Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

[Barwickian]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Why should the PCs have an innate advantage?

 

Short answer: Because they're the protagonists. They're controlled by individuals who play that character, and only that character. By people who come to the game to play only that character. That sets them apart from villains, henchmen, mooks and the everymen, who are all played by the GM as colour, allies or obstacles to the PCs. Everything revolves around the PCs; even the bits in the background that seem to have nothing to do with them create a stage on which they star.

 

Counterquestion: Why shouldn't PCs have an innate advantage?

 

(I'm not being supercilious or flippant about this. There are arguments for and against PCs having an innate advantage; I want to know the opposing view.)

[Greywind]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Because even the players can do something stupid that jeopardizes their side.

 

Like getting drunk with a tavern wench in the first place.

[Vondy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Unlike combat, perception rolls, and skill rolls vs. inanimate objects (e.g., hit/miss, damage, saw it?, disarming a security system) the results of a social skill's success 1) highly subjective, and 2) can impact characterization/development. In the first case, the player may have a very different notion of what is a reasonable reaction resulting from failed EGO/etc rolls for their character as he envisions them than the game-master does. In the second case, social reactions are a major part of characterization, and social decisions can be intimately tied to how a character is defined or develops.

 

Those are things player's tend to be more emotionally invested in than simple objective pass/fail rolls that have to do with how the character interacts with his pseudo-3D environment. And that brings me to my other concern: players only have one character to focus on and tend to be more heavily emotionally invested in who those characters are than the GM is in his NPCs. Those characters are also the story's protagonists.

 

The game-master has a world full of characters to manage, should not be as emotionally invested in those characters as players are in PCs, and is there to provide the protagonists with a story, plot, and set of challenges to overcome. Its not a competition between the game-master and players. The player's success is not the game-master's failure. Its true that some NPCs rank high on the drama rating scale and should compete with PCs in terms of screen time, but they aren't the heroes.

 

A good GM is not out to beat the PCs with his pet NPCs, though besting the PCs early on can make later triumphs sweeter for the players. And, in my experience, most players innately pick up on who those NPCs are and accord them more credence - and social influence - than mere mooks. My essential point is, I do not see PCs and NPCs as being created equal. I don't even see them as filling the same dramatic role within the shared story experience.

 

Example: Gul Dukat is impressive and makes things happen, but he doesn't win in the end because he's not in the main cast, and while he can be a magnificently manipulative bastard, Kira never succumbed to his attempts to draw her over to the dark side. He tricked her with misinformation, so that she made the decisions of her own volition, but she never did something "out of character." It wasn't his magnetism altering her character or characterization, it was him providing her with faustian bargains and all bad decisions that she had to make.

 

And, that's key: the player has to make the decision, not the dice or GM. If the NPC lies to the PC I don't tell them "you believe them" if they make their acting roll. I describe his delivery as convincing and trust my players to make reasonable decisions for their characters based on that. A good GM should be able to set things up (with some work) so that forcing the issue with a die roll isn't really necessary. And if he can't, maybe he should consider different plot developments, approaches, and tactics.

 

In general, if a game-master wants to ensure a player succumbs to his nefarious social machinations, he should 1) ensure he's targeting psych lims, 2) take time to build the NPC up without roles so that the players trust them and react as expected, or 3) make sure its something the player would go along with, anyways. And, as for sleeping with a hot NPC, loose bodice laces don't automatically equate to loose lips - which takes us back to whether or not the GM and player agree on whether the highly subjective outcome is reasonable for this particular not-gamemaster-controlled character...

 

On the other hand, seducing an amourously characterized PC so they are delayed and out of position, in some steamy extortion pics, so that their horse or bags can be stolen, so that a tracking device (sleight of hand) can be placed, a room can be rifled while they sleep, etc. is less invasive. None of them require the player to accept his character said something damaging or acted out of character. The character just did what the player already envisioned him as doing without treading on player rights - and it really shouldn't have come down to a die roll (unless the player said, "hell, roll!" anyways). And that right there is my bottom line: when it comes to disagreements over the characterization of a player character (which the results of social roles can impact), the player wins. Its their character.

 

This isn't to say I'm not open to having more subtle, less overarching developments or reactions indicated by the dice, but when it comes to things that impact the player's emotional investment in their character, I prefer to give the players a pass on my personal notion of fair, realistic, reasonable, likely, or even possible. I have a world full of character's to run. I'll work with the player's conceptualization of their character insofar as they make a reasonable effort to play them well and help tell a good story.

[Vondy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Because even the players can do something stupid that jeopardizes their side.

 

Like getting drunk with a tavern wench in the first place.

 

That doesn't automatically mean that "spilling the beans about battle plans" is a reasonable result of getting lucky or drunk (or both) at the bar that night. Which is where the primary point of tension lies, what is a reasonable reaction for this particular character when they succumb to Rosy Palm's hot-walking them? Who gets to decide that? The player or the game-master?

 

"You spill the beans," is definitely railroading. On the other hand, your horse was stolen keeping you from a quick escape or ride into battle, you wake up bound, after she is gone you find the seal on the scroll-tube containing extremely sensitive info is cracked, you overslept or wake feeling drugged, your friends were attacked and subdued while you were busy with your amorous adventures, you awake covered in the blood of your one-night-wench who lies dead next to you as the door opens and the horrified innkeeper screams "guards!..." are all ways being seduced can work against PCs without taking the player's choice hasn't been taken away.

 

Conversation is more problematic, after all, can the die rolls actually dictate what player's say when they are in character? Or do I have to work with what they player's actually say?

[Greywind]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Being drunk inherently changes what a character will or won't do, Vondy, since alcohol tends to lower inhibitions.

[Barwickian]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Being drunk inherently changes what a character will or won't do' date=' Vondy, since alcohol tends to lower inhibitions.[/quote']

 

And we have good guidelines on the game mechanical effects of intoxication: if it gives -2 OCV and DCV in combat, I'd say there's a good case for suggesting it gives -2 to one's Charm skill, and -2 to the EGO roll to resist Charm.

 

GM: "OK, what's your approach to charming her?"

 

Player: "First, I buy her a drink..."

 

Actually, there's another big difference between PCs and NPCs.

 

I'll give you odds on that if a player decides s/he wants his/her character to Charm a serving girl into letting slip some information that may help get them into the castle, a suitable NPC called pops into existence. She happens to have snippets that may help. All the character has to do is succeed in a roll (after a suitable approach, if you so desire) to get those snippets.

 

If a spy-type NPC seeks counter-information out of a PC, odds-on she's a pre-planned character, perhaps not planned for that specific encounter, but there, ready and waiting with her skills and weaknesses, waiting for an opportunity to be brought into play...

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Short answer: Because they're the protagonists. They're controlled by individuals who play that character, and only that character. By people who come to the game to play only that character. That sets them apart from villains, henchmen, mooks and the everymen, who are all played by the GM as colour, allies or obstacles to the PCs. Everything revolves around the PCs; even the bits in the background that seem to have nothing to do with them create a stage on which they star.

