Reaction Table House Rules

[vicky_molokh]

(Continued from previous post.)

Originally Posted by Sindri

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.

Yeah, that too.

Originally Posted by Sindri

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.

Oh well. I feel that Monstrous appearance should result in monstrous reactions with a higher frequency than in the 24-table.

Originally Posted by Sindri

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.

Different players with different tastes, I suppose. I'd rely on Luck for insurance unless Reaction Rolls are as common in social situations as combat rolls in combat.

Originally Posted by Sindri

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

And what about the target, can the target get Time Spent modifiers to resistance? Probably not, and this asymmetry bothers me a bit. (SE seems to handle slow approaches by multiple attempts, and by removing penalties for asking too much too soon.)

Originally Posted by Sindri

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.

Expansion of such a lifespan is good, agreed.

Originally Posted by Sindri

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.

Ah. I understood crock to mean something unfairly cheaper.

Originally Posted by Sindri

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.

I'll go quote Kromm, he seems to have made the point much more eloquently than I can:

Originally Posted by Kromm

Talent has three parts:

1. +1 per level with affected skills
2. +1 per level to reactions from those who see it in action
3. -10% per level to learning time for affected skills

The reaction bonus is there because the person with IQ 10 and Talent 1 is evidently not IQ 11, yet performs that well in his field . . . and learns faster. This makes him more obviously gifted in the specific area, and it's human nature to admire the gifted. Feel free to ignore the reaction modifier for nonhumans who have Meta-Game Vision and only see the numerical skill results ("An 11 is an 11."), never their context ("This person perks up and seems a lot smarter when doing Foo . . . we're in good hands.").

Also, if you really dislike reaction bonuses for Talent, there are options in GURPS Power-Ups 3: Talents for replacing them.

Originally Posted by Kromm

The reaction bonus for Talent is a straightforward case of trying to add another, more human dimension to skill space – it really is that simple. If you don't like it, don't use it . . . Power-Ups 3 offers dozens of alternatives! However, Fourth Edition intentionally sets out to differentiate "skill level x from lots of points in skill," "skill level x from a high controlling attribute," and "skill level x from being a natural at the specific realm of learning" by making the first most broadly useful by allowing you to float to different attributes with ease, the second cheapest for high-stats types who learn lots of unrelated skills, and the third most impressive in terms of flair – even if all three probabilities of success are the same in vanilla skill use.

I don't see this as being odd at all. We're already good with external bonuses working differently. The conditions on +1 from intrinsic Accuracy, +1 from a laser, and +1 from a targeting computer differ when shooting guns . . . so do those for +2 from good tools, +2 from extra time, and +2 from a couple of assistants making complementary skill rolls in the machine shop. The idea that internal skill increases must all be the same seems like the inconsistent thing to me.

Personally, I find it more interesting that IQ 8, Talent 4 guy is showier than IQ 12, Talent 2 guy, even if the second person succeeds more often; after all, the most popular scientists (or athletes, or musicians, or . . .) aren't always the best ones. The idea of what amounts to Appearance or Charisma modified with "Only when using my skill" seems to exist in real life. Talent seems like the most logical place to put it.

Originally Posted by Kromm

Please note the condition on the reaction bonus for Talent: "To receive this bonus, you must demonstrate your Talent – most often by using the affected skills." Until you've learned the skills, you won't get much use out of that facet of your Talent. Thus, learners aren't going to be getting reaction bonuses . . . those bonuses are not meant to be "My, but you learn fast!" but "My, but you do this with style!"

And yes, there is a difference between a high-skill showoff and a lower-skill person with Talent. The second person applies embellishments that the first wouldn't think of, because the first is well-trained in by-the-book methods, while the second finds much of his capability "outside the box." This is a big deal in dance, skating, etc., where there are different marks for technical and artistic competence. The best technical performers aren't the best artistic ones, and showing off by pushing your technical skills (say, adding an extra spin or flip) isn't the same as exhibiting musicality and flair. The champions tend to be good in both areas because they're singled out on the basis of the second for extra learning to acquire the first.

Note: no MIBs are gonna knock down your door if you still decide to do things your way. ^_^

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

If it's improvised, it no longer matches the canonical (technical) melody. You can be 0% good at improvisation and 0% good at tech, or 75%/25%, or 25%/75%, or 50%/50%, but you can't have fractions of X to add up more than X in such situations.
If you don't like music being used as an example, let's use films: a film can either be a precise adaptation of a book, or an innovative approach that improves on the plot and dialogue on the book, but it can't be both at 100% simultaneously.

