Jump to content

Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance


BhelliomRahl

Recommended Posts

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

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

 

First off, the roll is against an opposed roll. If the character has an EGO of 10 and no modifiers to that roll, I suggest his build indicates he's not all that difficult to persuade, charm, what have you. Second, base time 6 hours means, to me, spending six hours working on gaining that trust. Spreading your legs is not the equivalent of gaining trust, so that time would not be included. It's pretty tough to demonstrate one's trustworthiness sitting in a bar making suggestive comments, so when do we start the 6 hours of work? Third, this is not "top secret info" such as the plans to a nuclear weapon or the formula for the Super Soldier Serum. It is information which, if it falls into the hands of anyone loyal to the Baron, probably means death for the character and his teammates, maybe repercussions to his family/friends as well. Third, in the specific circumstances provided, I would suggest the trust required is either that the individual is extremely loyal to the character and would never reveal their secrets, or is just as opposed to the Baron as the character is. So what has the serving wench done to demonstrate she is deserving of such trust?

 

Sure, I can roll the dice and say "oh, the serving wench is so good in bed that you trust her implictly and immediately write out a copy of your secret plans". I suggest, rather, that the best this approach is likely to get is an indication that the character is planning action against the baron, and perhaps an idea of the timing. Similarly, I would not have the Captain of the Guard handing a copy of the castle plans and the guard schedule, with those guards who are ill or absent neatly highlighted, after the PC spends 6 hours drinking and sking off-key with him in the bar. The Captain might well, however, let slip how the Baron's expansion plans have left the guards short-handed, or how fortunate it is that he can cut down the guard on the unscalable south walls when he needs to bolster defense elsewhere.

 

I don't see "A girl comes up to you in the bar and gives you a wink. You make mad passionate love into the wee hours that evening. You awaken with a sore head, and recall describing in perfect detail your plans to storm the Baron's castle in the throes of passion. HAHA she got a good charm roll." as being any different from "Well, the Baron's chief advisor has a Medallion of Mind Reading and he just happened to be in the bar randomly scanning total strangers." or "The walls of the inn are very thin, and you didn't know the stableboy had his ear to the wall all the time you were meeting in an otherwise empty room to discuss your plans, and he immediately took this knowledge to the Baron's Guards", or "Half way up the south wall, the crenallation your grappling hook is attached to crumbles and you all fall to your deaths."

 

So yes, we can use the interaction skills abusively. But we can use every other challenge resolution mechanic in the game , or any other mechanic we come up with, in abusive fashion.

 

We're back to the same underlying issue. If there's no difference between PCs and NPCs' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

So what other negative consequences should be subject to player veto? "No, the dragon missed and my character is not killed". "No, I did not roll an 18 on my Climb check, so my character nimbly scampers up the wall and escapes the guards." Lots more examples provided above.

 

We're able to roll dice to resolve combat without any feeling we have lost control of our characters. Why is it so impossible to envision social skills being used in similar fashion, not as a "one roll and the character becomes a sock puppet" model?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 350
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Random thoughts from the last few pages:

 

...A good seduction is like good magic. You have no idea where it is going until you get there, and you tend to be looking in the wrong place anyway. It often works because of an immense amount of preparation that seems out of proportion to the end effect, but virtually ensures its success.

 

...If all the players are happy to be immune to NPC social skills, cool. Mind you I think this discussion has made a number of useful points that might help to give them something to think about next time they are asked that question.

 

...It seems that what most players object to is not so much being told what happens as what they have to do as a result. I can understand that, although it clearly becomes more complicated when you are describing the PC's feelings as opposed to something more neutral, like their perceptions. PCs who have no problems with being told that they can see a ghost (even though it is not actually a ghost, but a hologram, image or elaborate mock up and they have failed perception rolls) will resent being told they are scared and positively rebel if they are told they have to run away as a result. Similarly a player has not problem with his PC perceiving a NPC as attractive but is not going to like being told that the PC finds the NPC charming and will really get het up by being told that they spend the night together drinking and laughing and - whatever because they really like the NPC - even if the PC would have been perfectly 'subjectively' amenable to that in game.

 

...It seems to me that most of the objections to PC compliance with social skills are about emotions, feelings and the decisions made as a result. A player will not be particularly upset if they make a mistake as a result of failing a perception roll, but would get upset if they failed 'resistance' to a social skill.

 

...There is a real tension between the player having information and the PC having information. I can understand that: as a player I would always rather know everything, even if I then do the 'right' thing and play the PC as if I did not, but I'd only rather know at the time. Sitting here now, when the decision is not upon me, I'd rather that theoretical me did not know, because I think it would be more fun. Should I be enforcing my idea of fun now on my future self? Am I going to disappear up my own arse if I don't stop thinking like this? Probably.

