Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-02-2009, 01:00 PM   #1
Gigermann
 
Gigermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oklahoma City
Default [Rules] Influence as Combat

I don't recall where, but I remember hearing a mention of D&D 4e's new take on "influence" mechanics as being more like "combat"—attack, defense, etc. I'm not sure they really achieved this, but it has always intrigued me. Influence, in RPGs, is probably second only to combat in its "importance" to the game, and deserves a little more attention than it typically gets in an RPG (GURPS being no exception here, IMO). I've been mulling over fleshing out the concept, for use with GURPS, and I thought I'd get the Community's opinions:

For these purposes, I will hereafter refer to the character who is attempting to influence the other as the "Attacker," and the one to be influenced as the "Defender."
  • Attacker uses an Influence Skill or IQ to "attack."
  • Defender uses Will, or appropriate counter-Skill to "defend."
  • "HP" = Current Reaction score; starting Reaction score determined normally (random or predetermined).
  • "HT" = Defender's Will—if it's necessary.
  • Based on the expected result of the Influence attempt, and the Defender's amenability to it, the GM determines the HP (Reaction) "Threshold" that will be required for the attempt to succeed—typically "Good" (13?)
  • Attacker "attacks," in an attempt to "damage" the Defender's resolve (HP), using his Influence skill; ± for RP, plausibility, Complimentary checks, etc. Defender might counter-attack, to "Influence" the Attacker to stop bothering him.
  • "Maneuvers" possible, as for Combat; Deceptive Attack, Defensive Strike, Rapid Attack (especially for Fast-Talk), All-Out Attack, All-Out Defense, Counter-Attack, etc.—obviously, this part would need some detail.
  • "Damage" to Defender's resolve based on Quick Contest (maybe Attack/Defense same as Combat for longer, more-detailed attempts?). Defender's responses altered by the "current HP" (Reaction), as resolve weakens or strengthens.
  • Damage effects might be appropriate—Major Wounds, Knockback/Stun, "Vitals" (inside information), Damage Types, etc.—also would need more detail.
Obviously this is a situation I would use only when "dramatically appropriate," and not all the time.

Thoughts?

Last edited by Gigermann; 11-02-2009 at 01:40 PM.
Gigermann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 01:06 PM   #2
aesir23
 
aesir23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vermont
Default Re: [Rules] Influence Duelling

This opens the way for some of the advantages that improve reactions (appearance, charisma, reputation, etc...) can be altered to improve influence "Damage" instead of skill.

As it is, it's pretty easy to pile on appearance, charisma, status, etc... and pile up pretty high social skills. It might be nice to spread the effect a little bit, so that a Smooth Operator may have to convince someone for several rounds, despite their high likelyhood of success, but someone with a high appearance and low skill may fail utterly, or may get the desired result in a round with a mere batted eyelash or some tasteful cleavage.
aesir23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 01:43 PM   #3
Gizensha
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Default Re: [Rules] Influence Duelling

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigermann View Post
I don't recall where, but I remember hearing a mention of D&D 4e's new take on "influence" mechanics as being more like "combat"—attack, defense, etc. I'm not sure they really achieved this, but it has always intrigued me. Influence, in RPGs, is probably second only to combat in its "importance" to the game, and deserves a little more attention than it typically gets in an RPG (GURPS being no exception here, IMO). I've been mulling over fleshing out the concept, for use with GURPS, and I thought I'd get the Community's opinions:

For these purposes, I will hereafter refer to the character who is attempting to influence the other as the "Attacker," and the one to be influenced as the "Defender."
  • Attacker uses an Influence Skill or IQ to "attack."
  • Defender uses Will, or appropriate counter-Skill to "defend."
  • "HP" = Current Reaction score; starting Reaction score determined normally (random or predetermined).
  • "HT" = Defender's Will—if it's necessary.
  • Based on the expected result of the Influence attempt, and the Defender's amenability to it, the GM determines the HP (Reaction) "Threshold" that will be required for the attempt to succeed—typically "Good" (13?)
  • Attacker "attacks," in an attempt to "damage" the Defender's resolve (HP), using his Influence skill; ± for RP, plausibility, Complimentary checks, etc. Defender might counter-attack, to "Influence" the Attacker to stop bothering him.
  • "Maneuvers" possible, as for Combat; Deceptive Attack, Defensive Strike, Rapid Attack (especially for Fast-Talk), All-Out Attack, All-Out Defense, Counter-Attack, etc.—obviously, this part would need some detail.
  • "Damage" to Defender's resolve based on Quick Contest (maybe Attack/Defense same as Combat for longer, more-detailed attempts?). Defender's responses altered by the "current HP" (Reaction), as resolve weakens or strengthens.
  • Damage effects might be appropriate—Major Wounds, Knockback/Stun, "Vitals" (inside information), Damage Types, etc.—also would need more detail.
Obviously this is a situation I would use only when "dramatically appropriate," and not all the time.

Thoughts?
To be honest, I think this is one area where the more rules heavy a system is the worse the system is going to be at this, because the lite, especially abstracted, systems are able to do abstract conflict resolution systems that work for combat, haggling and cookery contests equally well, whereas to me, in a system like GURPS, attempts to go into detail always feel artificial and cludgy.

Now, until GURPS Diplomacy, GURPS Social Manipulation, etc, or a relevant Pyramid article comes along (if one was in the second Pyramid incarnation, if anyone knows what week, please say, I can dig through the archives and have a read of it), if I wanted more detail to the reaction/influence system, I'd probably let the initial reaction/influence roll stand as is with the addition of something along the lines that up to once per (time period [maybe with penalty for repeat performances]) a relevant influence skill can be used, success increases where the way the NPC feels about the PC, failure lowers (And possibly do this incrementally, so that it takes multiple successes/failures to change an opinion)

I do quite agree with you that social interaction is as (if not more) important than combat [genre depending], I'm just not convinced there's a satisfactory way of doing it in as much detail rules wise, even if the focus of a game is on socialization. And I'm not sure I'd want to use a more detailed system than the sort of thing I've just outlined in most circumstances.

Saying that, you could probably adapt the concept of psychic dueling in Supers to socialization dueling; I'd use Will for HP, derive DR from reaction roles (Neutral = 0, negative reaction roles correspond to positive DR in some way, positive reactions correspond to a negative DR [Or DR for the PC if you're reluctant to make the PCs make reaction roles exclusively for an abstract social combat system), interpret the results based on the Will the victor has remaining when the loser is dropped to 0 Will, and base it on the social skills being used.

No clue how you'd derive damage roles, though, and the 'combat' results would be hideously open to interpretation (Only a bad thing because we're assigning 'detailed rules' to it, in my opinion), and only works when one side (or both) wants something from the other, rather than general modifying reactions over a long period.
Gizensha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 02:16 PM   #4
Quinlor
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seeheim-Jugenheim, Germany
Default Re: [Rules] Influence Duelling

Good idea, I could use something like this in my games. While some situations are better just roleplayed, I like to base influence on the characters skills and advantages more than on the players skill.
The current rules tent to reduce that to just one quick contest. I like the have something that allows some more options and keeps the suspense a little longer.

To avoid this to go on forever if the attacker is not successful, I think there also needs be a lower "Threshold" below no further influence is possible.
__________________
http://www.quinlor.de
Quinlor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
influence rolls

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.