Social Skill Questions, Reparcelling and Rebalancing

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Here are some rough sketches of ideas for techniques.

Lying: This technique improves your ability to pull off an isolated lie convincing someone you are saying what you think is true. It does not help convince someone that it is actually true.

Possibility A: I don't understand what exactly you mean.
Possibility B: this is munchkin bait, due to being a Technique of the core use of Fast-Talk/Acting; it's like having a Detect Lies Technique called Scepticism, which would 'reduce chance of being convinced by a lying target that the target believes the statement to be true'.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Multitasking: [Social skill use is differentiated most strongly from martial arts by it's time scale. In martial arts doing anything costs not doing lots of other things but when it comes to social matters you are much more able to handle multiple approaches at once. At a short enough time frame though juggling multiple social efforts starts to take a toll on each individual effort.] This is a penalty reduction Technique for making you more comfortable weaving between different social efforts.

Probably a -2 Average Technique, given the usual 'low-intensity' multitasking modifier.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Specific Role: [For people who like to stick to one archetype for cons or people who only care about increasing their ability to assume a persona.] This technique lets you specialize in assuming a specific kind of role.

A bit vague as of now. Might be anything from useless to overpowered, depending on how wide a role is and how often it can be used.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Eccentricity: This is a penalty reduction Technique to let you pass off behaviour that is unusual and perhaps a bit off-putting but not technically against etiquette in the strictest sense.

Kinda like that. Some sort of a Technique-ish analogue of Social Chameleon/Social Regard (Amusing)/Legal Immunity (Minor Social Infractions, Informal)/etc.
May be overpriced as a Technique, or not.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Provoking Rage: This technique makes you better at provoking someone to anger.

Probably OK.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Long Negotiation: [Long negotiations are more than just a string of Diplomacy rolls] This technique lets you become better at handling diplomacy at a more strategic level.

I have no idea how this is supposed to work game-mechanically.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Bad Boy Allure: [Someone can easily be good at a single flavour of Sex Appeal without much skill at any other flavours.] This technique makes you better at the specific style of Sex Appeal that is the allure of the bad boy.

If this approach is target-restricted, then it totally loses to Classic Features (Bad Boy). If it isn't target-restricted, then I don't know how it isn't a core use of the skill with a special effect (that is, assuming it's as versatile as the skill itself). Also may or may not step on Streetwise's toes depending on how exactly it is interpreted.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Dramatic Leadership: [Inspire loyalty is too broad, but a specific approach to inspiring loyalty is fine.] This technique lets you inspire loyalty through carefully chosen theatrics that build a legend around yourself in those that you lead.

Same issue again, as the one with a chosen role.

Originally Posted by Sindri

That's what "Fast-Talk is not limited to plausible claims" and "The victim of a plausible lie will go on believing it until given reason for doubt" are there to disprove.

Maybe. I'm not quite swayed, I believe both variants may be possible. Maybe I'll ask whswhs, maybe not.

Originally Posted by Sindri

What's awkward is that it doesn't qualify as well as other specialties. There's a line before which something shouldn't be a specialty of Savoir-Faire, like how Non-Formal Dojo isn't a good idea for a specialty even though technically someone could fail to demonstrate the etiquette necessary. At a certain point you are dealing with general social competence rather than specific knowledge of a form of conduct. Now I think Savoir-Faire (General Society) is on the other side of that line, but it's pretty close to it. It's also a less formal form of conduct than the other specialties.

What does formality have to do with it?
Half the do's and don't's of Savoir-Faire (Military) are unwritten, and probably something like 80%+ in most other specialities. Particularly in informal subcultures.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Is this not how Savoir-Faire is predominantly used in the real world though? To not screw up, to help smooth the way for other approaches and only occasionally to directly get something a PC would consider substantial?

Influence skills are not so much about 'do not screw up' (except maybe Diplomacy), and more about trying to get a result of some sort actively (at the cost of some risk).

Originally Posted by Sindri

I also don't think of it so much as a vulnerability of certain subgroups as a mode that can work or not in a situation. Savoir-Faire (High Society) has applicability beyond those immersed in high society.

Applicability to a social context is certainly a thing. But just how wide it should be is somewhat hard for me to estimate, with the Savoir-Faire (High Society) example being the primary puzzler, since it can be interpreted as any interaction of a high-Status individual with others (and I certainly don't want or believe such a wide interpretation).

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Possibility A: I don't understand what exactly you mean.
Possibility B: this is munchkin bait, due to being a Technique of the core use of Fast-Talk/Acting; it's like having a Detect Lies Technique called Scepticism, which would 'reduce chance of being convinced by a lying target that the target believes the statement to be true'.

The core of Fast-Talk is the ability to get people to do things. Being able to respond well when someone drops the civil pretence and hits you with a undeflectable direct question is good but I don't think it's too good.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

A bit vague as of now. Might be anything from useless to overpowered, depending on how wide a role is and how often it can be used.

Yeah I need to think about exactly how broad it should be. I'm thinking that it's reasonable for archetypes rather than specific roles which would make it usable on a regular basis but also mean that there are times when it's the wrong tool for the situation.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I have no idea how this is supposed to work game-mechanically.

Well I think you should be making a Diplomacy roll for handling your side's general strategy in an extended negotiation and this increases your skill when doing that.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

If this approach is target-restricted, then it totally loses to Classic Features (Bad Boy). If it isn't target-restricted, then I don't know how it isn't a core use of the skill with a special effect (that is, assuming it's as versatile as the skill itself). Also may or may not step on Streetwise's toes depending on how exactly it is interpreted.

