The Seduction Skill as a "Lab"

[Robyn]

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab"

 

You attribute his action in a very negative manner--fast talking rarely has a positive connotation in terms of player to GM interaction

 

I concur that narrative gaming is a rarity.

 

of being a con artist trying to put one over someone' date='[/quote']

 

This would be the familiar connotation outside of gaming, but in - as you said - terms of player to GM interaction, I have only seen positive connotations.

 

My main recollection of the first time I saw the phrase in a gaming context is of TastesLikePhoenix.com's review of AMBER:

 

I looked over the game when it came out. I didn't have the outraged reaction of the more extreme devotees of dice, but just couldn't see myself running it. Everything seemed to devolve into the players' Fast Talk the GM skill. I wanted more of a system to lean on.

 

Most systems utilize this mechanic to some degree (HERO endeavors to avoid it), it is the method by which common sense can identify and fix breaks in the system.

 

and telling him to move on to another system

 

I did not in any way instruct him in such a manner. Your perception that I was "telling him" to do anything supports my theory that informative statements being taken as declarative results in readers trying to "fill in the blanks" - the flaw with such action being that the statement already is complete, and any information added will only distort (not restore) the original meaning.

I assure you that, if I meant something, I would say it - with due thought for whether it would get me into trouble. Those who game with me have learned that, when it comes to honesty, I am characterized by a rather blunt approach that values speaking my mind over holding back, even if silence would be diplomatic.

 

where you say it would be easier for him to do so.

 

I did not (even attempt to) address ease; making changes is one thing, but another concern is balancing the game through the ripple effects of those changes.

[incrdbil]

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab"

 

This would be the familiar connotation outside of gaming, but in - as you said - terms of player to GM interaction, I have only seen positive connotations.

 

The word might stop turning if you ever stopped over-analyzing things.

 

My main recollection of the first time I saw the phrase in a gaming context is of TastesLikePhoenix.com's

 

And its completely irrelevant in terms of your discussion here to someone else. It's happened time and time again, and I encourage you to find a way to communicate with others with less verbosity, and more clarity.

 

 

 

I did not in any way instruct him in such a manner. Your perception that I was "telling him" to do anything supports my theory that informative statements being taken as declarative results in readers trying to "fill in the blanks" - the flaw with such action being that the statement already is complete, and any information added will only distort (not restore) the original meaning.

 

That's what you communication conveyed. The contrived ratiionalization that follows is meaningless. Your statement was demeaning and either you are incapable of seeing that, or don't care. So if this was yet another miscommunication on your part, that's fine--but please spare us the essays on structure, intent, and the usual load of boring detail that follows these incidents of yours.

[HewhoisMatt]

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab"

 

In short Robyn you might be the the greatest rule lawyer of all time but your people skills leave alot to be desired

[megaplayboy]

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab"

 

Well, you can either use a lab to "research"/practice your skills, or you can use it to assist in using them effectively. For the former, a bathroom mirror would be the de minimis requirement.

For the latter, a clothing wardrobe, an assortment of colognes, a list of fine restaurants, chocolatiers, florists, perhaps a hair stylist/manicurist, etc would all be potentially beneficial.

The Ultimate Skill lists the idea of a "mock" bar or similar social environment where actors are employed to react "realistically" to various interaction attempts.

 

Seduction is one of those great "YMMV" skill instances. In some campaigns, it's enormously useful and easy to succeed with. In some others, it's almost completely useless and difficult to succeed with. The only time I get irritated by this disparity is when the GM lets a guy who roleplays better but whose character is completely lacking in the social skills(mechanically speaking) get away with more stuff than the limited roleplayer whose character has the "full suite" of appropriate skills. It's one thing to reward for good roleplay, but quite another to do so to a point that undermines the perception of "fair and balanced treatment" in the campaign.

 

But I digress...

[teh bunneh]

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab"

 

Gentlemen,

 

Speaking as a moderator, let's please keep things civil.

[Vondy]

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab"

 

Here, KB, let me help.

 

Guys, this is really simple. You just need to hearken back to the masters...

 

 

Of couse, the lighting has to be subtle...

 

 

And the carpet understated...

 

 

The sofa inconspicuous, yet conveniently placed...

 

 

An outdoorsy touch...

 

A 1 person furniture piece to prove its not just a seduction pad...

 

 

Something to show off your refined artistic sensibilities...

 

 

A cool, handily located storage center for love aids...

 

 

A staid, old world bed that recalls romances of a kinder, gentler age...

 

 

I say no more...

 

 

 

See, nothing to argue about.

[Robyn]

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab"

 

So if this was yet another miscommunication on your part' date=' that's fine--but please spare us the essays on structure, intent, and the usual load of boring detail that follows these incidents of yours.[/quote']

 

You may skip over it if you wish.

 

 

 

And its completely irrelevant in terms of your discussion here to someone else.

 

At the outset yes, but then (at the outset), any background is irrelevant when omitted; usually, we act as if the connotations we are accustomed to will be shared by others, and only delve into such matters when it becomes apparent that the case is otherwise.

 

For example - you used the phrase "completely irrelevant" without any background to explain your understanding of what it means, but unless it turned out to be a point of confusion between us, we would both pass by that without comment.

 

The relevancy is this: I have revealed that I never encountered any negative connotations to "fast-talking the GM", which does not weaken your statement that such connotations exist (I am certainly not omniscient), but does establish my original intent. Then, furthermore, I cited a source which put "fast-talking the GM" in a good light, which - in the absence of any sources which provide these "negative connotations" in the context of gaming - does challenge your statement that such connotations exist.