I don't know if that's true. I've seen a couple of film versions of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, but the one I thought was truest to the novel was Bride and Prejudice, the Bollywood version. . . .

Bill Stoddard

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'll go quote Kromm, he seems to have made the point much more eloquently than I can:

Which is to say, thoroughly unconvincing? However, rules cruft around talents is probably out of scope for this thread.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

If it's improvised, it no longer matches the canonical (technical) melody. You can be 0% good at improvisation and 0% good at tech, or 75%/25%, or 25%/75%, or 50%/50%, but you can't have fractions of X to add up more than X in such situations.)

There's nothing I can really do here but disagree. Ability to replicate canonical music doesn't mean that someone is technically skilled unless the music in question is technically demanding and it should be rather obvious that people make new technically demanding music. Even the examples in the article don't bear out a Technician as being strictly good at replicating music.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

If you don't like music being used as an example, let's use films: a film can either be a precise adaptation of a book, or an innovative approach that improves on the plot and dialogue on the book, but it can't be both at 100% simultaneously.

Most parts of doing a precise adaptation don't require much technical skill and when we talk about a technically skilled filmmaker we aren't limiting ourselves to how faithfully he can adapt something.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

(Anybody speaking French nearby? How do I pluralise faux pas properly?)

Faux pas doesn't change spelling in the plural. In English we might say that he regularly commits faux pas.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Oh well. I feel that Monstrous appearance should result in monstrous reactions with a higher frequency than in the 24-table.

I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with it either. I did consider trying to do something much more ambitious with each Reaction Modifier separately being reacted to before trying to hammer the existing system into something I like better. I do think that it produces better results overall than the standard system.

If we are talking about Bond and the nosferatu trying to get into a club, I have received the impression that prospective entrants to a club are often purposely screened for Appearance so the nosferatu will have a harder time in this situation than in general.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Different players with different tastes, I suppose. I'd rely on Luck for insurance unless Reaction Rolls are as common in social situations as combat rolls in combat.

Luck isn't actual failure proofing though and using Luck means not having it available for a time.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

And what about the target, can the target get Time Spent modifiers to resistance? Probably not, and this asymmetry bothers me a bit. (SE seems to handle slow approaches by multiple attempts, and by removing penalties for asking too much too soon.)

Absolutely! It's far harder to persuade someone if they've brought their previous opinion into the front of their mind than if you catch them relatively off guard. That's why people are often uncomfortable exposing themselves to entertainment influenced by a rejected ideology.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Ah. I understood crock to mean something unfairly cheaper.

Well the GURPS rules do generally push back pretty strongly against there being methods of purchasing the same thing but more cheaply so it's not like it isn't a significant secondary meaning.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'll go quote Kromm, he seems to have made the point much more eloquently than I can:

I read that thread when it came out and it still isn't persuasive.

Plus mechanically the way Attributes, Talents and Skills are differentiated is such a pain. If you are buying a bunch of skills and not using time use rules Attributes are just the best choice but we don't just get a discount due to overlapping usefulness of skills we also get rare annoyances in an attempt to give people with Talents and Skills some token thing to be happy about. People just want to be able to get the skill levels they purchased, it's not fun to be incentivized to do something and then poked at enough to annoy but not enough to actually produce a balanced incentive structure.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

There's nothing I can really do here but disagree. [ . . . ]

Seems so.

Originally Posted by Sindri

I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with it either. I did consider trying to do something much more ambitious with each Reaction Modifier separately being reacted to before trying to hammer the existing system into something I like better. I do think that it produces better results overall than the standard system.

Each one separately? Indeed, sounds complicated, likely slow.

Originally Posted by Sindri

If we are talking about Bond and the nosferatu trying to get into a club, I have received the impression that prospective entrants to a club are often purposely screened for Appearance so the nosferatu will have a harder time in this situation than in general.

I wasn't thinking of being allowed into a club, but rather just a generic attempt to get past a long queue in case of Bond. And, since displaying a behaviour of an archetypical british butler, a case of a nosferatu trying to get an audience with some random oligarch by talking to the butler (the name was taken from Batman, though). Anyway, it was more to illustrate the relative indifference of people in the 24-table to monsters and charmers.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Luck isn't actual failure proofing though and using Luck means not having it available for a time.