How strongly are you using "target-restricted"? Because obviously it's an approach which will have variable efficacy depending on the target, but it's also supposed to be at least potentially usable on a wide variety of subjects. A player taking it is going to hope for it to be their standard operating procedure like someone taking Targeted Attack is going to hope to just use that all the time. Naturally sometimes they'll have to switch despite that. If social skills are to get techniques that are comparable to the best martial arts techniques then there needs to be techniques that people can hope will encompass their actual use of the core of the skill. I'm not really interested in coming up with techniques assuming things like Streetwise's bad boy allure per Social Engineering.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Same issue again, as the one with a chosen role.

How so? It's the dramatic legend building style of loyalty building as opposed to approaches like the quiet assured confidence and reliable competence style. It's also has trouble being useful when put on the spot.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

What does formality have to do with it?
Half the do's and don't's of Savoir-Faire (Military) are unwritten, and probably something like 80%+ in most other specialities. Particularly in informal subcultures.

Savoir-Faire has a tendency towards more formal forms of conduct. In combination with other stuff it contributes to awkwardness.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Influence skills are not so much about 'do not screw up' (except maybe Diplomacy), and more about trying to get a result of some sort actively (at the cost of some risk).

Yes, Influence skills in general are. That doesn't mean Savoir-Faire follows the general pattern.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Applicability to a social context is certainly a thing. But just how wide it should be is somewhat hard for me to estimate, with the Savoir-Faire (High Society) example being the primary puzzler, since it can be interpreted as any interaction of a high-Status individual with others (and I certainly don't want or believe such a wide interpretation).

The nature of the Savoir-Faire user doesn't really matter. You use a Savoir-Faire skill when the subjects are receptive to it's specialty which is fairly common with Savoir-Faire (High Society)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

The core of Fast-Talk is the ability to get people to do things. Being able to respond well when someone drops the civil pretence and hits you with a undeflectable direct question is good but I don't think it's too good.

Could can have more than one core in a skill, such as Sumo having Shoves, Slams and Grapples, neither of which may be legally improved as a Technique above base skill level (and doesn't have a legalisation in the form of Technique Mastery either).
You can have cases where you get a QC of Skill_including_Technique vs. Skill_including_Technique, like disarms and feints, or of skill_only vs. skill_only. Getting one against the other is broken.

Also, I still don't get when the proposed technique is and isn't applicable to lies.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Yeah I need to think about exactly how broad it should be. I'm thinking that it's reasonable for archetypes rather than specific roles which would make it usable on a regular basis but also mean that there are times when it's the wrong tool for the situation.

Well, they still probably should compare modifier-wise to Classic Features (which are pretty narrow in target selection, but bump a whole level of Appearance, and apply to all affected Influence Skills). But the 'archetype' thing runs the risk of becoming significantly >25% of uses of a skill throughout a campaign.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Well I think you should be making a Diplomacy roll for handling your side's general strategy in an extended negotiation and this increases your skill when doing that.

So basically a solution looking for a problem, i.e. a new Technique that requires adding a new mechanic in order to be useful.
Now, Predict Negotiation Outcome might be a Technique with a similar niche that already exists (but whose mechanic is exhausted by one sentence, essentially).

Originally Posted by Sindri

How strongly are you using "target-restricted"? Because obviously it's an approach which will have variable efficacy depending on the target, but it's also supposed to be at least potentially usable on a wide variety of subjects. A player taking it is going to hope for it to be their standard operating procedure like someone taking Targeted Attack is going to hope to just use that all the time. Naturally sometimes they'll have to switch despite that. If social skills are to get techniques that are comparable to the best martial arts techniques then there needs to be techniques that people can hope will encompass their actual use of the core of the skill. I'm not really interested in coming up with techniques assuming things like Streetwise's bad boy allure per Social Engineering.

By target-restricted, I generally ask whether it requires the target to have the Preferred Looks (Bad Boys) quirk in order to be applicable. If it requires it, then as a Technique it loses horribly to Classic Looks. If it can used against just anyone, it's overpowered. GURPS doesn't do half-point half-quirks, and I have no idea how else to figure whether a given subject of the wide variety is an eligible target or not for this Technique.

Originally Posted by Sindri

How so? It's the dramatic legend building style of loyalty building as opposed to approaches like the quiet assured confidence and reliable competence style. It's also has trouble being useful when put on the spot.

So what does it actually do? Provide a bonus to Cultivating a Persona? That might be reasonable.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Savoir-Faire has a tendency towards more formal forms of conduct. In combination with other stuff it contributes to awkwardness.

Yes, Influence skills in general are. That doesn't mean Savoir-Faire follows the general pattern.

Are there formal, enumerated rules of conduct in e.g. the goth subculture? Probably not in any form comparable to the military rules of conduct. But they're a subculture, and there are things that will get you praise or hate. Or, to go over canonically supported examples, (Spirits), (Rome), (Ludus), (Swagmen), (Gym), (Insert_Magical_Society_Name_Here), (Mystical World), (Merchant). Standards of conduct need not be formal/written - they can be stuff that nobody talks about openly, like in Sahud!

As for Savoir-Faire not following the general pattern . . . I think it sets the general pattern, along with the other five standard Influence Skills. (Conversely, Carousing is the odd man out and hanging on in the Oort cloud of Influence skills, as do Administration etc.)