 

...I can understand why people see a difference between physical and emotional actions and are more willing to accept 'bad' results for physical actions. Role Playing can be about control, and the 'ultimate violation' of control is losing control of your own mind and emotions. We play chess and are not worried about the loss of a pawn because we are not emotionally invested in that pawn (maybe in winning, but not in the pawn itself). Role playing is often described in terms of 'being' a character in a story: the implication is that the defining characteristic of the character is your own consciousness. If the PC's consciousness is made to do something that you 'would not', then the game is reaching out and attacking you. Gosh, it's almost like the Matrix, isn't it?

 

I also think some people find it difficult to role play emotions and, in particular, sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

For my own part, I'd say the biggest difference between (for example) failing a perception roll vs failing a social resistance roll is that there is a personal decision involved in the latter. I don't have to decide that I've failed to percieve something. But when it comes to social situations with other people, it doesn't matter how good the persuasion roll or how bad my resistance roll... I still have the option to say "No".

 

As a GM, the same goes for my NPCs. I don't want players to feel like they've wasted points on such skills, but in the end, I have to decide what the NPC's choice will be, based not only on die rolls, but the emotional state of the character and what sort of social interactions they've had with the PC in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Bars and drinking often have that effect.

 

"They're trying to put warning labels on liquor saying, 'Caution, alcohol can be dangerous to pregnant women.' That's ironic. If it weren't for alcohol, most women wouldn't even be that way."

 

Rita Rudner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

For my own part, I'd say the biggest difference between (for example) failing a perception roll vs failing a social resistance roll is that there is a personal decision involved in the latter. I don't have to decide that I've failed to percieve something. But when it comes to social situations with other people, it doesn't matter how good the persuasion roll or how bad my resistance roll... I still have the option to say "No".

 

As a GM, the same goes for my NPCs. I don't want players to feel like they've wasted points on such skills, but in the end, I have to decide what the NPC's choice will be, based not only on die rolls, but the emotional state of the character and what sort of social interactions they've had with the PC in the past.

 

Do you decide to fall in love?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

B) …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.

 

After reading through the same page tool I would switch b and c, since most of the lists in there involve a progression and that represents the progression better. A. becomes PC affected Never, B. is PC affected rarely, C. is PC affected Normally, and D. is the no roll at all option (neither affected). I also am not sure of the wording on B. This may be bias on my part after reading your posts on this subject. I would suggest giving this list to someone who has not been reading and see if they can gauge where your opinion lies (to me the wording on B seems to be sarcastic, but like I said that could be bias.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Unlike chess, an RPG is not a cool, emotionless game with little emotional investment beyond the desire to win and avoid losing.

 

RPGs are unlike a lot of games, in that it directly engages the players emotionally. This means that when the GM does something clumsily, it does not simply injure the PC but, because of the emotional weight invested in the character, the player himself is vulnerable to unintended side effects the NPCs should not. Take care when pushing your players' buttons, as you may be unintentionally pushing theirs in the process. As a person with mental issues, I can relate to the possibility that some of the reason players don't like to be told how their players feel outside of Mind Control is that GMs can be pretty clumsy (and lazy) when waging "social combat" against the players. Sometimes the situations might be upsetting to the player for reasons he can't quite explain until he's had time to think them over. This does not sound like "fun enhancement" to me, but lazy GM-ing in that the GM has no respect for the fact that other folks have different curbs that they trip over from yours, and don't appreciate when you throw such a curb in their path even though you might be completely unaware that this is what just happened.

 

GMs and players should have respect for one another that exceeds their respect for the rules so they can find acceptable workarounds for problems like this rahter than just saying "the rules make it so so shut up and play!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

After reading through the same page tool I would switch b and c' date=' since most of the lists in there involve a progression and that represents the progression better. A. becomes PC affected Never, B. is PC affected rarely, C. is PC affected Normally, and D. is the no roll at all option (neither affected). I also am not sure of the wording on B. This may be bias on my part after reading your posts on this subject. I would suggest giving this list to someone who has not been reading and see if they can gauge where your opinion lies (to me the wording on B seems to be sarcastic, but like I said that could be bias.)[/quote']

 

Hadn't thought about the progression, but that's a good point.

 

I'll think on the wording. I really don't want it to come across as sarcastic, but as very positive. We're going to be putting a new game together in a week or so and possibly have a new player (maybe two). I'd actually really like them to agree to using social skills going both ways; it's a style of play I've used before, but not for many years - not since I came to the Middle East and started GMing for a group who'd long since established their own style of play.

 

If I've come across as suggesting treating PCs and NPCs equally in this matter is wrong, I certainly didn't intend that. What I've been trying to say is that it's not the way some groups prefer it - including mine, that it depends on the underlying assumptions of the group. And I've been trying to explain why my group thinks that way. Maybe I've gotten over-emphatic as I've felt more defensive (and I have felt a bit defensive).

