[Social Engineering] Hinting, Elicitation, and Fortune Telling

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Or depending on how simple the exercise and the representation you want is, it could just be a curious style of panhandling.

Sounds like Panhandling with Fortune-Telling as a Complimentary skill; as it seems like you are mainly paying them to go away.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Sounds like Panhandling with Fortune-Telling as a Complimentary skill; as it seems like you are mainly paying them to go away.

Why would Fortune-Telling serve as a Complimentary skill in that case? I don't see how being good or bad at any aspect of that would impinge on your ability to make people willing to part with currency in order to part with you.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Why would Fortune-Telling serve as a Complimentary skill in that case? I don't see how being good or bad at any aspect of that would impinge on your ability to make people willing to part with currency in order to part with you.

Because it makes you plausible as a busker rather than a hobo? Some people will give money to the former and not the latter.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

That's not how I've seen fortune-tellers work outside TV shows. The basic routine is for a (typically gypsy-looking) person to walk up to a stranger and say (rough translation), 'Young man/girl, put some gold on your hand, and I will say what it foretells'. Of course, most resist such a blatant approach, but it's kind of the same shotgun approach of panhandling; once the exchange starts, well, usually it's some sort of success.

I never encounter that. What I see is people who are in the business of telling fortunes, who have storefronts and wait for people to come in and consult with them.

Bill Stoddard

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

Social Engineering doesn't appear to change that. Am I missing something in SE?

The rules you cite say, in effect, that if you are trying to get Interrogation-level answers from people, but you are reading their cards or gazing in a crystal ball, you roll Fortune-Telling at -3. So it's not a full substitute for locking them in a police interrogation room and grilling them.

Bill Stoddard

[chandley]

Originally Posted by whswhs

The rules you cite say, in effect, that if you are trying to get Interrogation-level answers from people, but you are reading their cards or gazing in a crystal ball, you roll Fortune-Telling at -3. So it's not a full substitute for locking them in a police interrogation room and grilling them.

Bill Stoddard

Basically, using the fear of a gypsy curse, evil spirits, or black magic as the coercive element. They dont leave because they are hoping you'll let em go peacefully if they cooperate.

Ive actually seen that done. The victim really did believe in that stuff, which I imagine acts a bonus to offset the -3 penalty.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by chandley

Basically, using the fear of a gypsy curse, evil spirits, or black magic as the coercive element. They dont leave because they are hoping you'll let em go peacefully if they cooperate.

Ive actually seen that done. The victim really did believe in that stuff, which I imagine acts a bonus to offset the -3 penalty.

I don't take it that way at all. There are enough people who think that sort of supernatural stuff is nonsense so that results would be unpredictable at best.

There are two ways you can interpret "skill A defaults to skill B -N."

* The skill of doing B is similar enough to the skill of doing A so that if you know A, you can sort of figure out how to do B. If you play the recorder, you can pick up a clarinet and sort of guess how to get a sound out of it and the fingerings for a simple scale.

* The skill of doing B can achieve the same results as the skill of doing A, but less effectively. If you know how to fight with a shortsword, you can pick up a broadsword and use your shortsword skill to wield it, a bit clumsily because you aren't used to its balance or its length; but the pointy end still goes in the other man.

I tend to interpret using Fortune Telling at -3 for interrogation as the latter case. You're getting answers to questions about the subject's involvement in a crime, say, but you're doing so without coercing them; you get them to give themselves away.

Bill Stoddard

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I don't take it that way at all. There are enough people who think that sort of supernatural stuff is nonsense so that results would be unpredictable at best.

There are two ways you can interpret "skill A defaults to skill B -N."

* The skill of doing B is similar enough to the skill of doing A so that if you know A, you can sort of figure out how to do B. If you play the recorder, you can pick up a clarinet and sort of guess how to get a sound out of it and the fingerings for a simple scale.

* The skill of doing B can achieve the same results as the skill of doing A, but less effectively. If you know how to fight with a shortsword, you can pick up a broadsword and use your shortsword skill to wield it, a bit clumsily because you aren't used to its balance or its length; but the pointy end still goes in the other man.

I tend to interpret using Fortune Telling at -3 for interrogation as the latter case. You're getting answers to questions about the subject's involvement in a crime, say, but you're doing so without coercing them; you get them to give themselves away.

Bill Stoddard

Using a skill at default from another skill doesn't change the required conditions for using it. You can't use Interrogation at default from Fortune Telling under conditions where you couldn't use regular skill in Interrogation.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Using a skill at default from another skill doesn't change the required conditions for using it. You can't use Interrogation at default from Fortune Telling under conditions where you couldn't use regular skill in Interrogation.

Checking the rules, though, I see that Interrogation in fact does not have a Fortune-Telling default; the list of Defaults does not include "Fortune-Telling-3." Rather, the list of modifiers to Fortune-Telling includes "-3 if using Fortune-Telling in place of Fast-Talk, Interrogation, or Psychology." The phrasing in place of clearly refers to something different from a skill defaulting to another skill.

And, in fact, conditions are spelled out where you get to do this, and they are not the same as the conditions for an actual Interrogation roll. The method is "asking the subject leading questions under the pretense of telling his fortune," and I venture to say that no one who is captured by the police or the NKVD or the Triads has much chance being faced by an old woman with a deck of cards and a list of leading questions.

Perhaps the proper comparison is "I know how to play the clarinet, so I can figure out how to play the oboe" versus "I can probably play the oboe part on my clarinet." In one case you're playing the instrument; in the other you're playing the melody.

Bill Stoddard

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Checking the rules, though, I see that Interrogation in fact does not have a Fortune-Telling default; the list of Defaults does not include "Fortune-Telling-3." Rather, the list of modifiers to Fortune-Telling includes "-3 if using Fortune-Telling in place of Fast-Talk, Interrogation, or Psychology." The phrasing in place of clearly refers to something different from a skill defaulting to another skill.

And, in fact, conditions are spelled out where you get to do this, and they are not the same as the conditions for an actual Interrogation roll. The method is "asking the subject leading questions under the pretense of telling his fortune," and I venture to say that no one who is captured by the police or the NKVD or the Triads has much chance being faced by an old woman with a deck of cards and a list of leading questions.

Perhaps the proper comparison is "I know how to play the clarinet, so I can figure out how to play the oboe" versus "I can probably play the oboe part on my clarinet." In one case you're playing the instrument; in the other you're playing the melody.

Bill Stoddard

A convincing point. Makes it slightly fuzzy what exactly using it 'in place of' Interrogation means, but probably not problematically so. (Or maybe it's clarified already, I can't check at present.)