Originally Posted by Sindri

The nature of the Savoir-Faire user doesn't really matter. You use a Savoir-Faire skill when the subjects are receptive to it's specialty which is fairly common with Savoir-Faire (High Society)

Well, I'm having a hard time figuring when are they receptive to it. Maybe when they're in the position of using Savoir-Faire (Servant)?

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Could can have more than one core in a skill, such as Sumo having Shoves, Slams and Grapples, neither of which may be legally improved as a Technique above base skill level (and doesn't have a legalisation in the form of Technique Mastery either).
You can have cases where you get a QC of Skill_including_Technique vs. Skill_including_Technique, like disarms and feints, or of skill_only vs. skill_only. Getting one against the other is broken.

A core can comprise multiple things. There being multiple cores is unnecessarily weird linguistically. I don't think just lying is close enough to Fast-Talk's core to bar it from being a technique.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Also, I still don't get when the proposed technique is and isn't applicable to lies.

It helps you against people's ability to realize that you are lying and that's it.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, they still probably should compare modifier-wise to Classic Features (which are pretty narrow in target selection, but bump a whole level of Appearance, and apply to all affected Influence Skills). But the 'archetype' thing runs the risk of becoming significantly >25% of uses of a skill throughout a campaign.

Well yeah. That's the point. If it isn't threatening to go significantly >25% of uses of a skill when combined with significant effort on the part of the character to approach things whenever they can with their favourite tool it isn't an A tier technique. Absent efforts to maximize the times when it can be used it's significantly below 25% of uses of a skill throughout a campaign.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

So basically a solution looking for a problem, i.e. a new Technique that requires adding a new mechanic in order to be useful.
Now, Predict Negotiation Outcome might be a Technique with a similar niche that already exists (but whose mechanic is exhausted by one sentence, essentially).

I didn't say that I thought you should be making a Diplomacy roll for handling your side's general strategy in an extended negotiation if the technique exists. I think it should be done either way. There's a lot more to negotiations than winning a bunch of small victories independently.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

By target-restricted, I generally ask whether it requires the target to have the Preferred Looks (Bad Boys) quirk in order to be applicable. If it requires it, then as a Technique it loses horribly to Classic Looks. If it can used against just anyone, it's overpowered. GURPS doesn't do half-point half-quirks, and I have no idea how else to figure whether a given subject of the wide variety is an eligible target or not for this Technique.

Well of course it doesn't require Preferred Looks (Bad Boys). That's a very high degree of preference. If every flavour of Sex Appeal required it's appropriate Preferred Looks in the subject it would be egregiously terrible even if the culture actually had classical looks for each flavour. It's not a subject limited technique it's an approach limited technique. The basic assumption is that it works on everyone. Like practically all social approaches there are going to be people with less susceptibility due to complex interactions with stuff like mental disadvantages.

If you can you'll presumably pick up Classic Features but either way it isn't obviously uncompetitive if you have Influence skills modifying reactions with granularity.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

So what does it actually do? Provide a bonus to Cultivating a Persona? That might be reasonable.

It applies whenever you're messing with the loyalty of your group through it's approach.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Are there formal, enumerated rules of conduct in e.g. the goth subculture? Probably not in any form comparable to the military rules of conduct. But they're a subculture, and there are things that will get you praise or hate. Or, to go over canonically supported examples, (Spirits), (Rome), (Ludus), (Swagmen), (Gym), (Insert_Magical_Society_Name_Here), (Mystical World), (Merchant). Standards of conduct need not be formal/written - they can be stuff that nobody talks about openly, like in Sahud!

Savoir-Faire is not "the subculture influence skill". It's the skill for following forms of conduct. By the way where on earth did Savoir-Faire (Gym) appear?

There's a tendency to automatically conflate formal and written but it's sometimes deceptive.

Aside from both of those you're blowing my comments about awkwardness and a tendency towards formality way out of proportion. I am not making the strong statement you appear to be assuming I am.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

As for Savoir-Faire not following the general pattern . . . I think it sets the general pattern, along with the other five standard Influence Skills. (Conversely, Carousing is the odd man out and hanging on in the Oort cloud of Influence skills, as do Administration etc.)

It would, if the other standard Influence skills didn't set a pattern that's significantly different from it.

Carousing... Needs seeing to.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, I'm having a hard time figuring when are they receptive to it. Maybe when they're in the position of using Savoir-Faire (Servant)?

If they are in a position of using Savoir-Faire (Servant) then yes. Unless another Savoir-Faire specialty has it's own attached Servant specialty interacting with the sort of servants who have Savoir-Faire training should normally be using Savoir-Faire (High Society). If the subject is high society than you can generally use Savoir-Faire (High Society) on them. If they are in a high society atmosphere most people will be receptive to Savoir-Faire (High Society). Frequently it's at least an option if they are engaging in activities with somewhat more archaic or formal forms of behaviour since the conduct of general society tends to emulate high society most strongly then.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

A core can comprise multiple things. There being multiple cores is unnecessarily weird linguistically. I don't think just lying is close enough to Fast-Talk's core to bar it from being a technique.

I'm typing this on a computer whose processor has 8 cores. And if we go into the etymology of the word, i.e. 'core = heart', then an earthworm has five hearts too . . .

Originally Posted by Sindri

It helps you against people's ability to realize that you are lying and that's it.

That's not 'it'. That effectively a Technique [1/level] whose each level fully negates a Skill [4/level]. That's broken.
(A similar example would be a Spot Lies technique for Body Language or Detect Lies.)

