Social Skill Questions, Reparcelling and Rebalancing

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Agreed. The only time I've done it was as the best way I could find to record having learned the SF of a very different army (WWII Red Army, when the character was British Army).

Shouldn't that be covered by just getting Savoir-Faire (Military) and both Cultural Familiarities? And army familiarities, of course, but that's a given with the right to take two Skill Familiarities per point spent.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Shouldn't that be covered by just getting Savoir-Faire (Military) and both Cultural Familiarities?

The GM didn't feel they were quite separate Cultural Familiarities, and I was specifically after the ability to masquerade as a Red Army soldier (I had native Russian, with the local accent). This all happened in-play, rather than at character generation.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by johndallman

The GM didn't feel they were quite separate Cultural Familiarities, and I was specifically after the ability to masquerade as a Red Army soldier (I had native Russian, with the local accent). This all happened in-play, rather than at character generation.

If USSR and UK don't count as separate cultural familiarities, then I don't know what does.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Having one but not the other seems quite okay concept-wise to me. I don't get the wish to enforce having both by requiring Fast-Talk to start all lies.

I don't think it's unokay, just unusual for a PC to not want both. I don't have a wish to enforce anything, I'm just commenting on how I see the normal rules. There are certainly situations in which I'd let the first lie be Acting and some room for people who have it but not Fast-Talk but it's invading the niche of the skill about pulling off a single lie right now to let people just decide that they are using Acting instead.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

But if the campaign is such that there's less than a 50% dominance of a single subculture, you're better off taking another Influence skill, one that is more generic. Again, that usually means Diplomacy and Fast-Talk first, depending on communication style.

Well yeah, Diplomacy and Fast-Talk are better than Savoir-Faire. I just said that Savoir-Faire shouldn't be as high on someone's list of skills to drop as Sex Appeal or Intimidation.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Actually, I find it kinda asymmetric that Streetwise is not called SF (Street) and that there is no SF for Status 0, but there is a special skill (SF & Streetwise) for both negative and positive status.

Savoir-Faire for "Status 0" (of course it would cover some negative and positive statuses as well at least some of the time) is a bit awkward. There is stuff that GURPS isn't currently mechanically representing though.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Irony is probably only ridiculous because you think of it as of the wrong meaning of the word. Agenda sounds kinda cool, but misleading.

I'll grant you that Agenda sounds cool until you learn what kind of agenda it's referring to.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Shouldn't that be covered by just getting Savoir-Faire (Military) and both Cultural Familiarities? And army familiarities, of course, but that's a given with the right to take two Skill Familiarities per point spent.

Savoir-Faire (Military)'s Familiarities should probably be more granular than entire militaries. I wouldn't want to make the assumption that any character who spent a point was fully familiar with two militaries.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

If USSR and UK don't count as separate cultural familiarities, then I don't know what does.

I can think of more different cultures but, yeah.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

I don't think it's unokay, just unusual for a PC to not want both. I don't have a wish to enforce anything, I'm just commenting on how I see the normal rules. There are certainly situations in which I'd let the first lie be Acting and some room for people who have it but not Fast-Talk but it's invading the niche of the skill about pulling off a single lie right now to let people just decide that they are using Acting instead.

Hmm. I don't think it's invading Fast-Talk's niche, since Fast-Talk can do some stuff that Acting can't:

Originally Posted by SE36

Acting is needed to sustain a falsehood over time, rather than
affecting a single decision. This requires keeping a series of
falsehoods consistent. Fast-Talk is not limited to plausible
claims; it confuses the target, making him unable to judge
how plausible a claim is, or unsure what’s being claimed.
[...]
The victim of a plausible lie will go on believing it until
given reason for doubt. The confusion caused by Fast-Talk will
eventually clear up, allowing the victim to realize that some-
thing’s not right – but only after it’s too late to do any good!

So Acting has the long-term benefit at the cost of requiring lies to be plausible, while Fast-Talk is all about short-circuiting someone's better judgement logic-wise.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Well yeah, Diplomacy and Fast-Talk are better than Savoir-Faire. I just said that Savoir-Faire shouldn't be as high on someone's list of skills to drop as Sex Appeal or Intimidation.

