Social Engineering

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Given that Bill hates even the smell of alcohol, and I believe may have never had a drink in his 50+ years, I think whiskey is the wrong choice.

No, it's actually coffee I hate the smell of. Alcohol isn't that bad. I've tasted tiny amounts of alcohol, mostly in imported chocolates that include it as an ingredient; I've only once tasted a dessert made with coffee, and it was a ghastly experience that I hope never to repeat. But I certainly don't drink the stuff. I've celebrated my sixtieth birthday without ever consuming enough alcohol to experience mental effects; likely I'll continue in this habit for the rest of my life.

Bill Stoddard

[tg_ambro]

Originally Posted by b-dog

. . .FREX a succubus could use Sax Appeal to weaken the Will of a person . . .

I imagine that that was the skill that landed former President Bill Clinton in a heap of trouble.

[Johan Larson]

I think there should be a discussion of how much manners are likely to change -- and how severe the reaction penalties would be -- in cross-time and cross-world interactions.

For example, suppose a modern American were transported back a hundred years. He'll be able to speak the language, might not look outrageously out of place (particularly if he wore business attire), but his language and manners would be a bit off. How much would the reaction penalty be, and are there any other factors to consider?

Now repeat the situation, but make it two hundred years. How much is the penalty?

Or, heck, send him to 2010, but a 2010 where the American Revolution failed, and the British Empire (which includes most of North America) is still a going concern. How much then?

[roguebfl]

the rules for Cultural familiarity already covers that 8)

unless you wound to comed up with Social Levels in the mix?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Johan Larson

I think there should be a discussion of how much manners are likely to change -- and how severe the reaction penalties would be -- in cross-time and cross-world interactions.

For example, suppose a modern American were transported back a hundred years. He'll be able to speak the language, might not look outrageously out of place (particularly if he wore business attire), but his language and manners would be a bit off. How much would the reaction penalty be, and are there any other factors to consider?

Now repeat the situation, but make it two hundred years. How much is the penalty?

That's a good suggestion for a topic to address. Of course, we have a baseline of -3 for cultural unfamiliarity, but this would apply to lesser divergences than Western vs. Near Eastern vs. East Asian. I could see handling it either like Accented at -1 (viewing full unfamiliarity as analogous to Broken), or like unfamiliarity with a form of a skill at -2 (but quicker to overcome).

Bill Stoddard

[Voren]

I, for one, am looking forward to this book. My current campaign has taken on a definite social and political bent, with parties, formal balls, truth potions, and a dire need to get the King hitched in order to prevent an unpleasant civil war.

Personally, I've been hoping for a little more expansion of the Politics skill. IE - how it might look in different settings, how to use it for influence peddling, rumor-mongering, and so forth.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Voren

I, for one, am looking forward to this book. My current campaign has taken on a definite social and political bent, with parties, formal balls, truth potions, and a dire need to get the King hitched in order to prevent an unpleasant civil war.

My Manse campaign dealt with a lot of that sort of thing: young aristocrats courting and being courted, political debates by the council of house leaders, a formal ball, a servants' masked ball, a soldiers' lacrosse tournament and dance, a bachelor party for a soldier who was getting married, and a duel to the death between two house leaders, among other things.

Bill Stoddard

[Zed]

We've had long and loud discussions about social game mechanics in our gaming circle for years. The pros and cons usually wind up like this:

+ less social players can play social characters. goes along with less intelligent players can play genius characters.

- you wind up with awkward moments. (i c-deuce the barmaid. yuk yuk). (and i've seen my share of socalled genius characters do dumb things because of dumb players).

+ it encourages roleplaying by provide a forum for it with risks, rewards and structure.

- it stifles roleplaying by putting good roleplayers in a straitjacket of rules and stats they must have (and in GURPS, engineer) on their character sheet.

+ it allows beyond human capacity social powers.

- it squashes PC free will. ( I c-deuce the Brick to go make me a sandwich. yuk yuk).


Personally, I fall on the anti-social mechanics side, with the rare exception of magic/super social powers/spells, etc. I've had games (other then GURPS) pretty much silence my RP because the archetype i had was not a social one (I was a fighter or a wizard, not a bard/rogue). I knew if I opened my mouth, even with great points and good RP, a roll would be required and my stats would not support it. I'm also a little more old school, where stats were only desired for stuff you cannot do in person for safety/expense/legal reasons.

What I'm curious about is if there will be a kit for everyman (er everyPC) to include some basic average social stats in there GURPS build.

~Zed

[Pagan]

Originally Posted by Zed

What I'm curious about is if there will be a kit for everyman (er everyPC) to include some basic average social stats in there GURPS build.

Wouldn't the normal default system cover this?

My campaign is highly political and social. I run a combat about once every 3 or 4 sessions. I still try to "engineer" (if you will) a sense of danger or menace and excitement when the pcs deal with the npcs. Having to deal with knights, barons, dukes, bishops and cardinals, even in a non violent situation, has dangers all its own.

I am very much looking forward to this book.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Zed

We've had long and loud discussions about social game mechanics in our gaming circle for years. The pros and cons usually wind up like this:

+ less social players can play social characters. goes along with less intelligent players can play genius characters.

- you wind up with awkward moments. (i c-deuce the barmaid. yuk yuk). (and i've seen my share of socalled genius characters do dumb things because of dumb players).

+ it encourages roleplaying by provide a forum for it with risks, rewards and structure.

- it stifles roleplaying by putting good roleplayers in a straitjacket of rules and stats they must have (and in GURPS, engineer) on their character sheet.

+ it allows beyond human capacity social powers.

- it squashes PC free will. ( I c-deuce the Brick to go make me a sandwich. yuk yuk).

Social systems don't have to work this way. In Weapons of the Gods, for example, your Brick could simply reply with "I accept the penalty/decline the bonus" and move on, refusing to sleep with your character. At most, a social WotG character can offer a stick or a carrot to get someone to do something.

And come to think of it, GURPS doesn't really have this problem either. All a successful Sex Appeal roll does is create a Very Good reaction. If the barmaid is disinclined to sleep with you, all your Sex Appeal roll gets you is a big blush and warm feelings (She might just give you a discount or something). Likewise, the player can merely respond with "Wow, I like your character more than ever," and not sleep with you. The GURPS social system focuses entirely on the Reaction Table, but allows characters to react, based on those guidelines (I like you/don't like you) however they see fit.

It's only games like Exalted (which I think has a bad and unrealistic social system) where Social Rules translate into Mind Control.