[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

In the 'Technician versus Performer', it very much is, as compared to the Performer. (I'm not using 'Technician' in some other sense in this post. See the reference comparison

I'm familiar with the context. This isn't a case where the trope's meaning is different from other senses and indeed the language being used here predates the description of the trope. Like a lot of trope articles it's introduction isn't a precise definition but casual gesture at the concepts involved. The trope is about the way fiction handles characters at the poles of technical skill and performance ability. Someone with technical skill and nothing else won't be able to come up with original approaches but can perform very technically demanding pieces. Someone with performance ability and nothing else will produce original approaches but can't produce technically impressive pieces. In the real world though people don't pick between being a Performer or being a Technician because they aren't conflicting choices. Have you never encountered music that is both improvised and highly technical?

Bonus points for an All The Tropes link though.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I wouldn't call that 'instruct'.

I don't think it's necessary for part of the definition of teaching to be efficacy. I'm more happy calling people who are good at teaching people good teachers than someone who now qualifies as a teacher.

That said it seems like we both understand and agree on the actual point.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Calling them by the generic word 'capabilities' (as opposed to 'advantages' and 'skills') is already begging the question.

It's not begging the question. My words are not an attempt to prove that I'm right but an attempt to describe my opinion. It is not necessary for me to refrain from describing things in a manner that assumes that I am correct when presenting my views.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Okay, what do you call Chauncey Gardiner?

"Apparently some dude from a film from the seventies."

Since that isn't very helpful I'd describe a realistic version as someone with some good Reaction Modifier (wiki article describes him as having old-fashioned and courtly manners), good rolls and cascading circumstantial bonuses. If you want a version that can reliably achieve this I might uncap Charisma.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Not acquainted with the concept of a control die. Unless you mean Alternity, in which case the control die is always a d20.

My Alternity books aren't close at hand. A control die is a die used to "control" the results of another die. You want to produce a range between 1 and 40? Roll a d20 and a d6 where 1-3 on the d6 makes the d20 roll represent 1-20 while 4-6 makes the d20 roll represent 21-40. Gygax spent... rather a lot of time describing various tricks you could do with this in 1st edition.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm rolling them from time to time. I think finding ways to weave unexpected results into the narrative of the campaign is an opportunity for fun and unexpected turns while also underscoring the characterisation traits of PCs (and occasionally NPCs).

Indeed. It's also good if occasionally but not always the PCs encounter people who are just infuriatingly unhelpful when the PCs are in a hurry.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, Monstrous Appearance is -5, Horrific is -6. That's what, 1/6 probability of getting a Neutral reaction with your table, and merely Unfavourable (as opposed to Bad) more than half of the time, right? That's the sort of reaction that the Unfazeable British Butler should have, not somewhere from 1/6 to ½ of the population, when confronted with someone looking like that.

There are so many disadvantages that could fit alongside Monstrous or Horrific for a supernatural monster that themselves provide Reaction penalties though. The key to Reactions is the practical effects not what the NPCs actually feel about someone. Bad reactions mean things like straight refusing to sell things to someone. Without another Reaction Modifier that can serve as an excuse to do that most people will push themselves to dealing with someone with really low Appearance.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

As for Bond being placated - well, I'm not quite sure. For someone who invested heavily into Charisma, Appearance, Fashion Sense and whatever else he has, having reduced chance of disastrous moments seems to be less important than reduction in the chance of awesome moments.

Players care a lot about failure proofing in my experience. That said we're talking about being placated a bit. This table is indeed much harder on social characters.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Makes me wonder if Extra Time is legit for Influence attempts and the semi-complimentary use of the two skills for Reaction Rolls.

It's gotta be legit for something. Walking through interactions ahead of time is quite useful for social stuff.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, if you're making higher Reactions required to achieve the effects of Charisma 1-5 in RAW, that seems to be nice to have, at a minimum.

Ehh, it would mostly be to extend the lifespan of being charismatic guy rather than charismatic plus some other positive reaction thing guy. I may or may not use this table but the default table is absolutely bonkers in terms of how easy it is for a devoted social character to hit excellent reactions.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Attributes as a concept are not crocks, in the sense that an Attribute should cost many times less than the sum of skills and other rolls governed by it, otherwise there's no point in having attributes. Cheaper in bulk is perfectly realistic, and sensible from a gamist perspective too. Why do you consider it justifiable to have a trait representing higher IQ overall, but not one representing a higher Emotional Intelligence Quotient (e.g. the Empath Talent) or Verbal Intelligence (Talker Talent)?

The point of Attributes is "being a point crock". Realism and gamism perspectives are irrelevant here. Cheaper in bulk is what a point crock is. Point crock doesn't mean unbalanced and it doesn't mean undesirable. It means discounted compared to comparable purchases.

I find it coherent and worth less than infinite points to have +1 to all IQ skills. The number of IQ skills isn't bounded though, there can always be one more. So if you want someone to be able to buy +1 to all the IQ skills that means either a bulk discount or a trait representing the ability to retroactively purchase skill levels for new skills. I prefer the first since it's more aesthetically pleasing and skills have substantial overlap (how much is the tenth Professional Skill worth, really). Talents are for a limited number of skills though, so you could just buy those skills instead. Furthermore if a character who would have bought all the skills in a Talent up anyway exists than the Talent is just a straight discount for that character.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

See the Technician vs. Performer link above. Two people playing at effective skill 16 are almost never identical. To imply that so much information is fixed in a single integer would be odd indeed.

Pointing out that people almost never play identically is a dodge. Holding all else equal is legitimate for analysis even if silly in terms of likelihood.

What does the musician with the Talent's Talent represent? It's not "belonging to genre a" because that's a bonus that is highly specific to the audience and people can play in multiple genres. It isn't natural talent that is somehow distinguishable from honed skill because having a high attribute can represent being naturally talented at the Talent's skill and a whole bunch of others. It's not being more of a Performer than a Technician because a lot of people like Technician music more than Performer music. If it isn't about being a Performer how does it justify not being tied to specific skill levels.

No, Reaction Modifiers linked to Talents are ridiculous. People don't almost all react better to people with narrow natural talent compared to people who are generally talented or untalented but with highly honed skills.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm saying that for quick learning, it doesn't look appealing to a newbie. Quite the contrary, it looks slightly intimidating at first sight.

I guess, but I'm writing for my players who all play RPGs in a general sense and are thus quite qualified at picking up new rules even if they grumble and are going to have to put up with stuff like The Deadly Spring anyway.