Well, whether Sex Appeal is high on the list-to-drop depends much on whether it has its niche ability of producing Very Good reactions. If it doesn't have it in the new ruleset, it becomes one of the prime drop candidates.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Savoir-Faire for "Status 0" (of course it would cover some negative and positive statuses as well at least some of the time) is a bit awkward. There is stuff that GURPS isn't currently mechanically representing though.

Awkward in what way/sense, and what do you mean under the second sentence?

Originally Posted by Sindri

Savoir-Faire (Military)'s Familiarities should probably be more granular than entire militaries. I wouldn't want to make the assumption that any character who spent a point was fully familiar with two militaries.

Well, more properly, Savoir-Faire's familiarity should probably be grouped by service branch. E.g. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Mercenary, National Guard, Volunteer/Militia.

Originally Posted by Sindri

I can think of more different cultures but, yeah.

I don't mean that there aren't more different cultures, but I think that if you count UK and USSR as a single CF, then you have maybe three-four CFs total on Terra.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Hmm. I don't think it's invading Fast-Talk's niche, since Fast-Talk can do some stuff that Acting can't:

That's just more of Fast-Talk's niche.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

So Acting has the long-term benefit at the cost of requiring lies to be plausible, while Fast-Talk is all about short-circuiting someone's better judgement logic-wise.

Acting doesn't really have a long term benefit, it isn't a style of lying that stands up longer than Fast-Talk. If someone using Fast-Talk and someone using Acting start a deception and then get removed from the picture the subject will realize it at the same time if ever. When Social Engineering says Acting is needed to sustain a falsehood over time it means actions are necessary to sustain a falsehood over time that brings you into the realm of Acting.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, whether Sex Appeal is high on the list-to-drop depends much on whether it has its niche ability of producing Very Good reactions. If it doesn't have it in the new ruleset, it becomes one of the prime drop candidates.

I was analyzing it from the perspective of the normal rules.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Awkward in what way/sense, and what do you mean under the second sentence?

A not insignificant amount of it is emulation of high society or the sort of general social sense that is applicable to other specialties. Still there is stuff left over that would make up a Savoir-Faire (General Society or whatever you want to call it) and I can even think of fictional examples of people failing to demonstrate it.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, more properly, Savoir-Faire's familiarity should probably be grouped by service branch. E.g. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Mercenary, National Guard, Volunteer/Militia.

I agree.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I don't mean that there aren't more different cultures, but I think that if you count UK and USSR as a single CF, then you have maybe three-four CFs total on Terra.

Oh, I know. I was just having fun.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

That's just more of Fast-Talk's niche.

Acting doesn't really have a long term benefit, it isn't a style of lying that stands up longer than Fast-Talk. If someone using Fast-Talk and someone using Acting start a deception and then get removed from the picture the subject will realize it at the same time if ever. When Social Engineering says Acting is needed to sustain a falsehood over time it means actions are necessary to sustain a falsehood over time that brings you into the realm of Acting.

That seems totally counter to the just-mentioned difference between them, with the problem of Fast-Talk being that target recover soon, as opposed to only when a new event generating doubt is added to the mix.

Originally Posted by Sindri

I was analyzing it from the perspective of the normal rules.

From the perspective of normal rules, Sex Appeal looks more valuable than Savoir-Faire in campaigns that are not focused on a single subculture. It has a big drawback (about half the population being outright immune) and a big benefit (those who aren't are affected better). The good bit is that it's useful in all sorts of contexts: shopping/haggling, avoiding speeding tickets, interrogation (on both sides of the table), distractions, seduction/romance, asking for aid or information, sometimes even gaining admission into places . . .

Originally Posted by Sindri

A not insignificant amount of it is emulation of high society or the sort of general social sense that is applicable to other specialties. Still there is stuff left over that would make up a Savoir-Faire (General Society or whatever you want to call it) and I can even think of fictional examples of people failing to demonstrate it.

I still don't quite get what you're trying to say.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

That seems totally counter to the just-mentioned difference between them, with the problem of Fast-Talk being that target recover soon, as opposed to only when a new event generating doubt is added to the mix.