 

Personally, I think trying a different style would be good for them, and me. I'd like to persuade them to try it; I hope my Charm is up to working through their Ego...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I've never seen it as "wrong". I have seen player resistance to being manipulated in character.

 

I've also seen players who played their character as smarter--or dumber--than their stats suggested they were. It's a fine line, I think. "Fun" vs. "Fair".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

First off' date=' the roll is against an opposed roll. If the character has an EGO of 10 and no modifiers to that roll, I suggest his build indicates he's not all that difficult to persuade, charm, what have you. [/quote']

 

I'm well aware of that.

 

Second, base time 6 hours means, to me, spending six hours working on gaining that trust. Spreading your legs is not the equivalent of gaining trust, so that time would not be included. It's pretty tough to demonstrate one's trustworthiness sitting in a bar making suggestive comments, so when do we start the 6 hours of work?

 

Are we talking about the same Charm skill?

 

This Interaction Skill is the ability to gain others’ trust by offering companionship or favors. Depending on the circumstances, its uses can range from simply making friends, to getting on someone’s good side, to outright sexual seduction.

Charm is normally only for use on NPCs; a player should have more control over his character’s actions. The GM may rule that Charm can

be used on a PC when it fits his Complications or personality.

A successful Charm roll usually makes it easier to learn information or gain favors from the victim. An unsuccessful Charm roll usually meanthe attempt failed, but an exceptionally bad roll could indicate the target finds the character vulgaor distasteful and becomes completely disinterested in him.

 

That's the one I'm talking about.

 

You appear to be suggesting that the point of this Charm is to get the character (whether it be PC or NPC) into bed, and they spill the beans as a side-effect.

 

I think the point of the Charm is to win their trust enough that they'll spill the beans. If getting them into bed is what it takes, that's what it takes - and if it gets that far, I'd expect that it came close to or at the end of those 6 hours.

 

Third, this is not "top secret info" such as the plans to a nuclear weapon or the formula for the Super Soldier Serum. It is information which, if it falls into the hands of anyone loyal to the Baron, probably means death for the character and his teammates, maybe repercussions to his family/friends as well.

 

And handing over plans to a nuclear weapon wouldn't carry serious repercussions for the character, and maybe his family and friends as well, if it falls into the hands of the authorities? Depending on the law code involved, it could end up with the death penalty, and a lengthy period in jail seems the very minimum.

 

Third, in the specific circumstances provided, I would suggest the trust required is either that the individual is extremely loyal to the character and would never reveal their secrets, or is just as opposed to the Baron as the character is. So what has the serving wench done to demonstrate she is deserving of such trust?

 

Sure, I can roll the dice and say "oh, the serving wench is so good in bed that you trust her implictly and immediately write out a copy of your secret plans". I suggest, rather, that the best this approach is likely to get is an indication that the character is planning action against the baron, and perhaps an idea of the timing. Similarly, I would not have the Captain of the Guard handing a copy of the castle plans and the guard schedule, with those guards who are ill or absent neatly highlighted, after the PC spends 6 hours drinking and sking off-key with him in the bar. The Captain might well, however, let slip how the Baron's expansion plans have left the guards short-handed, or how fortunate it is that he can cut down the guard on the unscalable south walls when he needs to bolster defense elsewhere.

 

Which is exactly the way I interpret it as well. Not flatly laying out the plans to the Charmer, but inadvertently providing enough useful information that the Charmer gets what he or she wants. It still leaves the crucial info in the hands of the party who's trying to gather it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Are we talking about the same Charm skill?

 

That's the one I'm talking about.

 

You appear to be suggesting that the point of this Charm is to get the character (whether it be PC or NPC) into bed, and they spill the beans as a side-effect.

 

I think the point of the Charm is to win their trust enough that they'll spill the beans. If getting them into bed is what it takes, that's what it takes - and if it gets that far, I'd expect that it came close to or at the end of those 6 hours.

 

That means assessing the methodology by which one would gain that character's trust. That he wakes up the next day and thinks "Oh no - I spilled the plans" indicates, to me, that his trust had not been gained. Why does he suddenly no longer feel that trust?

 

And handing over plans to a nuclear weapon wouldn't carry serious repercussions for the character' date=' and maybe his family and friends as well, if it falls into the hands of the authorities? Depending on the law code involved, it could end up with the death penalty, and a lengthy period in jail seems the very minimum.[/quote']

 

"If I get caught" being the key. To convince him to turn over the plans, there must have been some reason he believed he was secure or some reward that was sufficient to cause him to take the risk. If a night in the sack doesn't meet that defiinition, then that is not the logical scenario in which that Charm roll works.

