right and wrong, nor a poll, but an attempt to bring underlying assumptions into the open as discussion points for how the group will play this particular game or campaign (groups can play and enjoy several different styles in different games, even games using the same mechanics).

 

Also, the Same Page Tool is not system-specific, so I don't want to get into the actual mechanics of influence skills.

[Martin2]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Fair point. I have been using an extreme example.

 

But whether it's one roll or six, the idea that PCs should be affected by social skills just as NPCs because that's the equitable or logical way to handle things rests on the underlying assumption that PCs and NPCs are equal.

 

I don't believe they are. PCs are protagonists. NPCs are adversaries or supporting cast.

 

As a GM, I play many different characters. I'm not emotionally committed to any of them the way a player is to a PC. I don't know any of them as well as a player knows his or her PC. None of them get the screen time that a PC does. And if we let a PC push their buttons with a dice roll (or series of dice rolls), I don't have any problem with that.

 

As I've said many times, I don't mind social skills affecting PCs if everyone agrees to it. But I do not regard it as the default style of play.

 

So in a game when you have aposed rolls or straight rolls against the player a player in some instances can never lose as they are players?

 

So in a game of chess a player can never lose? A simple skill roll to determine if a player wins after scores if not hundreds of goes over several hours of play. It can never go against them as they are players?

 

And a similar charm roll also played out over hours of time boiled down into a charm roll to determine if a player gives up information can never go against the player as it is a social interaction that may go against the player as they may feel bad etc?

 

Seems silly.

 

Do the players always hit what they aim at?

 

Do the players always get missed by the villains?

 

Do they always pick a lock when they try to pick the lock never mind how bad the skill of the picker or how hard the lock is?

 

They charm the pants of the serving wenches and get what they want. They can fast talk the guard into bluffing themselves into restricted areas. All on social interaction rolls based on a game mechanics based on skills and characteristics.

 

But if the reverse needs to happen it can not happen as the players may feel bad and they are players and are immune to it?

 

Seems a little one sided if all the players get all that for free and some characters may have paid for it by investing in the relevant skills.

[ayinde]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I'm in the pcs and NPC are equal camp if you don't want tricked buy skills to avoid it. But I do see a point in the but I control my character vamp so how about something more in the middle if the lose there contest they can still act how they want but at negetive to preform equal to how much they lost by reason there hart just isn't in it