11-01-2011, 11:25 AM | #21 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
|
Re: [Social Engineering] Charisma treated inconsistently with BIO/Basic
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
11-01-2011, 11:26 AM | #22 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
|
Re: [Social Engineering] Charisma treated inconsistently with BIO/Basic
Quote:
__________________
All about Size Modifier; Unified Hit Location Table A Wiki for my F2F Group A neglected GURPS blog |
|
11-01-2011, 11:35 AM | #23 |
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: [Social Engineering] Charisma treated inconsistently with BIO/Basic
Those being critical should read the actual text:
Please pay special attention to the parts I've made bold. The only strong change to Charisma is that it doesn't work in text communication. Which it never did, as the authors of the Basic Set – being fairly expert at text – didn't deem that direct interaction. There's also a weaker change that one-way interaction requires you to use a skill to receive the benefit, but then I somehow doubt that GURPS characters ever gave canned speeches without Public Speaking.[Paragraph on what Charisma is.]
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com> GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News] |
11-01-2011, 11:52 AM | #24 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: [Social Engineering] Charisma treated inconsistently with BIO/Basic
Quote:
In point of fact—and this is probably what annoys me—Kromm and I are both professionals. He understands the importance of keeping close track of the substantive content of GURPS books, especially the rules content; I understand the importance of getting his opinion, or PK's, on anything I put into one of my books that might change the interpretation of one of the rules, let alone changing the actual rule. To have someone "suspect" that I just imposed a change unilaterally, or that the editorial staff just let it slip by unquestioned, comes across as having them say that the likeliest explanation for a decision involves all of us falling down professionally. I think you can see why that might irk me a bit. Not that I want to say it never happens—but much of the time, what has happened is that we've decided (often with the advice of the playtesters) that the rule ought to be one that someone doesn't like, and unwillingness to accept that decision is the sole reason for calling it a mistake. Bill Stoddard |
|
11-01-2011, 11:53 AM | #25 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: [Social Engineering] Charisma treated inconsistently with BIO/Basic
Quote:
Bill Stoddard |
|
11-01-2011, 11:56 AM | #26 | ||
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: [Social Engineering] Charisma treated inconsistently with BIO/Basic
I want to add a warning before this thread slips any further into flame-land. It is fine to dislike or disagree with a rule. That's why most campaigns, including my own, have house rules. It's a hallowed gaming tradition.
It is not fine to cast aspersions on the process by which our books are written, playtested, edited, and revised. This statement: Quote:
This one: Quote:
We spend a lot of time and energy ensuring that implications are followed up, and that all published material is logical and consistent with other material. Clarifications and revisions are part of that process. They are often requested by customers, playtesters, writers, and even licensees translating our products. They are never any one person's unilateral view of things, although one voice may be speaking for many. People are welcome to attack this aspect of our work elsewhere. We can't do anything about that. But on our corporate forums, we have every right to ask that people not make up conspiracy theories that a rule ended up the way it ended up because staff, freelancers, or volunteers didn't do their job. Presenting such opinion in a way that it's easily read as fact borders on defamation. Please do not do this.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com> GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News] |
||
11-01-2011, 12:06 PM | #27 | ||||||
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dobbstown Sane Asylum
|
Re: [Social Engineering] Charisma treated inconsistently with BIO/Basic
I see no inconsistency here. Read on to see why.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you want to ignore this clarification and treat Charisma as "+1 to reactions from anyone who sees you, hears you, reads your words, or even thinks of you" in your games, you can, but realize that Charisma is worth far more than the listed 5 points/level if that's the case.
__________________
Reverend Pee Kitty of the Order Malkavian-Dobbsian (Twitter) (LJ) MyGURPS: My house rules and GURPS resources.
#SJGamesLive: I answered questions about GURPS After the End and more! {Watch Video} - {Read Transcript} |
||||||
11-01-2011, 01:43 PM | #28 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dobbstown Sane Asylum
|
Re: [Social Engineering] Charisma treated inconsistently with BIO/Basic
<MOD>
We're opening this thread back up, with a reminder to heed Kromm's warnings (two posts up from this one). Questions about a new book are great. Disagreements with the book are fine. Pointing out mistakes in a new book is useful (though in this case, as has been stated, the treatment of Charisma was not an error). But under no circumstances do we condone disparaging comments made about the author, editor, or publisher, or the jobs they did. You're free to not like a book, but not free to call the author lazy or the editors incompetent. </MOD>
__________________
Reverend Pee Kitty of the Order Malkavian-Dobbsian (Twitter) (LJ) MyGURPS: My house rules and GURPS resources.
#SJGamesLive: I answered questions about GURPS After the End and more! {Watch Video} - {Read Transcript} |
11-01-2011, 01:48 PM | #29 |
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: [Social Engineering] Charisma treated inconsistently with BIO/Basic
I have reopened the thread. To clarify something, as I have been asked to do so:
Please be aware that we encourage people to critique our products here. We only take issue with attacks that cast the people who produce our products in a bad light. Every GURPS supplement is subject to multiple levels of approval and vetting by staff (not just one editor, but at least four people), freelancers (including the writer's peers, in a private forum), and volunteers (mainly playtesters). Every rule says what it says because many good people reviewed it, looked at the existing rules, and signed off on it. If you don't like a rule, then by all means say so. Just do so without characterizing it as having received a free pass as the writer or editor's hobby horse, and without hinting that the playtesters and editors didn't do their job. We don't expect anybody to like every rule, ever – heck, I dislike some published rules – but we do expect forums members to respect the creators of our products. Thank you!
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com> GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News] |
11-01-2011, 02:04 PM | #30 |
Join Date: May 2011
|
Re: [Social Engineering] Charisma treated inconsistently with BIO/Basic
It seems to me that there are probably a lot of cases where Charisma and the ability to appeal to people through some specific media are different. I'll bet that most of us have friends who we find fun and charming who dread public speaking. Or maybe some of us express ourselves clearly and persuasively through our writing, but in speech, are less able to sway other people to our way of thinking. Some celebrities are very magnetic onscreen, but in person they can be cold, oblivious to social cues, or so entitled as to be indifferent to the response they get from people they meet.
Charisma applies to interaction, while one-way communication is a matter of skill application. Being good at the first might inform the latter, as reflected by bonuses applied to skills. |
Tags |
charisma, social engineering |
|
|