Reaction Table House Rules

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Anthony

If there was a reaction bonus for IQ or DX, this argument would be more persuasive.

But attributes are more 'raw' than talents. People (at lest WEIRD* people) don't tend to root for the strong and dextrous who spent a lifetime in perfectionism; no, they tend to root for the underdog who is not as tough/agile/smart/skilled as the alpha rival, but gets from zero to hero within the timespan of the film/book/etc. despite it. That seems to be how GURPS Talents work - being fast-learning, being good at a field despite not being as smart/dextrous, and being likeable for it.


* == Western, Educated, and from Industrialized, Rich, Democratic places.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Each one separately? Indeed, sounds complicated, likely slow.

In play that's what computers are for, but it's a system that would be a pain to design.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, Luck is very much used for proofing against some failure. The chance of having two unlucky Reaction Rolls within one hour is much lower than the chance of having two critical failures in a single combat lasting no more than an hour.

Reaction rolls sure, but it's not like there are no other rolls during social scenes, or that social scenes abruptly shifting into combat is unheard of.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I mean that the longer the persuader talks, the longer the target listens. They seem to both be getting extra time. (Conversely, allowing 'canned speeches' to enjoy extra time bonuses seems prone to all sorts of either (a) abuse or (b) arguments about who got more prepared and thus enjoys a bigger bonus.)

Oh no, I wouldn't give bonuses for spending longer in an interaction.

I don't think letting people prepare themselves for social stuff is a bad idea, it's how real life works. You need to have a certain amount of information to be able to usefully prepare and there is a risk of getting mentally locked in to a certain pattern of events but it makes a large difference compared to just getting dropped into a situation. I don't see arguments would happen. You get the bonus you get from preparation, the other person gets the bonus they get from preparation. When do the players even know how much time the other person spent? It wouldn't be common if interacting with an NPC and interacting with a PC is rare and would probably be using notes if they are trying to influence each other.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Oh well, then I don't there's any point in trying to convince you. Okay, maybe there's a bit: do you find it reasonable that everyone in the campaign has the aforementioned meta-game-vision?

No, but the way Talents are structured is a silly way to approach that. People might react to having a high overall skill level, having put a lot of time into learning a skill, having picked up things quickly or demonstrated above average abilities when untrained due to high Attributes or Talents, having personality traits in connection with the skill represented by Advantages or Disadvantages. Singling out Talents only doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Attributes are not the best choice because they mean you have Relative Skill Bonuses. Talents are not the best choice because they mean you have unimpressive cross-defaults for non-talented skills. Skills are not the best choice because they mean you throw lots of points to get a high basic roll value.

No, Attributes are firmly the best choice. They aren't strictly better but that doesn't make them not better.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

But attributes are more 'raw' than talents. People (at lest WEIRD* people) don't tend to root for the strong and dextrous who spent a lifetime in perfectionism; no, they tend to root for the underdog who is not as tough/agile/smart/skilled as the alpha rival, but gets from zero to hero within the timespan of the film/book/etc. despite it. That seems to be how GURPS Talents work - being fast-learning, being good at a field despite not being as smart/dextrous, and being likeable for it.

You know that those stories have lots of people in universe who admire the rival right? People like the underdog story, but they also react well to perceived results.

Plus this is a super strange way to view these stories. Plenty of them have high attribute but untrained people going against rivals with high skills.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

But attributes are more 'raw' than talents. People (at lest WEIRD* people) don't tend to root for the strong and dextrous who spent a lifetime in perfectionism; no, they tend to root for the underdog who is not as tough/agile/smart/skilled as the alpha rival

So what you're saying is, there should be a bonus for high points in a skill and no bonus for a talent.

There's nothing inherently wrong with having a reaction bonus for "good mechanic" or whatever, but it's dumb to incorporate that bonus directly into the talent rules. If people want the reaction bonus, it's not like a reputation is hard to buy.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anthony

If there was a reaction bonus for IQ or DX, this argument would be more persuasive.

Whether there's a reaction bonus for something or not seems to be a different issue from whether its game effects are perceivable or not. The defined game effects of Talent are perceivable. If you want to suppose that NPCs (a) are able to perceive that a character learns musical skills quickly and is unusually good at instruments they've never played before but (b) have no reaction bonus whatever from that awareness and (c) instead have a reaction bonus that's a result of some mysterious channel of influence through which the other person modifies their emotions and behavior—well, I suppose you can, but it seems like you're multiplying entities unnecessarily.

Bill Stoddard

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

If you want to suppose that NPCs (a) are able to perceive that a character learns musical skills quickly and is unusually good at instruments they've never played before but (b) have no reaction bonus whatever from that awareness and (c) instead have a reaction bonus that's a result of some mysterious channel of influence through which the other person modifies their emotions and behavior—well, I suppose you can, but it seems like you're multiplying entities unnecessarily.

I would say that NPCs (a) can only perceive that a character learns musical skills quickly if they interact with the character in a context where that matters, (b) will only have a reaction bonus in situations where that matters, (c) would have the exact same reaction bonus for, say, high IQ, and (d) are probably reacting to the character's higher default, not to the talent, which is to say, they're reacting to skill level.

The reaction bonus for Musical Ability is "anyone listening to or critiquing your work". People listening to or critiquing work don't generally react to potential (unless they're looking for students), they react to actual ability -- which is skill level.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Anthony

So what you're saying is, there should be a bonus for high points in a skill and no bonus for a talent.