Originally Posted by Sindri

Well yeah. That's the point. If it isn't threatening to go significantly >25% of uses of a skill when combined with significant effort on the part of the character to approach things whenever they can with their favourite tool it isn't an A tier technique. Absent efforts to maximize the times when it can be used it's significantly below 25% of uses of a skill throughout a campaign.

I feel it should be somewhere in the 20-25% range. GURPS already assumes that PCs will always play to their strengths.
Even so, looking at Targeted Attack, you still get many cases where it isn't the end-all-be-all of your combat, since you need stuff like Parry, Resist/Perform Feints, resist Disarms etc., even assuming you only strike with one type of strike (which is also prone to improving enemy defence if you overuse it).
Basically, a Technique should allow a character to shine in a reasonably-sized niche within a skill, not engulf/replace the skill entirely. GURPS already suffers from an all-or-nothing approach to a Technique (i.e. either you max it when you can, or you leave it alone).

Originally Posted by Sindri

I didn't say that I thought you should be making a Diplomacy roll for handling your side's general strategy in an extended negotiation if the technique exists. I think it should be done either way. There's a lot more to negotiations than winning a bunch of small victories independently.

Well, I suppose it might be fine in a fully reworked and established ruleset. But right now I see it as all fuzzy-cloudy-undefined as a Technique. (I also get the 'social tactical combat with social hit points' vibe for some reason; I'm not saying that you intended to give such an impression.)

Originally Posted by Sindri

Well of course it doesn't require Preferred Looks (Bad Boys). That's a very high degree of preference. If every flavour of Sex Appeal required it's appropriate Preferred Looks in the subject it would be egregiously terrible even if the culture actually had classical looks for each flavour. It's not a subject limited technique it's an approach limited technique. The basic assumption is that it works on everyone. Like practically all social approaches there are going to be people with less susceptibility due to complex interactions with stuff like mental disadvantages.

So how does one figure what makes the target in/eligible? Sure, intolerances would rule it out, Honesty might rule it out . . . or it might have the opposite, forbidden-fruit effect, particularly if the flavour comes without actual criminal stuff 'attached'.
I'm trying to understand the game-mechanical side of things, and whether the new trait is okay, overpowered, or underpowered.

Originally Posted by Sindri

If you can you'll presumably pick up Classic Features but either way it isn't obviously uncompetitive if you have Influence skills modifying reactions with granularity.

The thing with Classic Features is that for [1] they provide a whole level of Appearance, without adding the risk of failure. Influence Skills can make things worse, and a Technique is [1] per flat +1 at best. With a wider application than with Classic Features, yes, it starts looking attractive.

Originally Posted by Sindri

It applies whenever you're messing with the loyalty of your group through it's approach.

So basically inspire loyalty except when going in with the group?

Originally Posted by Sindri

Savoir-Faire is not "the subculture influence skill". It's the skill for following forms of conduct. By the way where on earth did Savoir-Faire (Gym) appear?

Yes it is:

Originally Posted by B218

You may also substitute an
Influence roll against Savoir-Faire for
any reaction roll required in a social
situation involving that subculture;
see Influence Rolls (p. 359).

It is just weird to separate the knowledge of formally written rules from the rest of the subculture-influencing skill, since the written and the unwritten often go not hand in hand, but in an outright hug.
Savoir-Faire (Gym) is found in Martial Arts, maybe elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Sindri

There's a tendency to automatically conflate formal and written but it's sometimes deceptive.

Aside from both of those you're blowing my comments about awkwardness and a tendency towards formality way out of proportion. I am not making the strong statement you appear to be assuming I am.

I had a suspicion I'm not understanding or misunderstanding pretty early.

Originally Posted by Sindri

It would, if the other standard Influence skills didn't set a pattern that's significantly different from it.

Two other of the Standard Six have the same pattern about being target-restricted: Sex Appeal only against those attracted to your body, and Streetwise only against street-related people.
I'm getting the impression that you made a decision to set Savoir-Faire apart from others without any basis for it in your text, and using your treatment of it as an argument (like in the case about not being a subculture-influence skill).

Originally Posted by Sindri

Carousing... Needs seeing to.

Anything specific that interests you / you have in mind?

Originally Posted by Sindri

If they are in a position of using Savoir-Faire (Servant) then yes. Unless another Savoir-Faire specialty has it's own attached Servant specialty interacting with the sort of servants who have Savoir-Faire training should normally be using Savoir-Faire (High Society). If the subject is high society than you can generally use Savoir-Faire (High Society) on them. If they are in a high society atmosphere most people will be receptive to Savoir-Faire (High Society). Frequently it's at least an option if they are engaging in activities with somewhat more archaic or formal forms of behaviour since the conduct of general society tends to emulate high society most strongly then.

Hmm. And now I think about high society that is not conservative. E.g. young men and women who made big bucks on inventions or Internet businesses, got up several levels of Status, but are very firmly in the innovative and radical camp. Or the Nouveau riche people all over time and space, as opposed to the old money people.

[vicky_molokh]

Also, here are some comments on why 'Savoir-Faire != etiquette' by the Line Editor and the Social Engineer of GURPS:

Originally Posted by Kromm

In English, "savoir-faire" is synonymous with "grace," "social skill," and "tact" (I checked three dictionaries), regardless of what it means in French. A decent translation of the French "savoir-faire" into English would indeed be "know-how." A working translation of the English "savoir-faire" into French would be "comportement en société," however, and not "savoir-faire" at all.
[...]