 

Counterquestion: Why shouldn't PCs have an innate advantage?

 

(I'm not being supercilious or flippant about this. There are arguments for and against PCs having an innate advantage; I want to know the opposing view.)

Same answer, because each Player is only controlling one PC while the GM has to maintain an entire world and everyone in it. In other words, the PCs already have an advantage.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

That doesn't automatically mean that "spilling the beans about battle plans" is a reasonable result of getting lucky or drunk (or both) at the bar that night. Which is where the primary point of tension lies' date=' [i']what is a reasonable reaction[/i] for this particular character when they succumb to Rosy Palm's hot-walking them? Who gets to decide that? The player or the game-master?

 

Who indeed?

 

"You spill the beans' date='" is definitely railroading. [/quote']

 

Not the GM then...I'd suggest 'railroading' is : THIS HAPPENS, not, I'll roll the dice and see what happens.

 

 

On the other hand' date=' your horse was stolen keeping you from a quick escape or ride into battle, you wake up bound, after she is gone you find the seal on the scroll-tube containing extremely sensitive info is cracked, you overslept or wake feeling drugged, your friends were attacked and subdued while you were busy with your amorous adventures, you awake covered in the blood of your one-night-wench who lies dead next to you as the door opens and the horrified innkeeper screams "guards!..." are all ways being seduced can work against PCs without taking the player's choice hasn't been taken away.[/quote']

 

What is the difference though? It is just a different way of describing the same result: someone gets information from the PC because the PC does something stupid that the player, playing the PC as an automaton, would not have approved of or allowed to happen. Really that comes down to GM acting skill. Can I get my players to agree that what I've decided is going to happen is a reasonable consequence of what I describe?

 

I mean, if you say to a player 'You spill the beans', they are going to be unhappy, unless they have the Complication 'Bean Spiller'. On the other hand, if they have a fantastic night with an attractive member of their approved of sex, and, perhaps, overcelebrate, well, is it their fault they let off some steam and can't recall every word they said?

 

Conversation is more problematic' date=' after all, can the die rolls actually dictate what player's say when they are in character? Or do I have to work with what they player's actually say?[/quote']

 

Dice rolls determine results, not how you get to the result. This is fundamental - you have to trust not only the GM but the dice. Sometimes they will make you feel loved and appreciated and sometimes they will make you feel angry and sullen, but all they do is describe where you end up, not how you got there. Take physical combat, if you, the premiere martial artist of your generation, roll an 18, it probably means you stepped on an empty beer bottle, not that YOU made a mistake, but that circumstances conspired against you. Similarly, if you wake up one morning with an empty wallet and a sore head, and a vague feeling that something bad happened, it is almost certainly not your fault. You were certainly drugged. Probably with lots of alcohol, which explains the empty wallet. Tell yourself whatever stories get you through it, but accept that sometimes things happen in a way you would not have predicted or wanted, if you were an aloof, godlike figure controlling your own life.

 

Where, then, does what the player actually says come in?

 

One word: research. Another one: luck. Another one: luck (again).

 

Of course what a player has the PC say or do should have an effect on the story, but a suave player should not counter a 11- persuade roll on the part of the PC. If a player has his PC appeal to an NPC's sense of abandonment (or whatever) and the NPC has a sense of abandonment, well, welcome to Bonus City, population You! The only way you could get at that though is either research (which you do in character) or luck (and there is no practical difference between your luck and the PC's luck), although luck could be what you actually say or what you roll. You could actually hit on a NPC's psych lim by accident (well done) or you could just roll well, or you could spend a couple of days asking people. I would allow a bonus for the first, the second is it's own reward, and the third can yield fantastic results but also has risks: people can hear you have been asking.

 

Ultimately it comes down to how much effort the GM and players are willing to put in to making interactions meaningful and realistic, and, indeed, whether players want their interactions to be meaningful and realistic.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

And we have good guidelines on the game mechanical effects of intoxication: if it gives -2 OCV and DCV in combat, I'd say there's a good case for suggesting it gives -2 to one's Charm skill, and -2 to the EGO roll to resist Charm.

 

GM: "OK, what's your approach to charming her?"

 

Player: "First, I buy her a drink..."

 

Actually, there's another big difference between PCs and NPCs.

 

I'll give you odds on that if a player decides s/he wants his/her character to Charm a serving girl into letting slip some information that may help get them into the castle, a suitable NPC called pops into existence. She happens to have snippets that may help. All the character has to do is succeed in a roll (after a suitable approach, if you so desire) to get those snippets.

 

If a spy-type NPC seeks counter-information out of a PC, odds-on she's a pre-planned character, perhaps not planned for that specific encounter, but there, ready and waiting with her skills and weaknesses, waiting for an opportunity to be brought into play...

 

-2 to charm, -4 to resist charm. Beer Goggles rules: you are disgusting to someone who is sober, but two people who are equally drunk are irresistible to each other*.

 

PCs are important to the story, but so are important NPCs. Important NPCs are there for a reason (or should be!). 'Normal' NPCs may not be any less capable, but they are less driven. Unimportant NPCs will only make an impact if a PC lets them, by writing their own bit of the story.

 

 

 

 

*Subject to dice rolls, conditions may apply

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

T"You spill the beans," is definitely railroading. On the other hand, your horse was stolen keeping you from a quick escape or ride into battle, you wake up bound, after she is gone you find the seal on the scroll-tube containing extremely sensitive info is cracked, you overslept or wake feeling drugged, your friends were attacked and subdued while you were busy with your amorous adventures, you awake covered in the blood of your one-night-wench who lies dead next to you as the door opens and the horrified innkeeper screams "guards!..." are all ways being seduced can work against PCs without taking the player's choice hasn't been taken away.

Those are even MORE railroady in my opinion. You awake feeling drugged? When did she slip it to me? Why didn't I get a PER check? Don't I get a CON roll or something? Your friends were abducted while you were busy. Um, we were? Are we going to have a chance to NOT get captured or are you just declaring we got ambushed and lost a fight while the last 5 minutes we've focused on him getting drunk and laid? Horse was stolen. Yeah, no railroading there.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

A player may have a difference of opinion regarding whether a reaction is reasonable, BUT, as delineated in the xp award guidelines, the GM decides, at the end of a session, whether a player RP'd in or out of character, NOT THE PLAYER! The player writes up their character's stats, complications and background history, gives a basic description of their personality to the GM for approval, then they roleplay the character for a few sessions, maybe even a year's worth. At some point, the GM has a sufficient body of information to make the judgment call on whether or not an act/statement/emotion was IC or OOC. On top of all this, wrt skill rolls, "character roleplays use of skill well" applies on both ends of the dice(and generally NPCs don't really get that bonus), so if a character roleplays their initial response to an interaction attempt well, when it comes time to seeing if they resist, they may get a bonus to their roll--the benefits of good roleplay. Suppose there were a dozen viable responses to an interaction, prior to the roll. Assuming the PC fails to resist, perhaps that list of options has been narrowed to 2-4, and in extreme cases(PC has a psych complication making them especially vulnerable to such manipulation, and/or the PC rolls a crit failure after the NPC rolls a crit success), maybe only 1. But even if there's only one option remaining, it's still up to the PC to roleplay the result. I don't see lockstepping or railroading taking place here, just an interesting set of dramatic consequences that pose an interesting story twist and roleplay challenge for a player, maybe even involving stepping out of their RP comfort zone for a minute or three.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Well said megaplayboy. Sadly I can't Rep you at the moment.