 

Which is exactly the way I interpret it as well. Not flatly laying out the plans to the Charmer' date=' but inadvertently providing enough useful information that the Charmer gets what he or she wants. It still leaves the crucial info in the hands of the party who's trying to gather it.[/quote']

 

Which was the point of the skill. Why is it impossible for NPC's to successfully gather information? Why is the "seduced and loose lips sink ships" approach so much more problematic than any of the equally ham-handed examples by which the GM can assert the PC's information was obtained?

 

I think the better approach is that PC's and NPC's alike are not affected by ridiculous uses of social skills. "Over a friendly beer, I try to persuade him to leap naked into the volcano", for example is unlikely to affect anyone. But if it's impossible for that Charm skill to extract information on the plan to attack the Baron, then it is equally impossible for the PC's to gain similar information using the same skill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

That means assessing the methodology by which one would gain that character's trust. That he wakes up the next day and thinks "Oh no - I spilled the plans" indicates' date=' to me, that his trust had not been gained. Why does he suddenly no longer feel that trust?[/quote']

 

Then interpret it as he realised he may have let something slip (after the INT roll, if you go back up to the brief skeleton example you're trying to pick apart).

 

 

"If I get caught" being the key. To convince him to turn over the plans, there must have been some reason he believed he was secure or some reward that was sufficient to cause him to take the risk. If a night in the sack doesn't meet that defiinition, then that is not the logical scenario in which that Charm roll works.

 

There is a reason - he failed the opposed roll. That is the position you're arguing for, right? If a PC can gain information through a Charm or other interaction skill, NPCs must be entitled to do the same to PCs.

 

Which was the point of the skill. Why is it impossible for NPC's to successfully gather information? Why is the "seduced and loose lips sink ships" approach so much more problematic than any of the equally ham-handed examples by which the GM can assert the PC's information was obtained?

 

Since you obviously dislike this use of the skill, please give an example where you would consider it a valid use - both ways round: PC gaining information from an NPC and vice versa.

 

I think the better approach is that PC's and NPC's alike are not affected by ridiculous uses of social skills.

 

The Charm skill's express purpose is to extract information through flirting and the promise or delivery of favours, including sexual favours.

 

How is using it to do that ridiculous?

 

"Over a friendly beer, I try to persuade him to leap naked into the volcano", for example is unlikely to affect anyone.

 

Agreed - that would be a ridiculous, ham-fisted and abusive use of the skill. That isn't extracting information, it's ordering someone to commit suicide. That'd require an EGO+30 level with Mind Control, even if the GM allowed it.

 

But if it's impossible for that Charm skill to extract information on the plan to attack the Baron, then it is equally impossible for the PC's to gain similar information using the same skill.

 

And, by your own logic, if it is possible for a PC to gain information, it's possoble for an NPC to do likewise.

 

I think it's perfectly possible for a PC to gain information on guards' movements from a servant. Attempting to do so is a relatively routine thing in my games - part of acquiring the information a party needs to make a plan.

 

I'd love to know how you'd handle the use of interaction skills, Hugh - particularly Charm, which seems to be the really thorny one. That's not a snarky or sarcastic request, but you've obviously found a way that works for you and your group that I'm not seeing, and I'd genuinely like to know how you make it work. (I make the point about it not being sarcastic since I've already inadvertently made psyber concerned I was being sarcy in one comment; don't want to cause another misunderstanding.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I've also seen players who played their character as smarter--or dumber--than their stats suggested they were. It's a fine line' date=' I think. "Fun" vs. "Fair".[/quote']

 

The old DnD thing when you actually rolled characteristics and arranged them as you saw fir: the fighters with 18 STR and 17 CON and 16 DEX and 3,4, and 5 INT WIS and CHA who, nonetheless, seemed to have no problem making all sorts of suggestions as to how the party ought to proceed, solving puzzles and even manipulating social situations.

 

In DnD you could kind of understand it because, well, you had very little choice over your characteristics, in Hero it is more of a problem because that is the character you have chosen to play and designed.

 

If you want to play the character that way, and no one gets upset, cool - but to me it is just underlining how you and the character are separate entities and what happens to one (even on an emotional level) is not some sort of reflection on the other.

 

Of course one might argue that, if you buy 40 INT in Hero you are not expected to play it smarter than you are - but then you will be relying on your incredible skill totals and dice rolls - so, again, one might wonder why, when characteristics are lower, one is not willing to accept what the dice (and low skill totals) say.

 

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to criticise any given play style - if a group enjoys that style, that is froody - but I am tying to put my point as to why another path might be trodden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Then interpret it as he realised he may have let something slip (after the INT roll, if you go back up to the brief skeleton example you're trying to pick apart).

 

There is a reason - he failed the opposed roll. That is the position you're arguing for, right? If a PC can gain information through a Charm or other interaction skill, NPCs must be entitled to do the same to PCs.

