Barwickian

Re: Clothes only TK

pshh' date=' why are we listening to you then????????[/quote']

 

Only my hairdresser knows for sure.

 

<'70s cultural reference and jk>

Re: A Thread for Random Videos

I wonder what Irn-Bru tastes like. Is it something the average American would stomach?

It's been so long since I've tasted it (can't get it in the Middle East that I know of), I don't even know how to begin describing it. It's sweet, but it does have a distinctive flavour.

Still, if Americans can enjoy Dr Pepper (revolting stuff) and root beer (great stuff), you can enjoy Irn Bru.

Re: The cranky thread

My arterial access didn't clot properly today. While driving home, it started bleeding. The passenger seat of my car now looks like someone got stabbed in it.

 

I tried to clean it, but the upholstery is cloth ... that's not coming out.

A couple of years ago, my wife tripped and fell backwards onto a wine glass, which shattered and skewered the back of her leg like a spearpoint. There was a lot of blood on the sofa, which we couldn't clean until several hours later, after the trip down to accident & emergency.

That was a Valentine night we won't forget.

You may not get it all out, but you probably can reduce it to a minor stain, which is what we managed on cloth sofa similar to car upholstery. Tougher when it's dried, but still doable: try here and here.

Re: Clothes only TK

Have to be careful with that sort of thing Andy' date=' otherwise you have to then try to explain how a super strength character can lift a car without it fallling to pieces, how ANY sort of non-AOE weapon is capable of carving out a 2m hole in a wall in 1 phase, etc. The rules of physics and the real world simply don't apply in MANY cases in these games. [/quote']

 

Can you tell I don't play superhero games?

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.

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...

Re: A Thread for Random Videos

Don't make me post Terry Wogan singing the Floral Dance....

How can we deprive these unsuspecting people of Sir Terry's hit single?

Re: A Thread for Random Videos

Looking over some old 80s ads, and I remembered this one - the perfect antidote to the over-the-top Coke and Pepsi ads of the 80s comes from Scotland. With Girders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvkByxe33ZM

Re: The cranky thread

Sick of people telling me it's the 50th anniversary of James Bond. Casino Royale was written in 1952 and published in 1953.

Or don't books and authors count any more?

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

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

 

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

 

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

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

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

 

Fair point. I have been using an extreme example.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Clothes only TK

Or a tie?

Sure. You can use the rules. It's covered by TK. You'd want to buy the Choke maneouvre for 3 points. It even let you use a shirt or jacket collar for the choke as well as the tie or the sock. Go ahead.

Re: Clothes only TK

If I can TK cloth' date=' I could take a T-shirt, shove it under a car and lift the t-shirt, which would lift the car (if my TK was strong enough). Because I am pushing the t-shirt up against the car, rather than trying to suspend the car by the t-shirt, weight is not an issue, or rather the weight of the object being lifted destroying the thing I am lifting is not an issue.[/quote']

 

Sure you can, so long as you bught the TK with enough strength to lift the car. Otherwise you just press a T-Shirt to the underside of the car.

 

I'd wait until you tried it before I started muttering about (a) the centre of gravity of the vehicle, ( stability using a relatively small base, even if you do find the centre of gravity and © structural strength and hardpoints on the underside of a vehicle.

 

You'd have far fewer problems if you used a tarp sheet as a sling and pulled the vehicle up. Ah, hang on a moment. You took that limitation as clothing, didn't you? Not cloth, just clothing... OK, let's get back to stability and structural strength.

 

It is because of people like me that you will therefore have to carefully define how the power works.

 

Dancefight!

Re: MYTHIC HERO: What Do *You* Want To See?

Steve, I'm still really keen to see Mythic Hero in some form. Would the shorter format of Aquitaine or the Elvensong spell and monster packs work?

I guess I'm suggesting doing it a chapter at a time. No Kickstarter. You'd got an awful lot of cultures planned - maybe a 10-page PDF on each one, released as it's finished, would break the project down into managable chunks and bring income in at a more steady pace.

If you wanted, you could then assemble the individual chapters into a print Kickstarter further down the line.

EDIT: Scratch that - you answered that suggestion above. Missed that post.

(And you may want to write The Ultimate Weapon; I want you to write Hero System Vehicles 6e - I had to photocopy the space combat rules from Star Hero 5e, and print out the Dogfight and Interception rules from APG to do a space combat a couple of weeks ago.)

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"You failed the roll."

"No fair!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Is Speed underpriced?

My games are heroic, rather than superheroic, but the idea of relative speed still applies.

