PCs with very different reaction modifiers

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Knowing what kinds of favors a charismatic person can get away with asking for, and how to leverage those favors into financial or military or social success, is just as potentially important as knowing which monsters are susceptible to eyeshots and which can be kited.

Sure, but that's actually a different skill set than being able to do those things. And, hate to burst your bubble, but I don't punish those Players who aren't particularly strategically/tactically bright, because, and I hate to be repetitive, that's what skill rolls are for.

Is Bob the Smasher supposed to be tactically savyy? Then the PC should have a good Tactics skill. Which will be rolled when necessary, especially if it looks like Bob's Player has chosen poorly.

Is Bob the Smasher also supposed to be a looker and dashingly charming? Then I expect the PC has Attractive Appearance, maybe a level or two of Charisma, and good social skills. And if Bob's Player is a knobbly little wart with the social graces of your average 1980s nerd... again, make thy skill rolls and it shall be done.


Why yes, I do treat all PCs as having Common Sense on their sheets for free, why do you ask?


Now, if Uncouth Bob is doing dumb social things, has poor reaction modifiers, and terrible social skills, no, no I rather will not interrupt a Player who is on a role by asking them to make rolls. However if Uncouth Bob wants to suddenly seduce the dragoness, "Hold my ale fellas, I heard about this in a bard song!", then oh yeah, make them rolls. And no matter how the Player talks up their approach, no matter how skilled the Player might be, it's on them dice.


(As for the 'eyeshots'? Did the PC make their Hidden Lore/Naturalist/etc skill roll to know if that weird creature they've never seen before is actually susceptible to eyeshots or not? No? Well... it might or might not be, and especially in Fantasy, very often "logic" has little to do with it.)

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

(As for the 'eyeshots'? Did the PC make their Hidden Lore/Naturalist/etc skill roll to know if that weird creature they've never seen before is actually susceptible to eyeshots or not? No? Well... it might or might not be, and especially in Fantasy, very often "logic" has little to do with it.)

Generally you can just guess: if it has something that looks like eyes or a head, hit them in it, and if that doesn't kill them, go to work on the limbs.

That's good strategy but I would never tell a player in-game to do that, or tell him when not to do it (e.g. don't bother vs. horde pygmies). I might discuss it friend-to-friend between games if it's someone really smart whom I view as a peer and can't stand not discussing things with, but in general the game IME is not fun when the GM plays both sides of the table.

I would give more info than that in social situations because that's the nature of the beast (people generally want to be understood), but I still would avoid giving outright advice like "this guy obviously loves his family--try sweettalking his daughter into asking him to do it, instead of asking him directly!"

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

Sure, but that's actually a different skill set than being able to do those things. And, hate to burst your bubble, but I don't punish those Players who aren't particularly strategically/tactically bright, because, and I hate to be repetitive, that's what skill rolls are for.

Is Bob the Smasher supposed to be tactically savyy? Then the PC should have a good Tactics skill. Which will be rolled when necessary, especially if it looks like Bob's Player has chosen poorly.

And to what degree do you take that? Do you dictate to an otherwise Tactics-adept group how they're handling the situation, if the players themselves are being boneheads? (This, of course, presupposes you're a better tactician than they are.) Do you say "No, you wouldn't possibly have been rude to the Viscount, because you have a high Savoir-Faire?"

Actually, conversely, do you penalize characters who aren't strategically/tactically bright, however much the players are on the ball? "Sorry, that plan's WAY too good for someone with IQ 9 and without Tactics. We're going to have to dumb it down some."

Players are going to have to have agency, and it's not my job either to play for them, or unilaterally veto their actions because of some notion that it doesn't quite square with the character sheets' numbers.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by RGTraynor

And to what degree do you take that? Do you dictate to an otherwise Tactics-adept group how they're handling the situation, if the players themselves are being boneheads? (This, of course, presupposes you're a better tactician than they are.) Do you say "No, you wouldn't possibly have been rude to the Viscount, because you have a high Savoir-Faire?"

I'd have them make skill rolls and say "Uh, you do realize you're allowing the enemy to flank you, and that's bad, right? Okay, if you're good with it..." and "Ah, insulting the Viscount will have pretty bad ramifications, you realize this yes? Okay then insult away..."

