Social Techniques

[Sindri]

GURPS has some techniques for social skills but it can definitely use more, so what social techniques have you created?

[Aneirin]

Originally Posted by Sindri

GURPS has some techniques for social skills but it can definitely use more, so what social techniques have you created?

That is the damndest thing, I just made a topic about this! Should have read your topic first.

I am trying to create a technique for the merchant skill, so someone can perform a merchant deal but make it look like luck, as if they don't quite know what they are talking about (lulling others into a false sense of security when dealing with you)

Haven't quite worked out the default level yet.

[vicky_molokh]

Contrary to whswhs' opinion, I consider Seduction/Romance a valid technique for Influence Skills, because in terms of breadth of utility and skill, it seems way narrower than e.g. Elicitation.

Inspire Loyalty may or may not be a reasonable Technique (adjusting the Loyalty result of the Reaction Table).

I think there should be some Per-Based Sex Appeal Technique that allows gauging people's potential and current attractions (similar to Body Language, but only narrowed down to this one topic).

Some sort of Technique that makes the target not notice that s/he is being influenced at all, even for pretty blunt influences. Jeeves and Palpetine would have this Technique, it seems. Probably similar to Hinting, but a worse penalty, and definitely Hard.

Acting probably should have a 'Pokerface' technique, one that makes it very clear that the actor is screening out all emotions, but making it nonetheless hard to figure out what those emotions are or aren't. (I.e. normal Acting would convey a 'he is telling the truth' impression; a Pokerface variant would convey 'there is absolutely no indication one way or the other, but this person is certainly actively trying to make sure we do not figure what he is thinking'.)

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Acting probably should have a 'Pokerface' technique, one that makes it very clear that the actor is screening out all emotions, but making it nonetheless hard to figure out what those emotions are or aren't. (I.e. normal Acting would convey a 'he is telling the truth' impression; a Pokerface variant would convey 'there is absolutely no indication one way or the other, but this person is certainly actively trying to make sure we do not figure what he is thinking'.)

I don't think that should be a technique, because it's fundamentally easier than regular Acting. Avoiding expressing your thoughts or reactions seems to me to be somewhere between Acting+2 and Acting+5. I don't think you should necessarily be able to buy it up higher than that.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Contrary to whswhs' opinion, I consider Seduction/Romance a valid technique for Influence Skills, because in terms of breadth of utility and skill, it seems way narrower than e.g. Elicitation.

I'd put Seduction/Romance at a technique at best as long as it's seduction in the sense of "getting in someone's pants" and not "using Sex Appeal"

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Inspire Loyalty may or may not be a reasonable Technique (adjusting the Loyalty result of the Reaction Table)

It's an interesting idea. I'd have to think about it.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I think there should be some Per-Based Sex Appeal Technique that allows gauging people's potential and current attractions (similar to Body Language, but only narrowed down to this one topic).

Why not a technique of Body Language?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Some sort of Technique that makes the target not notice that s/he is being influenced at all, even for pretty blunt influences. Jeeves and Palpetine would have this Technique, it seems. Probably similar to Hinting, but a worse penalty, and definitely Hard.

Yes that would be good though Elicitation is probably closer than Hinting.

Originally Posted by whswhs

I don't think that should be a technique, because it's fundamentally easier than regular Acting. Avoiding expressing your thoughts or reactions seems to me to be somewhere between Acting+2 and Acting+5. I don't think you should necessarily be able to buy it up higher than that.

It seems like you should be able to buy it up as a technique. What about someone who wants to learn how to do that without spending time learning how to fake reactions?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I don't think that should be a technique, because it's fundamentally easier than regular Acting. Avoiding expressing your thoughts or reactions seems to me to be somewhere between Acting+2 and Acting+5. I don't think you should necessarily be able to buy it up higher than that.

I'm thinking starting at Acting+0 (the difference being that now Detect Lies will fail to pick out individual sections of the actor's story as true or false, and will only give a general 'there is a lie / there is no lie / I do not know whether there is a lie' applicable to the whole story/statement/etc.), and raisable* up to Acting+4.

Giving a free +3 to +5 seems not quite fair, since just negating Detect Lies during an interrogation is already a powerful trick. (Then again, Interrogation seems somewhat overpowered, IIRC.)