Well, Luck is very much used for proofing against some failure. The chance of having two unlucky Reaction Rolls within one hour is much lower than the chance of having two critical failures in a single combat lasting no more than an hour.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Absolutely! It's far harder to persuade someone if they've brought their previous opinion into the front of their mind than if you catch them relatively off guard. That's why people are often uncomfortable exposing themselves to entertainment influenced by a rejected ideology.

I mean that the longer the persuader talks, the longer the target listens. They seem to both be getting extra time. (Conversely, allowing 'canned speeches' to enjoy extra time bonuses seems prone to all sorts of either (a) abuse or (b) arguments about who got more prepared and thus enjoys a bigger bonus.)

Originally Posted by Sindri

I read that thread when it came out and it still isn't persuasive.

Oh well, then I don't there's any point in trying to convince you. Okay, maybe there's a bit: do you find it reasonable that everyone in the campaign has the aforementioned meta-game-vision?

Originally Posted by Sindri

Plus mechanically the way Attributes, Talents and Skills are differentiated is such a pain. If you are buying a bunch of skills and not using time use rules Attributes are just the best choice but we don't just get a discount due to overlapping usefulness of skills we also get rare annoyances in an attempt to give people with Talents and Skills some token thing to be happy about. People just want to be able to get the skill levels they purchased, it's not fun to be incentivized to do something and then poked at enough to annoy but not enough to actually produce a balanced incentive structure.

Attributes are not the best choice because they mean you have Relative Skill Bonuses. Talents are not the best choice because they mean you have unimpressive cross-defaults for non-talented skills. Skills are not the best choice because they mean you throw lots of points to get a high basic roll value.

Personally, I find some of the Alternate Benefits very much a reason to take talents. Most notably, Allure (which is the same as the basic benefit), Empath, Circuit Sense, Close to Heaven/Earth, Craftiness, Cultural Chameleon (same as basic benefit), Hot Pilot, Parapsychologist, Psientist, Survivor, Super-Spy, Tough Guy, Truth-Seeker.
Now, some of the reaction bonuses are meh for the talent price, some are cool, much depends on the campaign.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Oh well, then I don't there's any point in trying to convince you. Okay, maybe there's a bit: do you find it reasonable that everyone in the campaign has the aforementioned meta-game-vision?

Meta-game vision is being affected by talents. You can't see that someone has a talent, you can see that someone is good at something, and that's represented by skill level.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Meta-game vision is being affected by talents. You can't see that someone has a talent, you can see that someone is good at something, and that's represented by skill level.

That's really not true. You can see that someone with a Talent learns a certain class of skills faster than normal. You can see that when they attempt a task using a skill they haven't studied, they do better at it than their overall competence would suggest. And given how people respond to incentives, you may see that they've learned a lot of skills in that one particular area, though that's not so strong an indicator.

Bill Stoddard

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Meta-game vision is being affected by talents. You can't see that someone has a talent, you can see that someone is good at something, and that's represented by skill level.

That's the other way around:
It is meta-game to know that you're being affected by a Reaction Modifier of a precise value. It is meta-game to be able to differentiate between being impressed by skill of a given level only, and being impressed by a Reaction Modifier that comes from demonstrating talent affecting said skill.

Look at how difficult it is to estimate numeric Charisma or Appearance levels in real life.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Meta-game vision is being affected by talents. You can't see that someone has a talent, you can see that someone is good at something, and that's represented by skill level.

Apparently you're supposed to be able to see the way in which someone is good at something.

Talent represents a flair'ish way of being good at something, whereas mere Attribute+Skill seems to be meant to represent a having-gotten-there-by-hard-work way of being good at something, which is somehow less awe-inspiring.

Which would make a lot more sense to me if the distinction was between lots of Talent and/or Attribute on one side, and lots of points-in-skill on the other side.

(I have a massive problem with Talents being more like character classes than they are like sub-Attribute, in case some of you haven't noticed. I also am nonhappy about Attributes being trainable.)

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

That's really not true. You can see that someone with a Talent learns a certain class of skills faster than normal. You can see that when they attempt a task using a skill they haven't studied, they do better at it than their overall competence would suggest.

If there was a reaction bonus for IQ or DX, this argument would be more persuasive.