[Barwickian]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Right, in the light ore detailed discussions with Hugh in particular, let me rework the Mata Hari example in much greater detail to see if those in favour of the dice-roll method consider this a reasonable use.

 

Background: The PCs are good types who've heard the lord who runs the city is an evildoer of some description. They have reason to believe he's involved with the latest scheme of Campaign Villain, and are determined to (primary objective) throw a spanner in the works and (secondary objective) ensure he gets his just desserts. To do either, they'll need to get into the lord's castle. Their various good deeds throughout the kingdom have won them some small reputation.

 

The lord, in addition to his walls and guards, maintains a network of informers throughout the town. His ace agent is Mata Hari, a beautiful bombshell who's willing to use every weapon in her social armoury to get what she wants. Unlike the historical Mata Hari, this one's loyal to her master (we could have a lot of fun if she could be turned, but that's beyond the scope of this hypothetical workthrough). We build Mata with +2 Striking Appearance (Beautiful), EGO and PRE 15, INT 13. We give her skills in Acting, Charm, Conversation, Disguise, Persuasion, all at 12-. We buy her +1 with Acting (maybe this is how she started her career) and +4 with all Interaction skills, giving her a boost to spend on any given skill(s) at any given time. At most, she could raise one of her skills to 15- at any given tiime. She'll also have some contacts and Area Knowledge, but they won't come into this example. All in all, she costs 13pts for characteristics and 33pts for the skills (not counting the AK and any contacts she may have). SHe's not a combatant or an assassin; we won't add her any combat skills or characteristics.

 

The majority of the townsfolk are decent people who are too afraid of the lord and his informers to stand up against him. Besides, some of their sons, daughters and other relatives need those jobs at the castle.

 

Players are aware that interaction skills can be used against them, so the lowest EGO in the party is 13, just to get that extra point of resistance (EGO roll 12-). The PC who'll be our target has no particular complications which have a bearing on the scene - not a prude, not lecherous, no vow of chastity, not married.

 

When the party arrive at the town gates, they'll attract attention. They know they have a reputation, so they try to conceal their true identities and purpose in town. They succeed, so the town guards let them through. They're still as party of adventurers, though (they haven't disguised themselves as merchants or anything), so they're of interest to the lord's spymaster. The informers are something of a passive tool, so he sends an active agent after them. Enter Mata.

 

Informers have determined that the PCs have set up in an inn in the town square, then gone their separate ways. One's gone to the alchemist, another to the weaponsmith. One's stayed in the inn, where he's dining and having a beer or two (not getting drunk).

 

We assume that Mata is known as herself around town - even if the townsfolk aren't quite sure what she does up at the castle, they know she's got some middle to high station there. She'll need a disguise, though not as any specific person.

 

I, as GM, decide that if she's going to be playing a servant, she'd better be a bit more non-descript. The disguise will reduce her effective Striking Appearance to +1. With the aid of the spymaster, she makes her disguise roll (I don't want to test the INT of every NPC she meets in this guise, so it's a simple success).

 

Mata enters the bar.

 

We tell the player he sees a plainly dressed but pretty young woman enter, gaze around at the townsfolf chattin and enjoying their ale, then light on him. She walks over and sits at his table. "Hello, you're new in town aren't you? Where are you from?"

 

(She isn't asking his permission to sit at his table; no need to give the player an easy refusal. He'll have to be actively rude to avoid this - which he can do if he wants; it'd be a shut-out on the rest of the scene though, so let's assume he goes along with it.)

 

Test 1: First, we'll have to have Mata make an Acting roll to see if she pulls off the servant girl routine. The player asks if she seems on the level, so we make it an opposed roll. His character's INT is 10, so his roll is 11-. Mata has Acting 13-, and adds one of her Interaction skill levels as well, because it's crucial she pass this. Her looks have no bearing on this. As a GM, I decide that she'll have to keep this level dedicated to Acting throughout the scene, or have to make another check. It's 14- vs 11-, and Mata succeeds.

 

We tell the player she seems to be on the level - a pretty girl curious about a stranger in town. (Question: is this a reasonable use of NPC on PC skill?)

 

Test 2: She calls the innkeep for a light ale, happy to pay for it herself, though giving the PC a chance to buy ot for her, and strikes up a Conversation with the PC, putting her two remaining skill levels into it. She's not plumbing for information at this stage, just trying to be engaging. (Mata has 14- at this and it isn't opposed because she isn't digging). She makes it fairly well, and we tell the player she seems friendly and interested as they talk about his life on the road and the drudgery and boredom of life as a serving girl at the castle, a job she's only had a for a few weeks. "I thought it would be so much more exciting to live in a town and work for the lord." (Is this a fair use of NPC social skill?)

 

The player's got some options here. He could have his character try to pump her for information about the castle, but this isn't our Face. Let's say Face is off trying to get snippets of info from the real serving girl of the first example.

 

He could try hitting on her. That'd make her job so much easier.

 

Or he could decide to disengage. For the sake of argument, let's say that's what he does. "Well, it's been lovely talkng to you. I hope life at the castle stops being so boring for you."

 

Test 3: Mata can't have this. She needs him to stay so she can work her wiles on him. She'll start now. "Oh, please stay for one more drink. Just one? It's my only night off this week, and you're so different from all the town lads. Don't leave me with just the dullards." She looks down and looks up again, giving him The Look. "And maybe later we could think of something fun to do together." This is clearly Persuasion, with Charm as a complementary skill. It's opposed - our PC has already stated his intent to leave. Tactically, Mata's better off putting her 3 remaining skill levels into Persuasion, so she does. Charm will be supported by her +1 Striking Appearance. She makes the Charm roll by 1 - not enough for a bonus to the persuasion, so she needs 15- on that. The PC has EGO 12-. Mata wins the contest, so the PC sits down again and orders another round, against his player's wishes. (Is this a fair use of NPC social skills against a PC? I think those who advocate against such rolls would consider this serious railroading.)

 

Test 4: After that round, Mata makes her play. "Why don't we find somewhere a little more private. Do you have a room here?" This is Charm, possibly complemented by Persuasion. Again, it's better the skill levels go with the main skill. Mata's got Persuasion 12-, and rolls 9. That gives her a +1 bonus on the Charm, where she already has +3 for skill and +1 for Striking Appearance - a total of 17-. Mata's offering sex, right now (-4, according to HSS), which brings her back down to 13- vs the PC's 12- EGO roll. The player is suspcious, but the character (thanks to the past Acting and Conversation test) is not. Mata wins the contest. They go upstairs. (Is this a reasonable use of NPC social skills against a PC?)

