Breadth of Non-Combat Techniques (social and other)

[vicky_molokh]

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?

Spoiler:  

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

You know, I keep wondering why Social Engineering didn't list Seduction as a valid Technique with all the appropriate defaults (in addition to the stereotypical one). It would find its way onto character sheets of many [N]PCs, and propagate through the forum as a meme, clearing up the confusion.

I mean, there clearly are mechanics, so it might've took the point home by explicitly mentioning a named Technique for it. Or was space so much of an issue that a single-paragraph Technique wasn't an option?

Originally Posted by whswhs

Time to write was so much an issue that making up every conceivable technique wasn't an option.

And I'm not seeing seduction as a single technique, anyway. It's a goal. It's like having a combat technique called "kill people."

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!

[dcarson]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Greetings, all!

They cost roughly ¼ of full skills, so it's usually not a good idea to have more than 2-3 per skill.

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?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by dcarson

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?

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

[Xplo]

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?"

[Lamech]

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.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

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).

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.

[ULFGARD]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

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.

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.")

[Jonathan Willis]

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.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Willis

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).

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.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Willis

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.

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

[QUOTE=Jonathan Willis;1489165]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Willis

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

Seems OK to me.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Willis

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.

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.

[Fwibos]

[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.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Willis

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.

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