Originally Posted by whswhs

[...]
"savoir-faire" and "etiquette" do not mean the same thing to an English speaker. Etiquette is a body of rules that you can be trained to follow. Savoir-faire is more intuitive and has to do more with conducting yourself appropriately in situations that the rules don't cover. Etiquette enables you to be CORRECT, but savoir-faire enables you to be GRACEFUL.

And of some use to things that are indirectly relevant for using Streetwise in a seduction, Savoir-Faire in informal applications, Intimidation to gain respect instead of fear etc.:

Originally Posted by Kromm

Some people are missing what Intimidation actually does, which is not "scare people off," any more than Sex Appeal causes "have sex" or Savoir-Faire (Police) leads to "deputize." The goal of all Influence skills is to evoke emotions which may well be existing and natural ones – admiration, fear, lust, pity, respect, etc. – that can be channeled to serve the manipulator's goals. What matters for any of these skills is not the emotion it plays on, which could be any of them, but the means used to do the playing. Sex Appeal uses sexiness, Savoir-Faire (Police) uses professional solidarity, and Intimidation uses violence or its threat . . . but any of those tools might evoke and shape any of fear, pity, respect, or a hundred other emotions. Naturally, there are propensities, and moving away from these gives penalties, but that's as strong as the links between means, emotions, and goals get.
[...]
Thus, when tough guys who don't fear violence face Intimidation, they might not flee in terror . . . but they absolutely can be played. The player in this case might evoke respect for himself as a fellow tough guy, a sneering concession to him as a lousy cop, or even macho lust for her as a badmouthing-but-sexy girl. Intimidation is the skill of producing these outcomes, which isn't a natural ability of those who happen to be scary "just because," and which isn't automatically resisted by those who are tough "just because."

[jSarek]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Hmm. And now I think about high society that is not conservative. E.g. young men and women who made big bucks on inventions or Internet businesses, got up several levels of Status, but are very firmly in the innovative and radical camp. Or the Nouveau riche people all over time and space, as opposed to the old money people.

I would argue that a defining characteristic of these folks is that they DON'T have Savoir Faire (High Society). Granted, there are old money folks who look down their noses at anyone new to the fold regardless of how well they fit in, but I think most are displeased by the failure of the newly wealthy to adhere to longstanding high society norms and behaviors rather than their mere existence.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm typing this on a computer whose processor has 8 cores. And if we go into the etymology of the word, i.e. 'core = heart', then an earthworm has five hearts too . . .

I did say weird instead of wrong.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

That's not 'it'. That effectively a Technique [1/level] whose each level fully negates a Skill [4/level]. That's broken.
(A similar example would be a Spot Lies technique for Body Language or Detect Lies.)

Spot Lies would constitute all the stuff of Detect Lies whereas Lying is a technique reasonable fraction of Fast-Talk. This isn't broken, it's illuminating already broken stuff.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I feel it should be somewhere in the 20-25% range. GURPS already assumes that PCs will always play to their strengths.
Even so, looking at Targeted Attack, you still get many cases where it isn't the end-all-be-all of your combat, since you need stuff like Parry, Resist/Perform Feints, resist Disarms etc., even assuming you only strike with one type of strike (which is also prone to improving enemy defence if you overuse it).
Basically, a Technique should allow a character to shine in a reasonably-sized niche within a skill, not engulf/replace the skill entirely. GURPS already suffers from an all-or-nothing approach to a Technique (i.e. either you max it when you can, or you leave it alone).

Attacking and defending each basically take up half of the utility of a combat skill. the other stuff is fairly minimal. You can easily find examples here on the forum of people whose games have devolved such that Targeted Attack is covering the full halfish of attacking. Now that's not a good outcome, you want balancing forces. However a technique that can in theory do that makes for a technique that's really inspirational for players. It provides an implicit plan like "I'm just going to stab people in the eye all day" that results in much more noticeable differentiation than "well I'm better under this circumstance if it comes up". Also it's necessary for techniques to have the same range of power for social skills as combat skills otherwise you end up softly privileging martial artists over social engineers.

I see that in theory the GURPS all-or-nothing approach to techniques is suboptimal though it doesn't seem terribly high priority to me. However it would be pretty hard to avoid especially in a highly skill competitive part of the system like combat skills. In other skills if the range is large enough someone might eventually decide that they had enough skill in that instance to be reliable. For highly competitive skills I guess techniques would need to change their pricing per effect to necessitate rethinking.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, I suppose it might be fine in a fully reworked and established ruleset. But right now I see it as all fuzzy-cloudy-undefined as a Technique. (I also get the 'social tactical combat with social hit points' vibe for some reason; I'm not saying that you intended to give such an impression.)

I don't really see the fuzziness. You should make x roll. Here's a technique to let you specialize in that. Mechanically if nothing else you can have a roll for strategy give bonuses or penalties to everyone's individual rolls.

In a sense it doesn't really belong, it's not that strong of a technique. However I thought of it while coming up with stuff and I figured I'd toss it in. It was inspired by my side winning a mock negotiation in which we lost most individual battles but exhausted the other side's influence among the swayable parties and won a few key things that made their victories mostly irrelevant.

I'm curious, what's triggering the 'social tactical combat with social hit points' vibe?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

So how does one figure what makes the target in/eligible? Sure, intolerances would rule it out, Honesty might rule it out . . . or it might have the opposite, forbidden-fruit effect, particularly if the flavour comes without actual criminal stuff 'attached'.
I'm trying to understand the game-mechanical side of things, and whether the new trait is okay, overpowered, or underpowered.