 

Test 5: Upstairs Mata wraps her self around the PC. "Make me happy, stud!" We'll draw a veil over the details. In among the pillow-talk, Mata intends to ask seemingly innocent little questions for find out if the PCs are passing through, as this PC claims, or what their interest might be in town. She'll uses leading comments ("You know, the lord is a very bad man. I've not been here long, but I've heard stories. Somebody should do something, but they're all too scared. Maybe someone like you could do something...") Mata is putting everything she's got into this. It's a straight Charm roll, +3 for the skills (she still has to act) and +1 for the Striking Appearance, for a total of 15-. She's after a secret though (-2) and it could land the PC in major danger (-4), which brings her target down to 10- (8- if you regard the secret as Top Secret). Our PC has an EGO roll of 12- to resist. The odds are significantly in his favour. (Is this a reasonable use of NPC social skills on a PC?)

 

If Mata wins, she can trot back to the spymaster with the information that the PC was definitely more interested in the castle than he should be, and told her not to worry about the evil lord. He and his friends might even be planning something tomorrow night - he said he'd be "too busy taking care of other things" when she suggested a second bout. The spymaster doubles the guard and orders his informers and field agents to watch the PCs more closely. He might even send guards to bring them in.

 

In the more likely event that the PC resists Mata's honeyed words, he'll realise she was trying to worm information out of him. It's time he dusts off his Intimidation skill to find out who she's working for... and if she's forced to admit who she's working for, she'll use Persuasion to try to win sympathy instead of approbation ("They have my little sister, they said they'd kill her if I didn't do this.") Maybe she can bide her time and make a break for the castle - if only she'd invested points in Escape Artist, Stealth and Running.

 

Ok, individual tests aside, is that the way people who use NPC on PC social skill tests would play it. Too many tests (odds are that Mata wouldn't get as far as the final test - she'd have to get 4 straight wins to get that far) or too few? Are the penalties at the right kind of level?

 

For those who dislike such rolls, where are your sticking points, and how would you handle it through play? Would you even go there?

[phoenix240]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Well said megaplayboy. Sadly I can't Rep you at the moment.

 

Got him for ya

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Wow – tons of good stuff since last I logged in

 

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.

 

One could make a game that relies entirely on social interaction, but it comes back to what the group is interested in. That said, isn’t being Persuaded by that adventure hook NPC a very effective way of getting the adventure rolling in short order? Having interaction skills work against PC’s, or not, can extent or contract a scenario.

 

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

 

Deduction’s an odd skill in that regard. In respect of interaction skills, there is “use of environment” in the ability to use in-game resources to impact the result. You know the character is Loyal to the King? Then you know attempting to get him to take any action he knows to be against the King’s best interests will be tough. How can we frame what we want so it appears to be in the King’s best interests? If we can’t, who else can we deal with to get the result we want? A very basic example of the use of tactics in implementing social skills.

 

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 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?"

 

Again, it seems like this is interpreted in binary. I think there is a correlation between “the dice must not interfere with the player’s vision of his character’s mental state” and “the dice must not interfere with the player’s vision of his character’s mental state”. If the player designs a Tarzan, and the GM makes him roll to climb a tree, a roll he promptly fails with an 18, how has the player’s vision of his character been realized? If the players envision their characters as tough as nails mercenaries, but typical street thugs and city guards have better combat stats, or just win through lucky rolls, the players’ collective vision is not realized. We’re OK with the dice going against the PC’s in skills (though likely not to the extreme of Tarzan needing a roll to climb a tree – he’s effin’ Tarzan!) and combat.

 

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.[/quote

 

It's always a choice of whether to roll dice or not to roll dice. To play it out through combat, or to interpret whatever the dice say.

 

I’ve suggested in the past that Hero could easily expand into tiers of granularity in challenge resolution, from straight skill roll/opposed skill roll right down to the tactics of physical and mental combat. In a game of King’s Court Intrigue, one might use a very detailed social combat system, but relegate physical combat to opposed rolls (eg. “Dueling”, “Fisticuffs”) because the game will focus on the former, with the latter merely a sideline.

 

In most games, “PS: Lawyer” covers matters. If a lot of legal battles are in the game, maybe it needs to expand to PS: Criminal Lawyer, Corporate Lawyer and Family Lawyer”. If I want a game focused on courtroom dramas, a more detailed resolution system would be needed.

 

Actually' date=' 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.[/quote]

 

A similar issue – do the players expect to resolve all social interaction with a roll of the dice, to ignore the dice entirely with asking the same questions of the same people always getting the same answers, or some middle ground (and we have lots of room for middle ground).

 

That's definitely a potential side effect. However' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Tactical use of in-game knowledge and resources, I agree with. A good speech by a player should grant the same bonus to a character that a backflip by the player would grant to his character’s acrobatics roll. Playing an 8 PRE backwoods hick with only Everyman interaction skills like a suave Superspy should cost the player role playing xp (and/or require his xp be directed at paying for the social skills he is clearly using).

 

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

 

Once again, depends on the group, but I think the possibility of PC failure is inherent in most task resolution mechanics, and I don’t see a huge advantage to removing “NPC influencing PC”, and/or “PC influencing PC”, from that list.

 

Boiled down' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

We can certainly play a game of interactive story telling where all results are governed by the choices of the player of the relevant character. Kids do it all the time. We adopt mechanical task resolution systems largely to replace subjectivity with objectivity (“I hit you – no, you missed” with “you hit on an 11 or less”, for example). I don’t see the compelling need to exempt social interaction from a measure of objective task resolution.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Short answer: Because they're the protagonists. They're controlled by individuals who play that character, and only that character. By people who come to the game to play only that character. That sets them apart from villains, henchmen, mooks and the everymen, who are all played by the GM as colour, allies or obstacles to the PCs. Everything revolves around the PCs; even the bits in the background that seem to have nothing to do with them create a stage on which they star.

 

Counterquestion: Why shouldn't PCs have an innate advantage?

 

They have innate advantages. They are run consistently by a team of players discovering synergies and tactics over time. The GM has to run multiple characters, routinely replaced. PC’s are commonly better than their run of the mill NPC counterparts.

 

But sometimes the NPC’s get an innate advantage. That Master Villain has way more points and violates numerous campaign limits. Would you allow your starting Fantasy character the power of a Dragon, or is that beyond the limits for a PC? It’s clearly not beyond the limits of a Dragon!

 

This PC immunity can damage verisimilitude when we forget that

 

even the players can do something stupid that jeopardizes their side.

 

Like getting drunk with a tavern wench in the first place.

 

Social interaction is not something we in real life control the outcome to, so why should the PC’s get the ability to set their dice rolls here, yet nowhere else?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Unlike combat' date=' perception rolls, and skill rolls vs. inanimate objects (e.g., hit/miss, damage, saw it?, disarming a security system) the results of a social skill's success 1) highly subjective, and 2) can impact characterization/development. In the first case, the player may have a very different notion of what is a [i']reasonable[/i] reaction resulting from failed EGO/etc rolls for their character as he envisions them than the game-master does. In the second case, social reactions are a major part of characterization, and social decisions can be intimately tied to how a character is defined or develops.

