GURPS Social Engineering and "super negotiator" character

[lordabdul]

Hey all,

One of my players wants to make a character that's basically a "super negotiator". Apart from the obvious advantage of having a PC with a lot of Reaction Roll bonuses, the goal is to give him a chance to "defuse" any potential combat situation by first trying to communicate with the NPCs (and if it fails, proceed to shoot them in due form).

Of course I immediately ran back to my PDF collection, screaming "Finally! I can use GURPS Social Engineering!". In there I found a couple pages pertaining to this particular type of situation. However, I'll often need to come up with appropriate penalties for each particular group of NPCs.

The one I'm first interested in are "evil cultists". We're playing Call of Cthulhu adventures using GURPS, so these are the type of NPCs most often chasing you... what kind of penalties should I apply to Reaction Rolls? I get the impression I would treat them as a "mob" (p70) with at least "intolerance" towards the PCs and "indoctrination", for a total of -6, plus some additional -1 to -4 if they are under more or less direct orders to kill or kidnap the players?

Second is how Public Speaking factors into this situation? It's referenced throughout the book for other situations, but not so much about calming down a mob? I imagine I would use it as a "complimentary skill" to give +1/+3 to the Reaction Roll?

Last is how to handle the situation when there's only a handful of enemies. Maybe you just have a couple of hired killers after you... when you confront them, how hard is it to distract them, turn them, offer them more money to let you go, etc? The same applies if, say, an FBI negotiator wants to prevent someone from killing a hostage. I didn't see anything about this situation but I may have missed something?

Thanks!

[NineDaysDead]

Originally Posted by lordabdul

Hey all,

One of my players wants to make a character that's basically a "super negotiator". Apart from the obvious advantage of having a PC with a lot of Reaction Roll bonuses, the goal is to give him a chance to "defuse" any potential combat situation by first trying to communicate with the NPCs (and if it fails, proceed to shoot them in due form).

Of course I immediately ran back to my PDF collection, screaming "Finally! I can use GURPS Social Engineering!". In there I found a couple pages pertaining to this particular type of situation. However, I'll often need to come up with appropriate penalties for each particular group of NPCs.

The one I'm first interested in are "evil cultists". We're playing Call of Cthulhu adventures using GURPS, so these are the type of NPCs most often chasing you... what kind of penalties should I apply to Reaction Rolls? I get the impression I would treat them as a "mob" (p70) with at least "intolerance" towards the PCs and "indoctrination", for a total of -6, plus some additional -1 to -4 if they are under more or less direct orders to kill or kidnap the players?

Second is how Public Speaking factors into this situation? It's referenced throughout the book for other situations, but not so much about calming down a mob? I imagine I would use it as a "complimentary skill" to give +1/+3 to the Reaction Roll?

Last is how to handle the situation when there's only a handful of enemies. Maybe you just have a couple of hired killers after you... when you confront them, how hard is it to distract them, turn them, offer them more money to let you go, etc? The same applies if, say, an FBI negotiator wants to prevent someone from killing a hostage. I didn't see anything about this situation but I may have missed something?

Thanks!

How many points are you giving this PC? Are they limited to normal traits, or can they actually be "super"? What about Cinematic traits?

[weby]

The specific penalties should kind of depend on the effective skills.

It is not fun for others if the talker can always talk though any situation and they cannot showcase their skills and the opposite where if the talker can never succeed in his skill rolls it is frustrating to him.

I tend to do the following when setting any challenge:
I look at the PC skills and decide what type of challenge it should be:
Automatic - No roll needed as long as someone says they are doing it
Trivial -Where even totally wrong party member has reasonable chance of success if they have a point in the skill
Easy -Where the right party member will succeed almost all the time even if having to use improvised tools or a bit less time.
Medium -Where the right party member would have to actually try, as in have his tools take full time and such to get a 13- or so probability
Hard -Where the right party member will need to try really hard, bringing in extra resources like complimentary skills, helpers and whatever to get a 11- or 10-)
Almost impossible - Where even with all the normally available bonuses will not get the effective skill above 6-
Impossible- No roll allowed, have to find another way.

[lordabdul]

Originally Posted by NineDaysDead

How many points are you giving this PC? Are they limited to normal traits, or can they actually be "super"? What about Cinematic traits?

No "super" traits, "cinematic" traits are on a case by case basis (for instance, I'm still debating whether I authorize "Enthrallment" for this game).

Originally Posted by weby

It is not fun for others if the talker can always talk though any situation and they cannot showcase their skills and the opposite where if the talker can never succeed in his skill rolls it is frustrating to him.

Yes, good point, I'll have to discuss this with the player, thanks.

[johndallman]

From having played a character like this, and seen others... This approach can work for opponents who haven't definitely decided to fight. It doesn't work for fights that are underway, unless the PCs are definitely winning, and offer something preferable to defeat to their opponents.

