Reaction Table House Rules

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

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.

Huh? No, it's certainly possible to say those things. However, those things are in fact reflected in skill levels (defaults, if untrained).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Huh? No, it's certainly possible to say those things. However, those things are in fact reflected in skill levels (defaults, if untrained).

Yes, but not only in levels; also in rates of change in levels.

And even just where levels are concerned, no one is saying that we have a magical talent sense that reveals a talent that isn't manifested in the performance of any tasks. Obviously you see talent in the performance of tasks. But if we see someone who is good at a group of mechanical tasks, and not nearly as good atother tasks, we say that they have a talent for mechanics. "Intelligence" without qualifications is reserved more for people who are good at a number of different things, rather than at one or two clumps of related things. We are capable of observing the pattern of what a person is good at or bad at, and of reacting to it.

And though there aren't explicit GURPS rules for this, in fact there are activities that are simple enough so that an untrained person can have a decent chance at doing them, but that use specific aptitudes.

Bill Stoddard

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

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

Ah. That changes what is or isn't an acceptable game mechanic. Though it still needs to be clear enough that a person can understand the probabilities and implications, even without being able to process a roll in real time without a computer. Still, probably fewer people will be inclined to jump into the discussion of that.

Originally Posted by Sindri

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.

There are, but fewer than in combat. And there's the snowballing effect that if someone is very very friendly, you don't need to employ intimidation or fast-talk to get some sort of information or favour as much. E.g. someone who reacts more favourably is less likely to lie, so you don't need Detect Lies as much.

Originally Posted by Sindri

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.

Some sort of bonus is certainly appropriate, but what counts as +0 time is not precisely clear, and setting it by fiat each and every time would be unpleasant. Oh, and there should also be some option to take even less time than normal. Some of the Influence Schticks seem to come close to that.

Originally Posted by Sindri

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.

People might react to brunettes, blondes or redheads, but that's the Quirk on the charsheet of the one who is reacting. Having people react better or even better when they see you, under otherwise identical conditions compared to the competition, is having higher Appearance than the competition. Having people react better when they see your art, or hear you sing, or the like, compared to a otherwise identical-condition rivals, is Talent (or, more precisely, the built in Talent Reaction Bonus).

Originally Posted by Sindri

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

If you have all of them at high level, perhaps. But I've already found that having Survival-18 is not as good as having Survival at attribute+8, for the purposes of staying alive in the arctic and the like.

Originally Posted by Sindri

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.

They react well to perceived results, but they react better to the same result achieved by the unskilled/unattributed underdog, whose advantageous quality seems to be Talent in GURPS terms.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

There are, but fewer than in combat. And there's the snowballing effect that if someone is very very friendly, you don't need to employ intimidation or fast-talk to get some sort of information or favour as much. E.g. someone who reacts more favourably is less likely to lie, so you don't need Detect Lies as much.

Let's not forget that social scenes don't necessarily contain only one NPC. For games with a heavy social element I'd guess that most don't. And some people just aren't going to like you.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Some sort of bonus is certainly appropriate, but what counts as +0 time is not precisely clear, and setting it by fiat each and every time would be unpleasant. Oh, and there should also be some option to take even less time than normal. Some of the Influence Schticks seem to come close to that.

Setting nearly anything by fiat on a regular basis is unpleasant. I think coming up with standard time requirements wouldn't be hard.

I'd peg +0 as no time, or a very nominal amount so options for taking less time wouldn't be necessary.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

People might react to brunettes, blondes or redheads, but that's the Quirk on the charsheet of the one who is reacting. Having people react better or even better when they see you, under otherwise identical conditions compared to the competition, is having higher Appearance than the competition.

I do not believe reacting well to people with demonstrated high general intelligence is the equivalent of Likes X. People react well to people with high general intelligence. As far as I see it Talents just raise the effective Intelligence score for people who care about the skill group in question.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Having people react better when they see your art, or hear you sing, or the like, compared to a otherwise identical-condition rivals, is Talent (or, more precisely, the built in Talent Reaction Bonus).

Only definitionally.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

If you have all of them at high level, perhaps. But I've already found that having Survival-18 is not as good as having Survival at attribute+8, for the purposes of staying alive in the arctic and the like.

Of course it's not as good. Attributes are still better. Something doesn't need to be strictly better to be better.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

They react well to perceived results, but they react better to the same result achieved by the unskilled/unattributed underdog, whose advantageous quality seems to be Talent in GURPS terms.

People react well to people who push the underdog button. That effect works for people with high Attributes, hell it even works for people with high relative skill levels. That is also ignoring that the Attributes/Talents split is an artificial one. IQ isn't a thing, it's a whole bunch of things that (aside from stuff like Incompetence) are all at least at the level of the IQ stat and the things that IQ is composed of are things that are thought of in the real world as talents.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Let's not forget that social scenes don't necessarily contain only one NPC. For games with a heavy social element I'd guess that most don't. And some people just aren't going to like you.