That's not a problem of Fast-Talk, it's a problem of implausible lies. Acting doesn't last longer because it's better, it lasts longer because it's defined as being about continuously reinforcing the deception and practically always sticks to plausible lies. If someone using Fast-Talk and Acting both spend a short time trying to deceive someone with equally plausible lies and then have to disappear the subject behaves in the same manner. Fast-Talk isn't a flawed but still usable tool for lying to people it's the primary tool. Acting is there for the specific case split off from Fast-Talk of maintaining long term deception not to be the lying skill for people who don't care about using deception for Influence.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

From the perspective of normal rules, Sex Appeal looks more valuable than Savoir-Faire in campaigns that are not focused on a single subculture. It has a big drawback (about half the population being outright immune) and a big benefit (those who aren't are affected better). The good bit is that it's useful in all sorts of contexts: shopping/haggling, avoiding speeding tickets, interrogation (on both sides of the table), distractions, seduction/romance, asking for aid or information, sometimes even gaining admission into places . . .

I probably have a different impression of how common campaigns not focused on a single specialty are.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I still don't quite get what you're trying to say.

Can you give me any information about what isn't making sense? Because I'll try another shot in the dark if you can't but it's a lot easier if I get a clue about what isn't working.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

That's not a problem of Fast-Talk, it's a problem of implausible lies. Acting doesn't last longer because it's better, it lasts longer because it's defined as being about continuously reinforcing the deception and practically always sticks to plausible lies. If someone using Fast-Talk and Acting both spend a short time trying to deceive someone with equally plausible lies and then have to disappear the subject behaves in the same manner. Fast-Talk isn't a flawed but still usable tool for lying to people it's the primary tool. Acting is there for the specific case split off from Fast-Talk of maintaining long term deception not to be the lying skill for people who don't care about using deception for Influence.

Hmm. I dunno, I have the impression that 'eventually, sane judgement returns' applies to Fast-Talk in general, not just to implausible lies. Given that it's an Average skill that can be used in place of any situation with a reaction roll, that's kinda okay, though.

Originally Posted by Sindri

I probably have a different impression of how common campaigns not focused on a single specialty are.

It really depends on the campaign. E.g. in a campaign about Worminghall or Hogwarts, it's very cool to have Savoir-Faire (Wizarding Schools), just as is Savoir-Faire (Dojo) in a martial school campaign. In a military campaign, Savoir-Faire (Military) is awesome. A game about Eloi or a king's high court, Savoire-Faire (High Society) is a must-have.
But on the other end of the spectrum, I'm running a campaign of what is essentially Non-Government X-Files by now, and in it the social environment already includes all of: high society, military/mercs, mafia, streetwise, and there's a chance of dojo showing up eventually.
The campaign I play in had some bits of high society, military, some academic, corporate and administrative situations.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Can you give me any information about what isn't making sense? Because I'll try another shot in the dark if you can't but it's a lot easier if I get a clue about what isn't working.

Savoir-Faire for "Status 0" (of course it would cover some negative and positive statuses as well at least some of the time) is a bit awkward. There is stuff that GURPS isn't currently mechanically representing though.
A not insignificant amount of it is emulation of high society or the sort of general social sense that is applicable to other specialties. Still there is stuff left over that would make up a Savoir-Faire (General Society or whatever you want to call it) and I can even think of fictional examples of people failing to demonstrate it.
You're saying that Status 0 Savoir-Faire is awkward, even though you can think of examples of people failing it. So what's awkward about GURPS gaining SF (S0) in either houserules or a hypothetical 5e?

(Though really, 'skill you roll against, and suffer penalties on failure, but nothing remarkable on a success' seems like a too-narrow view of Savoir-Faire; its point is being able to Influence people of the appropriate subculture; stuff like Complimentary Skill Rolls came as an afterthought.)

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Hmm. I dunno, I have the impression that 'eventually, sane judgement returns' applies to Fast-Talk in general, not just to implausible lies. Given that it's an Average skill that can be used in place of any situation with a reaction roll, that's kinda okay, though.

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.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

You're saying that Status 0 Savoir-Faire is awkward, even though you can think of examples of people failing it. So what's awkward about GURPS gaining SF (S0) in either houserules or a hypothetical 5e?

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.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

(Though really, 'skill you roll against, and suffer penalties on failure, but nothing remarkable on a success' seems like a too-narrow view of Savoir-Faire; its point is being able to Influence people of the appropriate subculture; stuff like Complimentary Skill Rolls came as an afterthought.)

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?

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.