 

If the player envisions a combat expert, yet is routinely beaten down by NPC’s and outshone by the other PC’s, I think that the player may have a very different notion of what is a reasonable combat challenge is than the GM does. Characters are defined in many ways. A suave SuperSpy whose interaction skills always fail, a security/stealth expert cat burglar who always sets off the alarms and a combat monster who consistently gets his head handed to him are all characters who are not meeting the player’s vision of them.

 

Yes, the GM can abuse the power granted by social skills. He can abuse the power to create the environment, background, antagonists, and every other aspect of the world in numerous ways. For some reason, however, there seems to be an impression that the GM will always abuse social interaction resolution, even when we trust him to use his power over everything else to create a strong, challenging and fun game.

 

Those are things player's tend to be more emotionally invested in than simple objective pass/fail rolls that have to do with how the character interacts with his pseudo-3D environment. And that brings me to my other concern: players only have one character to focus on and tend to be more heavily emotionally invested in who those characters are than the GM is in his NPCs. Those characters are also the story's protagonists.

 

The game-master has a world full of characters to manage, should not be as emotionally invested in those characters as players are in PCs, and is there to provide the protagonists with a story, plot, and set of challenges to overcome. Its not a competition between the game-master and players. The player's success is not the game-master's failure. Its true that some NPCs rank high on the drama rating scale and should compete with PCs in terms of screen time, but they aren't the heroes.

 

A good GM is not out to beat the PCs with his pet NPCs, though besting the PCs early on can make later triumphs sweeter for the players. And, in my experience, most players innately pick up on who those NPCs are and accord them more credence - and social influence - than mere mooks. My essential point is, I do not see PCs and NPCs as being created equal. I don't even see them as filling the same dramatic role within the shared story experience.

 

See above. How often does Hawkeye/Green Arrow miss? When is Spidey hit by some random thug/agent? Do we see Superman presented with ugly moral dilemmas demanding he kill or allow innocents to die, and fail to protect the innocent while staying true to his principals? The vision of their abilities is not limited to personality by any stretch. The GM can run the world to create challenges over which the PC’s ultimately triumph, or to grind them into the dust.

 

Example: Gul Dukat is impressive and makes things happen' date=' but he doesn't win in the end because he's not in the main cast, and while he can be a magnificently manipulative bastard, Kira never succumbed to his attempts to draw her over to the dark side. He tricked her with misinformation, so that she made the decisions of her own volition, but she never did something "out of character." It wasn't his magnetism altering her character or characterization, it was him providing her with faustian bargains and all bad decisions that [i']she had to make[/i].

 

And, that's key: the player has to make the decision, not the dice or GM. If the NPC lies to the PC I don't tell them "you believe them" if they make their acting roll. I describe his delivery as convincing and trust my players to make reasonable decisions for their characters based on that. A good GM should be able to set things up (with some work) so that forcing the issue with a die roll isn't really necessary. And if he can't, maybe he should consider different plot developments, approaches, and tactics.

 

And the heroes eventually overcome physical challenges. The Hulk beats the Abomination. Captain America’s superior tactical skills overcome the Red Skull’s plots. Sherlock Holmes deduces the answers to the mystery. Dr. Bashir figures out how to cure the mysterious illness. These things are all resolved by a combination of player tactics and dice rolls. In fiction, the writers determine which rolls succeed (Luke Skywalker succumbs to anger, attacking the Emperor, but refuses to kill his father after revealing the circuitry that replaced his hand). There is no compelling reason that social skills cannot be resolved with the aid of dice rolls (Luke fails his roll, in part due to the bonus the Emperor achieves by threatening the Rebellion, his friends and his sister; Luke’s revelation of his father’s similar injuries, and his father’s helplessness, provides a bonus and Luke succeeds in a dramatic roll, pulling back from the abyss the Emperor sought to seduce him into; his example provides the bonus Vader needs to break the Emperor’s hold).

 

If we’re engaged in co-operative story telling, both the social results and the lightsaber duel can be resolved by consensus. If we’re engaged in a pure game, the dice will dictate all. There’s a balance between the two, but I don’t see it best struck by resolving some issues with die rolls and others with pure player choice. Unfortunately, once we introduce the dice, we introduce the possibility of failure.

 

This brings back Andy’s comment about fudging. Does Vader’s lucky (or unlucky) die roll that would carve Luke in half stand, ending the campaign, or does it get fudged for dramatic sense? Does Luke’s 18 to resist the Emperor’s seduction before he kills Vader get overridden, or does Luke become the Emperor’s new right arm? Both end the campaign in failure, and remove Luke as a PC. But would we suggest both be resolved by the dice, or that both be equally within player choice and control?

 

In general' date=' if a game-master wants to ensure a player succumbs to his nefarious social machinations, he should 1) ensure he's targeting psych lims,[/quote']

 

A good tactic that brings bonuses. But if the GM lets every NPC who needs it know the PC’s secrets, I find that bad GMing.

 

2) take time to build the NPC up without roles so that the players trust them and react as expected' date='[/quote']

 

Again, good tactics on the NPC’s part. Palpatine still successfully manipulates Jar-Jar and Anakin, regardless of their players’ desires (OK, Jar-Jar’s player is an idiot, but who approved the character for the campaign, Mr. Lucas?).

 

or 3) make sure its something the player would go along with' date=' anyways.[/quote']

 

No real challenge if the player would go along with it. But what happens when the player lets vital info slip, then insists his character would never make such a mistake. Why does the PC get all the player’s strengths but none of his weaknesses?

 

And' date=' as for sleeping with a hot NPC, loose bodice laces don't automatically equate to loose lips - which takes us back to whether or not the GM and player agree on whether the highly subjective outcome is reasonable for this particular not-gamemaster-controlled character...[/quote']

 

Once again coming back to the responsibility of the GM to use his power wisely and equitably.

 

On the other hand' date=' seducing [u']an amourously characterized PC[/u] so they are delayed and out of position, in some steamy extortion pics

 

No, my very careful PC is always certain to ensure there is no angle from which a compromising picture could be obtained, so that could not happen.

 

so that their horse or bags can be stolen

 

Clearly not – our party always leaves at least one guard watching the horses, and a second in the room with all our valuable gear, at all times.

 

so that a tracking device (sleight of hand) can be placed

 

But my character always diligently searches his room, floor to ceiling, every morning and evening – he should find the device. Besides, he never lets anyone in his rooms out of his sight as he doesn’t want to be bugged.

 

' date=' a room can be rifled while they sleep[/quote']

 

No, my character never sleeps until he has locked his rooms, secured his possessions, placed trip wires with bells across the door and the windows and taken his 317 other standard precautions.

 

Really, it’s all detailed in the Character Manifesto I sent you by email, pages 54 – 72.

