PCs with very different reaction modifiers

[Michael Thayne]

Something I've run into GMing GURPS is with PCs having very different traits that influence reactions. For example, in an Action game maybe Alice is a Face Man with Charisma 3, Fashion Sense, and Voice, and mostly takes disadvantages that don't come with reaction penalties, or only come with situational reaction penalties (e.g. Compulsive Carousing and Overconfidence). Bob, meanwhile plays a Big Guy whose main positive in social situations is Intimidation-14, and whose Callous, Social Stigma (Criminal Record), Stubbornness, Ugly, and a -5 point Odious Personal Habit.

Alice's reactions are at somewhere between +4 and +10 (depending on whether she's talking to a seasoned prude or a young party-animal). Meanwhile Bob's reactions suffer from at least a -4 modifier, probably worse if people have experienced his Callous-ness and/or know about his Social Stigma. And compared to the situations you can get in a Dungeon Fantasy game (if, say, a Nymph and an Ogre are adventuring together), this could be considered a mild example. But it leads to some weird situations, where an NPC has a Very Good reaction to Alice but a Bad reaction to Bob. In D&D, the character who chose Charisma as their dump stat can just keep their mouth shut, but GURPS disadvantages that impose reaction penalties tend to be explicitly things that can't be avoided that way—or else represent an inability to keep your mouth shut even when that would be wise.

You can hand-wave this—have Bob get some dirty looks but not penalize Alice for the company she keeps as long as she waves people off with "don't worry, Bob's a great guy when you get to know him". But that's not obviously the best approach, and GURPS rules seem frustratingly vague on this subject, which is somewhat surprising given how often the rules reference rolls for groups reacting to individuals rather than the other way around. What do people do here? Or if you haven't encountered this situation, what would you do when it came up?

[sir_pudding]

If it matters I roll general reactions for for each party member. If this means that one character is Excellent and another triggers an attack, well clearly this poor person must be rescued from this beast!

But in many cases it won't be that extreme and more like when you hang out with your pretty friends and basically just vanish.

[mburr0003]

I pretty much always average the group's Reaction Modifier... which means Faces in groups with Monsters tend to really start hating having the monster around when they're trying to wheel and deal.

And in DF/RPG the average sticks even when the Monster isn't around, because the Town knows they're part of your group. Want to take "meaningless social disads"? Well, they aren't very meaningless anymore...

That said, in the case of DF/RPG I've also modified some of the disads that only gave social reaction penalties to no longer just giving those penalties, and in many situations, actually remove the penalty from being a group penalty.

[DeadParrot]

If the pair is smart, Alice plays the part of Leader and Bob plays the part of body guard/muscle. Bob's Intimidation ability becomes an advantage. Get too close to Alice and get the glare of imminent death from Bob. By having Bob appear as an employee to Alice, it should avoid any negative reaction modifiers to Alice's negotiations.

I was in a D&D game where a player took the charisma as a dump stat to the extreme with a Chr of 3. He wasn't very happy when the GM had the townsfolk either run in fear or call the guard and the inn keep utter things like "I don't allow things like that in here! It sleeps in the stables." The player really wasn't expecting there to be a penalty for such a low charisma.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

I pretty much always average the group's Reaction Modifier... which means Faces in groups with Monsters tend to really start hating having the monster around when they're trying to wheel and deal.

And in DF/RPG the average sticks even when the Monster isn't around, because the Town knows they're part of your group. Want to take "meaningless social disads"? Well, they aren't very meaningless anymore...

That said, in the case of DF/RPG I've also modified some of the disads that only gave social reaction penalties to no longer just giving those penalties, and in many situations, actually remove the penalty from being a group penalty.

That's basically making the 'face' pay for the combat wombat's combat advantages.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Rupert

That's basically making the 'face' pay for the combat wombat's combat advantages.

Pretty much.
Most teams have at least some specialization going on and I have no problem with a key Face type just as I dont with any other role.
However, the face has to account for the problems of the other members. Though there are usually things that can be done to mitigate really bad penalties. After all the ones with reaction penalties do not have to be involved or anywhere near many negotiations - especially in town.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Rupert

That's basically making the 'face' pay for the combat wombat's combat advantages.

There aren't a lot of good options that don't either make the face pay, or make the disads into free points.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Sdisadvantages that impose reaction penalties tend to be explicitly things that can't be avoided that way—or else represent an inability to keep your mouth shut even when that would be wise.

Reaction roll differentials are hard to avoid in dungeooncrawls because you don't split the party up. In many other genres it's happens all the time because a full group can't interact with npcs in town when you're trying to get something done.

There's also an area "normal". Peaceful interactions in dungeons are rare for anyone but even though pirates in Port Royal don't trust each other they have to get business done.

So the Sicilian lothario is _already_ off trying to get laid, the mad Scottish dwarf isn't leaving the bar for _anything_, the English ex-dragoon is watching the dwarf in case something explosive happens, the strange Chinese doctor is trying to find books to study and the mate with the Merchant Skill is going shopping with maybe the Attractive lady blacksmith helping him and everyone will find "somebody" willing to take whatever coins they're offering.

Indivisible parties risking violence with chance-met strangers may be a relatively specific genre problem.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by DeadParrot

If the pair is smart, Alice plays the part of Leader and Bob plays the part of body guard/muscle. Bob's Intimidation ability becomes an advantage. Get too close to Alice and get the glare of imminent death from Bob. By having Bob appear as an employee to Alice, it should avoid any negative reaction modifiers to Alice's negotiations.

I was in a D&D game where a player took the charisma as a dump stat to the extreme with a Chr of 3. He wasn't very happy when the GM had the townsfolk either run in fear or call the guard and the inn keep utter things like "I don't allow things like that in here! It sleeps in the stables." The player really wasn't expecting there to be a penalty for such a low charisma.

"Average the party's reaction roll" definitely seems very harsh, but I'm not sure Alice should never suffer any negative social consequences for having an uncouth ex-con as a bodyguard. Some people will look askance at this! As I think about this, -1 or -2 to reactions is probably sufficient—equivalent to the penalty for wearing non-face-covering armor in inappropriate circumstances.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Reaction roll differentials are hard to avoid in dungeooncrawls because you don't split the party up. In many other genres it's happens all the time because a full group can't interact with npcs in town when you're trying to get something done.

There's also an area "normal". Peaceful interactions in dungeons are rare for anyone but even though pirates in Port Royal don't trust each other they have to get business done.

So the Sicilian lothario is _already_ off trying to get laid, the mad Scottish dwarf isn't leaving the bar for _anything_, the English ex-dragoon is watching the dwarf in case something explosive happens, the strange Chinese doctor is trying to find books to study and the mate with the Merchant Skill is going shopping with maybe the Attractive lady blacksmith helping him and everyone will find "somebody" willing to take whatever coins they're offering.

Indivisible parties risking violence with chance-met strangers may be a relatively specific genre problem.

Doesn't need to be risking violence. It's sufficient if e.g. the PCs can't get an audience with an important NPC, or can't access shelter, or have trouble getting information out of people.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Doesn't need to be risking violence. It's sufficient if e.g. the PCs can't get an audience with an important NPC, or can't access shelter, or have trouble getting information out of people.

If there's no serious prospect of violence then you _do_ split the party and leave Bob the Uncouth at the bar or back at camp.

Give the PCs a chance to solve their problem in character before you fret about them not being able to.