My rough rule of thumbgoes like this:

SPD 1 - elderly, infirm, toddlers

SPD 2 - most people

SPD 3 - trained veterans, athletes, agile rogues, etc.

SPD 4 - preternaturally fast; signature power level.

SPD 5+ -not generally available to PCs. Reserved for superfast monsters.

That being said, there is a tendency among new players to want SPD 4. Speed wins, right? Faster is better?

For one-offs, I don't sweat it. If that's what they want from their heroes, fine,

It doesn't normally take more than a couple of combats with someone a point of speed lower, who invested the spare 10 points in +5 with longswords, to get the message across.

My scale means I tend to find creatures in the Bestiary too fast. I drop most orcs down to SPD 2, for instance. Only orc leaders have 3.

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

That is exactly what I think we should do' date=' but it still leaves us with the problem of what to do with social skill rolls in the first place. I mean, dragging this kicking and screaming back on topic, sort of, what if you've got a character who is supposed to be a robot with no aesthetic circuits? Do you get to be immune to Striking Appearance (Beauty) for free?[/quote']

 

Absolutely. Striking Appearance is a power (talent if you prefer) which allows you bonuses to certain social skill rolls. Like any other power, those game mechanic bonuses are defined with an FX. In this case the FX is appearance. If you're immune to the FX, you're immune to the bonus. I'd also rule someone who's blind would be immune - unless the FX of the character's sriking appearance were defined as alluring (or harsh) voice.

 

One solution, maybe, would be to have a resistance value for social interaction skills. Some already sort of do: Persuasion is resisted by EGO, and Acting is resisted by INT, but it gets a bit expensive to do that. If we look at skill level costs, +1 with a specific interaction skill is 2 points and +1 with all interaction skills is +4. On the basis that defences should be cheaper than attacks, perhaps we could have the ability to resist interaction skills at +1 for a specific skill and +2 for all of them. That would effectively reduce the success of the 'attacker'. That would obviously cover all uses of interaction skills. Presumably you could then buy (for example) 4 levels of 'Interaction resistance' and limit it to only work against good looks (-2?), so it effectively cancels up to 4 levels of Striking Appearance (Beauty).

 

I think if this kind of use of social skills will figure greatly in your game, you should consider the social combat rules in APG2.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That being said, as I write this, I think a game where a PC could influence another PC might be an interesting one-off. I'd probably look at the APG2 social combat for this, simply because it's more dramatic than a simply dice roll. It would give the socially adept PCs a distinct advantage over the combat bunnies. But I'd make it clear to the players beforehand that that was the kind of game we were playing.

Re: Attractiveness - Comeliness Vs. Striking Appearance

On a thread on this topic some months ago someone - Derek, I think - mentioned their solution to the roleplay/rollplay conundrum for social interaction: roll the dice, roleplay the result.

I though it was genius at the time. I still do.

Re: Black Collar

They've all got longevity, though it doesn't stop them looking old, and many of them have Acting skill to disguise their abilities and pass as old men.

And wow, blast from the past. Haven't read the Blackcollar in many, many years.

Re: The cranky thread

See my latest Blog entry.

I did. I didn't have anything to add, other than, "Keep your chin up, it'll get better."

I think one of the things that's difficult for me is that I've just emerged from a double-whammy, at least as far as social and gaming life goes: I was working anti-social hours, and had different weekends to everybody else. That stopped me gaming regularly for a couple of years (we had occasional one-offs).

Then came a major relaunch, with associated workflow upgrades, then the holiday season - first others, then me.

There are many social commitments put on hold which now need effort to reintegrate myself within the social group. My social group is, aside from a very small overlap, different from my gaming group. I feel a bit like the donkey that starved to death between two haystacks. Too much to do, too little time. It was easier when it was work taking all the time - that puts the roof over the head and bread on the table.

Re: The cranky thread

I feel at a very low ebb creatively. Games I plan to run don't survive the enthusiasm of the initial idea. I pick up rules system after rules system listlessly - what grips me as a must-use in the morning is forgotten or rejected by the evening. They're either too complex or too simple, require too much input or not enough. I'm prepared to play what others want to, and yet I want to proselytise for stuff I love. I want to run Trav - but which version? I want to run something that makes many of the decisions for me, yet I don't like the decisions it makes.

I'm tired. If I go to bed early, I wake early. Social events - which I enjoy, don't get me wrong - eat into game prep time, but it isn't a loss because I'm not prepping.

I need my mojo back, and I'm not sure where I left it.