The thing is that the social mechanics for GURPS currently don't "just work" in the way that the combat mechanics do. If you want a high detail martial arts campaign you tell Martial Arts that and it gives it to you. If you want to run a high detail social campaign you have to keep an eye on how the nature of the user, approach being used and subject interact and give bonuses or penalties. People can't be allowed to just use Sex Appeal, they need to pick specific approaches which will be of varying usefulness for the specific goal under the specific situation. Social Engineering helps but it leaves a lot of stuff to the hands of an intelligent operator. So I could come up with scenarios (and I will if they would be really useful) but that's all it will be, scenarios. GURPS doesn't currently have a sufficiently powerful preference engine for me to just tell you everything that makes someone ineligible.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

So basically inspire loyalty except when going in with the group?

Basically flavoured inspire loyalty. Where the flavour makes it difficult to actively use it (as opposed to passively benefiting from previous uses) in a pinch.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Yes it is:

"that subculture" does not mean that Savoir-Faire is the influence skill "for dealing with subcultures". A Savoir-Faire specialty will set a group apart as a subculture but that doesn't mean being a subculture carries a corresponding Savoir-Faire specialty. See Social Engineering pg. 30 "a particular subculture with specialized standards of proper conduct" emphasis added. Nor is it a priori a skill that applies to members of that subculture. It's a mode of behaviour. Now almost always members of the subculture will be receptive to that behaviour but in the right circumstance someone might react badly to be approached via subculture channels.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I had a suspicion I'm not understanding or misunderstanding pretty early.

When I said it was awkward that didn't mean "... so we shouldn't do it". It mean that we probably should do it but it doesn't feel perfectly in place, oh well.

Savoir-Faire has a tendency to care about details. Much of the skills aren't officially set out anywhere and thus aren't written but to a large extent they focus not on informal standards of behaviour like being nice and paying attention to people but formal signals that can be done wrong even if nothing bad was intended by it and the subject wouldn't actually care about the actual behaviour constituting the signal. This isn't iron-clad or a primary means of identifying Savoir-Faire skills but it is a tendency which, in combination to other things, helps making a specialty feel awkward.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Two other of the Standard Six have the same pattern about being target-restricted: Sex Appeal only against those attracted to your body, and Streetwise only against street-related people.

The general pattern being discussed is the balance between active use and not screwing up.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Anything specific that interests you / you have in mind?

It's ridiculous to bind together the socializing and partying skill and the drinking skill. I'm not sure what to make of it's relationship to Savoir-Faire either.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Hmm. And now I think about high society that is not conservative. E.g. young men and women who made big bucks on inventions or Internet businesses, got up several levels of Status, but are very firmly in the innovative and radical camp. Or the Nouveau riche people all over time and space, as opposed to the old money people.

These people are mostly characterized by not having Savoir-Faire (High Society) rather than developing a parallel specialty. Whether due to rejecting it or never picking it up. Of course in truth some of them actually do have it. Savoir-Faire (High Society) is glamourous and you can go to a party, shift into high society mode for fun and then go back home and be as radical as ever. Plus people who work in innovative internet businesses often have old fashioned hobbies such as sword fighting as a way to relax. The nouveau riche on the other hand contain people who are culturally old money who are just lacking the proper pedigree.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Spot Lies would constitute all the stuff of Detect Lies whereas Lying is a technique reasonable fraction of Fast-Talk. This isn't broken, it's illuminating already broken stuff.

What already broken is it illuminating? The fact that there is no skill whose sole purpose is lying? I'm not sure we need to totally divorce lying from Acting and Fast-Talk.

Currently, there's balance between the skills:
There's Fast-Talk and Acting, which can be rolled to lie,
there's Detect Lies and Body Language, both of which can be used to spot lies (but the latter requires visual contact);
the appropriate skill from the first pair is pitted against the appropriate skill from the other.
Adding a technique to the first pair will skew the balance.
Even doing something like adding a 'Face-to-Face' Technique to Detect Lies wouldn't fully restore the lost balance.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Attacking and defending each basically take up half of the utility of a combat skill. the other stuff is fairly minimal. [ cut to fit into the character limit ]

You're spot on that I don't like the idea of combats degenerating to Targeted Attack used again and again and again, all the time, never stop. After more than a year of playing a social character, my social scenes do in fact tend towards having Elicitation as the opener, no matter what. Whatever happens, try to gather info first, and so use your Diplomacy+4 Elicitation (not +5 because I had non-Influence priorities almost all the time).
Yes, I want variety.

Originally Posted by Sindri

I see that in theory the GURPS all-or-nothing approach to techniques is suboptimal though it doesn't seem terribly high priority to me. However it would be pretty hard to avoid especially in a highly skill competitive part of the system like combat skills. In other skills if the range is large enough someone might eventually decide that they had enough skill in that instance to be reliable. For highly competitive skills I guess techniques would need to change their pricing per effect to necessitate rethinking.

Yeah, the high price of Techniques to Skills and Skills to Attributes is a significant factor in current reluctance to specialise narrowly in anything that isn't borderline munchkin bait.

Originally Posted by Sindri

I don't really see the fuzziness. You should make x roll. Here's a technique to let you specialize in that. Mechanically if nothing else you can have a roll for strategy give bonuses or penalties to everyone's individual rolls.