I'm not about taking away choices, but I will alert them that the GM thinks they're making poor choices. Now if they "have a plan" and for some unknown reason they're not letting me in on it, okay then. They do as they wish, even if they say "Nah, I have no idea what I'm doing, but it's fun", the Player is making an informed decision. Letting them make decisions uninformed is poor GMing (unless they'd have no way of knowing or have deliberately avoided becoming informed).

Actually, conversely, do you penalize characters who aren't strategically/tactically bright, however much the players are on the ball?

No, but I'll up my own game. I trend to go light (tactically/strategically speaking) on most players... except the ones I play tactical miniatures games with and know that they do know what they're up to.

Also, after more than a handful of sessions most of Players include me in their planning stages, as I'm all about giving out more information so the Players are as informed as their PCs should be. I don't labor under the delusion that they know the state of the world as well as I do. So it's rare they have 'secret' plans which entail "acting dumb and then surprise! They weren't dumb at all it was a trap for the NPCs!"

There are really only two reasons a PC tends to act dumb, either the PC is supposed to be dumb and the Player enjoys playing up being a meathead, or the Player has no idea what mess they are walking into.

I reward the former and warn the later.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

... but I still would avoid giving outright advice like "this guy obviously loves his family--try sweettalking his daughter into asking him to do it, instead of asking him directly!"

Well that is what long term investigation and social planning is for, so no, I wouldn't just tell the Player how to.

Unless they asked. I did once have someone in a V-LARP (which is all about direct Player v Player social manipulations) ask how to get "gud" at it. So yeah, between games I'd coach him and give him direct advice on different Player's social weakness (which might or might not translate into PC weaknesses, but, well let's face it, most people cannot separate IC and OOC that well, especially not in a social game like that).

And I even pretended I didn't know what he was up to in game as a fellow Player and vague enemy of his PC.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

Well that is what long term investigation and social planning is for, so no, I wouldn't just tell the Player how to.

Unless they asked. I did once have someone in a V-LARP (which is all about direct Player v Player social manipulations) ask how to get "gud" at it. So yeah, between games I'd coach him and give him direct advice on different Player's social weakness (which might or might not translate into PC weaknesses, but, well let's face it, most people cannot separate IC and OOC that well, especially not in a social game like that).

And I even pretended I didn't know what he was up to in game as a fellow Player and vague enemy of his PC.

I think we agree that players should freely be given information that they need and that characters would know, such as "if you go there you do realize you won't get shield DB against the monster's attack."

At this point it seems we also agree that there are things GMs should keep their mouths shut about for the sake of player fun, even if the GM knows there's a better way.

Maybe we draw the line in different places and maybe not. It's hard to know without more specific examples, but especially when it comes to social negotiations, choosing who to approach and what to say to them or ask them ("social planning" in your words) is like the verb in a sentence, and which approach you take (intimidation, sex appeal, diplomacy + reaction, fast-talk) is more like an adjective. You can SEDUCTIVELY ASK THE MILLIONAIRE FOR HIS ENTIRE FORTUNE but it's not ever going to result in more than empty promises, whereas if you SEDUCTIVELY ASK TO BE ADDED TO HIS WILL you may very well get it, which sets up your next moves of SNEAKILY SABOTAGE HIS PLANE'S NAVIGATION SYSTEM and MENACINGLY COERCE THE MAINTENANCE TECH INTO KEEPING QUIET AFTER SEEING YOU ABOARD.

Most social goals (that I can think of) in an adventuring context should not be achievable in a single simple action, even if emotional goals are. (You can certainly SEDUCTIVELY ENTICE THE MILLIONAIRE INTO WISHING HE COULD PLEASE YOU.)

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

...
The harsh reality is that player skill always matters. Your character has certain abilities, but if you don't know how to employ them effectively you won't get the full benefit. That applies equally to sweet talking with words, casting spells, and swinging swords. TTRPGs are games about decision-making and you have to make good decisions.

Knowing what kinds of favors a charismatic person can get away with asking for, and how to leverage those favors into financial or military or social success, is just as potentially important as knowing which monsters are susceptible to eyeshots and which can be kited.

This is a good point. A good GM can only mitigate the issue.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Most social goals (that I can think of) in an adventuring context should not be achievable in a single simple action, even if emotional goals are.

