[SE] Face characters: buying more Reaction Modifiers vs. more Influence Skill levels?

[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

First, I know that it is best not to put all of one's eggs into a single basket. But for non-absolute preferences, do you tend to see increasing / buying more assorted Reaction Modifiers, or increasing the raw level of Influence Skills, as the better choice when it comes to character development / improvement? And I do mean both from the interesting concept PoV, and the point-optimisation PoV.

From a character-concept PoV, it seems like high skills are generally perceived as increasing the agency of the character, while many reaction modifiers are seen as passive. While Charisma is generally considered a part of a personality or as a talent of sorts, things like Appearance and Voice are often treated differently, with people saying that there is no merit on the character's part 'for merely being born beautiful/clear-voiced'. Yes, I know talents are inborn too and that a deterministic universe undermines the whole concept of 'deserved merit'. But I'm talking about the way things are perceived often (not always).

From a point-optimisation PoV, it seems like getting good reactions is the primary objective, then Reaction Modifiers are a slightly better way to get it: most Influence Skills only provide a Good reaction on a success (unless expanded Influence rules from SE are used), are resisted, take [4/level] to improve past the first few levels, and can be improved in Influence Rolls by Reaction Modifiers. There's also the fact that Influence Attempts can result in a worse reaction if failed/resisted, and are often inappropriate - you can only use Sex Appeal on about half the population, Fast-Talk only under time constraints (and with the risk of a figure-out later), Intimidation with some unstated risks later on (and having to back it up, usually) etc. Even Diplomacy, which doesn't give a bad reaction on a failure, can occasionally be an inappropriate approach, incurring a penalty (and is one level harder, though that's an acceptable price to pay). So you usually want more than one skill, which end ups costing [8/level] for two, or [5/level+] with a small Talent (up to four levels, normally).

Conversely, Reaction Modifiers tend towards [5/level], and have some conditions, but a good mix feels like more versatile and reliable than just pumping an Influence skill:

• Improves both passive Reaction Rolls and active Influence Attempts;
• Has some built-in skill bonuses, occasionally (Voice, Charisma);
• Can be diversified much easier than Influence Skills, since if both RMs apply, they're cumulative, and if only some apply, you still get the full benefit from those that do.
• There is no increased risk of a worse reaction; in fact, getting more +RMs reduces the chance of a bad reaction; in cases with fixed reactions, this won't help, but in those cases skills won't help either;
• Can grant access to reactions better than Very Good, unlike skills (unless expanded Influence rules from SE are used).

Another interesting consideration I heard was that it's generally a better idea to get Luck before buying 3 levels of RMs, since Luck can be used for important Reaction Rolls and has many other applications. This of course depends on just how frequent important Reaction Rolls are - if there are significantly more than 1 roll needing a boost per hour, Luck is a worse choice. Luck also is somewhat asymmetric in that it (assuming traditional use strategies) is a bigger bonus on worse rolls (though it seems to have very limited application to Reaction Rolls, since RRs are secret, and by the time the PC finds the outcome, the roll can no longer be reversed).

Thoughts? Other comments? Additions? Advice? Opinions? Experience?
Thanks in advance!

[Mailanka]

"It's a monster, kill it!"
"Wait," said the monster "Let's talk about this first."
"Oh, he seems reasonable! Indeed, let's talk about this!"

I must confess I'm rather confused how I should handle Reaction modifiers vs Social skills RAW. Generally, I just ignore reaction modifiers and play up social skills.

Maybe I don't understand them, but it seems that since Influence Skills can completely override Reaction Modifiers, that they're the better investment (especially if you need a high IQ for other reasons). So, the hideous Nosferatu can simply roll Diplomacy, and everyone treats him great. There seems to be two problems with this: First, that you need to actually talk to get that positive reaction, and if people start screaming and throwing rocks at you, that's hard. This can be beaten by taking "merely" Unattractive or Hideous, of course. The second issue is that RAW, it seems all reaction modifiers are added to Influence rolls, so being hideous makes it harder to be diplomatic.

But if reaction modifers are king like that, why bother investing in social skills in the first place? Why not just look angelic and quietly ask people to do things for you? A +10 to reactions would seem, then, to be superior to a heavy investment in influence skills.

Social Engineering seems to take a middle road, that reaction modifiers determines an initial reaction, but social skills are really focused on other things. For example, provoking someone to fight you might use Fast-Talk, while beating someone in a debate might be Public Speaking, and so on. Social Engineering does discuss influence (Huh. It turns out that even a failed diplomacy roll can actually result in an improved reaction assuming the original was sufficiently disastrous, since you use the better of a Bad Reaction or your original Reaction Roll), but I haven't found anything that really addresses the difference between an Influence roll and a Reaction roll.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Social Engineering seems to take a middle road, that reaction modifiers determines an initial reaction, but social skills are really focused on other things. For example, provoking someone to fight you might use Fast-Talk, while beating someone in a debate might be Public Speaking, and so on. Social Engineering does discuss influence (Huh. It turns out that even a failed diplomacy roll can actually result in an improved reaction assuming the original was sufficiently disastrous, since you use the better of a Bad Reaction or your original Reaction Roll), but I haven't found anything that really addresses the difference between an Influence roll and a Reaction roll.

It's in there, but it's kind of subtle. See p. 31:

"Under the standard rules, Influence skills give predictable, moderately useful results; reaction rolls can give more dramatic results, but the outcomes are less consistent. With [expanded Influence rolls], the big difference is that a strong-willed person can resist Influence skills better, but remains susceptible to reaction modifiers."