 

On equal footing. "Oh, I handed her our whole plan on a silver platter" is very different from "I let something slip - hopefully, nothing comes of it." How did the serving girl know to go after this individual? Is he a known opponent of the Baron, or are all serving girls always looking to obtain deep, dark secrets? Why is she looking to gain this character's trust and determine he plans an attack on the Baron?

 

You threw this bare skeleton example out as a reason your, and by extension other, players might reasonably be opposed to having their characters affected by social skills. I agree it is an example of the GM screwing over the PC's, but I find it hard to credit that it indicates interaction skills affecting PC's is bad, but rather that any strategy the GM uses to simply override the PC's careful plans is bad.

 

I can certainly see someone who is skilled at extracting information, and has a reason for trying to obtain information on the players' plans to attack the Baron's castle, using this approach to gain such information. I don't see her getting more than a few clues (eg. the player has let slip that "the Baron will get his", and perhaps even some hint of the timing. Which wall will be scaled at precisely what hour? That level of detail seems unlikely in the scenario you have painted.

 

The Charm skill's express purpose is to extract information through flirting and the promise or delivery of favours, including sexual favours.

 

How is using it to do that ridiculous?

 

"Extract information" does not equate to "obtain a full detailed plan of action from the target", at least in my view.

 

I think it's perfectly possible for a PC to gain information on guards' movements from a servant. Attempting to do so is a relatively routine thing in my games - part of acquiring the information a party needs to make a plan.

 

Sure. But I don't think the servant has a full listing of the guard schedule for the coming months, nor do I expect he would hand that over to the PC's over a couple of beers at the inn. Rather, I can see him slipping up and mentioning something that works to the PC's advantage - like how nice it is not to have to climb those crumbly south tower steps with meals for half a dozen guards now that the Baron has cut the watch in that part of the keep. Now, he may not know why the guards' forces are reduced, or how long it will last, or why the Baron chose to reduce the guard at the south wall, rather than the eastern tower. Expanding the available information probably requires expanding the group the PC's are interacting with.

 

And let's remember that the PC's have already decided that they wish to storm the Baron's castle, so they have narrowed the field of those to interact with considerably. The stable boy likely knows little about the castle, but he may have been the one to point out that higher-up castle servant who regularly stops by the Inn for a pint or two. How did the serving girl learn who to target?

 

If she's actually a skilled investigator, there's some logic to her having already made inquiries, but why does the Baron have this spy on his payroll? What leads either of them to suspect there is currently a threat? If she is routinely seeking out threats to the Baron, have the PC's had no chance of hearing how the Baron seems to have eyes and ears everywhere? That seems like something a friendly NPC (one who has been charmed and likes the PC's in question) would mention, even if the PC's aren't specifically asking about the Baron's information gathering network. As Charm is very much a "getting them to like me" skill, the nature of the specific information provided may not be what was specifically being investigated.

 

I expect the PC's will be making more common use of their interaction skills. They are often actively seeking information. The barman, serving girl and castle servant don't really have much of a reason to be gathering intel from the PC's. But that Femme Fatale working for the Baron has every reason to be doing so. The serving girl may well be trying to ingratiate herself with the PC to get some coin from him, or so he will take her away from all this, but that hardly seems likely to result in her discovering details of the plans against the Baron, nor does it give her a reason to give any credit, or make any use of, some subtle slip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

On equal footing. "Oh' date=' I handed her our whole plan on a silver platter" is very different from "I let something slip - hopefully, nothing comes of it." [/quote']

 

Complete agreement. It's just that I tend to regard the Charm roll as something as a shortcut to roleplaying it out, which means I'm tending to look at the end result (we have the information that we need), rather than the process - the dice roll replaces the need to piece together little snippets dropped over the course of the evening into a coherent whole.

 

How did the serving girl know to go after this individual? Is he a known opponent of the Baron, or are all serving girls always looking to obtain deep, dark secrets? Why is she looking to gain this character's trust and determine he plans an attack on the Baron?

 

By the same token, who does a PC know to go after one particular serving girl?

 

If you wanted to focus on information acquisition as a major scene in the scenario, you could certainly add in much more. Analyse as written is primarily a combat skill, but one could interpret a kind of social Analyse variant with might pick out the person in a group most likely to be susceptible to Charm (and Charm might be complementary). Shadowing might be a good alternative. (Actually, this resembles how sexual predators pick their victims, which creeps me out a little.)

 

You threw this bare skeleton example out as a reason your, and by extension other, players might reasonably be opposed to having their characters affected by social skills. I agree it is an example of the GM screwing over the PC's, but I find it hard to credit that it indicates interaction skills affecting PC's is bad, but rather that any strategy the GM uses to simply override the PC's careful plans is bad.