 

None of them require the player to accept his character said something damaging or acted out of character. The character just did what the player already envisioned him as doing without treading on player rights - and it really shouldn't have come down to a die roll (unless the player said' date=' "hell, roll!" anyways). And that right there is my bottom line: when it comes to [u']disagreements over the characterization[/u] of a player character (which the results of social roles can impact), the player wins. Its their character.

 

But all of those things are part of my character! He’s always prepared, never caught by surprise and no one ever gets the upper hand on him.

 

This isn't to say I'm not open to having more subtle' date=' less overarching developments or reactions indicated by the dice, but when it comes to things that impact the player's emotional investment in their character, I prefer to give the players a pass on my personal notion of fair, realistic, reasonable, likely, or even possible. I have a world full of character's to run. I'll work with the player's conceptualization of their character insofar as they make a reasonable effort to play them well and help tell a good story.[/quote']

 

Not stepping on concept is important – no question. But we manage not to step on character concept related to combat, skills and numerous other areas without removing objective challenge resolution mechanisms. We should be able to do the same in the social arena. Actually, this seems like another excellent use of Heroic Action Points – turning a failure in this arena to success is no different than avoiding that fatal death blow, or ensuring the security systems are disarmed by overriding that ‘18’.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

That doesn't automatically mean that "spilling the beans about battle plans" is a reasonable result of getting lucky or drunk (or both) at the bar that night. Which is where the primary point of tension lies' date=' [i']what is a reasonable reaction[/i] for this particular character when they succumb to Rosy Palm's hot-walking them? Who gets to decide that? The player or the game-master?

 

"You spill the beans," is definitely railroading.

 

I think we can see a lot of other railroading possibilities. Bigbywolfe answers most of these.

 

On the other hand, your horse was stolen keeping you from a quick escape or ride into battle, you wake up bound, after she is gone you find the seal on the scroll-tube containing extremely sensitive info is cracked, you overslept or wake feeling drugged, your friends were attacked and subdued while you were busy with your amorous adventures, you awake covered in the blood of your one-night-wench who lies dead next to you as the door opens and the horrified innkeeper screams "guards!..." are all ways being seduced can work against PCs without taking the player's choice hasn't been taken away.

 

Conversation is more problematic, after all, can the die rolls actually dictate what player's say when they are in character? Or do I have to work with what they player's actually say?

 

Same answer' date=' because each Player is only controlling one PC while the GM has to maintain an entire world and everyone in it. In other words, the PCs already have an advantage.[/quote']

 

Those are even MORE railroady in my opinion. You awake feeling drugged? When did she slip it to me? Why didn't I get a PER check? Don't I get a CON roll or something? Your friends were abducted while you were busy. Um' date=' we were? Are we going to have a chance to NOT get captured or are you just declaring we got ambushed and lost a fight while the last 5 minutes we've focused on him getting drunk and laid? Horse was stolen. Yeah, no railroading there.[/quote']

 

My character always leaves the horse guarded, he attacks unfamiliar handlers or riders if they try to take him out of a stable, making plenty of noise that I am always alert for. I never sleep before securing the room, and even if I did I sleep far too lightly for anyone to bind me. I would always surreptitiously swap drinks with someone I don’t know (no sleight of hand check needed – just part of my character as I envision him). How were they ambushed with no chance of me hearing them, and no chance of them escaping or winning the fight (or how did a group large and powerful enough to defeat and capture us get assembled in the first place, then sneak in without us detecting them). How was the tavern girl killed in my bed without any chance of me being awakened? How does the innkeeper open the door I always secure when I sleep?

 

I don’t see any of these situations as any more railroading than a successful Interaction skill gaining some intel from the PC (the same level of intel a similar roll BY a PC would gain from an NPC), but they don’t occupy any higher moral ground either.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Right, in the light ore detailed discussions with Hugh in particular, let me rework the Mata Hari example in much greater detail to see if those in favour of the dice-roll method consider this a reasonable use.

 

Background: The PCs are good types who've heard the lord who runs the city is an evildoer of some description. They have reason to believe he's involved with the latest scheme of Campaign Villain, and are determined to (primary objective) throw a spanner in the works and (secondary objective) ensure he gets his just desserts. To do either, they'll need to get into the lord's castle. Their various good deeds throughout the kingdom have won them some small reputation.

 

The lord, in addition to his walls and guards, maintains a network of informers throughout the town. His ace agent is Mata Hari, a beautiful bombshell who's willing to use every weapon in her social armoury to get what she wants. Unlike the historical Mata Hari, this one's loyal to her master (we could have a lot of fun if she could be turned, but that's beyond the scope of this hypothetical workthrough).

 

Well, if she can have unshakeable loyalties at no cost, why can’t the PC’s? Besides, you’re treading on my “charms any woman” vision of my suave “face” character. But let’s ignore this clear unfairness to the PC’s for now 

 

We build Mata with +2 Striking Appearance (Beautiful)' date=' EGO and PRE 15, INT 13. We give her skills in Acting, Charm, Conversation, Disguise, Persuasion, all at 11-. We buy her +1 with Acting (maybe this is how she started her career) and +4 with all Interaction skills, giving her a boost to spend on any given skill(s) at any given time. At most, she could raise one of her skills to 15- at any given time. She'll also have some contacts and Area Knowledge, but they won't come into this example. All in all, she costs 13pts for characteristics and 33pts for the skills (not counting the AK and any contacts she may have). She's not a combatant or an assassin; we won't add her any combat skills or characteristics.[/quote']

 

OK, she’s a specialist. With a 15-, she may not be “one of the very best in the world” (16-), but she’s way up there. You’d think the Baron would have some level of reputation for ferreting out trouble before it begins, even if the means are as yet unknown. Striking Appearance brings her to 17- (pushing into “greatest master” territory, and well into one of the best rolls in the world).

 

The majority of the townsfolk are decent people who are too afraid of the lord and his informers to stand up against him. Besides, some of their sons, daughters and other relatives need those jobs at the castle.

 

Players are aware that interaction skills can be used against them, so the lowest EGO in the party is 13, just to get that extra point of resistance (EGO roll 12-). The PC who'll be our target has no particular complications which have a bearing on the scene - not a prude, not lecherous, no vow of chastity, not married.

 

When the party arrive at the town gates, they'll attract attention. They know they have a reputation, so they try to conceal their true identities and purpose in town. They succeed, so the town guards let them through. They're still a party of adventurers, though (they have disguised themselves as merchants or anything), so they're of interest to the lord's spymaster. The informers are something of a passive tool, so he sends an active agent after them. Enter Mata.

 

If adventurers are common, why this band? If they are rare, why did the PC’s not know that and disguise themselves as something else?

 

Informers have determined that the PCs have set up in an inn in the town square' date=' then gone their separate ways. One's gone to the alchemist, another to the weaponsmith. One's stayed in the inn, where he's dining and having a beer or two (not getting drunk).[/quote']

 

NEVER SPLIT THE PARTY

 

We assume that Mata is known as herself around town - even if the townsfolk aren't quite sure what she does up at the castle, they know she's got some middle to high station there. She'll need a disguise, though not as any specific person.

