Maximum Realistic Reaction Bonus

[simply Nathan]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Be he can't give the throne to her...it is not legal. So it isn't possible for him to do so, even if he desperately wanted to. Just like, no matter how many skills I had and reaction bonuses, I couldn't get the Queen to give me the throne of England...because she doesn't have the power to do that.

And even if I was given Excalibur by the Lady of the Lake and it was verified legitimate, I still wouldn't be King of Britain because as a Catholic I am disqualified. Aside from all the other reasons that wouldn't work from other conquests and dynasty changes that have occurred in the intervening centuries.

I'd have a cool sword and a positive relationship with at least one faerie court though, so I'd go around as an adventurer instead.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Which only matters if you're playing in the game. Or is he perilously close to engaging in badwrongfun to you?

I meant that sort of thing isn't a usually very fun for anybody, but you are right it is probably overstepping

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by simply Nathan

And even if I was given Excalibur by the Lady of the Lake and it was verified legitimate, I still wouldn't be King of Britain because as a Catholic I am disqualified.

And if I went round claiming to be emperor because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me...

Sorry. Sorry.

Incidentally, Joan of Arc's Reputation in Who's Who is "to all Frenchmen", not universal (which is probably still overstating, but meh), and she has the English as an Enemy, which means that they're already automatically inclined to kill her. She probably ought also to have some kind of Social Stigma as a woman, not generating reaction penalties so much as limiting her social options; by acting in an "unwomanly" fashion, she's instantly on dangerous ground, reactions be damned.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

No negative corresponding reputation from followers of other religions (including the Emperor's own shinto), from atheists, or from political conservatives (which likely includes the 84 year old Akihito), and so on was listed (and the OP has yet to agree with any of several posts that suggest that such things ought to be present).

The fact that the outcome is even possible implies a significantly less realistic scenario.
There is a big difference between illegal and legally impossible. It would be illegal for me to defraud people by selling them fake bonds, it would be impossible for me to have sold them perfectly legal bonds for the National Bank of Atlantis. Akihito can abdicate, he can say whatever ridiculous thing he likes when he does so, he can rob a convenience store on his way out of Tokyo, he simply can't crown someone not in the line of succession as Emperor or force the Parliament to do so because "Emperor of Japan" is a legal construct and is defined as being restricted to specific criteria and procedures. Unless the law is changed, it simply cannot happen.

Well, she did have reputations for many things, so the total might just be +4 in most scenarios. I would agree that the OP should strongly consider if she should have more negative Reputations though.

That example tries to examine whether that outcome is possible according to the rules. Checking if something would lead to absurd consequenses is not a bad methodology in a realistic setting.

As far as I know, it was never stated that the emperor would have legally succeeded in giving away the throne, just that he agreed with her and physically left the throne he was sitting on so that she could take his place there.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Andreas

As far as I know, it was never stated that the emperor would have legally succeeded in giving away the throne, just that he agreed with her and physically left the throne he was sitting on so that she could take his place there.

The actual statement was

Let´s put an example for how far can her bonuses bring her in an utterly non realistic situation:

She, as the leader of a major global religion, arrives to the Imperial Palace in Tokyo flying her private jet and, escorted by her platoon of bodyguards, demands to see the emperor Akihito. She gains audience with him and asks to the emperor to abdicate and name her ruler/empress in his place. This is hugely ridiculous so -10 is placed... And she rolls:

3d6+2(Voice)+2(Diplomacy)+6(Appearance)+4(Charisma )+4(Reputation)+6(Status)-8(Status)-10(Modifier) for a final 3d6+6, granting a Very Good Reaction 62.5% of times and an Excellent Reaction 25.93% of times, almost guaranteeing that the Emperor chuckles, says something about being sorry of having sat in her throne, stands up and goes on his way.

Now, that might be either a description of the Emperor showing Savoir-Faire (High Society) in an extraordinary situation; an example of the Emperor acquiring a Delusion and acting on it; or a symbolic/cinematic way of saying that the Emperor really does turn over his throne. But the actual point of this thread seems to be "How do we deal with the extreme consequences of this sort of character build?" And the last of the three options is surely the most extreme consequence, so it's the one that's more interesting to discuss.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Which only matters if you're playing in the game. Or is he perilously close to engaging in badwrongfun to you?

There are serious reasons for considering GMPCs to be an undesirable practice for any GM, and not just a question of personal taste. Not every negative statement about a method of GMing can be dismissed that easily. If they could, then there would be no point in anyone ever asking for advice on any aspect of GMing; the answer would always reduce to "Do as thou wilt."