 

It was very much a bare skeleton. I was expecting discussion of the general principles, rather than picking over the bones of this particular off-the-top-of-my-head skeleton. It rather wrong-footed me for a while, but I think picking it apart like this has actually been quite useful - it's forced me to refine my ideas.

 

So why does the Baron maintain a femme fatale on his staff and why are the PCs of interest? I could make up further fictitious reasons why (he's evil, the characters have a reputation for good deeds, etc), but it's a little pointless. I think we both agree that without a reason for it, he wouldn't do it. I certainly wouldn't sic Mata Hari on the PCs 'just because'.

 

I can certainly see someone who is skilled at extracting information, and has a reason for trying to obtain information on the players' plans to attack the Baron's castle, using this approach to gain such information. I don't see her getting more than a few clues (eg. the player has let slip that "the Baron will get his", and perhaps even some hint of the timing. Which wall will be scaled at precisely what hour? That level of detail seems unlikely in the scenario you have painted.

 

I tihink what I'm reading from this is that it's not the broad sweep of the principle you were objecting to, it's that it isn't refined enough. Yeah, I can see that.

 

The original example was, in my mind, intended to be a throwaway prelude to the raid on the castle. As we discussed and debated it, I was thinking, "You know, this would make a pretty good basis for a scene its own right." But that would require much more detail.

 

I could also picture our Mata Hari trying it on with the PC's resident Face, leading to opposed Charm rolls as they dance around each other - and for that, some variant of social skill combat with more detail than simply opposed skill rolls might work very nicely.

 

"Extract information" does not equate to "obtain a full detailed plan of action from the target", at least in my view.

 

Agreed. But I think we agree that it could equate to 'obtain sufficient snippets that a reasonable prediction of the target's intentions can be deduced'.

 

Sure. But I don't think the servant has a full listing of the guard schedule for the coming months, nor do I expect he would hand that over to the PC's over a couple of beers at the inn. Rather, I can see him slipping up and mentioning something that works to the PC's advantage - like how nice it is not to have to climb those crumbly south tower steps with meals for half a dozen guards now that the Baron has cut the watch in that part of the keep. Now, he may not know why the guards' forces are reduced, or how long it will last, or why the Baron chose to reduce the guard at the south wall, rather than the eastern tower. Expanding the available information probably requires expanding the group the PC's are interacting with.

 

Exactly. That's pretty much how I'd present it to the PC succeeding in the Charm roll. "Work's got a lot tougher since they transferred the guards to the north tower while the south one's being repaired."

 

If she's actually a skilled investigator, there's some logic to her having already made inquiries, but why does the Baron have this spy on his payroll? What leads either of them to suspect there is currently a threat? If she is routinely seeking out threats to the Baron, have the PC's had no chance of hearing how the Baron seems to have eyes and ears everywhere? That seems like something a friendly NPC (one who has been charmed and likes the PC's in question) would mention, even if the PC's aren't specifically asking about the Baron's information gathering network.

 

The first points I think I addressed above. The last one's a good, though. If the Baron has a secret police or network of informers, the PCs should have a chance to pick up on that somehow. I hadn't considered that.

 

I expect the PC's will be making more common use of their interaction skills. They are often actively seeking information. The barman, serving girl and castle servant don't really have much of a reason to be gathering intel from the PCs. But that Femme Fatale working for the Baron has every reason to be doing so. The serving girl may well be trying to ingratiate herself with the PC to get some coin from him, or so he will take her away from all this, but that hardly seems likely to result in her discovering details of the plans against the Baron, nor does it give her a reason to give any credit, or make any use of, some subtle slip.

 

True, and trying to get some coin is hardly a significant event - no real need to roll there at all.

 

I think on the issue of whether PCs should be subject to interaction rolls as NPCs are we're at something of an impasse. it really depends on the ground assumptions, and that's decide don a group by group basis (ideally on a game by game basis, since each group is capable of more than one style of play).

 

I can see practical arguments in favour of, and against, both.

 

Having PCs subject to NPCs' interaction skills

a) Leads to more well-rounded character builds; even if they aren't actively persuasive, PCs should consider defending against persuasion or manipulation.

B) Opens up a new area of conflict; social skills can be overlooked, and are likely to get more attention with this set-up.

c) Could put some distance between a player and his or her character (some groups may regard this as a pro, others as a con)

d) Potentially opens up new character development opportunities as players are forced to deal with non-optimal outcomes in their dealings with NPCs

 

Having PCs immune to NPCs' interaction skills

a) Gives greater player control over their character

B) May lead players to disregard EGO or influence skills in their builds, unless they actively plan to use them

c) Forces NPCs to interact with PCs through roleplaying, without formal resolution mechanics (some groups may regard this as a pro, some as a con)

d) Potentially offers greater immersion and idfentification with the character due to the greater control (some groups may regard this as a pro, some as a con)

e) Effectively gives players a right of veto over any outside skill-based influence on their character

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

In our group, we split the difference.

