GURPS Social Engineering and "super negotiator" character
 

Hey all,

One of my players wants to make a character that's basically a "super negotiator". Apart from the obvious advantage of having a PC with a lot of Reaction Roll bonuses, the goal is to give him a chance to "defuse" any potential combat situation by first trying to communicate with the NPCs (and if it fails, proceed to shoot them in due form).

Of course I immediately ran back to my PDF collection, screaming "Finally! I can use GURPS Social Engineering!". In there I found a couple pages pertaining to this particular type of situation. However, I'll often need to come up with appropriate penalties for each particular group of NPCs.

The one I'm first interested in are "evil cultists". We're playing Call of Cthulhu adventures using GURPS, so these are the type of NPCs most often chasing you... what kind of penalties should I apply to Reaction Rolls? I get the impression I would treat them as a "mob" (p70) with at least "intolerance" towards the PCs and "indoctrination", for a total of -6, plus some additional -1 to -4 if they are under more or less direct orders to kill or kidnap the players?

Second is how Public Speaking factors into this situation? It's referenced throughout the book for other situations, but not so much about calming down a mob? I imagine I would use it as a "complimentary skill" to give +1/+3 to the Reaction Roll?

Last is how to handle the situation when there's only a handful of enemies. Maybe you just have a couple of hired killers after you... when you confront them, how hard is it to distract them, turn them, offer them more money to let you go, etc? The same applies if, say, an FBI negotiator wants to prevent someone from killing a hostage. I didn't see anything about this situation but I may have missed something?

Thanks!

Re: GURPS Social Engineering and "super negotiator" character
 

How many points are you giving this PC? Are they limited to normal traits, or can they actually be "super"? What about Cinematic traits?

Re: GURPS Social Engineering and "super negotiator" character
 

The specific penalties should kind of depend on the effective skills.

It is not fun for others if the talker can always talk though any situation and they cannot showcase their skills and the opposite where if the talker can never succeed in his skill rolls it is frustrating to him.

I tend to do the following when setting any challenge:
I look at the PC skills and decide what type of challenge it should be:
Automatic - No roll needed as long as someone says they are doing it
Trivial -Where even totally wrong party member has reasonable chance of success if they have a point in the skill
Easy -Where the right party member will succeed almost all the time even if having to use improvised tools or a bit less time.
Medium -Where the right party member would have to actually try, as in have his tools take full time and such to get a 13- or so probability
Hard -Where the right party member will need to try really hard, bringing in extra resources like complimentary skills, helpers and whatever to get a 11- or 10-)
Almost impossible - Where even with all the normally available bonuses will not get the effective skill above 6-
Impossible- No roll allowed, have to find another way.

Re: GURPS Social Engineering and "super negotiator" character
 

No "super" traits, "cinematic" traits are on a case by case basis (for instance, I'm still debating whether I authorize "Enthrallment" for this game).

Yes, good point, I'll have to discuss this with the player, thanks.

Re: GURPS Social Engineering and "super negotiator" character
 

From having played a character like this, and seen others... This approach can work for opponents who haven't definitely decided to fight. It doesn't work for fights that are underway, unless the PCs are definitely winning, and offer something preferable to defeat to their opponents.

Barring actual mind control, you can't talk to people who simply aren't interested in talking.

Re: GURPS Social Engineering and "super negotiator" character
 

Dealing with Cultists:
Firstly take the brotherhood perk:
This should buy you time to talk.

Next consider the the Passing Appearance perk; which suggests that being immune to one type of Intolerance (Race, Sex, etc) is worth 1 point. It might be reasonable to justify Immunity to one type of intolerance for 1 point, or all Intolerance for 10 points (Based on Cultural Adaptability).

Next consider taking Empathy or Sensitive so you can bypass any Indomitable the cultists might have.

Next consider taking Indomitable and Unfazable so Cultists can't use influence skills on you.

Next consider taking Social Chameleon, so that your lack of Rank: Cultist doesn't hinder you.

Next become Reaction Monster, buying as many reaction bonuses as you can. Reputation: Cultists, small class, all the time +4 [6] is probably the cheapest you can buy.

Next consider taking Luck (Aspected, Social Interactions, -20%)

Next buy up influence skills; note Intimidation can be used in combat:

Re: GURPS Social Engineering and "super negotiator" character
 

The problem I always had with GURPS' social mechanics is that there's this all-or-nothing cutoff point, and no gradual shift. The effectiveness of a mythically competent negotiator hinges on whether the GM has set the mood bool of the NPC to 'negotiable' (in which case all those Reaction Modifiers will make a huge difference*), or to 'non-negotiable' (in which case they have no effect whatsoever, not even asking for a last chocolate bar before being executed). There's no way to make the switch gradual.

And a character concept of a mythically skilled diplomat who can negotiate things that are deemed non-negotiable with people who are deemed non-negotiable** . . . has to be represented by someone who isn't skilled at Diplomacy at all but rather takes some sort of mind control ability, which is kinda lame and crude.

