Resistance to Sex Appeal

[Danukian]

Originally Posted by Qvintus

Lech are so much worth because for the first people don't have to use sex appeal on you to get you to go after 'em. And having to hit on the kings daughter can lead to all kinds of trouble.

Right - Lech is having Compulsively Fail at Resisting Sex Appeal Rolls (Even the ones She didn't know she was making at default ;p ) established at creation. High Will gives a bonus to resist Sex Appeal and Fast Talk (among many other things). I don't think immunity to the roll should be as simple as declaring disinterest on the spot.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Danukian

Again, I don't completely agree - on Character Creation, sure establish that your character is not interested in being "vamped", but in game play, it is a GM modifier for the situation - the player better have an established reason why he is immune to the Honey Pot, otherwise, why are Lech and Oblivious worth so much?

Lechery is worth so much because it takes away that self control even versus people aren't deliberately trying to attract your attention. Oblivious is worth...not a heck of a lot. It's a -5 disadvantage.

As a good example, in a 3e game one of the PCs had a quirk "Loves Heads" and an unknown enemy who was sending a string of assassins out after him. A redhead approached his character right after they made it to the town center and started flirted him up, the player yelled out "Dang! I'm going get stabbed with an Icepick during sex, aren't I?", but his character still went into the hotel with her due her high skill and his low will plus the fact that he had been drinking. CP were dolled out for good roleplaying.

Good example maybe, but of what?

[Fwibos]

I find that NPCs will happily use Fast-Talk, but refuse to accede to NPCs fast-talking them into whatever they can using role-playing and fast-talk. As a GM, i try to role-play out the social scenes, but it can take a while, and I'm not going to flirt up a guy until it get's awkward.

The problem is, we are influenced all the time and hardly know it. A Waitress touches you on the shoulder reassuringly, you leave a bigger tip. A sales man fast pitches you into signing a contract. Saying "I don't want to do this because it's bad for my character" is about as bad as role-playing gets. If you do that, why play? It would be like saying "I don't want you to take my pawn because it's bad for my side of the board"

The analogy isn't perfect because a GM always has the power to make your character suck the big one, but it's close enough for squash.

The point is, Gurps assumes this. There's a sidebar (now I can't find the darn thing) That suggests levying a penalty to PC (or bonus for the social PC) skills against social characters equal to the margin of success on the influence roll. If PCs refuse to acknowledge of social cache, I tend to do just that.

Having read a lot about the science of social engineering (it's one of my hobbies, but only academic, sadly), I tend to notice how woefully inadequate most gamers are at understanding just how powerful it is.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by gjc8

There are two different things here.

1) The difficulty of using Sex Appeal to influence a target.
2) The difficulty of convincing someone to have sex, specifically by Sex Appeal, but presumably also by other things.

These are separate concepts.

This is the key point really. The effect of Sex Appeal is not "I agree to have sex", it's "Very Good reaction". A Very Good reaction can induce you to pay 50% more than you normally would to have sex, or to help somebody out by having sex with them if it is not "totally unreasonable", but it isn't automatic. Conversely any Good or Very Good reaction will get your target into bed if it is more or less reasonable and/or the price is fair - it's perfectly plausible to seduce people with Diplomacy or Fast Talk.

The difference in resistance is usually one of setting the fair price or the point at which it something becomes reasonable, it's not a modifier to the dice roll.

And note that Sex Appeal vulnerability is absolutely set by simple declaration in a lot of cases. Otherwise there'd be no reason you couldn't use your Sex Appeal skill on targets of the wrong sexual orientation (or species!). Though these days I do generally charge a Perk if you want to define your character's sexual interests as negligible, or directed toward something that's really unlikely to come up.

[Grouchy Chris]

Sex Appeal, along with the other influence skills, do indeed influence the PCs. See the box on B359, where Sex Appeal is used as an example.

I don't see any reason a player should get to decide that their character is immune to Sex Appeal at zero cost any more than they could decide to be immune to Diplomacy, Intimidation, et cetera. If you want that immunity, pay for it.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Conversely any Good or Very Good reaction will get your target into bed if it is more or less reasonable and/or the price is fair - it's perfectly plausible to seduce people with Diplomacy or Fast Talk.

I actually don't support that conclusion; I think it makes things too easy. Social Engineering offers fairly detailed rules based on the idea that a Very Good reaction is the standard threshold for getting physical. What a Good reaction gets you is a stroll in the moonlight, or private conversation in a hotel room, or "sure, you can buy me a drink."