 

Players are expected to go along with the rolls for character interaction, unless it is vitally important to the character that they not do so. So if the character concept is 'cold fish', no amout of persuasion is going to get him to hug someone in public. If the character concept is 'gay', no seduction roll by a woman is likely to succeed. If the character concept is 'rich b*****d,' no amount of conversation is going to convince him to donate to your charity. If he is 'loyal to the king unto death' then no amount of interrogation will get him to tell where the secret door into the king's bedchamber is.

 

But just because you're a 'rich b*****d' doesn't mean you can't be conned into spending money on a get rich scheme...

 

Mind control, of course, is another thing entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Complete agreement. It's just that I tend to regard the Charm roll as something as a shortcut to roleplaying it out' date=' which means I'm tending to look at the end result (we have the information that we need), rather than the process - the dice roll replaces the need to piece together little snippets dropped over the course of the evening into a coherent whole.[/quote']

 

To me, the interaction skill enables you to gather information. It does not enable you to assess what information you should be looking for, nor aid in interpreting the information you have received. Deduction might be helpful in assessing the significance of any particular comments, as might any number of other skills (realizing the repairs in progress will impede any ability to climb the south tower, or that this sounds a lot more like a coverup for some undead beast loose in the south tower, would be very handy).

 

By the same token' date=' who does a PC know to go after one particular serving girl?[/quote']

 

No matter how much Charm he applies, he cannot obtain information his target lacks, so he gets nothing of any use. Maybe that's because the vapid girl knows nothing. Maybe it's because the Mata Hari's own skills were sufficient to consistently present the false front of a vapid serving girl.

 

It was very much a bare skeleton. I was expecting discussion of the general principles' date=' rather than picking over the bones of this particular off-the-top-of-my-head skeleton. It rather wrong-footed me for a while, but I think picking it apart like this has actually been quite useful - it's forced me to refine my ideas.[/quote']

 

I think most of us have focused on how it sounds no more (or less) offensive than other means a GM might use to "justify" information falling into the villain's hands when the real reason is that the GM wants the information in the villain's hands to further his plot train.

 

Agreed. But I think we agree that it could equate to 'obtain sufficient snippets that a reasonable prediction of the target's intentions can be deduced'.

 

To me, the players get the snippets. It's up to them, through player skill or character skills, to deduce their meaning.

 

I think on the issue of whether PCs should be subject to interaction rolls as NPCs are we're at something of an impasse. it really depends on the ground assumptions, and that's decide don a group by group basis (ideally on a game by game basis, since each group is capable of more than one style of play).

 

I can see practical arguments in favour of, and against, both.

 

I find some of these still reflect an inherent bias. My comments likely do as well.

 

 

Having PCs subject to NPCs' interaction skills

a) Leads to more well-rounded character builds; even if they aren't actively persuasive, PCs should consider defending against persuasion or manipulation.

B) Opens up a new area of conflict; social skills can be overlooked, and are likely to get more attention with this set-up.

c) Could put some distance between a player and his or her character (some groups may regard this as a pro, others as a con)

d) Potentially opens up new character development opportunities as players are forced to deal with non-optimal outcomes in their dealings with NPCs

 

Having PCs immune to NPCs' interaction skills

a) Gives greater player control over their character

 

This seems to be the fundamental difference between the two positions. I suggest it gives the players greater control of the results of the characters' actions. Allowing them to dictate whether or not they are struck in combat, the extent of damage taken, whether they hit or miss in combat, the extent of damage done when they do hit, the success or failure of their other skills, and so on also gives them more control over the results of their actions.

 

B) May lead players to disregard EGO or influence skills in their builds, unless they actively plan to use them

c) Forces NPCs to interact with PCs through roleplaying, without formal resolution mechanics (some groups may regard this as a pro, some as a con)

 

I find many groups who decide interaction skills should not affect PC's also prefer to role play interaction with NPC's (ie the dice will not rule the NPC's either). Taken to its extreme, it would be stupid for PC's to invest points in these skills if it is player ability, rather than character ability, which dictates the results. As well, players who don't have strong social skills shouldn't bother creating a character that does.

 

d) Potentially offers greater immersion and idfentification with the character due to the greater control (some groups may regard this as a pro, some as a con)

e) Effectively gives players a right of veto over any outside skill-based influence on their character

 

I don't find variances between player and character harm my immersion. I find it is sometimes impeded by a player who identifies too much with their character (ie they are the same in all respects in their views and beliefs so, for example, the standard mindset of the milieu cannot be shared by their character) and others impeded by a lack of identification (ie my character does something no real thinking person would ever even consider because I find it amusing).