Sure, but then even most combat and physical goals aren't achievable with singular actions, it's just a lot of people think of them as being inherently different. Same with investigations, there are multiple actions that need to be taken, steps to be completed, just as a it's rare that a fight is ended with a single sword blow (though in all three situations, physical, mental, social, it's entirely possible and situationally dependent).

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

Sure, but then even most combat and physical goals aren't achievable with singular actions, it's just a lot of people think of them as being inherently different. Same with investigations, there are multiple actions that need to be taken, steps to be completed, just as a it's rare that a fight is ended with a single sword blow (though in all three situations, physical, mental, social, it's entirely possible and situationally dependent).

It is in this context that I say:

The harsh reality is that player skill always matters. Your character has certain abilities, but if you don't know how to employ them effectively you won't get the full benefit. That applies equally to sweet talking with words, casting spells, and swinging swords. TTRPGs are games about decision-making and you have to make good decisions.

Knowing what kinds of favors a charismatic person can get away with asking for, and how to leverage those favors into financial or military or social success, is just as potentially important as knowing which monsters are susceptible to eyeshots and which can be kited.

Coming up with the right action sequence is a skill, and not one I would do on the players' behalf, lest I destroy the fun of the game for everyone involved.

Last time you disagreed with this statement in a way that suggested ("hate to burst your bubble") you had missed the point and were talking about atomic actions rather than action sequences. Do you disagree now?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

Sure, but then even most combat and physical goals aren't achievable with singular actions, it's just a lot of people think of them as being inherently different. Same with investigations, there are multiple actions that need to be taken, steps to be completed, just as a it's rare that a fight is ended with a single sword blow (though in all three situations, physical, mental, social, it's entirely possible and situationally dependent).

There's a couple things involved here. First off is how "zoomed in" the action is. Zoomed far out, combat would basically consist of "I try to defeat the enemies" and a roll against combat skill to see if you succeed. Zoom in a bit, there's positioning and somewhat-broadstrokes combat decisions, like in d20 with no facing to worry about and attack vs AC representing multiple attacks, parries, dodges, near-misses, telling blows (OK, so those typically don't happen until the foe is very nearly out of HP), etc. Zoom in further, you've got the general GURPS default, where there's facing, more combat decisions, etc. Further still, you've got GURPS with all the advanced combat options - bleeding, hit locations, techniques, etc - all in play. At the furthest level, you could require players to describe in detail (or act out) the exact actions - stance, movements, position shifting, etc - their characters are taking.

Then what are the equivalents for social interactions? The far zoom would be rolling against social skill to get what you want out of the target - the millionaire's money, the king overthrown, etc. Further in (d20 combat equivalent), you need to choose specific skills, perhaps isolate your target from those who would interfere with your manipulations, and give broadstrokes as to how you're trying to convince them. The further you get, the more details you're including; I think the rules from Social Engineering work out roughly equivalent to general GURPS default combat rules. At the furthest level in, you're requiring the player to directly speak for their character and basing how effective their attempt is on how good the player is at such a task.

The other thing involved is that a lot of gamers are much more comfortable with detailed combat rules than they are with social interactions. We basically already have high ranks in a Hobby Skill covering what actions to take in combat, but a lot of us are rather lacking in social interaction skills.

Personally, my inclination is to get an idea for how skilled the player is at combat, social encounters, etc in the arena of a TTRPG and see how well that matches the character's abilities. If there's a mismatch where the player is markedly better than the character, for combat that largely handles itself (it doesn't make a huge difference how tactically sound the character's actions are if he can't actually hit anything, but for more feasible skill levels the good tactics give the equivalent of a small situational bonus), while for other encounters I'd be inclined to give a small bonus for a good description of what they're doing but they'd still need to roll. If the mismatch goes the other way, I'll be inclined to give the player advice (if the other players aren't already doing that for me) on what to do ("Dropping your skill to 12 with Deceptive Attack will probably give you the best overall chance of a hit, but does reduce the chances of a crit or making the foe waste their Parry, do you want to go with that or drop back down to 16?" "The barbarian wasn't able to get through the chest armor, and your character doesn't deal as much damage - do you want to try for the arm or leg instead? They're less-armored, but at -2 to hit" etc for combat; "Maybe telling the Duke to do anatomically-improbable things isn't the best way to end this conversation;" "The princess would probably be extremely offended if you just complement her footwear and immediately request a romp in the hay;" etc for social interactions), and possibly even "zoom out" a bit for them.