Why A Party Face Is A Bad Idea

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by ericthered

But an awful lot of disadvantages feature a reaction penalty.

Those are usually bad Disadvantages that should not be taken. Players taking bad Disads (usually after they've seen some Ad or Skill they just have to have) is a problem of long standing in Gurps.

My latest thoughts in this area are to tell players during chargen that Disads are what define their character's personality and that they should chose their Disads first and not come back and add to them when they think they need more cp.

[Gold & Appel Inc]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Those are usually bad Disadvantages that should not be taken. Players taking bad Disads (usually after they've seen some Ad or Skill they just have to have) is a problem of long standing in Gurps.

50% of the races in DF3 have such a Disadvantage, if you count Elves as one group...

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Anthony

In general any skill division that winds up with one PC doing most of the stuff for an extended scene while other people just sit around is poor game play (other notable offenders are stealth recon missions and netrunners), but it's rather tricky to fix.

Combat has the interesting property that failing a roll frequently doesn't make things worse, it just fails to make them better. In other domains there's a tendency (often though maybe not always justified) to make sure that failure comes with consequences.

[Tyneras]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Combat has the interesting property that failing a roll frequently doesn't make things worse, it just fails to make them better. In other domains there's a tendency (often though maybe not always justified) to make sure that failure comes with consequences.

I'd argue that failing a roll in combat does make it worse, deadly worse if it's a defense. However, combat is well developed and finely grained, you can recover from failure and can often immediately see the desired route to success (You fools! Kill the one in the dress!). Other aspects are often terribly underdeveloped, such as most social actions, and get reduced to a single success/fail roll with no possibility of recovery if you fail.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Tyneras

I'd argue that failing a roll in combat does make it worse, deadly worse if it's a defense. However, combat is well developed and finely grained, you can recover from failure and can often immediately see the desired route to success (You fools! Kill the one in the dress!). Other aspects are often terribly underdeveloped, such as most social actions, and get reduced to a single success/fail roll with no possibility of recovery if you fail.

Failing a defense isn't worse than not defending.

In combat, badness is mostly something the enemy actively generates with their own success rolls. Which means that by getting into the fighting or staying out, you don't so much change how much badness is generated as how it is distributed.

[AlexanderHowl]

A party face is generally a very good idea, as not having a party face usually ends up with really bad results. If I have a group of 250 CP characters, I expect one of them to have a +10 (or better reaction). For example, a character with IQ 14 [80], Appearance (Attractive) [4], Charisma 5 [25], Talker 4 [20], Voice [10], Diplomacy (H) IQ+6 [4]-20, and Fast-Talk (A) IQ+6 [2]-20 is pretty much going to have a +12 reaction under most circumstances, and they are good at a lot of other things as well (of course, that is 145 CP, but there is a lot of benefit beyond the reaction bonus).

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Combat has the interesting property that failing a roll frequently doesn't make things worse, it just fails to make them better.

Well, failing an attack roll often doesn't make things worse. In general the issue is:

• If the costs of trying or failing apply to the party, lower-skill characters should just stay out of the way.
• If the costs of trying or failing apply to the character, lower-skill characters aren't making things worse by getting involved.

In combat, most costs are personal, so adding additional PCs to the mix, even if low skill, is usually beneficial (the exception to this is when a particular PC being injured has costs for the entire party). By comparison, social situations often have non-personal consequences.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Well, failing an attack roll often doesn't make things worse. In general the issue is:

• If the costs of trying or failing apply to the party, lower-skill characters should just stay out of the way.
• If the consequences of failure apply to the character, lower-skill characters aren't making things worse by getting involved.

In combat, most costs are personal, so adding additional PCs to the mix, even if low skill, is usually beneficial (the exception to this is when a particular PC being injured has costs for the entire party). By comparison, social situations often have non-personal consequences.

That's a valid analysis too, but I think the two stack. You've can absorb damage personally rather than compromising everyone else, and that matters. But also you aren't giving the enemy extra attacks by being there, which you effectively are if you tag along on an infiltration or attempt to throw around some Influence skills rather than playing furniture in a social challenge.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That's a valid analysis too, but I think the two stack. You've can absorb damage personally rather than compromising everyone else, and that matters. But also you aren't giving the enemy extra attacks by being there, which you effectively are if you tag along on an infiltration or attempt to throw around some Influence skills rather than playing furniture in a social challenge.

Both of those are party costs for attempting the roll (fixed to note 'trying and failure' apply to both)

[scc]

Originally Posted by Refplace

The advantage in GURPS is Charisma and Talents can be pretty cheap and helpful. Also a few points in a skill and your likely to be competent and enough different attribute bases that its not had for everyone to be decent in town.

That makes things lightly better, but doesn't really eliminate the problem.

Originally Posted by Michele

I'm not so sure.

First thing, in old-school dungeoning specialization was the main thrust of character classes. You have one brute-force frontline fighter, one magic user, one healer, one trap disarmer, one stealthy specialist, one archer etc. There is some overlap, in a way similar to a secondary MOS, but not much. All of that is not so different from having one social-skills specialist.

The key difference between those specializations and the social specialization is that everyone has something to do once a fight breaks out, once talky time starts, that isn't the case.

Originally Posted by Michele

Secondly, who says that in dungeons you have no talk to do? That may be true for truly basic games. After those, you might always meet another party of adventurers, who are competitors but not necessarily evil or enemies. Or you might encounter a group of social monsters who also are, maybe for just for this once, willing to negotiate, etc.

Even so that's going to be pretty rare

Originally Posted by Michele

Thirdly, this is GURPS. There's a long list of social Advantages beyond Charisma; there are several social skills. I can easily imagine that the thief has the best scores in Streewise and Fast-Talk. But the warrior, with his high HT, and notwithstanding his only average IQ, is the man to deal with the burly mercenaries drinking in the tavern - Carousing. Elves, with their good looks, are the best candidates to spend a couple of points in Sex Appeal. The priestly healer might have Savoir-Faire. While the rogue - the "party face" - will have a smattering of many of those, good levels in Fast-Talk and Acting, and above all an investment in the hardest skill, Diplomacy.

Right, but one thing I noticed reading through DFRPG a while back is that it assumes that the party's Bard, if they have one, will be the one to handle all the talky stuff

Originally Posted by Anthony

In general any skill division that winds up with one PC doing most of the stuff for an extended scene while other people just sit around is poor game play (other notable offenders are stealth recon missions and netrunners), but it's rather tricky to fix.

Stealth Recon is possible to engage the other players at least somewhat, plus it's unlikely to be long, and net-running can be handled by simply not allowing PC netrunners.

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

These kinds of issues are why I left that Other game behind decades ago, and why I don't understand the popularity of DF now.

D&D decided that players and GMs should act out such scenes, which is poor form to begin with but worse for the kinds of games that D&D runs. DF does gives characters these kinds of skills, so it's not an issue.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Combat has the interesting property that failing a roll frequently doesn't make things worse, it just fails to make them better. In other domains there's a tendency (often though maybe not always justified) to make sure that failure comes with consequences.

A big difference between combat and social is that social may came down to a single roll, combat doesn't do that.