Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-26-2011, 07:02 PM   #151
Edges
 
Edges's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: GMT-5
Default Re: Resistance to Sex Appeal

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
Well, it wouldn't take an entire book to explain reaction rolls and Influence rolls, either. A lot of the book is about mechanics for using other rolls to better the odds. There's also an entirely new mechanic for rolls that represent seeking long-term trust. And there's material specifically on dealing with complex organizations in various ways— the sort that might need to be circumvented to get access to something big.

We probably didn't cover everything. But it's as comprehensive as the playtesters and I could make it.

Bill Stoddard
It sounds great. I eagerly await.
Edges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 08:43 PM   #152
Bruno
 
Bruno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Default Re: Resistance to Sex Appeal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edges View Post
I think we agree with each other. My point is that if you want to be immune to Sex Appeal, you buy the advantage not the disadvantage.
Nobody said Vow:Chastity makes you immune to Sex Appeal. It makes you immune to Sex Appeal rolls to get you to have Sex. All other uses of Sex Appeal work just fine, and may at times get bonuses (eg the flustered married man being flirted with by someone who reminds him of his wife).
__________________
All about Size Modifier; Grand Unified Hit Location Table
A Wiki for my F2F Group
Bruno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 09:29 PM   #153
Edges
 
Edges's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: GMT-5
Default Re: Resistance to Sex Appeal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno View Post
Nobody said Vow:Chastity makes you immune to Sex Appeal. It makes you immune to Sex Appeal rolls to get you to have Sex. All other uses of Sex Appeal work just fine, and may at times get bonuses (eg the flustered married man being flirted with by someone who reminds him of his wife).
It was post 109 that I was referring to in which it was said that people with Vow: Chastity need not bother rolling vs Sex Appeal. That post was in response to post 91 in which it was clear that their discussion was not limited to Sex Appeal rolls to get you to have Sex. So actually somebody did suggest that Vow:Chastity makes you immune to Sex Appeal. It was that suggestion that I was responding to. And all I was saying was, "Not in my games. I do it like this."
Edges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 10:55 PM   #154
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Default Re: Resistance to Sex Appeal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edges View Post
It was post 109 that I was referring to in which it was said that people with Vow: Chastity need not bother rolling vs Sex Appeal. That post was in response to post 91 in which it was clear that their discussion was not limited to Sex Appeal rolls to get you to have Sex. So actually somebody did suggest that Vow:Chastity makes you immune to Sex Appeal. It was that suggestion that I was responding to. And all I was saying was, "Not in my games. I do it like this."
I see where the confusion comes from. I had started out looking at "can you engage in Sex Appeal vs. someone not interested in your sex," for which the RaW answer is "no." But I looked at the SE passage that discussed getting someone to have sex with you, which is as you say a different question. That was the passage where the issue of Vow: Chastity came up. I had no actual intent to suggest that you can't use Sex Appeal to get a favor from a faithfully married man or woman.

Bill Stoddard
whswhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2017, 09:33 PM   #155
Hellboy
On Notice
 
Hellboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Default Re: Resistance to Sex Appeal

HB46 there was a box for influence skills which mentioned a couple things

1) success good reaction

2) failure bad reaction except for diplomacy

3) to coerce or manipulate an NPC, win a quick contest of skill vs Will.

"Influence Skills" included Diplomacy, Fast-Talk, Intimidation, Savoir-Faire, Sex Appeal, and Streetwise.

Strangely not Interrogation or Leadership

seems 3) is still the case, buying up your Will seems like a good defense.

There should be a way to buy Will with a limitation of it only working against certain things though, or have a skill you can buy up to substitute for Will against certain things, like Sex Appeal or other influence skills.

If it only applied to a single influence skill like SA instead of all of them, that should reduce the cost. Maybe even be a technique and use a smaller cost scale?

Personally, I think instead of a quick contest that a normal contest could be better, especially if you're talking about something like coercing someone into bed using that skill. A quick contest should only represent a single concession, like maybe convincing someone to have a dance with you, or convincing them to share a kiss, or undo a single button, unglasp a single garment, or something like that.

There should still be a series of quick contests or a normal contest for more thorough applications of the skill to coerce or manipulate.

Since it says "an NPC" I guess that means PCs are immune, similar to how they don't make reaction rolls.

I kind of like the idea of having to make my own reaction rolls to see how my character would react (or if my character is coerced or manipulated) and role-playing the result of that though.

Is there some kind of quirk or disadvantage like "must make reaction rolls like NPCS" or "must tie or win a quick contest to avoid being coerced or manipulated by influenced skills like NPCS" that a PC could have?

4e GURPS Lite page 24 still includes these rules:
Quote:
roll a Quick Contest: your Influence skill vs. the subject’s Will.
It mentions you get a "Very Good" reaction from Sex Appeal, page 3 of GURPS Lite (4e) defines that:
Quote:
16 to 18: Very Good. The NPC thinks highly of the characters and will be quite helpful and friendly, freely offering aid and favorable
terms in most things.
Free aid, friendly help... I could easily see that as meaning bedding down to someone looking for a partner. It falls under the "manipulation" aspect rather than the "coercion" aspect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Tifyable View Post
Imagine Cameron turning up to a party. She's Beautiful, Very Wealthy (multimillionaire many times over), High Status (major movie star)... How many sleazebags will be trying it on? Of course she's going to have some resistance!
Don't high-status people react to those of lower status at a -1 penalty per level? That could explain some of her resistance, if it was lower-class guys at the party.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Johnston2 View Post
Not a huge Will. Large situational modifiers. "I'm out of your class" is a situational modifier. So's "I've heard all the lines".
Class seems to be figured under status levels.

One-liners seems more like what you would get from a low IQ / low skill person, since someone with a higher social skill would not resort to them.

