GURPS Influence Skills: Force Surrender

[MrFix]

Originally Posted by Harald387

Here's the mechanical answer, from "Reaction Rolls" on B495:

"Random reaction rolls are great when they add a note of unpredictability to the game – this is more fun for the GM, too! However, never substitute random die rolls for reason and logic."

That is a rule, in black and white: Reaction rolls (and thus Influence rolls, which are just a PC substituting an Influence skill roll for a reaction roll, B359) are not something that work as rolled every time, unlike hitting someone or casting a spell. "GM fiat" is built into the rule, and is what acts as a balancing factor.

If surrender makes sense as a result of successful Intimidation, then the foe surrenders. If the GM feels that NO amount of success on Sex Appeal makes sense in a situation, it Just Doesn't Work. That's in the rules, as written.

The quote you provided explicitly talks about Reaction Rolls, not influence rolls. It says that you can eschew reaction roll to determine preset starting reaction to PCs.

Influence skills FORCE the opponent to change his reaction to good on success, unless he has a list of finite advantages that prevent that.

Because of that, the rule doesn't mean what you've outlined.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by MrFix

The quote you provided explicitly talks about Reaction Rolls, not influence rolls. It says that you can eschew reaction roll to determine preset starting reaction to PCs.

"A PC with an appropriate 'Influence skill' can always elect to substitute an Influence roll for a regular reaction roll in suitable circumstances (GM’s decision)." (B359)

The GM decides whether a reaction roll is appropriate. Influence rolls substitute for reaction rolls. If a reaction roll is deemed not appropriate, no influence roll need be allowed.

The GM also decides whether an influence roll is appropriate.

Both GM decisions are stated explicitly in the rules.

GURPS is not a simulation; it is a game. Its goal is not to mechanistically determine every event in the setting. It is designed to give GMs tools to determine outcomes. One of those tools is "decide for yourself."

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by MrFix

Do you think Influence Skills could be of use during Combat Morale rolls though? It specifically outlines that Good reaction leads to surrender, as opposed to Very good on Reaction roll.

If it does, it would permit Basic Set influence skills to force surrender without this optional rule from mysteries/social engineering.

If modifiers of Influence rolls include things that typically cause combatants to lose heart and capitulate, then yes. So outnumbering them, out performing them, causing ruin and slaughter of some part of the force they are a part of as well as showing that their foe is immune to the force they can bring to bear and, of course, if there are opponents that have various horrific visages that cause fright. On the Diplomacy side there is the possibility of driving wedges in the solidarity of a combat force/gang etc. Offer some faction of it reprieve to see if that faction will go neutral and that shifts the combat odds for the remaining combatants. Fast Talk would be trying to lie convincingly about some aspect of those things to get them to surrender.

[MrFix]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

"A PC with an appropriate 'Influence skill' can always elect to substitute an Influence roll for a regular reaction roll in suitable circumstances (GM’s decision)." (B359)

The GM decides whether a reaction roll is appropriate. Influence rolls substitute for reaction rolls. If a reaction roll is deemed not appropriate, no influence roll need be allowed.

The GM also decides whether an influence roll is appropriate.

Both GM decisions are stated explicitly in the rules.

GURPS is not a simulation; it is a game. Its goal is not to mechanistically determine every event in the setting. It is designed to give GMs tools to determine outcomes. One of those tools is "decide for yourself."

The rules clearly speak on distinction between randomly rolled reaction, and a pre-determined reaction by an NPC, if GM finds it appropriate. Influence Skills are a separate thing, and are used by PCs to change the reaction - be it preset or rolled - of an NPC.

If an influence skill is inappropriate, the penalties are -1 to -10. No part of the book states that influence skills are impossible, except if specific targets have advantages that protect from such. No advantage, influence skills work. That's RAW.

One such advantage is Indomitable [15]. For 15 points, all influence rolls against the character fail automatically. You're suggesting that if a GM sets a preset reaction for that character, he automatically gains 15 points worth of traits. That is not appropriate.

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

If modifiers of Influence rolls include things that typically cause combatants to lose heart and capitulate, then yes. So outnumbering them, out performing them, causing ruin and slaughter of some part of the force they are a part of as well as showing that their foe is immune to the force they can bring to bear and, of course, if there are opponents that have various horrific visages that cause fright. On the Diplomacy side there is the possibility of driving wedges in the solidarity of a combat force/gang etc. Offer some faction of it reprieve to see if that faction will go neutral and that shifts the combat odds for the remaining combatants. Fast Talk would be trying to lie convincingly about some aspect of those things to get them to surrender.

Sounds good. It seemed iffy to me since 'combat morale' check isn't quite 'reaction check', so I was wondering if it's even right to substitute influence for morale check. I suppose if you think that makes sense, I oughta have a good chance of persuading my GM of that. Thanks.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by MrFix

If an influence skill is inappropriate, the penalties are -1 to -10. No part of the book states that influence skills are impossible, except if specific targets have advantages that protect from such. No advantage, influence skills work. That's RAW.