Barring actual mind control, you can't talk to people who simply aren't interested in talking.

[NineDaysDead]

Dealing with Cultists:
Firstly take the brotherhood perk:

Originally Posted by perks page 17

One narrow group of potential foes – military unit, monster species, street gang, etc. – doesn’t like you but remains neutral toward you if you stay out of their way. They must know you’re there. Thus, this perk only works if you’re visible and identifiable.

If the perk is mundane, it’s usually the result of being known to the target group. For instance, mobsters might avoid killing the boss’ son, while soldiers probably won’t gun down their old commanding officer.

If the perk is for fantasy monsters, like zombies, the things ignore you as long as you aren’t hostile. Perhaps you simply don’t smell like food!

Members of this group will shove you aside if you get between them and anything or anyone they’re out to attack, break, eat, rob, etc. If you do anything more hostile than get in the way, or refuse to step aside, you become a valid target. Of course, letting them act unhindered may make you an accessory to a crime . . .

Brotherhood guarantees an automatic good reaction in return for your respect. As with all NPCs, some encounters with the affected group may involve predetermined reactions; these override your perk. Supernaturally controlled NPCs may likewise ignore it.

This should buy you time to talk.

Next consider the the Passing Appearance perk; which suggests that being immune to one type of Intolerance (Race, Sex, etc) is worth 1 point. It might be reasonable to justify Immunity to one type of intolerance for 1 point, or all Intolerance for 10 points (Based on Cultural Adaptability).

Next consider taking Empathy or Sensitive so you can bypass any Indomitable the cultists might have.

Next consider taking Indomitable and Unfazable so Cultists can't use influence skills on you.

Next consider taking Social Chameleon, so that your lack of Rank: Cultist doesn't hinder you.

Next become Reaction Monster, buying as many reaction bonuses as you can. Reputation: Cultists, small class, all the time +4 [6] is probably the cheapest you can buy.

Next consider taking Luck (Aspected, Social Interactions, -20%)

Next buy up influence skills; note Intimidation can be used in combat:

Originally Posted by Kromm

Benefits -- many of which others have already pointed out -- include:

• Intimidation is the only Influence skill that works during action scenes, like combat and chases. Once you're there, you've automatically dismissed all other options.
  
  
• Bonuses to Intimidation come from things that adventurers do well. Some don't cost points for reaction bonuses: waving around weapons, killing, using creepy powers, etc. Others actually stem from disadvantages, such as Appearance (Monstrous), Callous, and negative-but-scary Reputations. No other Influence skill enjoys so many easy, free bonuses.
  
  
• Normally, Intimidation is the only Influence skill useful against groups.
  
  
• A good Intimidation roll can cause a Fright Check, which can produce many lasting, potent effects.

I've GMed GURPS for decades, and the rules for Influence skills haven't materially changed in that time. My hands-on experience has been that Intimidation is the most consistently useful Influence skill! The others have their niches, but Intimidation works in an adventurer's most common situation: when staring down a horde of armed bad guys who've studied on killin' you.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Barring actual mind control, you can't talk to people who simply aren't interested in talking.

The problem I always had with GURPS' social mechanics is that there's this all-or-nothing cutoff point, and no gradual shift. The effectiveness of a mythically competent negotiator hinges on whether the GM has set the mood bool of the NPC to 'negotiable' (in which case all those Reaction Modifiers will make a huge difference*), or to 'non-negotiable' (in which case they have no effect whatsoever, not even asking for a last chocolate bar before being executed). There's no way to make the switch gradual.

And a character concept of a mythically skilled diplomat who can negotiate things that are deemed non-negotiable with people who are deemed non-negotiable** . . . has to be represented by someone who isn't skilled at Diplomacy at all but rather takes some sort of mind control ability, which is kinda lame and crude.

* == I have the impression that Reaction Modifiers are generally a better way to go than pumping an Influence Skill; yes, some RMs are better than others, some are very conditional etc. etc. But they're still mechanically better overall, and have broader applicability, point for point.
** == One word-combo that I found useful for discussing such situations and feats is "against one's better judgement", i.e. being convinced to do something that of course nobody would do if thinking clearly, but that's the point of having a mythic-level social skill - getting someone not to practice the better judgement.

[NineDaysDead]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The problem I always had with GURPS' social mechanics is that there's this all-or-nothing cutoff point, and no gradual shift. The effectiveness of a mythically competent negotiator hinges on whether the GM has set the mood bool of the NPC to 'negotiable' (in which case all those Reaction Modifiers will make a huge difference*), or to 'non-negotiable' (in which case they have no effect whatsoever, not even asking for a last chocolate bar before being executed). There's no way to make the switch gradual.

Yes there is. You could apply penalties. Something like:

-0: normal 'negotiable'
-1
-2
-3
...
-18
-19
Not possible: 'non-negotiable'