Huh? People liking the not so tough/agile/smart/skilled person who nonetheless achieves a victory is precisely the case of the reaction bonus being enjoyed by those with talent, not with high skill or high attributes.

Originally Posted by Anthony

There's nothing inherently wrong with having a reaction bonus for "good mechanic" or whatever, but it's dumb to incorporate that bonus directly into the talent rules. If people want the reaction bonus, it's not like a reputation is hard to buy.

Baking the reaction bonuses into another trait is kinda un-nice. But splitting Talents into their three components risks being . . . hair-splitting.
I get the feeling that they're like Combat Reflexes: munchy on paper, but there's almost always something I want more than this thing.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Baking the reaction bonuses into another trait is kinda un-nice. But splitting Talents into their three components risks being . . . hair-splitting.

Well the skill bonus is fine alone. No one is disappointed when skills don't have random other bonuses attached. They wanted to be better at a skill so they bought that. Likewise IQ is almost entirely skill rolls and what remains is stuff that functions in a similar vein. People aren't disappointed that there aren't various other things that could but do not need to be attached to IQ bundled in.

The reaction bonus is fine alone. Reputation handles colleagues reacting better to you because of your talent just fine.

The faster learning must be alone. It's value varies wildly depending on the campaign and it's incredibly dangerous to add something like that to another trait. A trait that is similar to it also exist in the form of Less Sleep.

Why is it hair-splitting for a trait to be broken up to the level of precision that other traits already evidence?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I get the feeling that they're like Combat Reflexes: munchy on paper, but there's almost always something I want more than this thing.

... Like what? Aside from characters campaigns that are very far from the RPG norm, characters that can't justify starting with it and plan to pick it up as soon as they can and the most point desolute characters who literally can't afford to invest in defensive traits the number of characters that have something better to buy than Combat Reflexes must be vanishingly small. Berserkers can justify pushing it out a bit but it's still a vital Advantage for them. Even people who don't intend on ever fighting seriously want Combat Reflexes.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

[...]
Why is it hair-splitting for a trait to be broken up to the level of precision that other traits already evidence?

Mostly because you'll likely get fractional point costs for these things. Having something like [1¼] paid for Alternate Benefits or rather narrow Reaction Bonuses and [½] (or whatever) for faster learning and [3¾] for a slightly expanded version of RSB is fiddly. (I'm assuming that the things remain neveled.)

Originally Posted by Sindri

... Like what? Aside from characters campaigns that are very far from the RPG norm, characters that can't justify starting with it and plan to pick it up as soon as they can and the most point desolute characters who literally can't afford to invest in defensive traits the number of characters that have something better to buy than Combat Reflexes must be vanishingly small. Berserkers can justify pushing it out a bit but it's still a vital Advantage for them. Even people who don't intend on ever fighting seriously want Combat Reflexes.

More Per to not get ambushed. More sneaky skills to ambush others. More HT to resist all sorts of stuff against which CR won't help. Luck. (I'm also forking over [15] for Serendipity, but this is an experiment that might prove a bad idea.) Bunch of utility skills. Night Vision to better spot ambushes at night and avoid penalties to attack and defend if night combats occur. That sort of stuff.
I do look forward to picking them up eventually, but right now, CR look like something you rely on when you've made a tactical or logistical error.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Mostly because you'll likely get fractional point costs for these things. Having something like [1¼] paid for Alternate Benefits or rather narrow Reaction Bonuses and [½] (or whatever) for faster learning and [3¾] for a slightly expanded version of RSB is fiddly. (I'm assuming that the things remain neveled.)

Well obviously you don't break up the cost of Talents for these things. If you want a Reputation as a musician you buy that. If you want to be faster learning you construct a trait for that (probably out of Less Sleep. Presumably this trait would be disallowed if it does nothing or is wildly imbalanced relegating it to a very small section of campaigns) if you want a bonus to related skills you construct a trait that is actually competitive with Attributes.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

More Per to not get ambushed. More sneaky skills to ambush others. More HT to resist all sorts of stuff against which CR won't help. Luck. (I'm also forking over [15] for Serendipity, but this is an experiment that might prove a bad idea.) Bunch of utility skills. Night Vision to better spot ambushes at night and avoid penalties to attack and defend if night combats occur. That sort of stuff.
I do look forward to picking them up eventually, but right now, CR look like something you rely on when you've made a tactical or logistical error.

Well, you're either playing in a very different campaign than I or making a serious mistake.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I would say that NPCs (a) can only perceive that a character learns musical skills quickly if they interact with the character in a context where that matters, (b) will only have a reaction bonus in situations where that matters, (c) would have the exact same reaction bonus for, say, high IQ, and (d) are probably reacting to the character's higher default, not to the talent, which is to say, they're reacting to skill level.

The reaction bonus for Musical Ability is "anyone listening to or critiquing your work". People listening to or critiquing work don't generally react to potential (unless they're looking for students), they react to actual ability -- which is skill level.

I'm sorry, but no. You seem to be saying that it's possible to say that my sister is above average in intelligence and I'm a bit more so—but that it's not possible to say that she's really good at music in particular and I'm disastrously bad at it, but really good at language. And I think that's just contrary to everyday experience, where we notice all the time that one person is musical, another is verbal, and a third is really good at sports and body movement. And where, moreover, people like me who are linguistically oriented are going to react favorably to someone who is articulate or who uses language precisely.

Bill Stoddard