05-25-2014, 07:23 PM | #11 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
I used to do it the way you're describing—a reaction roll and then an Influence roll. But when I was working on SE I had to get it clear how things were in the RAW, so I discussed it with Kromm at length. Now I both understand that it works differently, and think that it really makes more sense that it should do so.
Basically, an Influence roll represents you trying to get another person to behave in a desired way, by using a particular way of approaching them—reasoned negotiation (Diplomacy), formal politeness (Savoir-Faire), bafflegab (Fast-Talk), threats (Intimidation), whatever. If the attempt succeeds you get the desired behavior; if it fails you don't. But what if you don't try to use any particular skill to shape their reactions? Well, the reaction roll reflects what happens when how they feel about you becomes visible. If you ask them for something—not using an Influence skill, but just making a simple request—then their reaction becomes evident at that point, and the reaction roll occurs at that point. If you don't try to interact with them, they may react anyway, especially if you have some noticeable trait that they care about; that can be represented by a spontaneous reaction roll. If that comes up positive or negative, you'll see them react. If it comes up neutral, you won't. In that last case, I would have no problem with your making an Influence roll to try to get their cooperation. Basically their reaction isn't really set anyway. But if they have a positive or negative reaction, especially a strong one, I'd say their reaction has already been set, not by your deliberate attempt to shape it, but by their initial impression of you. At that point, their behavior has a certain natural inertia. Look at it this way. Suppose you attempted Intimidation against a mugger, and lost the Influence roll, getting a Bad reaction. Would it be reasonable for you to get a second attempt at Intimidation? A third? Should you get to keep attempting Intimidation until it works? I would say no; the initial failure defines the encounter. But a Bad reaction that the mugger forms on their own really is no different. In either case the reaction is set. Of course you can take an action that reframes the scene. Maybe you turn into a seven foot tall green-skinned monster and snarl at him. Maybe you draw a weapon. Maybe you say, "Come and take it," and when he does you throw him into the wall. Or maybe you invite him to join your gang and get bigger payoffs for his skills. In such cases you certainly could get a new reaction or Influence roll—by giving him something different to react to/be influenced by. Social interaction in GURPS isn't designed to be played out "blow by blow" like physical combat. It's divided into discrete bits of dialogue, each aimed to gain some result. All the things that people say in one dialogue, all the gestures they make, and so on, contribute to a single roll. (Or to the absence of a roll—the GM can always decide that your speech was so effective that they other people just gives you what you want.) I think what you're looking for is really a social engineering analog of Technical Grappling, where you try to gain control points toward the other person on an emotional level. And that could be an interesting alternative system; maybe you should try to work it out and submit it. But I don't have a problem with the RAW for the games I run. Bill Stoddard |
05-25-2014, 07:43 PM | #12 |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
|
05-25-2014, 08:31 PM | #13 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
|
05-25-2014, 08:56 PM | #14 | ||||||||
Join Date: Nov 2011
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't really think I'm the person to engage in core innovation of the social interaction rules either. I can patch stuff to make things more agreeable to me but I don't have either the expertise in actual social engineering (and while I certainly could track down such a person I'd rather not waste their time) or experience running heavy social games that I would want in someone doing that. |
||||||||
05-25-2014, 09:21 PM | #15 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
Quote:
Bill Stoddard |
|
05-25-2014, 09:23 PM | #16 | |
Join Date: Nov 2011
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
Quote:
|
|
07-28-2015, 01:31 AM | #17 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
Riiise.
Quote:
|
|
07-28-2015, 04:14 AM | #18 |
Join Date: May 2009
Location: In Rio de Janeiro, where it was cyberpunk before it was cool.
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
Look I think we are talking about two entirely different psychological constructs. Reactions are perceptions.
While influences are direct attempts at influencing behavior in the direction of a given outcome. The initial reaction will modulate how a given influence roll affects said behavioral response. Some influence rolls like diplomacy, are specifically geared towards affecting perceptions (such as diplomacy), it cant work if there isnt a pre-existing perception to be affected by it, its no wonder diplomacy at skill 20 gives you +2 to reactions, as its meant to reflect the fact that a guy so skilled at it would learn how to present himself in a way that is well adapted to being well perceived. But in a situation where for instance, a guy is being approached by a seductress PC in a bar, and she succeeds in her sex appeal, I as a GM would interpret it as the equivalent of a fickle positive reaction (depending on margin), that can be rerolled at any moment as soon as the guy has a reason to become suspicious, frustrated or maybe just bored. Its praticly impossible to create a comprehensive rule system that is capable of arbitrating human interactions without GM fiat, and there will be so many disagreements about specifics that I wonder if its worth trying at this point in time. But as I see it, there is no end to how many reactions rolls can be called for or influence skill used because their evocation is dependant on context, game flow and GM fiat more than anything. |
07-28-2015, 06:50 AM | #19 | |
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Heartland, U.S.A.
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
Quote:
In my games, reaction and/or influence rolls are often made several times during a particular social engagement. The social engagement is generally resolved when the PCs either accept the most recent reaction/influence outcome (e.g. getting a good enough result for their purposes) or give up (e.g. getting a result so bad that social interaction has effectively ended). Particularly good or bad results do carry over into subsequent attempts, not so much in a + or - bonuses or penalties way, but in a bad reaction requires at least a very good reaction to undo way. What parts of the above are strict RAW, RAW with various sanctioned options turned on, within the bounds of RAW allowing for stylistic/genre conventions, or not RAW I'm not sure (but would be curious to know).
__________________
|
|
07-28-2015, 10:11 AM | #20 |
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Re: Influence Skills Modifying Reaction Rolls
I just gave up on the RAW system and did my own that is based on using both the reaction roll and a skill.
|
Tags |
house rules, influence rolls, influence skills, reaction rolls, social engineering |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|