[Tomsdad]

Yeah while I get the basic point that if you pay* for something you should get the bonus, when it come to reaction bonuses from a range of sources I think they'd overlap a lot rather that automatically add.

And also yeah somethings are just out of context for social rolls which is not the same as being -10 and muscling it with massive bonuses. No they're not going to make you the empress of Japan doesn't matter how good looking and charming you are (and in fact heading up your own religion might be a further bar here not a bonus).

But that's a RL point, if you want this in you game that's all that matters, but I would say it makes you game cinematic (or at least this character so). But Cinematic is term of art not a precise definition so again it's all good.


*although I gather this is a NPC? (personally I don't build NPCs with CPs)

[whswhs]

Going back to the original question,

Originally Posted by Alonsua

I have read the part in "How to be a GURPS GM" where it points out how ".... someone with a +5 reaction bonus, from 3 or 4 social traits, is realistic; one with a +15 reaction bonus, from seven or eight social traits, is cinematic..." and here comes my doubt:

Since I have used 4 social traits (Appearance + Charisma + Reputation + Voice) should I assume that my character is realistic? If I do so, should I apply +16/12 bonus to reaction rolls, or what? What might be the maximum realistic bonus to reactions? Shall I stick to pick only the maximum situational one (like Very Beautiful +6 if she is seen) and use the rest to suck penalties or in quick contests?

(a) Using only the highest bonus is not part of the RaW. You sum the various bonuses as they apply.

(b) What the quoted text gives is not a definition of realistic vs. cinematic, but an example of each. There is no rule that says where the boundary lies.

(c) The basic philosophy of GURPS is not "the rules allow this, and therefore it can happen, no matter how unlikely or unbelievable it is." It's "this is a plausible thing to have happen, and this rule can be used to represent it." If a rule allows an event that you think is implausible, then you probably don't want to apply that rule, and the rules themselves authorize you not to do so.

(d) The difference between "realistic" and "cinematic" is not defined by specific rules; it's in the spirit with which you apply the rules. In a realistic campaign, you are looking for how the details actually impact the outcome of an action; in a cinematic campaign, you are going with the narrative flow, and not slowing down to account for details that might disrupt it.

(e) The extreme bonuses aren't really the issue. A mere net +1 to reaction rolls could give you an Excellent reaction, in the most realistic of campaigns. If an Excellent reaction could result in extraordinary things like an emperor abdicating and naming you his successor, then it can happen in a realistic campaign. Most people's concepts of "realism" would not include such an event; therefore it's necessary to interpret Excellent reactions in ways that don't imply that such events can take place. All the discussion of "but the emperor can't just unilaterally declare you to be the new emperor" and "but you can't just walk in and see the emperor" are the kind of limits that need to be applied to Excellent reactions for this purpose.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by whswhs

The actual statement was

Let´s put an example for how far can her bonuses bring her in an utterly non realistic situation:

She, as the leader of a major global religion, arrives to the Imperial Palace in Tokyo flying her private jet and, escorted by her platoon of bodyguards, demands to see the emperor Akihito. She gains audience with him and asks to the emperor to abdicate and name her ruler/empress in his place. This is hugely ridiculous so -10 is placed... And she rolls:

3d6+2(Voice)+2(Diplomacy)+6(Appearance)+4(Charisma )+4(Reputation)+6(Status)-8(Status)-10(Modifier) for a final 3d6+6, granting a Very Good Reaction 62.5% of times and an Excellent Reaction 25.93% of times, almost guaranteeing that the Emperor chuckles, says something about being sorry of having sat in her throne, stands up and goes on his way.

Now, that might be either a description of the Emperor showing Savoir-Faire (High Society) in an extraordinary situation; an example of the Emperor acquiring a Delusion and acting on it; or a symbolic/cinematic way of saying that the Emperor really does turn over his throne. But the actual point of this thread seems to be "How do we deal with the extreme consequences of this sort of character build?" And the last of the three options is surely the most extreme consequence, so it's the one that's more interesting to discuss.

Yep +1,

her powers are great source of interesting situations to play in, but with her as a NPC that's the angle I'd take (i.e I wouldn't stress about the precise mechanics of it)

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

*although I gather this is a NPC? (personally I don't build NPCs with CPs)

I do that for any *important* NPC. It gives me a clearer idea of what their capabilities and limits are, and looking at the character sheet may inspire me to think of something clever to have them do that I hadn't planned on in advance.

In fact, I fairly often invite a guest player to take part in a session, and hand them a character sheet for an NPC. That can really bring an NPC to life.