 

I, as GM, decide that if she's going to be playing a servant, she'd better be a bit more non-descript. The disguise will reduce her effective Striking Appearance to +1. With the aid of the spymaster, she makes her disguise roll (I don't want to test the INT of every NPC she meets in this guise, so it's a simple success).

 

Mata enters the bar.

 

We tell the player he sees a plainly dressed but pretty young woman enter, gaze around at the townsfolk chatting and enjoying their ale, then light on him. She walks over and sits at his table. "Hello, you're new in town aren't you? Where are you from?"

 

So how many levels are devoted to her Disguise so none of the townsfolk recognize her? Or does the PC get a roll to notice the reaction of some of the patrons, who recognize her but say nothing for fear of reprisal?

 

(She isn't asking his permission to sit at his table; no need to give the player an easy refusal. He'll have to be actively rude to avoid this - which he can do if he wants; it'd be a shut-out on the rest of the scene though, so let's assume he goes along with it.)

 

Test 1: First, we'll have to have Mata make an Acting roll to see if she pulls off the servant girl routine. The player asks if she seems on the level, so we make it an opposed roll. His character's INT is 10, so his roll is 11-. Mata has Acting 12-, and adds one of her Interaction skill levels as well, because it's crucial she pass this. Her looks have no bearing on this. As a GM, I decide that she'll have to keep this level dedicated to Acting throughout the scene, or have to make another check. It's 13- vs 11-, and Mata succeeds.

 

We tell the player she seems to be on the level - a pretty girl curious about a stranger in town. (Question: is this a reasonable use of NPC on PC skill?)

 

Maybe her looks should penalize her – especially if she looks like someone who’s never done a lick of manual labour (no calluses on the hands, for example). But let’s assume that would be noticed by a successful PC roll – seems reasonable to me.

 

Is such forward behaviour typical of serving girls? Let’s assume it is.

 

Test 2: She calls the innkeep for a light ale' date=' happy to pay for it herself, though giving the PC a chance to buy ot for her, and strikes up a Conversation with the PC, putting her two remaining skill levels into it. She's not plumbing for information at this stage, just trying to be engaging. (Mata has 13- at this and it isn't opposed because she isn't digging). She makes it fairly well, and we tell the player she seems friendly and interested as they talk about his life on the road and the drudgery and boredom of life as a serving girl at the castle, a job she's only had a for a few weeks. "I thought it would be so much more exciting to live in a town and work for the lord." [i'](Is this a fair use of NPC social skill?)[/i]

 

Seems reasonable. A PC would expect to be able to act a similar part, in my view.

 

The player's got some options here. He could have his character try to pump her for information about the castle, but this isn't our Face. Let's say Face is off trying to get snippets of info from the real serving girl of the first example.

 

He could try hitting on her. That'd make her job so much easier.

 

Or he could decide to disengage. For the sake of argument, let's say that's what he does. "Well, it's been lovely talkng to you. I hope life at the castle stops being so boring for you."

 

Sure – player doesn’t see this going anywhere and, besides, he knows he’s not the face.

 

Test 3: Mata can't have this. She needs him to stay so she can work her wiles on him. She'll start now. "Oh' date=' please stay for one more drink. Just one? It's my only night off this week, and you're so different from all the town lads. Don't leave me with just the dullards." She looks down and looks up again, giving him The Look. "And maybe later we could think of something fun to do together." This is clearly Persuasion, with Charm as a complementary skill. It's opposed - our PC has already stated his intent to leave. Tactically, Mata's better off putting her 3 remaining skill levels into Persuasion, so she does. Charm will be supported by her +1 Striking Appearance. She makes the Charm roll by 1 - not enough for a bonus to the persuasion, so she needs 14- on that. The PC has EGO 12-. Mata wins the contest, so the PC sits down again and orders another round, against his player's wishes. [i'](Is this a fair use of NPC social skills against a PC? I think those who advocate against such rolls would consider this serious railroading.)[/i]

 

Is it somehow worse than a PER attack that would cause the PC to hesitate a phase? It seems reasonable to me. How many of us can honestly say we have not been in a situation where we know we should get moving (home for dinner; off to a social engagement; back to work) but are persuaded to stick around “just a little longer”? PC has nowhere special to go, so he should be even less resistant. I note our player has not expressed any suspicions of the scenario either.

 

Test 4: After that round' date=' Mata makes her play. "Why don't we find somewhere a little more private. Do you have a room here?" This is Charm, possibly complemented by Persuasion. Again, it's better the skill levels go with the main skill. Mata's got Persuasion 11-, and rolls 9. That gives her a +1 bonus on the Charm, where she already has +3 for skill and +1 for Striking Appearance - a total of 16-. Mata's offering sex, right now (-4, according to HSS), which brings her back down to 12- vs the PC's 12- EGO roll. The player is suspcious, but the character (thanks to the past Acting and Conversation test) is not. Mata wins the contest. They go upstairs. [i'](Is this a reasonable use of NPC social skills against a PC?)[/i]

 

Can the player justify character suspicion? How often is his “not so charming” PC engaged by an attractive woman? How common is this sort of behaviour in the campaign? Let’s assume it’s pretty common for the latter. The former seems just as likely to penalize the PC’s resistance as to bolster it.

 

Test 5: Upstairs Mata wraps her self around the PC. "Make me happy' date=' stud!" We'll draw a veil over the details. In among the pillow-talk, Mata intends to ask seemingly innocent little questions for find out if the PCs are passing through, as this PC claims, or what their interest might be in town. She'll uses leading comments ("You know, the lord is a very bad man. I've not been here long, but I've heard stories. Somebody should do something, but they're all too scared. Maybe someone like you could do something...") Mata is putting everything she's got into this. It's a straight Charm roll, +3 for the skills (she still has to act) and +1 for the Striking Appearance, for a total of 15-. She's after a secret though (-2) and it could land the PC in major danger (-4), which brings her target down to 9- (7- if you regard the secret as Top Secret). Our PC has an EGO roll of 12- to resist. The odds are greatly in his favour.[i'] (Is this a reasonable use of NPC social skills on a PC?)[/i]

 

Again, seems reasonable.

 

If Mata wins, she can trot back to the spymaster with the information that the PC was definitely more interested in the castle than he should be, and told her not to worry about the evil lord. He and his friends might even be planning something tomorrow night - he said he'd be "too busy taking care of other things" when she suggested a second bout. The spymaster doubles the guard and orders his informers and field agents to watch the PCs more closely. He might even send guards to bring them in.

 

In the more likely event that the PC resists Mata's honeyed words, he'll realise she was trying to worm information out of him. It's time he dusts off his Intimidation skill to find out who she's working for... and if she's forced to admit who she's working for, she'll use Persuasion to try to win sympathy instead of approbation ("They have my little sister, they said they'd kill her if I didn't do this.") Maybe she can bide her time and make a break for the castle - if only she'd invested points in Escape Artist, Stealth and Running.

