Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

Greetings, all!

The 10-point thread seem to be prone to spawning tangents. This one is produced by a mention of a hypothetical technique, which was deemed too broad. So the reasonable follow-up question is, of course, just how broad should Techniques be?




They cost roughly ¼ of full skills, so it's usually not a good idea to have more than 2-3 per skill. Also, here are some examples of Non-Combat Techniques: No-Hands Riding (pretty wide), Scaling (extremely useful as far as Climbing goes), Slip Handcuffs (definitely very common use, if the setting includes them, e.g. in TL7).

Now, perhaps we in fact have to few non-combat Techniques because people have no idea how much they should cover. Anybody got opinions on the issue?

Thanks in advance!

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

I assume you mean a given PC should have no more than 2-3 not that there should be only that many for a given skill that someone could learn?

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

Yeah, I mean for a character, not for the world.

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

The thing I thought when I read Bill's response was, if seduction is really analogous to "killing people", then there ought to be at least a dozen various skills and techniques involved; GURPS combat has many dozens.

I fear this would lead to technique bloat, though, which is already something of a problem in GURPS combat. And technique bloat leads us to buy up the underlying skill instead, which gets us back to "wait, so which one is the Seduction skill?"

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

I would make them fairly narrow or for burning away one specific kind of penalty.

1) A lot of skills would probably have one tech for doing it quickly. Burn away the haste penalties. Works for brainwashing, repair, inventing, and cooking.

2) A lot of skills would have another tech for lack of tools or improvised tools.

These two combine really well. With cooking you can quickly produce a wonderful feast from the stuff you find in a dumpster. With the proper repair skills you take patch anything up in no time with a roll of duck tape.

3) Specific penalties for tasks: You could get rid of the penalties for a large object with holdout, or a lack of clothes.

Another area would be narrow tasks for a skill. Hiding sniper rifles with hold out, or making people love you with brainwashing.

The important thing about burning away penalties is you don't let them sub for the skill. For example, if you have 10 points in the haste tech, you can not get skill+5 when only spending half time on a project.

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

I disagree vehemently!

Since increasing a Technique costs 1/4 of increasing the full skill, any valid technique must constitute less than 1/4 of the usage of the skill.

Or in other words, you need to be able to define at least five different Techniques for each skill, in order for the point costs to match up.

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

While I get the point, some skills might only reasonably support one or two Techniques; the rest of what is entailed in that skill are "core" uses. But you're right insofar as if you cannot think of at least 5 Techniques + Core uses to a skill, then something's wrong. (Here, "Core" can simply be "is a use of a skill which has no special bonuses or penalties and cannot be specifically improved without improving the skill.")

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

I’ll answer the original question by suggesting some potential Sex Appeal techniques and opening discussion on whether people think they are too broad/too narrow;

Retail Flirt: Can be used to gain small discounts when buying things (customer side), or to increase probability of making a sale (retailer side).

Cleavage Speeding-Ticket Exemption: Can be used to avoid minor rules violations and penalties. Classic use is to avoid traffic fines. Other examples could be attractive teenagers flirting to buy alcohol while underage, or a Bond superspy getting through on an imperfect false passport.

Create a Distraction: Classic action movie cliché, can be used to apply a penalty to sensory checks.

Seal the Deal: Used to persuade a reluctant subject who is attracted but has some reason to decline (spouse/vow of celibacy/wants to ride unicorns, etc.) into having sex.

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

At first I thought it's reasonably narrow, but then I realised that a similar Technique based on Merchant would step too much on the Core Use. So I'm careful about that one.

Seems safe to me. It may or may not be too narrow.

[QUOTE=Jonathan Willis;1489165]Seems OK to me.

Since it seems to circumvent a trait that normally makes success impossible at all, I'd be very strict with this one. Notably: it may only be used after you find out about the issue (either by failing the first roll, or by trying to figure it out in advance with Psychology and stuff, or by being told for some reason); and, the base penalty should equal to the absolute point value of traits that act as stoppers. Thus -10 against a Vow [-5] and a Higher Purpose [5] if both are stoppers.

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

In terms of the way seduction is structured in SE—make an initial reaction or Influence roll to invite the person to go somewhere private with you, then make a Sex Appeal roll to get them into bed (since Sex Appeal can produce a Very Good reaction; the Good reactions from other skills aren't sufficient—though you can just ask and hope for a good reaction)—I'm going to say that what you're talking about might be a core use of the skill.

I'd also say that since "reluctant" is probably mechanically similar to Resistant or Immune, I wouldn't allow a technique to negate that. Of course, if they have +8 to resist, you could raise your Sex Appeal by eight levels to compensate. But I'd be inclined to suggest looking for more indirect strategies. See, for example, the Manipulation rules.