So by RAW, an Influence roll gets a Good reaction if it succeeds, and won't get Very Good or Excellent; and it's less likely to succeed if the target has a high Will, or is Resistant to Influence. That is, GURPS assumes that learned social skills only take you so far. But on the other hand, the broad-spectrum traits that raise all reaction rolls (and Influence rolls too, of course) cost more! If you have one point in, say, Diplomacy, getting +3 costs you 7 points, and affects pretty much any request. Getting +3 from Status, from Charisma, or from Appearance with Androgynous and Universal costs you 15 points.

Bill Stoddard

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

From a character-concept PoV, it seems like high skills are generally perceived as increasing the agency of the character, while many reaction modifiers are seen as passive. While Charisma is generally considered a part of a personality or as a talent of sorts, things like Appearance and Voice are often treated differently, with people saying that there is no merit on the character's part 'for merely being born beautiful/clear-voiced'. Yes, I know talents are inborn too and that a deterministic universe undermines the whole concept of 'deserved merit'. But I'm talking about the way things are perceived often (not always).

The simple answer to this one is that hardly anyone wants to roleplay in a deterministic universe. That's why "railroading" is a pejorative.

There was a young man who said, "Damn!
It is borne in on me that I am
An engine that moves
In predestinate grooves.
I'm not even a bus—I'm a tram!"

One of the central fantasies of "fantasy roleplaying" is the fantasy of agency. Successful rules systems support that fantasy.

Bill Stoddard

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by whswhs

It's in there, but it's kind of subtle. See p. 31:

"Under the standard rules, Influence skills give predictable, moderately useful results; reaction rolls can give more dramatic results, but the outcomes are less consistent. With [expanded Influence rolls], the big difference is that a strong-willed person can resist Influence skills better, but remains susceptible to reaction modifiers."

So by RAW, an Influence roll gets a Good reaction if it succeeds, and won't get Very Good or Excellent; and it's less likely to succeed if the target has a high Will, or is Resistant to Influence. That is, GURPS assumes that learned social skills only take you so far. But on the other hand, the broad-spectrum traits that raise all reaction rolls (and Influence rolls too, of course) cost more! If you have one point in, say, Diplomacy, getting +3 costs you 7 points, and affects pretty much any request. Getting +3 from Status, from Charisma, or from Appearance with Androgynous and Universal costs you 15 points.

Bill Stoddard

So I was moving in the right direction. The main reason to specialize in an influence skill is to even out your reaction rolls, and for "peripheral" benefits that actually make up the bulk of what those skills offer. Otherwise, if you want to be liked, invest in reaction modifiers (and that's also why reaction modifiers apply to influence skills).

Said differently, a Nosferatu* with appalling reaction modifiers and Streetwise and Diplomacy will either get a bad reaction from his reaction roll, or likely fail when making an influence roll, but he can still use Diplomacy to negotiate an alliance or for blackmail, and streetwise will still let him figure out where any illegal action is and who can be bought, etc.

*for those who do not know, a Nosferatu in this context is a clan from Vampire: the Masquerade and : the Requiem that suffers from debilitating social problems.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

So I was moving in the right direction. The main reason to specialize in an influence skill is to even out your reaction rolls, and for "peripheral" benefits that actually make up the bulk of what those skills offer. Otherwise, if you want to be liked, invest in reaction modifiers (and that's also why reaction modifiers apply to influence skills).

Well, the other reason is that it's comparatively cheap. Though at high levels it gets less so. Charisma +5 costs 25 points; raising your Diplomacy from IQ-2 to IQ+3 costs 15 points.

If you're going to play a face character, the optimum is to have a level or two of advantages, and then have a couple of Influence skills bought up to 4 points. At that point it would cost you 8 points to get +1 from training, but 5 points to get, say, Charisma +1. And if your particular social skill doesn't apply you can just try for a reaction roll.

Bill Stoddard

[D10]

Dont forget that charisma and voice increase your effective level for several influence skills, such as diplomacy, public speaking, etc.

[sir_pudding]

Influence rolls must be made actively, and except for Diplomacy are overt manipulation. Reaction rolls are passive, you can have people just like you without any effort on your part, even if you aren't directly interacting with them yet.

Of course this assumes that the GM is willing to roll some random reactions, or at least take your modifiers into account when setting NPC reactions.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Well, the other reason is that it's comparatively cheap. Though at high levels it gets less so. Charisma +5 costs 25 points; raising your Diplomacy from IQ-2 to IQ+3 costs 15 points.

If you're going to play a face character, the optimum is to have a level or two of advantages, and then have a couple of Influence skills bought up to 4 points. At that point it would cost you 8 points to get +1 from training, but 5 points to get, say, Charisma +1. And if your particular social skill doesn't apply you can just try for a reaction roll.

Bill Stoddard

After all the Talent bonuses and IQ, my character is at Diplomacy 17 [4], and I'm wondering whether I should go for reaching Diplomacy 20 (getting +2 RM to everything except Diplomacy, getting more Diplomacy, but spending [12]), or going for some straight Reaction Modifiers (securing a Reputation, or biomodding Voice and/or Appearance - I'm at the Charisma cap already) for [4-5/level].

Overall, the latter choice seems better, but I'm not sure if I'm missing something.

[whswhs]

It sounds as if you're approaching what might be called the "sweet spot" where buying up Diplomacy skill gets too costly to pursue. As you point out, you can buy +2 to skill for 8 points, or pay 10 points for Voice and get the same +2 and a lot of other bennies, starting with the reaction mod—if the setting is one where Voice can be added after the start of play. There's also the option of buying Smooth Operator or the like, if that can be bought and if you have a wide enough range of skills to make it efficient.

The other possible direction is to look at techniques. For Diplomacy, you have Agenda, Elevated Speech, Elicitation, and Hinting—or, in a cinematic campaign, Personal Guarantee or, after you've bought Voice, Beguilement. One or two of those could amp up your character a lot in specific tasks.

Bill Stoddard