Influence Checks

[MrTim]

Originally Posted by whswhs

In the first place, Sex Appeal is explicitly called out as getting bonuses from Appearance, and double penalties from negative Appearance. There is no such modifier for Diplomacy, Fast-Talk, Merchant, Politics, Public Speaking, Savoir-Faire, or Streetwise.

I've always taken that to mean that *all* Sex Appeal rolls get the Appearance modifiers, while only *Influence Rolls specifically* against Diplomacy, Fast-Talk, Merchant, Politics, Public Speaking, Savoir-Faire, or Streetwise get the Appearance modifiers. Appearance mods have never been strictly about sexuality, otherwise there wouldn't be a bonus for people not attracted to the character's gender.

[Brandy]

I think the problem Icelander is describing can be at least partially resolved by concluding that Charisma is under-priced. I think so (and price it at 10 points/level in my games), and at least at one point in time many years ago, Kromm agreed.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

"Influence Rolls", p. 359, says "All your personal reaction modifiers (although the GM or the skill description may rule that some modifiers do not apply)" (emphasis mine). None of the Influence skills, except Intimidation, call out any non-applicability for Appearance, and the most obvious one to include it, Sex Appeal, doesn't list Appearance in its modifiers section. From that, I'd say that Appearance is supposed to apply by default to Influence rolls. Charisma is even more explicit: "Each level gives... +1 to Influence rolls" (p. B41).

Yeah, apparently I can't read today. That does leave some things like Voice, that specifically mention some influence skills, but not others.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Brandy

I think the problem Icelander is describing can be at least partially resolved by concluding that Charisma is under-priced. I think so (and price it at 10 points/level in my games), and at least at one point in time many years ago, Kromm agreed.

Well, yes, but the price of Charisma has not been doubled. "This would be a sensible way to interpret this rule if another rule were different" is a false-to-fact hypothetical.

[Jarreth]

I read the Appearance as being a specialized version of Charisma in that it's cheaper but more narrow than base Charisma.

I can only find Appearance adding to Reaction rolls, the Sex Appeal influence skill and the Intimidation skill in the rules.

Charisma adds it's level to all reaction rolls and influence skills.

[ravenfish]

If we're discussing cost, it might be noted that Reputation (Everyone, all the time) or Social Regard (Whatever) both cost only 5 points per level, while giving, in nearly all cases, +1 to reactions and therefore (per Basic p. 359) to influence rolls. If we want to argue that every social trait is underpriced, well, maybe there's an argument to be had, but cutting back the benefits of Appearance while leaving most other things alone seems odd.

I tend to agree with Icelander that the mention in Basic that Appearance boosts Sex Appeal skill is there so that it applies to all Sex Appeal based rolls (distractions in combat, relevant job rolls, whatever), rather than to deny its bonus to influence rolls (which, had it been intended, could easily have been stated outright). Quoting Latin is all very well, but GURPS rules have never been written to be parsed in a lawyerly fashion.

For what it's worth, the new Discworld RPG (powered by GURPS) takes Icelander's line rather than Mr. Stoddard's: "Influence skills have other uses, too – but for those, reaction modifiers add only where specifically noted. For example, Attractive appearance (+1 reactions) and Reputation -2 would give a net -1 to use Savoir-Faire (High Society) to mingle at a posh party, but not to a Savoir-Faire roll made to plan seating arrangements for a dinner" (p. 74). This is, strictly speaking, not cannon for mainline GURPS, but it gives some idea of what the author thought balanced and appropriate and, when the author is Phil Masters, this bears consideration.

[Jarreth]

Of course, Charisma has the limitation that it must be applied actively to gain reaction/Influence bonuses; you can only gain them if you can perceive how the audience is responding to you.

How would you apply that in game? Is it like a character won't get Charisma bonuses unless he acts/speaks while Appearance applies as long as you can be seen?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Forgive my saying this, but I think the lack of understanding is yours.

In the first place, Sex Appeal is explicitly called out as getting bonuses from Appearance, and double penalties from negative Appearance. There is no such modifier for Diplomacy, Fast-Talk, Merchant, Politics, Public Speaking, Savoir-Faire, or Streetwise. There is a modifier for Intimidation, but in the reverse direction. As the Roman saying has it, exceptio probat regulam de rebus non exceptis: The exception establishes the rule for things not excepted. If you state explicitly that A is modified by Appearance, you are implying that B, C, and D, for which you don't state this, are not modified by Appearance.

There is such a modifier for all Influence skills in general. Campaigns p. 359 states that all personal reaction modifiers apply to Influence rolls, unless specifically noted in the skill description as not applying or the GM decides that it would be inappropriate for a particular Influence roll.

I don't think there is any doubt Appearance gives a personal reaction modifier. And no Influence skill in Characters specifically excludes reaction modifiers from Appearance as applying to Influence rolls, except, as you note, Intimidation, which has negative Appearance providing a bonus instead.

The RAW was that Appearance bonuses, as with any other personal reaction modifiers, applied when using a skill as an Influence skill unless specifically excluded by the skill description or the GM. You changed this with Social Engineering.

[Jarreth]

On a related note. Would I break the social game completely if I removed the Margins of Success modifiers on the resist with Will roll?

Similar to combat. You score a hit but your opponent's defend roll is unmodified by your attack roll.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Jarreth

On a related note. Would I break the social game completely if I removed the Margins of Success modifiers on the resist with Will roll?

Similar to combat. You score a hit but your opponent's defend roll is unmodified by your attack roll.

It would in my games, for exactly the same reason as combat without Deceptive Attack would be broken. Anyone with Active Defences or Will of 12+ would be mostly safe from attacks/Influence, 14+ would be almost immune and 16+ need hardly bother rolling.

And there wouldn't be much functional difference in the ability to convince people to do something risky that went against their better natures (might be up to +10 to Will) between a legendary orator able to make statues cry with his Public Speaking skill 25 and a gorgeous milkmaid with a point in Sex Appeal. Both would usually make their own roll and convince the other party only if they rolled a 17-18.