Bill Stoddard

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

While no doubt an extremely important use of the skill to many real-world people, I don't actually think it's that central to the use of the Sex Appeal skill in an adventuring context.

Consider that this would not apply to an attempt to distract guards with a flash of bare flesh and a saucy grin, it would not cover supporting use of the Sex Appeal skill as a professional dancer or lounge singer or some other form of entertainment, and perhaps most importantly, it would not apply to an attempt to convince an NPC already sexually interested in your character of doing you some favour in exchange for the possibility of sex, which I would consider the core use of Sex Appeal.

A Technique useful for convincing people to sleep with one is only worthwhile if one's principal goal with social interaction in the specific case is the sexual encounter itself. Which, while an important goal for many real people, has limited value in game terms.

I don't think the idea was that the Technique should negage the bonus to resist, merely that it would be possible to raise this aspect of the Sex Appeal skill independently of others. With which I think I agree, in that I don't see that there would be any balance or realism problems with allowing skill+4 in a Technique that covers sexually propositioning people.

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

I don't think that's the test, though. It seems to me that Sex Appeal is the skill of projecting sexual interest/availability in such a way as to interest and arouse another person. Doing that in a context of actual sexual activity seems to be a primary use of that skill, in the same way that hitting someone with your hand is a primary use of Karate. How often you'd do that in a campaign is a function partly of what kind of campaign you run and partly of what your "audience" will accept. But if, for example, no one ever wanted to see an actual fight take place in play, and fights always took place offstage, with combat skills being used to threaten and persuade people—that wouldn't affect the logic of hand blows being the primary function of Karate skill.

Bill Stoddard

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

Well, no. But the core use of Sex Appeal skill is to convince others to respond positively to a request for aid, information, etc. Convincing them to engage in sexual congress is merely one of the manifold favours that Sex Appeal could be used to elicit and I don't think it's the most central to the skill as it is presented.

Remember, it wouldn't apply in all cases when sexual intercourse took place before, during or after a Sex Appeal roll. It only applies to that narrow narrow sub-set of Sex Appeal rolls which are made in order to convince another party to engage in sexual congress. As opposed to, for example, cases where the social interaction occuring during a sexual encounter is used to Influence the other party in some way.

When the other party is searching for a sexual partner and you fit the criterion, no roll is needed. In general, people may get along fine and have sexual intercourse on at least a semi-regular basis with Sex Appeal skill. That skill is the art of using sex or the promise of it to influence the behaviour of others in your favour. That's the core use of the skill.

But Sex Appeal can also be used, of course, simply to 'score', without seeking any other advantage or favour from the other party. This would be a narrow subset of the uses to which the skill can be put, a specific form of request for a favour, and that's absolutely something a Technique could affect.

I imagine that the poster who brought up the Technique linked it with convincing reluctant people to have sexual relations, because that's a case where there is occasion to roll a skill, despite there being no request for aid or information. People who aren't reluctant to have sexual relations might well have them with an attractive character using Sex Appeal even if they win the QC against it, because that simply represents them not being manipulated into whatever the character was trying to convince them of, not being uninterested in sampling his charms.

Besides, why does the fact that a given Technique might represent exactly what many people want from a skill mean that it's not a valid Technique? For a cinematographer, the core use of his Photography skill is certainly covered by his Motion-Picture Camera Technique. That doesn't mean that he can't improve it.

In my opinion, at least, few if any GURPS skills are as narrowly defined as the various combat skills. Identifying just one core use of non-combat skills is not always going to be possible and even when it is, it will tend to be setting- and character-dependant, not a universal constant of the skill.

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

But I'm not arguing that it's the only core use. I'm saying that it looks to me like a core use. Saying that it's not really seems to me to be getting into Murphy territory.

Bill Stoddard

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

IMO, Seduction is not like 'punching', but rather like Feinting, or Kicking, or Punching To The Neck. A major use, but still very narrow compared to the whole skills.

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

Also note seduction can be done with a lot of skills. Diplo, fast-talk, and so forth...

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

[QUOTE=vicky_molokh;1489227]At first I thought it's reasonably narrow, but then I realised that a similar Technique based on Merchant would step too much on the Core Use. So I'm careful about that one.

Seems safe to me. It may or may not be too narrow.

All of those sound like perks to me, not Techniques.

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

The thought occurs to me that one Sex Appeal technique would be the art of messing with rolls just by making people who aren't interested uncomfortable.

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

Sounds like a non-combat variant of Sexy Feints.

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

Yes, certainly. You could mechanic that as a manipulation roll giving a bonus to Intimidation.

Bill Stoddard

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

That almost sounds like a case of Complimentary Skills to me.

Re: Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)
 

The mechanics for manipulation rolls is different from that for complementary skills. See GURPS Social Engineering, Chapter 3.

Bill Stoddard