Social Techniques

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

I must be missing something because it seems like strict downside. If you fail the observer can figure out your reactions. If you succeed instead of getting to dictate how you are representing yourself as reacting you have to show that you are screening your reactions which seems to be nearly always inferior. I don't think it should have any effect on subsections of a statement, after all your pokerface could potentially break down in any subsection.

Okay, so looking at this as two different, maybe compatible, techniques:

• Getting some sort of benefit for the fact that you make it clear that you are screening. (Technique Design Equivalent: 'Special Drawback'.)
• Getting to slightly worsen Detect Lies (and Body Language, if it isn't so disadvantaged already), by making it as vague as Empathy in its detections. (Technique Design Equivalent: 'Special Benefits'.)

I considered them to even out, and considered the former to be a legit candidate for allowing a skill+4 improvement, similar to Arm Locks and Close Dancing.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Okay, so looking at this as two different, maybe compatible, techniques:

• Getting some sort of benefit for the fact that you make it clear that you are screening. (Technique Design Equivalent: 'Special Drawback'.)
• Getting to slightly worsen Detect Lies (and Body Language, if it isn't so disadvantaged already), by making it as vague as Empathy in its detections. (Technique Design Equivalent: 'Special Benefits'.)

I considered them to even out, and considered the former to be a legit candidate for allowing a skill+4 improvement, similar to Arm Locks and Close Dancing.

I could see it reducing the information given to the observer if you lose, that would certainly offset at least some bonus to skill. On the other hand it should also be possible to just fail in maintaining the pokerface facade which would mean giving at least as much information as if failing when not trying to maintain a pokerface. Perhaps it depends on degree of failure?

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Acting probably should have a 'Pokerface' technique, one that makes it very clear that the actor is screening out all emotions, but making it nonetheless hard to figure out what those emotions are or aren't. (I.e. normal Acting would convey a 'he is telling the truth' impression; a Pokerface variant would convey 'there is absolutely no indication one way or the other, but this person is certainly actively trying to make sure we do not figure what he is thinking'.)

That really sounds like more of an optional specialty than a technique. It is easier, more limited, and less useful than Acting: it should not be more expensive.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

That really sounds like more of an optional specialty than a technique. It is easier, more limited, and less useful than Acting: it should not be more expensive.

It's not more expensive to invest in a technique than investing in the base skill.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Sindri

It's not more expensive to invest in a technique than investing in the base skill.

Sure it is. You have to buy the base skill first, and then buy up the Technique with extra points. This is unlike an Optional Speciality.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Sure it is. You have to buy the base skill first, and then buy up the Technique with extra points. This is unlike an Optional Speciality.

No, it isn't. For a skill level it's never going to be more expensive to buy it through the technique than base skill.

Optional Speciality could be a useful addition to the technique but it isn't competing with it. It (kinda) gives +1 for points invested and then you can buy up the technique if you want to continue to focus on it rather than improving Acting as a whole.

[dfinlay]

I have a character in one of my campaigns with Foreman off of leadership. I figured I'd have more examples on their character sheets, but appearently my PCs don't have many social techniques.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

I could see it reducing the information given to the observer if you lose, that would certainly offset at least some bonus to skill. On the other hand it should also be possible to just fail in maintaining the pokerface facade which would mean giving at least as much information as if failing when not trying to maintain a pokerface. Perhaps it depends on degree of failure?

Hmm. Maybe on a failure by 5. Or more like loss by 5 in the QC (that's fairer).

[whswhs]

I think that I would say that Poker Face is an easy use of Will-based Acting, with a +5 bonus. That is, if you don't have Acting, you can roll vs. straight Will; if you're training in Acting, you nearly always succeed. It seems like it would be a Quick Contest sort of thing, where what matters is whether your roll is better than your opponent's Per roll—or maybe their Observation+5 roll, or their Per-based Gambling+5 roll. Quick contests don't necessarily pay much attention to critical successes or failures.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I think that I would say that Poker Face is an easy use of Will-based Acting, with a +5 bonus. That is, if you don't have Acting, you can roll vs. straight Will; if you're training in Acting, you nearly always succeed. It seems like it would be a Quick Contest sort of thing, where what matters is whether your roll is better than your opponent's Per roll—or maybe their Observation+5 roll, or their Per-based Gambling+5 roll.

A Per roll and an Observation+5 roll are two very, very different things, since the usual expectation is that a Per roll can be replace by an Observation+0 roll. The +5 makes a big Big BIG difference in the balance between two skills or scores or whatever.

Originally Posted by whswhs

Quick contests don't necessarily pay much attention to critical successes or failures.

Yeah. In fact, normally they don't at all.