The fuzziness is (I'm saying this by memory) because I'm not sure whether a given technique (the x roll) applies or not (in which case a y roll occurs). Classes of Reaction Rolls are easy. Applicability of specific Influence Skills are somewhat harder. How big a penalty for the inappropriate ones in a given situation is even harder than that. Which of the approaches is or isn't appropriate is about as hard or harder than the latter.

Originally Posted by Sindri

In a sense it doesn't really belong, it's not that strong of a technique. However I thought of it while coming up with stuff and I figured I'd toss it in. It was inspired by my side winning a mock negotiation in which we lost most individual battles but exhausted the other side's influence among the swayable parties and won a few key things that made their victories mostly irrelevant.

Hmm. 'Strategic Negotiation' being the Technique of using Diplomacy as a Complimentary Skill to other social skills, and to Reaction Rolls too (like some other skills can). Maybe like that.

Originally Posted by Sindri

I'm curious, what's triggering the 'social tactical combat with social hit points' vibe?

Hard to put a finger on it. Potential addition of new rolls. Of resolving a single reaction/influence with a multitude of rolls, potentially with some tracking of accumulated successes. That's how it feels.

Originally Posted by Sindri

The thing is that the social mechanics for GURPS currently don't "just work" in the way that the combat mechanics do. If you want a high detail martial arts campaign you tell Martial Arts that and it gives it to you. If you want to run a high detail social campaign you have to keep an eye on how the nature of the user, approach being used and subject interact and give bonuses or penalties. People can't be allowed to just use Sex Appeal, they need to pick specific approaches which will be of varying usefulness for the specific goal under the specific situation. Social Engineering helps but it leaves a lot of stuff to the hands of an intelligent operator. So I could come up with scenarios (and I will if they would be really useful) but that's all it will be, scenarios. GURPS doesn't currently have a sufficiently powerful preference engine for me to just tell you everything that makes someone ineligible.

It's a matter of picking a level of detail, I guess.
Some would see choosing approaches of Sex Appeal as a natural part of social situations. Others would sweep it under the carpet just like Martial Arts sweeps all the differences between various Exotic Hand Strikes under the carpet.
SE is certainly not as step-by-step-turn-by-turn as MA. That's working as intended - in fact, it has been explicitly mentioned that social encounters are not supposed to be just yet another form of basic combat with HP renamed into influence resistance points or whatever.
On the other hand, it's cool to have some way of adding mechanics for such details as approaches.

As of now, I've been both playing and GMing approach choices in a very descriptive manner, with little to no rationally expressed mechanics. I don't feel happy about it, because it has produced a fair share of misunderstandings, where e.g. a player sees a situation as borderline-hopeless while the GM sees the PC as largely on the very right track.

Originally Posted by Sindri

"that subculture" does not mean that Savoir-Faire is the influence skill "for dealing with subcultures". A Savoir-Faire specialty will set a group apart as a subculture but that doesn't mean being a subculture carries a corresponding Savoir-Faire specialty. See Social Engineering pg. 30 "a particular subculture with specialized standards of proper conduct" emphasis added. Nor is it a priori a skill that applies to members of that subculture. It's a mode of behaviour. Now almost always members of the subculture will be receptive to that behaviour but in the right circumstance someone might react badly to be approached via subculture channels.

'With specialised standards of proper conduct' does not mean that those standards have to be formal like the formal half of military conduct. In fact, in the post above with explanations of the skill name, I showed that Savoir-Faire isn't just about knowing the text of the book of etiquette by heart. It's also about being able to gracefully handle the intuitive parts of a given subculture.

Sure, there are 'subcultures' (I'm not inclined to use this word seriously against them) who lack any sort of do's and don't's, e.g. people with a driving license.

But yes, context of the situation can make a given specialisation applicable or not.

Originally Posted by Sindri

When I said it was awkward that didn't mean "... so we shouldn't do it". It mean that we probably should do it but it doesn't feel perfectly in place, oh well.

Okay, I think I get that one, finally.

Originally Posted by Sindri

The general pattern being discussed is the balance between active use and not screwing up.

The general pattern seems to be that Influence Skill is primarily used to Influence, i.e. actively get some desired reaction. As said before, some non-Influence skills can still be used for Influence Rolls, but that's the exception, not the rule.

Originally Posted by Sindri

It's ridiculous to bind together the socializing and partying skill and the drinking skill. I'm not sure what to make of it's relationship to Savoir-Faire either.

Agreed on the drinking aspect - it breaks down for [sub]cultures where carousing is done totally sober. What about its relationship to Savoir-Faire?

Originally Posted by Sindri

These people are mostly characterized by not having Savoir-Faire (High Society) rather than developing a parallel specialty. Whether due to rejecting it or never picking it up. Of course in truth some of them actually do have it. Savoir-Faire (High Society) is glamourous and you can go to a party, shift into high society mode for fun and then go back home and be as radical as ever. Plus people who work in innovative internet businesses often have old fashioned hobbies such as sword fighting as a way to relax. The nouveau riche on the other hand contain people who are culturally old money who are just lacking the proper pedigree.

That seems a bit circular: 'they are not in possession of Savoir-Faire because it has to be conservative/rigid/formal'. But if the subculture of yuppies or whatever you call them has few to no formal rules, that seems to make Savoir-Faire all the more appropriate:

Originally Posted by whswhs

Etiquette is a body of rules that you can be trained to follow. Savoir-faire is more intuitive and has to do more with conducting yourself appropriately in situations that the rules don't cover. Etiquette enables you to be CORRECT, but savoir-faire enables you to be GRACEFUL.

