[Social Engineering] Charisma treated inconsistently with BIO/Basic

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

While the next paragraph says to interpreted vision/hearing liberally (i.e. any imaging sense and any non-written language will do), this still means it is highly problematic to stat up people who appear very charismatic in a chat (IRC etc.).

It also means that SE-Charisma is useless for TV stars, radio hosts, call centres . . . well, pretty much anyone not using a direct two-channel two-way communication. Even the one-point-cheaper Appearance is now easier to use, since it works for things like film or even photography. (And note that Appearance is rather expensive given the number of hidden Limitations it has.)

I think the section Indirect Interaction (pp32-33) covers this. Public-Speaking (usually the relevant skill for TV or radio) is not limited by the requirement to see or hear the audience.

[Kromm]

Which said, Scent-Based is a seriously limited case relative to Vision- or Hearing-based. It simply isn't true that Charisma isn't sense-based without an explicit Sense-Based limitation – even in the Basic Set, the words "actively interact" are used, and those words were definitely meant to be read as "interact using the senses," and to exclude written media. However, Scent-Based is a narrow and extremely limiting case, as scents don't propagate as far or as quickly as light or sound waves, and don't lend themselves to simple technological transmission. Shifting off an implicit Vision- or Hearing-Based to Scent-Based is worth an explicit limitation here. I don't think that Bio-Tech and Social Engineering harbor any special inconsistency; rather, what's dodgy is that Sense-Based gives all senses equal treatment.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Greetings, all!

The long-awaited Social Engineering is on my screen. Of course, me being me, I noticed an inconsistency:

BIO48 lists a scent-based version of Charisma (-20% for Scent-Based), setting the precedent that default Charisma is not Sense-Based. This is consistent with the description in Basic (where no inherent Sense-Based limitation is listed).

However, SE18 says that in effect, Charisma has all of:

• Sense-Based (Sight) - target must see you.
• Sense-Based (Hearing) - and hear you too.
• Reverse Sense-Based (Sight) - you must see the target.
• Reverse Sense-Based (Hearing) - and hear too.

While the next paragraph says to interpreted vision/hearing liberally (i.e. any imaging sense and any non-written language will do), this still means it is highly problematic to stat up people who appear very charismatic in a chat (IRC etc.).

It also means that SE-Charisma is useless for TV stars, radio hosts, call centres . . . well, pretty much anyone not using a direct two-channel two-way communication. Even the one-point-cheaper Appearance is now easier to use, since it works for things like film or even photography. (And note that Appearance is rather expensive given the number of hidden Limitations it has.)
This . . . doesn't seem right.

So . . . why?
Thanks in advance!

I hate when they do this kind of thing.

They screwed up 360 vision in Powers with a similar thing. I suspect what happens is that a writer transports a private view of how a rule should work and the editors fail to catch its implications in light of existing rules.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

So far, the best description of Charisma I've encountered was je ne sais quoi.

And that is exactly the impression one takes from the text in Basic Set.

I agree with you completely.

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I suspect what happens is that a writer transports a private view of how a rule should work and the editors fail to catch its implications in light of existing rules.

IIRC, this was debated at some length during playtest and eventually largely if not entirely accepted there, with many of the same examples invoked in discussion. Disagree with making the Basic Set's "actively interact" more explicit if you will, but this is not a single writer's personal prejudice being slipped in without anybody noticing or saying anything about it.

[Goober4473]

Doesn't Charisma apply to things like Public Speaking without two-way communication? I imagine the same applies to performances like acting.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

IIRC, this was debated at some length during playtest and eventually largely if not entirely accepted there, with many of the same examples invoked in discussion. Disagree with making the Basic Set's "actively interact" more explicit if you will, but this is not a single writer's personal prejudice being slipped in without anybody noticing or saying anything about it.

Okay, but that doesn't really make it better.

[ULFGARD]

Okay, so let's go back to public speaking for a second. Say that a politician gives a televised speech. If there's an audience, is it a proxy so that the politician gets a bonus? And if no audience (aside from the camera crew), does the bonus go away?

I'm thinking here of the difference between, say, a presidential oval office speech and a campaign speech given to a host of people.

[Figleaf23]

B41:

"Anyone can acquire a semblance of charisma through looks, manners, and intelligence – but real charisma is independent of these things. Each level gives +1 on all reaction rolls made by sapient beings with whom you actively interact (converse, lecture, etc.) ..."

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Goober4473

Doesn't Charisma apply to things like Public Speaking without two-way communication? I imagine the same applies to performances like acting.

It applies to the skills that it's explicitly stated to apply to.

Bill Stoddard

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I suspect what happens is that a writer transports a private view of how a rule should work and the editors fail to catch its implications in light of existing rules.

Your suspicions are completely unjustified. What in fact happened was that I discussed the treatment of Charisma with Kromm before the playtest started, and he spelled out the requirement for two-way sensory interaction to get the reaction/Influence bonus. Far from being a writer's private interpretation, this was the writer following specific instruction from the line editor.

Then I brought up the question of Charisma bonuses to Public Speaking, Leadership, etc. later on with PK, and he confirmed for me that they were indeed a different case, and still got the bonus without sight/sound and without two-way interaction. Again, straight from an editor.

Really, you know, it rather annoys me to have people come in and invent purely conjectural explanations of how things were decided, when it's perfectly possible to find out. Not least because those conjectural explanations are often seriously at variance with "the undoctor'd event that actually occurred."

Bill Stoddard