I think part of it might be competition. If it was just 1 somewhat charming man going after Cameron Diaz in isolation she may be less resistant to it, but when several are doing it, they get in each other's way, interfere with one another's ability to make skill rolls, distract her from each other so none can build any momentum.

Don't know how to do that mechanically speaking though...

Social Engineering hints at rules for this under "Romantic Rivalry" page 35 but I don't really understand how it resolves 2+ suitors going after the same target. I would figure you would quick/normal contest against each other and then the winner goes on... and I guess a tie covers situations where they 'can't choose' and go for both of them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fwibos View Post
I could see a Resistant to Influence trait. costing 5 points for +3 and 8 points for +8, that is basically a scaled down Indomitable, and is likewise requires Empathy to crack.
That's almost how Social Engineering 77 does it, except it's just 7 points for +8, B81 says to drop fractions from the cost.

If "Influence rolls" is a common effect, then 1 specific influence skill should be at least 1 step lower. "Occasional" with a base cost of 10, to be immune to JUST sex Appeal, or 5 points to get +8 vs it, or 3 points to get +3 vs it.

It's doubtful that it would be "Rare" for 1 single social skill, but if it were, that would be 5/2/1.

Resistance to a "rare" social skill I think would be only with unique variations of them.

Like for example, Social Engineering p 78's Influence Shticks. If you were +3 to resist Sex Appeal but ONLY to resist the "Sexy Pose" shtick application of it, I believe that would be considered a further step down below occasional to rare, and qualify as a 1 point perk.

+8 vs Sexy Pose would be 2 points, and it would be 5 points to be utterly immuen to Sexy Pose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fwibos View Post
No Offense taken. I am a Kinsey 2, and have the quirk broadminded*. This makes me think that using the Kinsey Scale may be too granular for the game. Which means Sex Appeal only works on your preferred Gender. I just don't like to see people resist Sex Appeal because it is bad for them.
Granular is good when we're looking for dice modifiers. I think we could work the scale into things quite easily. Players should select where their character falls on the spectrum and treat all of them as 0 point features.

The balance should be that in exchange for a +1 on the will roll to a gender you are less attracted to, you are also -1 to use sex appeal on that gender.

I'd probably rephrase things in terms of andro/gyno though. For example take the basic scale.

Quote:
0 Exclusively heterosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual
This scale for a man means replacing "hetero" with "gyno" and "homo" with "andro" This scale for a woman means replacing "hetero" with "andro" and "homo" with gyno". It's probably easier to print them that way for the penalties.

Someone Kinsey 0 would be +7 to the will roll vs sex appeal from same sex, but be -7 on their own sex appeal rolls against the same sex. Thus, it'd be an effective -14 if one Kinsey 0 were trying to use sex appeal against another Kinsey 0. The heart would not be in the attempt and the heart would not be in the receiving.

The bonus to will vs Sex Appeal would reduce until you are +0 at Kinsey 6, receiving no bonus at all to resist (although if the attemptor was not Kinsey 6, they would have a penalty) and no penalties to your own attempts to use Sex Appeal against others.

Kinsey 3 (bisexuality) giving a +4 to resist and -4 to attempt does sort of seem off though, because if you are equally attracted to both genders why would you be more resistant to same sex and why would you be less good at making passes at same sex?

All I can figure is that could be due to split attention. After all if you are attracted to twice as many people, you enjoy a greater amount of beauty and should be resistant due to the extra options...

But conversely the penalty because you can't spend all your time learning sex appeal techniques for one gender, you've split your time between 2 niches and aren't as good.

That still doesn't account for the lack of resistance or lack of penalty to opposite-sex though...

Maybe it should flip and treat bisexuality as 0 modifiers and then do bonuses/penalties up or down?

To use a male example, if Kinsey 3 was the baseline of 0 penalties or bonuses...

Kinsey 2 would make you +1 to Will against Sex Appeal from men, -1 to Will against Sex Appeal from women, +1 to Sex Appeal vs women, -1 to Sex Appeal vs Men

Kinsey 1 would make you +2 to Will against Sex Appeal from men, -2 to Will against Sex Appeal from women, +2 to Sex Appeal vs women, -2 to Sex Appeal vs Men

Kinsey 0 would make you +3 to Will against Sex Appeal from men, -3 to Will against Sex Appeal from women, +3 to Sex Appeal vs women, -3 to Sex Appeal vs Men

If these didn't seem large enough, I would say maybe double the above numbers to bring it in line with what people might expect.

The downside here of course is a large basic penalty to your will roll vs the gender you're attracted to... which is fine, really, because Will is usually 10 and HT is usually 10 and with Sex Appeal defaulting to HT-3 a quick contest of 7 would lose far too often to 10 in comparison to how often people are able to charm one another in real life, so a penalty to will rolls vs a preferred gender makes sense to me.

I suppose it could be a geometric rather than linear increase. With the above 3, keep Kinsey 2 as +/-1 and Kinsey 1 as +/- 2 but have Kinsey 0 be +/-4?

Or do 2/4/8 ?

However hard, there should be a chance even for a Kinsey 0 to be seduced homosexually, because identification as exclusive is not a guarantee of that, more like negligible non-exclusivity like 99.9%.

Things should be balanced, so if it was something like Kinsey 0 only got seduced on a critical failure of will or a critical success of Sex Appeal, then the inverse should be true that they should only be able to seduce the opposite sex on a critical success of their skill or a critical fail of the target's will.

Both seem very extreme though. Rather than do custom critical rules I'd just do a big base bonus.

Last edited by Hellboy; 01-21-2017 at 02:42 AM.
Hellboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
kromm explanation, new skill, sex appeal, social engineering

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.