Why A Party Face Is A Bad Idea

[Ulzgoroth]

Of course there's an 87 page SJG-published book, plus spin-offs, based mostly on the notion that you might actually want the social rules to have weight rather than being replaced willy nilly with GM fiat in any 'important' situation...

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Of course there's an 87 page SJG-published book, plus spin-offs, based mostly on the notion that you might actually want the social rules to have weight rather than being replaced willy nilly with GM fiat in any 'important' situation...

And interestingly, they mostly don't say "make a reaction roll." They call for skill rolls, appearance rolls, etc. . . . but do take the time to point out when reaction modifiers should and shouldn't apply, rather than "all the time."

[AlexanderHowl]

In the case of critical interactions with important NPCs, I tend to treat then as PCs, with the successful use of Influence skills inflicting a penalty on them rather than changing their opinions. Since reaction modifiers usually give a bonus to the use of Influence skills, this avoids the situation where social character find themselves completely useless.

For example, imagine a PC with SM+1, Will 20, Fearsome Stare, Tough Guy 4, Appearance (Hideous), Callous, and Intimidation-30. Without trying, they can easily intimidate a group of up to 30 people because of their size. Against an important NPC, they would instead using fear to inhibit their ability to fight, inflicting a penalty on their attack rolls against the PC equal to their margin of success, meaning that the important NPC would try another target or surrender.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Kromm

And interestingly, they mostly don't say "make a reaction roll." They call for skill rolls, appearance rolls, etc. . . . but do take the time to point out when reaction modifiers should and shouldn't apply, rather than "all the time."

Actually, a decent chunk of of it does say to make a reaction roll, and Influence skill rolls (as in Basic) are framed in terms of obtaining Reactions. (Also, I don't think appearance rolls are a thing? They're not in Social Engineering at any rate.)

The discussion of what modifiers should apply when is valuable, but the limitations pertaining to reaction modifiers on reaction rolls are mostly for when the 'target' wouldn't perceive the trait.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Central NPCs react as the story calls for them to react. You don't normally make reaction rolls for them unless their unpredictable reactions to others are a central feature of the adventure. If having +(lots) to reactions were effective on such NPCs, most adventures would turn into ". . . and then Ms. Talky shows up and we win." If that were intended, reaction bonuses would cost a lot more (probably 20 points/level) and be capped (probably at +5).

I'd also say that for almost any NPC, a good reaction roll is likely to mean "I'll support you up to the point where your agenda conflicts with my own."

[RedMattis]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Will 20, [...] Intimidation-30.

Having 20 in a skill basically makes you one of the best in the world.

I think you'll find GURPS performs better when numbers are kept roughly in the range of the 3d6. A skill of 30 mostly means you'll succeed with even nearly-impossible tasks (-10) automatically, and win most contests, and with an outrageously huge margin of success. But what succeeding with an intimidate roll my a margin of 20 means is very open to interpretation; it probably just mean you 'succeed about as well as well as could be realistically expected.

If you have a cinematic or supernatural character and want them to be able to terrify anyone I'd combine Intimidate-20 and the controllable version of Terror, or even something like Mind Control with a 'fear'-theme ("I can terrify my opponents so well that the weaker willed will perform my bidding against their interests!")

[RedMattis]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Well, no ruleset in the world can fix the problem of having a bad GM. Of course, you could still have a good GM who never makes use of reaction rolls, but rather incorporates the bonus into the reactions on his own. The beautiful socialite still has people reacting better toward her than the smelly minotaur, so the players are still getting the worth of their traits (at least roughly-speaking), even if not a single d6 is rolled during the interactions.

Personally I do roll sometimes for unexpected encounters, but even when it isn't unexpected I still keep a note with all my players reaction-relevant traits and 'tweak' my NPCs reactions based on them.

A lot of nobles had much more respect for the character in the party with blue blood. Though about 1/3 of the nobles were more focused on his negative reputation from his family's ill deeds, and tried to leverage it against him for favors, or otherwise treated him quite uncharitably.

The party had also recruited an NPC naga monster (social stigma - monster). Their method for safely moving her through cities was by falsely claiming that she was property being delivered and mostly hiding her in a tavern room while they were in the city.

In the end I think the important thing is to make sure the players feel their positive reaction modifiers mostly end up appropriately benefiting them, and the negative ones cause difficulties, or are a complete pain in the behind at the extreme negative end.

[Kromm]

FWIW, appearance rolls (as in, rolls against frequency of appearance) are the entirety of the thing in two of the spinoffs: Keeping in Contact and Pulling Rank.