 

I note that the PC clearly has a chance at winning this challenge. Is this any more railroaded than, say, a back alley duel to take the PC prisoner, with a combatant more or less equal to the PC?

 

Ok' date=' individual tests aside, is that the way people who use NPC on PC social skill tests would play it. Too many tests (odds are that Mata wouldn't get as far as the final test - she'd have to get 4 straight wins to get that far) or too few? Are the penalties at the right kind of level?[/quote']

 

I agree we may have a few too many rolls. Bundling steps 2 through 4 would seem reasonable. One check to avoid detection of her disguise, a second to worm her way up to the PC’s room and a third to extract the desired information. To turn the question around, if this were a PC build, how many PC’s would argue their chances of success should be much better? The skills are the same. Why should it be more prone to failure? I bet the PC has a much better ability to get away if the rolls don’t go in his favour!

 

An overall caveat - given her high skill rolls, it seems to me Mata is a relevant plot point, and not a standard device the PC's routinely encounter in most scenarios. How many characters would have +4 skill levels in any broad group of abilities (including, say, melee or ranged combat), and how significant an NPC would those characters be?

[Vondy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Those are even MORE railroady in my opinion.

 

Only if you assume a lot of things I didn't say.

 

You awake feeling drugged? When did she slip it to me? Why didn't I get a PER check? Don't I get a CON roll or something?

 

Obviously they would have to make the necessary rolls (sleight of hand, drugging/poisoning) etc. That doesn't mean the player gets to see those rolls, because it may well be that would tip them off!

 

Your friends were abducted while you were busy. Um, we were? Are we going to have a chance to NOT get captured or are you just declaring we got ambushed and lost a fight while the last 5 minutes we've focused on him getting drunk and laid?

 

Again, obviously, that's a separate encounter that has to be played out with the other players (presuming its not a solo game). But its not one the player needs to be a party to, or aware of until his character wakes up. After all, he's otherwise indisposed.

 

Horse was stolen.

 

Unless he's having sex in the stall/stable next to his horse, completely reasonable.

 

Yeah, no railroading there.

 

Not if you don't make rank erroneous assumptions.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Obviously they would have to make the necessary rolls (sleight of hand' date=' drugging/poisoning) etc. That doesn't mean the player gets to see those rolls, because it may well be that would tip them off![/quote']

 

So how is that superior to the NPC having to make interaction skill rolls to manipulate the conversation in the desired direction? I don't see your scenarios as any more railroady, but I don't see them as markedly less so either.

 

Unless he's having sex in the stall/stable next to his horse' date=' completely reasonable.[/quote']

 

How often do the characters' horses get stolen from the stable at the inn? And why does someone need to distract the PC? So he doesn't go out and check on his horse every few minutes, given how often his horse has been stolen in the past? I can certainly see a plan including ensuring the PC's have no means of giving rapid chase - but a plan that involves use of interaction skills is no less plausible, no less cinematic, and no more deserving of being removed from the realm of possibility, at least in my opinion.

 

Not if you don't make rank erroneous assumptions.

 

Like assuming GM's (and/or players) will misuse social skills if they are permitted to be used against PC's?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Something rang a bell with a comment that Vondy made above, somewhere. The thing about combat is that you have a set process and outcome. If you roll to hit, apply situational and other modifiers, and if you succeed, you roll damage and you apply that to defences then Stun and Body. The process is entirely transparent, and the possible results are from a limited range that you know in advance.

 

The problem with social skills (and, for that matter, determining how difficult a particular mind control is) is that they can have an enormous and varied result set and the process is not easy to describe or discuss because doing so would tip what is happening to everyone. It is necessarily something that happens behind a curtain.

 

Of course you COULD play the whole thing at arms length where the players fully participate in the 'social combat', even if their PCs would not know it was happening, but that requires a saint-like amount of self control not to apply the knowledge gap in your favour.

 

I can not see that there is a straightforward 'rules' solution - no matter how cunning the rules you still come down to a roll being made in secret and a result applied that is beyond the control - and perhaps understanding (from their knowledge perspective) of the player. Yes you can refine the modifiers to give a better starting point, but you are still at the mercy of the dice. Even the excellent 'box of possibilities' idea discussed earlier, where there are possible and impossible responses, is difficult to apply - I love the idea intellectually, but I am not, in practice, going to actually work out in advance all the things a character would or would not do.

 

The nearest I can get to a rules solution is to suggest that the GM (or the players if they are trying to influence NPCs) are bound in the extremity of their reaction by the level of success of the roll: at least you then get an idea of not just IF you have succeeded but how effective the success is. Even then though, the dice are occasionally going to hand an NPC a stunning result.

 

There would seem to be only two solutions:

 

1. Don't let NPC social interaction rolls influence players at all, or

2. Trust the GM to apply the rules fairly and not to be out to get you.

 

The problem with not allowing players to be influenced by social interaction rules at all is that social interaction is a broad area. Are you suggesting that, when a NPC makes an Acting roll to try and cover up a lie, that the PC should automatically see through it? Should we limit the Social immunity to rolls that would MAKE the PC do something? Where does that stop? Are all PCs, no matter what their professed intellectual and social skills, capable of withholding information from the most subtle and cunning interrogators? Can PCs automatically hide their body language from someone skilled at interpreting it? Sometimes the things you lie about tell a lot about what you know or do not know.

[psyber624]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I think, at the core of this discussion, is a fundamental difference in viewpoints that will likely forever prevent the two camps from coming to an agreement. And that is OKAY. There is no reason that we all have to agree on whether social interactions should or should not affect players. Each gaming group is free to come to the decision on its own, in its own way. There are consequences and valid arguments to both sides. Play how you want to. As long as the GM lets the players know, up front, which way he intends to run his campaign then there should be few issues. If you are of a differing opinion as a player than your GM you are free to either discuss it with him or choose not to play in his game. Or agree to play by his rules even though you disagree.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

Well, imo, die-rolling, or any other form of determinant(like special cards or the "bid" system in amber), is a form of dispute/conflict resolution. It's akin to having a "referee" while one is playing cops and robbers, to rule who "shot" who first, who's "dead" and who's not. OTOH, we also have a game-master to handle certain ambiguities. So, I don't think role-playing and rolling dice are really mutually exclusive. One can roleplay an interaction up to a point where the outcome of an interaction might be dependent on how skilfully each party handles themselves, and then, an objective if arbitrary element--die rolling--can be brought into play to help direct the flow of that interaction, at which point, knowing the relative success of each party, the players, or the player and GM can roleplay out the results of that interaction. Hence my "shrinking the box" analogy. I'm not sure I can convince others of my POV, but I can at least hold this out as a suggested way to a "happy medium"--not discarding roleplay in any way, but maintaining some verisimilitude, fairness and consistency in the game. The element of surprise and setback and recovery/redemption can also be entertaining to roleplay, provided one is not so invested in having a "perfectly" behaving PC at all times.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

 

I love how cyclical topics about social Skills in RPGs are.