I just quoted the rule that said it's the GM's decision whether an influence roll may be used instead of a reaction roll. If the GM says no, you don't get to roll. Period. End of story. By the rules. You try to use Savoir-Faire to appeal to the good manners of the crooks to make them surrender, and the GM says they have no good manners and ignore you.

If the GM says yes, but the circumstances are inappropriate for that particular influence skill, the 1-10 penalty applies.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by MrFix

The rules clearly speak on distinction between randomly rolled reaction, and a pre-determined reaction by an NPC, if GM finds it appropriate. Influence Skills are a separate thing, and are used by PCs to change the reaction - be it preset or rolled - of an NPC.

That's how I took the rules before I wrote GURPS Social Engineering. But actually it's wrong.

In general, you have a choice: You can rely on a reaction roll, OR you can attempt an Influence roll and go with its results INSTEAD. You don't normally get two tries.

Diplomacy is a partial exception: If you attempt a Diplomacy roll, and get a Bad reaction, the GM makes a reaction roll, and you can go with that instead, if it's better than Bad. That is, Diplomacy never makes the other person think worse of you than they would spontaneously. But the other Influence skills don't have that benefit.

Note also that in general, you can't attempt an Influence roll without taking a little time to talk with the other person: flimflam them, threaten them, flirt with them, whatever. You can only do this instantly and nonverbally if you have an Influence shtick as a perk.

So that seems to suggest that if you want to use an Influence skill, you usually have to start making your approach right away, and then the outcome is on hold till you've made your pitch; if you don't do that first thing, then you're implicitly going with a reaction roll, and you have to accept whatever that reaction is.

The requirement that you talk with them limits your ability to use Influence in the middle of an ongoing fight. Combat has a second by second time scale; most attempts at Influence take longer than that. Chapter 6 of GURPS Social Engineering discusses the (limited) types of social interaction you can engage in during combat (or pauses in combat); I think they're pretty much what's allowed under the RAW.

[MrFix]

Originally Posted by whswhs

-snip-

Does that mean that if, for example, a GM sets a crook as somebody who reacts to Police Officers only as 'Bad', Police officers cannot improve their standing with him via influence skills, and can only make influence rolls to request aid etc, with penalties for 'Bad' reaction?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by MrFix

The rules clearly speak on distinction between randomly rolled reaction, and a pre-determined reaction by an NPC, if GM finds it appropriate. Influence Skills are a separate thing, and are used by PCs to change the reaction - be it preset or rolled - of an NPC..

That is so very very false. No, Captain America can't use his stratospheric charisma and great looks boosted influence skills to convince a committed Nazi agent to switch sides. At most he can penalize the Nazi's own skill and perception rolls.

[MrFix]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

That is so very very false. No, Captain America can't use his stratospheric charisma and great looks boosted influence skills to convince a committed Nazi agent to switch sides. At most he can penalize the Nazi's own skill and perception rolls.

Unless a committed Nazi has Unfazeable, Indomitable etc, he can be threatened, intimidated, persuaded or seduced to change sides, give aid etc.

Reaction Table explicity states that 'Good' reaction doesn't mean they make friends, it means that they act in a manner beneficial to PCs.

Very Good

In apotential combat situation,
the NPCs are friendly. The PCs may
ask for aid or information (roll
again at +3). Even sworn foes find
an excuse to let the PCs go . . . for
now. (If a fight is in progress, the
NPCs flee if they can, or surrender
otherwise.)

if Captain America manages to somehow appeal to Red Skull and succeed his checks, Red Skull will provide aid, stop fighting and leave etc.

Sworn Enemies fighting together and helping each other out of respect, uniting against common foe, hero giving a villain mercy, all possible and common tropes in fiction.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by MrFix

Does that mean that if, for example, a GM sets a crook as somebody who reacts to Police Officers only as 'Bad', Police officers cannot improve their standing with him via influence skills, and can only make influence rolls to request aid etc, with penalties for 'Bad' reaction?

The GM doesn't just set an NPC's reaction arbitrarily. The GM has a reason for it.

Suppose the crook is a serial murderer who has finally been cornered. He has no family, no money. He's tough and doesn't fear physical abuse. He knows there's enough evidence to convict him of his many crimes. The police have cornered the murderer and demand his surrender. The murderer knows that if he surrenders, his life is over. The GM decides that in this situation, no amount of negotiating or threatening could possibly convince the murderer to give himself up, because he would lose the only thing that he has left to care about: his freedom. When the police try to get him to surrender, no matter how they do it, he refuses. No influence rolls will convince him otherwise. No special advantages blocking influence rolls are needed.