Sure, and combats don't necessarily contain only one NPC. My point is about relative and in general ease of insuring through the more-universal Luck.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Setting nearly anything by fiat on a regular basis is unpleasant. I think coming up with standard time requirements wouldn't be hard.

I'd peg +0 as no time, or a very nominal amount so options for taking less time wouldn't be necessary.

In that case you'll have to rewrite the Haste/Extra Time timespans and modifiers. Because you can't apply haste to zero time, and can't meaningfully apply extra time to it either.
Consider the modifiers for a careful attempt to initiate a romance over the course of weeks to months vs. the single-evening pickup artist (of the non-RoF school) vs. moving from just-met to going-somewhere-private at a wild-ish party vs. 'Hello, I'm Stark. Would you like to go to bed with me right now?' (and succeeding) vs. using an Influence Shtick and lots of epic skill levels that would hypothetically give a chance of succeeding at the latter with no talking at all.
There are, of course, many other modifiers flying around. But my point is that 'instant' is also a risky descriptor because just what is considered 'so little it is instant' will vary in different people's eyes.
And this applies to all sorts of skills, and skill usages.

Originally Posted by Sindri

I do not believe reacting well to people with demonstrated high general intelligence is the equivalent of Likes X. People react well to people with high general intelligence. As far as I see it Talents just raise the effective Intelligence score for people who care about the skill group in question.

Do you consider this 'reacts well' effect to include something more than higher defaults and per-point levels of Influence skills? Because if yes, that's reason to either mechanise said better relationship (surely adjusting IQ price), or make it some other optional bonus RM that you propose, just like the one for Talents.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Only definitionally.

Well, I do agree that it would be nice to have something like a Conditional Reaction Modifier trait, which would work like Reputation, but not subject to Reputation's stacking limit (to ensure that 'Wow, I knew you are a great actor, but seeing the spectacle firsthand is even more impressive!' is possible to make game-mechanically), and with price adjusted for how narrow the conditions need to be, as opposed to by belonging of people to different demographics or just rolling 7- / 10-.

Originally Posted by Sindri

People react well to people who push the underdog button. That effect works for people with high Attributes, hell it even works for people with high relative skill levels. That is also ignoring that the Attributes/Talents split is an artificial one. IQ isn't a thing, it's a whole bunch of things that (aside from stuff like Incompetence) are all at least at the level of the IQ stat and the things that IQ is composed of are things that are thought of in the real world as talents.

Pushing the underdog button seems more like either actively using Acting to to appear more underdogly than for real, or some weird non-passive form of Pitiable.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

In that case you'll have to rewrite the Haste/Extra Time timespans and modifiers. Because you can't apply haste to zero time, and can't meaningfully apply extra time to it either.

Well they are rather generic rules so it wouldn't surprise me if I ended up doing a special variant for social stuff. However haste rules are unnecessary for tasks that don't take any time and percentile based extra time should work fine when applied to the social interaction being attempted.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Consider the modifiers for a careful attempt to initiate a romance over the course of weeks to months vs. the single-evening pickup artist (of the non-RoF school) vs. moving from just-met to going-somewhere-private at a wild-ish party vs. 'Hello, I'm Stark. Would you like to go to bed with me right now?' (and succeeding) vs. using an Influence Shtick and lots of epic skill levels that would hypothetically give a chance of succeeding at the latter with no talking at all.

Those aren't approaches with different modifiers, they're completely different approaches that deserve their own rules.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

There are, of course, many other modifiers flying around. But my point is that 'instant' is also a risky descriptor because just what is considered 'so little it is instant' will vary in different people's eyes.

You need x minutes to get a +1. If you spend less than that you get a +0. This isn't hard.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Do you consider this 'reacts well' effect to include something more than higher defaults and per-point levels of Influence skills? Because if yes, that's reason to either mechanise said better relationship (surely adjusting IQ price), or make it some other optional bonus RM that you propose, just like the one for Talents.

Yes. It's very easy to justify someone with high stats having some kind of bonus to reaction modifiers.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, I do agree that it would be nice to have something like a Conditional Reaction Modifier trait, which would work like Reputation, but not subject to Reputation's stacking limit (to ensure that 'Wow, I knew you are a great actor, but seeing the spectacle firsthand is even more impressive!' is possible to make game-mechanically), and with price adjusted for how narrow the conditions need to be, as opposed to by belonging of people to different demographics or just rolling 7- / 10-.

Just interpret the narrowness of the condition as incorporating situations instead of demographics. The rules won't break down. It should be fine to allow these things to stack separately from other reputations.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Pushing the underdog button seems more like either actively using Acting to to appear more underdogly than for real, or some weird non-passive form of Pitiable.

I'm not talking about deliberately pushing it.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Well they are rather generic rules so it wouldn't surprise me if I ended up doing a special variant for social stuff. However haste rules are unnecessary for tasks that don't take any time and percentile based extra time should work fine when applied to the social interaction being attempted.

