01-21-2010, 07:41 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Influence Skills and Interrogation
Wonder if someone can help me out with this...
I'm relatively new to using actual systems for roleplay (my friends and I did more of a MUX-style "consent" system for years, though the GM had ultimate control, but we wanted to try something with an actual system). I get all the stuff in combat and such, and really most of the rest of the skill rolls, but I'm having a lot of trouble understanding reaction rolls, influence skills, and interrogation. Here's my main questions: 1. How do you actually use them? I get that you roll a reaction roll to see how an NPC you haven't "preset" reacts to PCs, and that you can use an influence skill to replace that (using a quick contest and getting a "Good" or "Bad" reaction depending on results). But...do I roll for every question, request, transaction, etc, a PC does? Or do I just roll at the start of the conversation and use that result for all the various categories? 2. Are there any things that influence skills should be allowed to do that reaction rolls are not allowed to do? Or are influence skills just "trained" ways of doing reaction rolls (which can, therefore, be made more reliable easier since they can be trained up and reaction rolls can't)? If you have an NPC using "preset" reactions, should you allow influence skills (after all, you're disallowing a reaction roll). 3. I'm not clear at all on how interrogation works, and how it relates to the influence skills and reaction rolls. I get that you roll for each question and that it takes 5 minutes (presumably summarized) per question, but I can't figure out why I'd want to use Interrogation instead of Diplomacy, Intimidation, or Fast Talk. If you can use Diplomacy/Intimidation/Fast Talk for a reaction roll, and a reaction roll can give you a good result on "Requests for Information," what's the difference between that and Interrogation? And do reaction roll modifiers apply to interrogation, or does it assume the guy doesn't like you to begin with, so those don't matter? Thanks very much if you can help clear this up for me. |
01-21-2010, 08:18 AM | #2 | |||
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Re: Influence Skills and Interrogation
Quote:
A Reaction roll is a randomised system for determining an NPC's general attitude to the PCs. The GM should use it at the start of the encounter - unless, as you observe, he has a plot-determined attitude for the characters to have as they go into the encounter - and use it to flavour their general responses to the PCs' words and actions. An Influence skill serves in one (or both) of two functions: First, it can alter the general Reaction (Diplomacy, in particular, is suited for this). So if the GM rolls a Hostile reaction upon meeting the PCs, they can bump that upwards with good roleplay and Diplomacy rolls. Second, it attempts to achieve a specific reaction-based goal. So a Merchant roll can affect the price of a transaction (or convince the NPC to make the transaction), a Sex-Appeal roll can persuade the NPC to go home with the PC, an Intimidation roll can convince the NPC that the PC is willing and able to beat him in a fight, Fast-Talk can cause the NPC to overlook an inconsistency in the PC's explanation as to why he's in an office building at night, etc. Quote:
The initial Reaction can make an Influence skill easier or harder to use, and advantages that affect Reaction can also (sometimes) affect Influence skills, but they work separately. An Influence skill isn't exactly a replacement Reaction roll. Quote:
|
|||
01-21-2010, 08:22 AM | #3 |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: Influence Skills and Interrogation
1. Start of the conversation and every time something happens that might cause a significant shift in attitudes. That is, if the character is asking for something above and beyond what the NPC in his current attitude would consider commonplace. This is a judgment call, I know, but a GM has to be able to make those in any system.*
2. Certainly. The GM is within his rights (and should, in my opinion) to state that given NPCs will never randomly roll better than a certain reaction and/or will not be prepared to do certain things regardless of how positively they react. Convincing them to do so might well be possible with an Influence roll, however, with them receiving hefty positive modifiers to their Will checks.** 3. Specific modifiers to the different Influence skills is an aspect that it touched upon rather nicely in GURPS Mysteries. Without specific supplements, more GM-discretion is called for, but let is suffice to say that the situational modifiers for Interrogation and for Fast-Talk, Carousing or Sex Appeal would be very different. What skill to use depends on the character's personality, the NPC's personality, the external circumstances and the goals being sought. A sternly authoritarian secret policeman might use the powers of his office to arrest many NPCs and place them in a position where he can use his Interrogation skill with hefty bonuses to obtain what knowledge they have. A more subtle character might prefer to use Carousing, Fast-Talk, Acting or Sex Appeal to steer the subject towards whatever he is interested in learning from the NPC. Some NPCs will be naturally resistant to one approach or another, some situations will lend themselves far better to either extreme and so on. *Any students of jurisprudence will recall the practical impossibility of making rules that cover all aspects of human behaviour without allowing for some leeway in interpretation and application. **Some NPCs, of course, will just be non-receptive to any form of persuasion, possibly because they are fanatics, robots or golems.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