* == is that a word? The spell checker doesn't like it.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

I'd put Seduction/Romance at a technique at best as long as it's seduction in the sense of "getting in someone's pants" and not "using Sex Appeal"

The Seduction Results and Romantic Rivalry sections, of whatever appropriate skill, yes. Seems like we're on the same page.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Why not a technique of Body Language?

Defaulting to Body Language+0 too, sure. But the main point was being good at manipulating other people's attraction should go hand in hand with understanding the very things you manipulate, i.e. based on Sex Appeal too (Per-based). This is similar to Approachability rolls, actually.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Yes that would be good though Elicitation is probably closer than Hinting.

Elicitation is information-gathering only. I'm talking more about things like getting Wooster to do something and think it's his idea, or getting Anakin to slowly slip to the Dark Side, again, without noticing.
Elicitation's utility is very much the ability to raise Requests For Information above base skill level (well, that's the mathematically equivalent effect to lowering both skill and enemy Will, then buying up the modified skill to a milder penalty).

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm thinking starting at Acting+0 (the difference being that now Detect Lies will fail to pick out individual sections of the actor's story as true or false, and will only give a general 'there is a lie / there is no lie / I do not know whether there is a lie' applicable to the whole story/statement/etc.), and raisable* up to Acting+4.

Giving a free +3 to +5 seems not quite fair, since just negating Detect Lies during an interrogation is already a powerful trick. (Then again, Interrogation seems somewhat overpowered, IIRC.)

It should have some kind of bonus. Mechanically one should avoid making options that only make sense when their accompanying technique is bought up. Reality wise I agree with whswhs that it's intrinsically easier.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

* == is that a word? The spell checker doesn't like it.

Yes, the spellchecker is just being silly.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The Seduction Results and Romantic Rivalry sections, of whatever appropriate skill, yes. Seems like we're on the same page.

I don't know about any skill. "Seducing" someone with skills other than Sex Appeal use completely different methods.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Elicitation is information-gathering only. I'm talking more about things like getting Wooster to do something and think it's his idea, or getting Anakin to slowly slip to the Dark Side, again, without noticing.
Elicitation's utility is very much the ability to raise Requests For Information above base skill level (well, that's the mathematically equivalent effect to lowering both skill and enemy Will, then buying up the modified skill to a milder penalty).

And Hinting is third parties only. Of the two Elicitation seems closer. Not that it much matters.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

It should have some kind of bonus. Mechanically one should avoid making options that only make sense when their accompanying technique is bought up. Reality wise I agree with whswhs that it's intrinsically easier.

Well, making it obvious that you're resisting Detect Lies and making it also so that Detect Lies can't pick out individual subsections of your statement seems like an interesting tradeoff of its own.
On some level, I do agree with whswhs. But there are also a bunch of things that start at skill+0 and can be raised from there.
Maybe several different variants of related Techniques.

Originally Posted by Sindri

I don't know about any skill. "Seducing" someone with skills other than Sex Appeal use completely different methods.

Yes, but as is the default assumption about Techniques, it's a different Technique for each different skill. (SE30: " Diplomacy to propose and
negotiate a long-term relationship; Fast-Talk for pick-up lines
and flattery; Intimidation for coercion and duress; Savoir-
Faire to assume privilege; or Streetwise for “bad boy” allure.")

Originally Posted by Sindri

And Hinting is third parties only. Of the two Elicitation seems closer. Not that it much matters.

Hmm. Oh well, it shares some of the traits of both. But I guess we understand what it's supposed to do.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, making it obvious that you're resisting Detect Lies and making it also so that Detect Lies can't pick out individual subsections of your statement seems like an interesting tradeoff of its own.
On some level, I do agree with whswhs. But there are also a bunch of things that start at skill+0 and can be raised from there.
Maybe several different variants of related Techniques.

I must be missing something because it seems like strict downside. If you fail the observer can figure out your reactions. If you succeed instead of getting to dictate how you are representing yourself as reacting you have to show that you are screening your reactions which seems to be nearly always inferior. I don't think it should have any effect on subsections of a statement, after all your pokerface could potentially break down in any subsection.