Your call, but seems like Path of Complications to me.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Those aren't approaches with different modifiers, they're completely different approaches that deserve their own rules.

If you intend there to be separate rules for the myriad different ways to get into someone's pants . . . and to broker a deal, to scare off a mugger, to achieve a political agreement, and for all the other things dealt with in Social Engineering, then you're looking at a piece of work greater than Social Engineering.

Originally Posted by Sindri

You need x minutes to get a +1. If you spend less than that you get a +0. This isn't hard.

I guess I'm personally more comfortable with there being a place for haste and a place for extra time. But yeah, flat -0 for the hastiest will still work, I guess . . .

Originally Posted by Sindri

Yes. It's very easy to justify someone with high stats having some kind of bonus to reaction modifiers.

But if you're unbaking them from Talents, you shouldn't bake them into IQ either, IMHO. So . . . just the Generic Conditional Reaction bonus, it seems.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Just interpret the narrowness of the condition as incorporating situations instead of demographics. The rules won't break down. It should be fine to allow these things to stack separately from other reputations.

Yeah, they probably should still have a 4-stack limit, but separate from the Reputation stack limit.

Originally Posted by Sindri

I'm not talking about deliberately pushing it.

/me lowers hands, recognising the same split or lack thereof.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

If you intend there to be separate rules for the myriad different ways to get into someone's pants . . . and to broker a deal, to scare off a mugger, to achieve a political agreement, and for all the other things dealt with in Social Engineering, then you're looking at a piece of work greater than Social Engineering.

One step at a time. Plus hopefully the are reoccuring rules elements. Though honestly rules for getting in someone's pants aside from as a component of long term romance are likely to be pretty far down that road.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

But if you're unbaking them from Talents, you shouldn't bake them into IQ either, IMHO. So . . . just the Generic Conditional Reaction bonus, it seems.

Indeed. I wouldn't want to keep people from being able to play characters who downplay their natural talents.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

/me lowers hands, recognising the same split or lack thereof.

To describe the sort of thing I had in mind these plots often involve underdog status due to resources rather than actual abilities. The hero might be someone who shows broad natural abilities and has been training for years and the rest of the team an eclectic bunch spanning the spectrum but they are underdogs because they are training in a shack and the other guys are training in a super expensive gym.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

One step at a time. Plus hopefully the are reoccuring rules elements. Though honestly rules for getting in someone's pants aside from as a component of long term romance are likely to be pretty far down that road.

It was just an example, and one that is usually considered not very differentiated between different approaches in RPGs (in fact, GURPS RAW seems rather varied and flexible on the topic compared to others), the point is that all sorts of social phenomena are no less varied.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Indeed. I wouldn't want to keep people from being able to play characters who downplay their natural talents.

There's also the issue of whether to consider it some sort of unusual 'downplay' as opposed to just not happening to have it flashy. Tesla vs. Edison, eh?

Originally Posted by Sindri

To describe the sort of thing I had in mind these plots often involve underdog status due to resources rather than actual abilities. The hero might be someone who shows broad natural abilities and has been training for years and the rest of the team an eclectic bunch spanning the spectrum but they are underdogs because they are training in a shack and the other guys are training in a super expensive gym.

Dunno, I was thinking of the (original) Karate Kid as the most prominent example. I don't remember whether he was actually poor, but the point was that he wasn't particularly experienced or tough at the start of the 'campaign', but ended up besting the tougher, more experienced etc. rivals after a month of training. Now, it could be said that it's all Myagi's virtue, but it didn't seem quite so one-sided back when I saw it.
Sorry if I broke something by invoking a silly film and cliché, I just think that its clichéness illustrates the sentiment.
Also, obligatory disclaimer: childhood memories and impression may or may not match yours from exposure to same films. ^_^

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

There's also the issue of whether to consider it some sort of unusual 'downplay' as opposed to just not happening to have it flashy. Tesla vs. Edison, eh?

That's significant as well.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Dunno, I was thinking of the (original) Karate Kid as the most prominent example. I don't remember whether he was actually poor, but the point was that he wasn't particularly experienced or tough at the start of the 'campaign', but ended up besting the tougher, more experienced etc. rivals after a month of training. Now, it could be said that it's all Myagi's virtue, but it didn't seem quite so one-sided back when I saw it.
Sorry if I broke something by invoking a silly film and cliché, I just think that its clichéness illustrates the sentiment.
Also, obligatory disclaimer: childhood memories and impression may or may not match yours from exposure to same films. ^_^

It's important that silly film cliches have at least optional mechanical support. Superior training is certainly often a factor but the trainee is also important. I think it's more a matter of having a personality that lets one push past plateaus instead of maintaining one's current status and not something specific to a handful of skills though. Having something more important to fight for also helps.

It's also a real thing in human psychology. People like competitors that have overcome a lot even if they end up at mostly the same level of ability as their established competitor. That could be experience, resources even discrimination. It all triggers the same response.