01-21-2010, 08:34 AM | #4 |
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Re: Influence Skills and Interrogation
So what I'm gathering here is the following--just to make sure I'm getting it pretty right:
1. A reaction roll is used mostly for the "general reaction" set on the Reaction Chart. It shouldn't in general be used for the other columns, such as getting a great deal on a transaction, getting information the person doesn't want to give, requesting aid, etc. For those, an appropriate influence skill should be used. Basically, as you said, a character may like a PC, but may not be willing to assist him in any major way, and may need to be convinced by more dedicated means. So, in order to get information a character regards as "secret" or aid the character regards as "unusual" or "risky," or get a better deal on equipment, or some such, the PC needs to use an influence skill. 2. Interrogation is and isn't an influence skill, and to some degree assumes you've tried and failed at influence skills and need to do something heavier. I guess the main thing I'm not entirely clear on with Interrogation is how it really differs from Intimidation. Both of those seem to be all about getting what you want from someone who clearly doesn't want to give it to you. It's just that Interrogation takes longer and gets bonuses for torture and such...but then, Intimidation gets bonuses for feats of strength and such. And wouldn't using threats in Interrogation require Intimidation checks? |
01-21-2010, 08:45 AM | #5 | |||
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Yukon, OK
|
Re: Influence Skills and Interrogation
Quote:
I will tend to roll once for a reaction and then reroll only if its pushng the nevolope or something changes not each question. Quote:
Quote:
Attempts to influence are based a lot on circumstances. Diplomacy is a lot more civilized then interoogation and fast talk is more the quick overwhelm them with a hard sales pitch and get away befroe they realize what happened. The roll you use and many modifers are situation specific. An interrogation lets you be more aggressive then Diplomacy but since it is confrontational there is more bad reaction afterwards typically and epsecially if the interogation was unsuccessful. Savoir faire and Streetwise are more an in your element kind of thing and subtle but overall influences. Diplomacy is tailoring a friendly or appropriate approach to a specific situation and target and a failure rarely is very bad or worse then no attempt at all. Sex Appeal is another that is very situational and though it can be light flirty that works anywhere most often it adds risk too. |
|||
01-21-2010, 08:53 AM | #6 | ||
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: Influence Skills and Interrogation
Quote:
Quote:
Bill Stoddard |
||
01-21-2010, 08:57 AM | #7 | |
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Re: Influence Skills and Interrogation
Quote:
You don't strictly need Influence; if you have really good Reaction modifiers, NPCs will usually be keen to help out most of the time based on the initial roll, but there'll always be those situations where you get a bad Reaction roll or where, for plot reasons, the NPCs' reactions are more or less scripted, and then Influence skills help. Does that make sense? Last edited by davidtmoore; 01-21-2010 at 09:00 AM. |
|
01-21-2010, 09:11 AM | #8 | |
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Re: Influence Skills and Interrogation
Quote:
I'm not clear, though, on what you mean by "bump the reaction result up or down." I thought influence skills just replaced reaction results--are you saying that you move the result more fluidly, for instance, adding margin of victory or subtracting margin of defeat in the quick contest to the initial roll? |
|
01-21-2010, 09:28 AM | #9 | |
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Re: Influence Skills and Interrogation
Pretty much right, yep.
Quote:
I think that's how it works; as I say, it's been a long while since I read the reaction rules, as I tend to play much faster and looser than that with NPC reactions. |
|
01-21-2010, 09:33 AM | #10 |
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Re: Influence Skills and Interrogation
Hm...all right. That's an interesting way of doing things, whether it's straight rules or not, honestly. ^_^ Kind of nicer than a "straight replace" idea.
I think I'm generally clear on the reaction vs. influence question, then. I'm still kind of up in the air on Interrogation. It just seems like Interrogation is kind of just a combination in one roll of Diplomacy, Fast-Talk, and Intimidation that's only really usable if you've got the guy captive. Which is nice, on the one hand...but on the other, it seems like you could still use Intimidation, etc., even if you have a prisoner, right? And again, it kind of seems like you should still have to use Diplomacy to "buddy up" to the guy, Fast-Talk or Acting to "trick" him during interrogation, or Intimidation to make threats...so I'm not sure how kosher Interrogation is, given all that. Maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding that one? |
Tags |
gurps, influence skills, interrogation, reaction rolls |
|
|