[SE] Selling fish to a fisherman

[Gigermann]

…or selling ice to an Inuit, talking the headsman into letting you off the block, etc.

Social Engineering talks about throwing away the book for some situations, but as a GM, I usually dislike arbitrarily deciding things are impossible just because I think they should be. I suppose you could just assign a -10, but sometimes there's a Face Man that can absorb that kind of penalty—and you don't necessarily want to take that ability away from him, but you don't want to be too ridiculous either. Anybody have some tips or past experiences with the "impossible Influence situation" they can share?

[Bruno]

Real-life: Australian entrepreneurs sell sand to the Saudis, because the Australian sand is better for desired purposes (construction, and IIRC fake beaches).

Life lesson: it's about matching wants with needs. That's not a Merchant 35 spin-master, and it's not a critical success either - but it's a lot of Research to find your market and advertising so prospective customers can find you.

I'm pretty sure you can sell perfectly clear bubble-less ice to folks inside the arctic circle for ice sculpture. Or sitting on a glacier, or whatever. I don't know how big that market is, but the proverbial large quantities of ice lying around are not artistic grade.

[Not]

To be fair, the Saudis are (or were) wealthier than any reasonable game world would allow.

[Gigermann]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Real-life:

Interesting, but not really the point :)

[dcarson]

You have people like Colonel Thomas Blood who was caught stealing the Crown Jewels and talked the King into not just pardoning him but also giving land in Ireland worth £500 a year. That's a lot in 1671. What penalty would that be on a social roll.

[Flyndaran]

My brother was/is a master manipulator. As a teen, he broke into our mom's car to get her credit card for some frivolous purpose. While I watched them talk, he got her to apologise for not giving it to him before leading to him "having" to break in.
I butted in to make her realize what was going on.

[Not]

Fast-talk skill.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Gigermann

Interesting, but not really the point :)

I thought it rather was the point: you defeat an "Impossible" situation by using complimentary skills to change the situation. Otherwise, trying to sell sand to a random Saudi billionaire isn't going to go anywhere, and I think calling it "Impossible" is fair.

It's just like "I jump to the moon!" is something that you can flat out tell players "You fail" on. But, "I build a sealed life support mech suit with rocket boots so I can "jump" to the moon, like Space Iron Man!" or "I brew up a colossal vat of Potions of the Grasshopper and bathe in it, then I jump to the moon!" or whatever - you're changing the situation from a ridiculous, impossible one to a possible, if hard, one. It involves preparation and work and successful application of other skills or advantages.

How do you talk the headsman into not beheading you? You need to know who he is, and know things about him. Then you can talk to him rather than at him.

Unless the idea is that the player has Mind Control levels of Fast Talk.

I frankly don't think -10 is the "cap" for "impossible-ness", particularly in a game where characters might actually have Transcendent appearance, Charisma 5, Smooth Talker 4, and a net Fast Talk skill of 35.

-10 is an arbitrary number; it works just as well as -50 in lower skill level games. If skill levels are in the 10-12 range, it's immaterial if the penalty is -10 or -50, and -10 is a nice number. But there are things which really are different kinds of impossible, and cranking the penalty up from -10 is relevant in games with higher skill levels floating around.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I thought it rather was the point: you defeat an "Impossible" situation by using complimentary skills to change the situation. Otherwise, trying to sell sand to a random Saudi billionaire isn't going to go anywhere, and I think calling it "Impossible" is fair.

. . .

I frankly don't think -10 is the "cap" for "impossible-ness", particularly in a game where characters might actually have Transcendent appearance, Charisma 5, Smooth Talker 4, and a net Fast Talk skill of 35.

-10 is an arbitrary number; it works just as well as -50 in lower skill level games. If skill levels are in the 10-12 range, it's immaterial if the penalty is -10 or -50, and -10 is a nice number. But there are things which really are different kinds of impossible, and cranking the penalty up from -10 is relevant in games with higher skill levels floating around.

In actually impossible situations, I wouldn't apply penalties; any finite penalty suggests that you could do it if you were just good enough. I would just say, "you fail," or, "you can't do that." I suppose you could call that a penalty of aleph sub null if you wanted to be cute.

In social interaction situations, the GM has the right to say, "The guards don't respond to your attempt to talk them into letting you go," or even, "The guards beat you to a pulp and throw you back into your cell." It's just not a given that social skills or ordinary social advantages such as appearance can always work.

[Gigermann]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I thought it rather was the point:

I don't disagree on any of the particulars. I should probably refer to the situation as "improbable" rather than "impossible." The "headsman" is probably the best example here.

If a PC plays a skilled Face Man type, he's going to expect to be able to talk his way out of pretty much anything. As a GM, I don't want to arbitrarily take that away from him, but I don't want to be unrealistic either. Talking the headsman into letting him go should be highly "improbable" (but not "impossible" as has been anecdotally demonstrated)—I can think of a few scenarios that might be a tough sell, but feasible. On the other hand, if it were easy (or in this case, not hard enough), everyone would do it. So my original point was, "how hard is hard enough?"

-10 is certainly arbitrary, but it's treated in a number of cases within RAW as a benchmark for "impossible," and that's really my only reason for mentioning it. But a Very Beautiful woman with Sex-Appeal 16 has a better-than-zero chance of convincing a non-neutered male headsman with Will 10 to let her go, even at -10. So I guess what I'm really asking is whether or not the general GURPS community thinks that's okay, or it should be harder than that? Or should it actually be easier?

Is one-in-a-billion chance "no roll at all" or "-20?"