 

I also come back to the lack of any suggestion players should be able to veto the impact of any non-interaction adverse result on their character. If one mechanic should be subject to player discretion, I see no reason others should not be. A killer GM is just as bad as one who wants to use the characters as his sock puppets and beats them up with unbeatable interaction skills, or Mind Control, or "deviate from the script and bad things happen to the characters" GM's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

To me' date=' the interaction skill enables you to gather information. It does not enable you to assess what information you should be looking for, nor aid in interpreting the information you have received. Deduction might be helpful in assessing the significance of any particular comments, as might any number of other skills (realizing the repairs in progress will impede any ability to climb the south tower, or that this sounds a lot more like a coverup for some undead beast loose in the south tower, would be very handy).[/quote']

 

Theoretically, and with time to go into nuances, I agree with you. Practicalities of gaming time and scheduling, combined with players who enjoy the tactics of the battleboard, mean that cutting to the chase is frequently the only real option for me. (I'm not kidding, I live in an international crossroads, and I've lost count of the number of times I get a phone call along the lines of, "I'll be passing through in a couple of days. Got one evening spare, can you put a game on?")

 

To be honest, these days it seems like that's the ONLY kind of game I run. Rustle up the usual suspects and run a game that absolutely has to finish within one evening.

 

My outlook is undoubtedly affected by that.

 

No matter how much Charm he applies, he cannot obtain information his target lacks, so he gets nothing of any use. Maybe that's because the vapid girl knows nothing. Maybe it's because the Mata Hari's own skills were sufficient to consistently present the false front of a vapid serving girl.

 

Agreed on the no info available, nothing gained. I was envisaging the standard serving girl as one incident and the Mata Hari as a separate one, though.

 

 

 

I think most of us have focused on how it sounds no more (or less) offensive than other means a GM might use to "justify" information falling into the villain's hands when the real reason is that the GM wants the information in the villain's hands to further his plot train.

 

My fault for trying to push that to an extreme then. I was working a reductio ad absurdem (sp? ltn?) line.

 

To me, the players get the snippets. It's up to them, through player skill or character skills, to deduce their meaning.

 

But which? Player skill or character skill? Roleplay it or roll dice?thought>

 

Ignore that. I do get the point you're making. :D

 

I find some of these still reflect an inherent bias. My comments likely do as well.

 

I've no doubt my suggestions reflect a bias. I'm trying to reach an understanding. If yours reflect a bias as well, that helps the understanding.

 

This seems to be the fundamental difference between the two positions. I suggest it gives the players greater control of the results of the characters' actions. Allowing them to dictate whether or not they are struck in combat, the extent of damage taken, whether they hit or miss in combat, the extent of damage done when they do hit, the success or failure of their other skills, and so on also gives them more control over the results of their actions.

 

This is definitely a sticking point for me. I simply don't see the correlation between, "If NPCs don't get influence rolls over PCs, then you must surely allow players to say their sword-blow killed the dragon whatever the dice say?"

 

It's not that at all. It's a choice of whether to roll dice or not to roll dice. To play it out through conversation, or to interpret whatever the dice say.

 

Is it a question of where we draw the line? What's major and requires a dice roll, and what's minor and can be dealt with without one?

 

(Actually, I'm starting to wonder if it's deeper than that, and may be related to players expecting the GM to fudge in their favour and, if they get that, starting to rely on it - that's not an issue for Hero System Discussion, though. That line of thought is starting to get into issues that The Forge discussed muchly, and would belong on General Roleplaying on this board.)

 

I find many groups who decide interaction skills should not affect PC's also prefer to role play interaction with NPC's (ie the dice will not rule the NPC's either). Taken to its extreme, it would be stupid for PC's to invest points in these skills if it is player ability, rather than character ability, which dictates the results. As well, players who don't have strong social skills shouldn't bother creating a character that does.

 

That's definitely a potential side effect. However, it's generally modified by requiring PCs to roll for their interaction with NPCs when they're seeking in-game advantage. Common practice in our group with this technique is to allow a bonus for a good approach, so I have to acknowledge that a smart, socially savvy player can gain themselves an extra skill level or three without paying for it.

 

 

 

I don't find variances between player and character harm my immersion. I find it is sometimes impeded by a player who identifies too much with their character (ie they are the same in all respects in their views and beliefs so, for example, the standard mindset of the milieu cannot be shared by their character) and others impeded by a lack of identification (ie my character does something no real thinking person would ever even consider because I find it amusing).

 

I recognise both your negative examples. We probably all do.

 

OK, if rolling dice for NPC on PC inluence doesn't harm immersion, would you go as far as suggesting it enhances it?

 

I also come back to the lack of any suggestion players should be able to veto the impact of any non-interaction adverse result on their character. If one mechanic should be subject to player discretion, I see no reason others should not be.

 

Boiled down, your argument seems to be, if you don't apply the rules to all characters equally, you may as well not have rules at all.

 

Is that fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...