|
05-24-2014, 10:12 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Nov 2011
|
Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
It's annoying that reaction rolls connect only tenuously to later influence rolls. It seems clear that influence skills should act directly upon the result of a reaction roll. The limit of good or very good reactions while useful for mechanical differentiation also produces odd results. Someone rolling a good reaction should not go "welp, guess I don't need to roll diplomacy then". Social Engineering (and a possible interpretation of Basic) doesn't let people roll reaction and then influence except with diplomacy but that's bad and can be ignored.
So, anyone done anything like this? |
05-25-2014, 01:48 AM | #2 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
Quote:
Sure, Diplomacy is the only skill that can use an Influence Roll after determining the initial reaction, but I'm okay with that. If the players want to find out what someone feels about them first, that's their choice. if they want to make Influence Rolls on npcs then they should be making a point of actively trying to ingratiate themselves with the target. Anyway, Influence Rolls are only a part of Influence Skills. Social Engineering shows this. Whilst Building Trust and Competitive Influence make use of Influence Rolls, many things are just Skill Rolls. A Good (or better) reaction is not the end for your Social Skills. |
|
05-25-2014, 02:17 AM | #3 | |||
Join Date: Nov 2011
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
Having Influence Skills directly modify the results of a Reaction Roll.
Quote:
Quote:
This doesn't correspond with a great deal of social interaction where one does observe how someone reacts and then later tries influence. Not to mention that absolute prohibitions are generally a bad idea when it comes to social matters. If a PC starts talking to an NPC and a reaction is produced either by rolling or substituting GM fiat and then the PC later tries to influence him what is supposed to happen? You can't say "that's impossible", the PC can trivially prove that someone could try it, it's hardly a secret technique that the character wouldn't know and GURPS is supposed to avoid producing "you can't do it because the rules just don't support it" results. It's also incoherent because it acts as if Reaction Rolls are a thing PCs do. They aren't, they're a thing GMs do. The GM rolls a Reaction Roll whenever he damn well wants, including when the PCs literally don't know of the NPC's existence. The first time a PC meets someone obviously he should often have an opportunity to modify the NPC's reaction even if the NPC observed him first and it doesn't work for Reaction Rolls to work one way if the GM initiated it and another if the PC initiated it by starting to talk to the NPC. Quote:
|
|||
05-25-2014, 02:17 PM | #4 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
Quote:
Reaction rolls (and influence skills) are quite blunt instruments. I'd hoped Social Engineering would do something about that, but it didn't really. A major rewrite (perhaps on the model of Control Points) would be interesting, but I don't know that it would be all that much better - social interactions are so multidimensional it's hard to flatten them to a single scale of a few named reaction levels.
__________________
-- MA Lloyd |
|
05-25-2014, 02:54 PM | #5 | ||
Join Date: Nov 2011
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
05-25-2014, 03:50 PM | #6 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
Quote:
|
|
05-25-2014, 04:47 PM | #7 | |
Join Date: Nov 2011
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
Quote:
|
|
05-25-2014, 03:36 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
Quote:
|
|
05-25-2014, 06:15 PM | #9 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
Quote:
|
|
05-25-2014, 07:23 PM | #10 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
I used to do it the way you're describing—a reaction roll and then an Influence roll. But when I was working on SE I had to get it clear how things were in the RAW, so I discussed it with Kromm at length. Now I both understand that it works differently, and think that it really makes more sense that it should do so.
Basically, an Influence roll represents you trying to get another person to behave in a desired way, by using a particular way of approaching them—reasoned negotiation (Diplomacy), formal politeness (Savoir-Faire), bafflegab (Fast-Talk), threats (Intimidation), whatever. If the attempt succeeds you get the desired behavior; if it fails you don't. But what if you don't try to use any particular skill to shape their reactions? Well, the reaction roll reflects what happens when how they feel about you becomes visible. If you ask them for something—not using an Influence skill, but just making a simple request—then their reaction becomes evident at that point, and the reaction roll occurs at that point. If you don't try to interact with them, they may react anyway, especially if you have some noticeable trait that they care about; that can be represented by a spontaneous reaction roll. If that comes up positive or negative, you'll see them react. If it comes up neutral, you won't. In that last case, I would have no problem with your making an Influence roll to try to get their cooperation. Basically their reaction isn't really set anyway. But if they have a positive or negative reaction, especially a strong one, I'd say their reaction has already been set, not by your deliberate attempt to shape it, but by their initial impression of you. At that point, their behavior has a certain natural inertia. Look at it this way. Suppose you attempted Intimidation against a mugger, and lost the Influence roll, getting a Bad reaction. Would it be reasonable for you to get a second attempt at Intimidation? A third? Should you get to keep attempting Intimidation until it works? I would say no; the initial failure defines the encounter. But a Bad reaction that the mugger forms on their own really is no different. In either case the reaction is set. Of course you can take an action that reframes the scene. Maybe you turn into a seven foot tall green-skinned monster and snarl at him. Maybe you draw a weapon. Maybe you say, "Come and take it," and when he does you throw him into the wall. Or maybe you invite him to join your gang and get bigger payoffs for his skills. In such cases you certainly could get a new reaction or Influence roll—by giving him something different to react to/be influenced by. Social interaction in GURPS isn't designed to be played out "blow by blow" like physical combat. It's divided into discrete bits of dialogue, each aimed to gain some result. All the things that people say in one dialogue, all the gestures they make, and so on, contribute to a single roll. (Or to the absence of a roll—the GM can always decide that your speech was so effective that they other people just gives you what you want.) I think what you're looking for is really a social engineering analog of Technical Grappling, where you try to gain control points toward the other person on an emotional level. And that could be an interesting alternative system; maybe you should try to work it out and submit it. But I don't have a problem with the RAW for the games I run. Bill Stoddard |
Tags |
house rules, influence rolls, influence skills, reaction rolls, social engineering |
|
|