Of course, much depends also on whether you're offering short-term or long-term sex: a proposition or a proposal, in somewhat old-fashioned terms. Getting someone to agree to a short-term relationship is much faster . . . but if you're dealing with someone to whom any sex entails a long-term relationship, an attempt will automatically fail, too.

Bill Stoddard

[Fwibos]

Originally Posted by Grouchy Chris

Sex Appeal, along with the other influence skills, do indeed influence the PCs. See the box on B359, where Sex Appeal is used as an example.

I don't see any reason a player should get to decide that their character is immune to Sex Appeal at zero cost any more than they could decide to be immune to Diplomacy, Intimidation, et cetera. If you want that immunity, pay for it.

Succinct and to the point. And it brings up a valid response. If Sex Appeal can be resited for 0 points, then so can any influence skill. And if thats' the case, what is the point of them (as Icelander pointed out) or (Indomitable).

I could see a Resistant to Influence trait. costing 5 points for +3 and 8 points for +8, that is basically a scaled down Indomitable, and is likewise requires Empathy to crack.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Grouchy Chris

Sex Appeal, along with the other influence skills, do indeed influence the PCs. See the box on B359, where Sex Appeal is used as an example.

I don't see any reason a player should get to decide that their character is immune to Sex Appeal at zero cost any more than they could decide to be immune to Diplomacy, Intimidation, et cetera. If you want that immunity, pay for it.

A player can, on the other hand, decide that their character is simply not attracted to certain types of other characters. If you're playing a straight woman, another woman's Sex Appeal won't work on her and in some cultural milieux may creep her out. Likewise lesbian/man, straight man/man, gay man/woman.

Bill Stoddard

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by Sir Tifyable

I think that most Attractive or Beautiful people are more likely to develop the skill Resist Sex Appeal - otherwise they'll pretty quickly acquire an undesirable reputation.

Its a bit narrow for a skill. The first couple levels might be worthwhile, but beyond that +1 to such a narrow application of Will fore 4CP/level isn't a good deal when Will has so much broader application at 5CP/level.

I could see a general "Resist Influence" skill with Resist Sex Appeal available as a valid optional specialization and/or Technique.

[Kromm]

Remember that PCs are affected by NPCs' Influence skills. However, to make the experience more roleplaying than rollplaying, this isn't handled as a binary "NPC does/doesn't gets his way" test. Rather, the player gets the option to go along with the NPC's goal. If he decides to hold out, that's fine! But in that case, he suffers a modifier equal to the manipulator's margin of success should he try to act against the goal that the Influence roll was made to support. See p. B359.

In light of this situation, it's game-mechanically sensible to allow Resistant; this is just a specific case of "Mental Resistance" (p. B81). "All Influence skills" is Common; the topmost, Immunity level is named Indomitable [15] (p. B60). Thus, +8 to resist costs 7 points and +3 to resist costs 5 points. I'd split that further into refined (Diplomacy, Fast-Talk, and Savoir-Faire) vs. unrefined (Intimidation, Sex Appeal, and Streetwise), each with Immunity [10], Resistant (+8) [5], and Resistant (+3) [3]. An individual skill would have Immunity [5], Resistant (+8) [2], and Resistant (+3) [1]. The point being that this is not a skill . . . even a Will/E skill would be too costly for what it would do, as Will+3 would cost 8 points, more than any of the above Resistant (+3) traits.

I wouldn't link Resistant to Appearance. What I would do is turn the Appearance modifier to Sex Appeal into a differential one based on the mean ("Androgynous") reaction modifier: -6, -5, -4, -2, -1, 0, +1, +3, +4, or +5. Someone who's Attractive (+1) gets +1 vs. Average (0) people, +2 vs. Unattractive (-1) people, etc., but for instance -2 vs. Beautiful (+3) people! Someone who's Unattractive (-1) gets -1 vs. Average (0) people, -2 vs. Attractive (+1) people, and so on, but a big +3 vs. Hideous (-4) people! This would represent people going for the most appealing partner they can get, which with people finding their level and establishing "leagues" means that the beautiful people will tend to stick together. Then there would be a quirk, "Low Standards," that lets the user of Sex Appeal waive this modifier against you when it's a penalty: "Others never suffer a net penalty for relative Appearance when using Sex Appeal on you. If it has the right body parts, you're interested!"