[Sindri]

I like the Variant Costs of Rank rules from Social Engineering. I'm considering some tweaks though.

First of all, I'm not sure why Dominance or Uniqueness changes the cost. The organization can do whatever it can do. Does it really matter if the society is organized such that it has a parallel organization that does the same sort of thing?

Social Engineering also states that every form of rank must include Nominal Hierarchical Position With Title. I don't see any reason for this to be the case though. It's useful to be able to represent people with defacto power beyond their official rank.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

What already broken is it illuminating? The fact that there is no skill whose sole purpose is lying? I'm not sure we need to totally divorce lying from Acting and Fast-Talk.

That Fast-Talk is covering substantially more stuff than Detect Lies.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

You're spot on that I don't like the idea of combats degenerating to Targeted Attack used again and again and again, all the time, never stop. After more than a year of playing a social character, my social scenes do in fact tend towards having Elicitation as the opener, no matter what. Whatever happens, try to gather info first, and so use your Diplomacy+4 Elicitation (not +5 because I had non-Influence priorities almost all the time).
Yes, I want variety.

Nobody does want degeneration, except possibly the guy stabbing people in the eye. However it's better to achieve variety the way Targeted Attack does, through different circumstances and the possibility of people becoming aware of your methods, instead of not giving the option to specialize in things that have the possibility of degenerating.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Yeah, the high price of Techniques to Skills and Skills to Attributes is a significant factor in current reluctance to specialise narrowly in anything that isn't borderline munchkin bait.

Well that's really a different matter. As long as pricing is constant and competition is strong enough that you never really get to a "good enough" point the same thought process applies to any level of investment. If it was worth one level then it's also worth another level and so forth until you hit the cap. If it's not worth buying to the cap then it's also not worth buying one less than the cap and so forth until you aren't buying any levels at all. So you either buy all or none. This is true regardless of how the pricing compares between techniques and skills.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Hmm. 'Strategic Negotiation' being the Technique of using Diplomacy as a Complimentary Skill to other social skills, and to Reaction Rolls too (like some other skills can). Maybe like that.

That sounds like pretty much what I had in mind.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Hard to put a finger on it. Potential addition of new rolls. Of resolving a single reaction/influence with a multitude of rolls, potentially with some tracking of accumulated successes. That's how it feels.

That feels like a different sort of thing than the "I parry your wit with my disdain!" thing I associate with social combat.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

It's a matter of picking a level of detail, I guess.
Some would see choosing approaches of Sex Appeal as a natural part of social situations. Others would sweep it under the carpet just like Martial Arts sweeps all the differences between various Exotic Hand Strikes under the carpet.

Oh absolutely. Just like you can run a game with or without martial arts styles or high detail firearms. However if you are running a game where social interaction is important, common and delved into a high detail it's a bad idea to just sweep approaches under the carpet. Choosing approaches isn't like different kinds of Exotic Hand Strikes, it's at least as high level as the difference between swinging and thrusting.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

SE is certainly not as step-by-step-turn-by-turn as MA. That's working as intended - in fact, it has been explicitly mentioned that social encounters are not supposed to be just yet another form of basic combat with HP renamed into influence resistance points or whatever.
On the other hand, it's cool to have some way of adding mechanics for such details as approaches.

Handling social interaction in a step-by-step fashion and social combat with people doing social damage until they beat the other guy at which point he is convinced aren't the same thing. Social combat was rejected because of the abstraction not the scale.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

As of now, I've been both playing and GMing approach choices in a very descriptive manner, with little to no rationally expressed mechanics. I don't feel happy about it, because it has produced a fair share of misunderstandings, where e.g. a player sees a situation as borderline-hopeless while the GM sees the PC as largely on the very right track.

I agree. I much prefer being able to manipulate mechanics to dealing in description which occasionally produces a skill roll. The difficulty is that these sorts of mechanics need to be created at once as a system and can't accrete to a system like techniques can.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

'With specialised standards of proper conduct' does not mean that those standards have to be formal like the formal half of military conduct. In fact, in the post above with explanations of the skill name, I showed that Savoir-Faire isn't just about knowing the text of the book of etiquette by heart. It's also about being able to gracefully handle the intuitive parts of a given subculture.

I'm not saying it does.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The general pattern seems to be that Influence Skill is primarily used to Influence, i.e. actively get some desired reaction. As said before, some non-Influence skills can still be used for Influence Rolls, but that's the exception, not the rule.

Yes, whereas Savoir-Faire specifically is unusual by covering both doing things and maintaining access to certain social environments. That sort of function is rare in other primary Influence skills.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Agreed on the drinking aspect - it breaks down for [sub]cultures where carousing is done totally sober. What about its relationship to Savoir-Faire?

It also breaks down as soon as you want to have different skill in drinking and socializing. Plus it's a HT skill and those annoy me.

It's kind of weird that we have a general socializing skill and also a bunch of generally non-defaulting Savoir-Faire specialties.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

That seems a bit circular: 'they are not in possession of Savoir-Faire because it has to be conservative/rigid/formal'. But if the subculture of yuppies or whatever you call them has few to no formal rules, that seems to make Savoir-Faire all the more appropriate:

I am not concluding this from definitions, I'm describing reality. People who have achieved what is being represented as GURPS status but who personally don't value traditional forms of conduct in high society have not to any significant degree built a parallel form of conduct.