Influence Checks

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Jarreth

How would you apply that in game? Is it like a character won't get Charisma bonuses unless he acts/speaks while Appearance applies as long as you can be seen?

As Kromm explained it to me, to gain Charisma bonuses to Influence rolls, you have to not just be visible and audible, but be able to see and hear your target (or perhaps perceive them by equivalent senses for your species). That's because you are subconsciously sizing up their reactions and adjusting your behavior to fit. A different rule applies to bonuses to Leadership and Public Speaking; in those cases Charisma actually boosts the skill as such.

[Jarreth]

It would in my games, for exactly the same reason as combat without Deceptive Attack would be broken. Anyone with Active Defences or Will of 12+ would be mostly safe from attacks/Influence, 14+ would be almost immune and 16+ need hardly bother rolling.

I thought that was the point in having high scores though. The high skill ratings would eat away modifiers so the highly skilled would still be more successful than the average skilled.

It just strikes me as odd that combat is different than influence skills. Why not having the Margins of Success apply in combat as well. A highly skilled fencer would be more difficult to parry against than an average one one would think.

Bonus question: What is Deceptive Attack?

[Jarreth]

Originally Posted by whswhs

As Kromm explained it to me, to gain Charisma bonuses to Influence rolls, you have to not just be visible and audible, but be able to see and hear your target (or perhaps perceive them by equivalent senses for your species). That's because you are subconsciously sizing up their reactions and adjusting your behavior to fit. A different rule applies to bonuses to Leadership and Public Speaking; in those cases Charisma actually boosts the skill as such.

I see, so it won't apply to a televised influence roll or a telephone call?

[Jarreth]

Confused by the "All your personal reaction modifiers" apply.

According to Campaigns: the influence skills are: Diplomacy, Fast-Talk, Intimidation, Savoir-Faire, Sex Appeal, and Streetwise.

If we take the text under modifiers with the "All your personal reaction modifiers". It does say that skill description may rule that some modifiers do not apply.

The Voice advantage states: "This gives you +2 with the following skills:
Diplomacy, Fast-Talk, Mimicry, Performance, Politics, Public Speaking, Sex Appeal, and Singing. You also get +2 on any reaction roll made by someone who can hear your voice.

Doesn't logic dictate that since the skills modified by Voice are spelled out that the base rule of "All your personal reaction modifiers" do not apply here? So Voice does not grant to Intimidation, Savoir-Faire, and Streetwise.

Similar to Sex Appeal and Intimidation mentions that Appearance does modify the skill that in a sense means that Diplomacy, Fast-Talk, Savoir-Faire and Streetwise are not modified by Appearance?

If ALL personal reaction modifiers applied there would be no reason to write anything else but that under the influence skills descriptions.

EG: Voice "This gives you +2 with the following skills:
Mimicry, Performance, Politics, Public Speaking, and Singing. You also get +2 on any reaction roll made by someone who can hear your voice, as well as all influence rolls. Or something to that effect.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Icelander

There is such a modifier for all Influence skills in general. Campaigns p. 359 states that all personal reaction modifiers apply to Influence rolls, unless specifically noted in the skill description as not applying or the GM decides that it would be inappropriate for a particular Influence roll.

I don't think there is any doubt Appearance gives a personal reaction modifier. And no Influence skill in Characters specifically excludes reaction modifiers from Appearance as applying to Influence rolls, except, as you note, Intimidation, which has negative Appearance providing a bonus instead.

I think there is some doubt. Campaigns p. 560 says that above-average appearance gives a bonus to reaction rolls; but it also says that Voice gives a bonus to reaction rolls. And yet we know that Voice works with some Influence skills and rolls, and not others. That exception is not called out at all on p. 560, even though that's the primary definition of what things can modify reaction rolls, and by implication Influence rolls. So I don't think the appearance of appearance in the same list can be taken as conclusive, either. There's also a flat statement on p. 560 that Pitiable gives a bonus to reaction rolls, and none of the definitions of Influence skills says anything to the contrary; but I think it would be really strange to get +3 to Intimidation from being Pitiable, and I can't think it's that good a fit to Savoir-Faire or Streetwise (whereas I could readily see it helping with some uses of Fast-Talk).

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Jarreth

I thought that was the point in having high scores though. The high skill ratings would eat away modifiers so the highly skilled would still be more successful than the average skilled.

The modifiers that mostly make Influence rolls difficult are high Will and bonuses to the Will roll to resist by your target when you are trying to convince them to do something major, against their inclination or risky.

If Influence rolls were Regular Contests (what you described) and not Quick Contests (with Margins of Success on both sides compared), high skill wouldn't allow you to perform more impressive feats of Influence, because your skill wouldn't matter to the odds of the target's Will roll failing.

Originally Posted by Jarreth

It just strikes me as odd that combat is different than influence skills. Why not having the Margins of Success apply in combat as well. A highly skilled fencer would be more difficult to parry against than an average one one would think.

Bonus question: What is Deceptive Attack?

Deceptive Attack is the mechanism by which highly skilled fencers can make attacks that are more difficult to Parry than attacks from mediocre ones, the ability to accept a -2 penalty to your skill per -1 to opponents' Active Defences.

Without it, GURPS combat wouldn't work between high skill characters.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I think there is some doubt. Campaigns p. 560 says that above-average appearance gives a bonus to reaction rolls; but it also says that Voice gives a bonus to reaction rolls. And yet we know that Voice works with some Influence skills and rolls, and not others. That exception is not called out at all on p. 560, even though that's the primary definition of what things can modify reaction rolls, and by implication Influence rolls. So I don't think the appearance of appearance in the same list can be taken as conclusive, either. There's also a flat statement on p. 560 that Pitiable gives a bonus to reaction rolls, and none of the definitions of Influence skills says anything to the contrary; but I think it would be really strange to get +3 to Intimidation from being Pitiable, and I can't think it's that good a fit to Savoir-Faire or Streetwise (whereas I could readily see it helping with some uses of Fast-Talk).

I agree that more guidelines on when to specifically disallow reaction modifiers from applying to Influence rolls might be useful. However, Pitiable clearly grants a situational Reaction modifier and I think most GMs would agree that the situations where you can claim that bonus are mostly incompatible with using Intimidation as the appropriate Influence skill.

Note, however, that a bonus to a skill and a bonus to the use of that skill as an Influnce roll are two different things. A skill bonus is wider and more useful than a bonus that applies only to Influence rolls with a certain skill.

Do you honestly believe that Appearance does not grant a personal reaction modifier?

[Jarreth]

Deceptive Attack is the mechanism by which highly skilled fencers can make attacks that are more difficult to Parry than attacks from mediocre ones, the ability to accept a -2 penalty to your skill per -1 to opponents' Active Defences.

Without it, GURPS combat wouldn't work between high skill characters.

Thanks, don't know how I missed that one!

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Well, yes, but the price of Charisma has not been doubled. "This would be a sensible way to interpret this rule if another rule were different" is a false-to-fact hypothetical.

I didn't intend to be saying anything about interpreting rules; my post was about the price of a trait, not changing what it does. What I intended to say is "If you find the price of Charisma wonky compared to other kinds of reaction mods, you're not alone. Here's an easy fix."

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I think the rule in GURPS Social Engineering that removes this effect from Appearance is misguided and yet another example of Bill Stoddard's lack of feel for mechanics.

Originally Posted by whswhs

Forgive my saying this, but I think the lack of understanding is yours.

Both of you, take a step back. This is very close to the line of personal attacks. Keep the discussion about the work, not the people behind it.