* == I have the impression that Reaction Modifiers are generally a better way to go than pumping an Influence Skill; yes, some RMs are better than others, some are very conditional etc. etc. But they're still mechanically better overall, and have broader applicability, point for point.
** == One word-combo that I found useful for discussing such situations and feats is "against one's better judgement", i.e. being convinced to do something that of course nobody would do if thinking clearly, but that's the point of having a mythic-level social skill - getting someone not to practice the better judgement.

Re: GURPS Social Engineering and "super negotiator" character
 

Yes there is. You could apply penalties. Something like:

-0: normal 'negotiable'
-1
-2
-3
...
-18
-19
Not possible: 'non-negotiable'

Re: GURPS Social Engineering and "super negotiator" character
 

Intimidation effectively has this penalty in Action (perhaps other books too, but I remember it from there): -5 for in combat. And there's quite some rules for using Fast-Talk or Public Speaking in the midst of combat for distracting people. I actually had a bunch of rules worked up for my Galactic Frontier for what I called "Social Combat," in the literal sense of using social skills in combat. I believe I had it all pegged at -5 for combat. Talking someone into betraying his side in the midst of combat, for example, is something that comes up surprisingly often, though I would hasten to add that it needs to have a proper place. You can't just point to a mook and say "Hey, switch sides!" But if you've shown mercy to the beautiful assassin working for the power-mad mastermind, and you've come to understand her better and why she's doing this, then in the midst of combat, you could point out how what he's doing actually hurts those she's trying to protect or her values or whatever, and perhaps talk her down, or talk her into turning on the mastermind.

It's really common in James Bond stuff. Luke does it to Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi. Star Trek often features "combat negotiations" like this, such as Kirk talking down the Klingons in Day of the Dove.

Re: GURPS Social Engineering and "super negotiator" character
 

Just a reminder:

Look at pages 8 in GURPS CHARACTERS and pages 495 in GURPS CAMPAIGNS before you worry too much about how to handle player characters with Super negotiator capabilities.

Two methods for handling reaction rolls (aside from the fact that you could have already determined or pre-determined that the NPC is not going to be swayed by charisma or anything else for that matter due to fanaticism or hatred or even mindless stupidity) are:

1) have a predetermined penalty to reaction rolls (or bonus!) in advance of the encounter playing out.

2) have a limit to the best or worst reaction possible before you even roll the dice.

But it doesn't have to end there either. Suppose for example, a group of NPC's are supposed to attack the party because if they don't - their heads will be severed from their necks - sort of a come home victorious or don't come home at all kind of thing. The negotiator PC with all of his social skills, may very well be the ONLY one whom the cultists do NOT capture and take back to their leaders because they like him enough to cut him some slack. They capture the rest of the party, but pointedly tell the negotiator to get lost. That puts a whole new spin on the potential ending of an encounter. The combat still occurs, and the negotiator's skills and role playing did bear fruit.

How the NPC leader responds to the player characters after the fight might be based upon the following criteria and ONLY the following criteria - charisma or good looks being of no consequence to the NPC leader...

-1 if 10% of his raiding party is destroyed or out of commission for more than a month

-2 if 20% of his raiding party (ditto the rest above)

-4 if 50% of his raiding party (ditto above)

-8 if 75% are rendered ineffective or dead.

He's not reacting to the player characters, he's reacting to the events themselves. That the reaction's results will determine what happens to the players is a fine but subtle point.

And finally:
Sometimes it pays to adopt the mindset of the NPC's as if they were your player and the ONLY player you have instead of being the GM running ALL of the NPC's. Imagine the surprise that can be had when the players are facing a foe whose numbers and advantages will likely mean defeat for them, only to find that while they are close to losing the contest, one of their foes steps back and starts on his own, to fight against his comrades. After the dust of battle settles, the NPC who was an enemy, and now a seeming friend, tells one player character "My father's life was spared because your father saved him. When he repaid your father by not killing him when he was ordered to, he lost his life. Now you OWE me if you have anywhere near the same honor as your father."

what is going to go through the minds of the players? How will the one react to the debt of honor? Is it a trick by the mastermind - a sacrifice of pawns to get someone in close to his enemies so that the erstwhile betrayer is really now a double agent working against the players. What if the body language skill of the player determines that the other is lying when he tells the touching story of honor? Does the player kill the actor out of hand, or does he work to turn the actor into a REAL asset/friend who will betray his master (ie turning an agent to your own side). Round and round it goes...

Re: GURPS Social Engineering and "super negotiator" character
 

Well, that's not all of it. Penalties should be non-applied to the lower end of outcomes (otherwise NPCs go into combat mode at the slightest provocation . . . which is not a problem in actual combat, but is overkill in many other situations), while there needs to be a way to scale down the higher-end reactions, all of this while never setting a Hard Cap on the maximum achievable reaction. This is quite deep into houserule territory, and not at all like what Basic Set offers for this.