 

That's just its relevancy, though, not an additional argument for it. A quick Google search just now yielded a usage in other-than-positive light ("a player should not try to warp or fast-talk the GM"). Yet, the same Google search also yielded a higher number of positive usages for the same phrase. In all, there don't seem to be many public sources establishing a non-subjective meaning in the gaming context, so I concede your point that immediate clarity would have been better.

 

The contrived ratiionalization that follows

 

Actually, all I did was explain the thoughts and background knowledge that were in my mind as I wrote it. I came up with nothing new, nothing before-then unknown to me; there was nothing "contrived" about it.

 

is meaningless.

 

On the contrary - it enables meaning. If necessary (or desired) I can detail such thoughts and background knowledge in their logical sequence, before the words they lead to. I normally omit such exposition to save time, accepting the occasional misunderstanding (and need to explain that subsequently arises) as a necessary evil.

 

Your statement was demeaning and either you are incapable of seeing that' date=' or don't care.[/quote']

 

I dispute your assertion, and chide you for attempting to sneak it in as the premise of a false dilemma (which is itself disagreeable).

 

Still, while your foundation was weak, you may be on to something with the first branch of that dilemma:

 

 

 

I am irrepressibly optimistic, preferring to see other people as well-meaning and of good spirits, and I decline to live in a world where I perceive hostility or ill-will where there need not be any - that is not a fate I would wish on anyone.

[HewhoisMatt]

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab"

 

Well, you can either use a lab to "research"/practice your skills, or you can use it to assist in using them effectively. For the former, a bathroom mirror would be the de minimis requirement.

For the latter, a clothing wardrobe, an assortment of colognes, a list of fine restaurants, chocolatiers, florists, perhaps a hair stylist/manicurist, etc would all be potentially beneficial.

The Ultimate Skill lists the idea of a "mock" bar or similar social environment where actors are employed to react "realistically" to various interaction attempts.

 

Seduction is one of those great "YMMV" skill instances. In some campaigns, it's enormously useful and easy to succeed with. In some others, it's almost completely useless and difficult to succeed with. The only time I get irritated by this disparity is when the GM lets a guy who roleplays better but whose character is completely lacking in the social skills(mechanically speaking) get away with more stuff than the limited roleplayer whose character has the "full suite" of appropriate skills. It's one thing to reward for good roleplay, but quite another to do so to a point that undermines the perception of "fair and balanced treatment" in the campaign.

 

But I digress...

 

 

It is always a problem when a persons social skills are better than that of the PC and does not remember roleplay as such. I have more often run into the exact opposite problem where the PC has a great amount of skill but the player has very little and would rather roll dice than even try to roleplay it. This can be a real problem if the game involves alot of NPC interaction.

[Robyn]

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab"

 

Here, KB, let me help.

 

Guys, this is really simple.

 

At first I wondered if this would be a serious reply or an amusing one.

 

And the carpet understated...

 

 

Then my eyes began to bleed*

 

*(figuratively speaking)

[Mike W]

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab"

 

Lab may evoke mental images of "laboratory"' date=' and thus science, which has the reputation of being [i']incompatible[/i] with subjective techniques (more "art", less "method"), but the roll is really all that's needed to cover this "variable" thing. If you don't like it, there are plenty of games other than HERO which will leave room for the players to fast-talk their GM's into what they think is important in the "subjectively effective" realm.

 

Incredibl more or less hit it on the head in terms of why I found it offensive. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that IS how it came across to me and apparently I'm not the only one(and if you really want to have a discussion over the meaning of language, we can start another thread, without referring to this one, and have it out, I'm an English professor). But honestly, I'm over it. When you're dealing with an electronic mediums like this, these kinds of miscommunications are bound to happen from time to time.

 

But enough of such talk, back to the issue at hand. I've played a LOT of hero over the years and GM'ed a lot. I've seen a lot of different types of hero players and one of the things that is both great(and occasionally frustrating) about the system is that there is so MUCH room for interpretation in how to do things. All you have to do is look at any of the "how to build X power" threads or "how to build X character" threads on the board and you can see an amazing difference in how people go about things. I've seen very good Superman builds, for instance, where he has 75 STR. I've also seen builds where he has 200 STR. It depends on the campaign.

 

 

Now for this particular instance of building a seduction "lab", while yes I realize that a lab doesn't have to mean scientific equipment, I also think that some skills don't lend themselves well to such a thing. Principally, I think those are social skills because the variability of human nature and interaction just isn't necessarily going to let you pin down a formula that always works when it comes to what they find appealing. Not everyone goes to a museum and likes everything. In fact, most people probably don't, or they at least like certain things a lot more. Want a mega-hit TV show? Convince 25% of people to stay home and watch it every week. Want a hit record, sell it to 1% of the population and you've gone multiplatinum. But it isn't just taste in entertainment where this applies. Have you or any of your friends ever dated someone that the rest of your circle of friends couldn't stand? It happens a lot. I can think of more than one instance in my personal life where something similar has happened. I just don't think that you can put a lab together very easily to account for this variability. Again, like I said, for some people, many people maybe, low lights, candles, soft music and a nice meal make a great romantic setting. But others find it hokey or formulaic and don't really care for it...and that should be determined by the personality and taste of the person being seduced. Theoretically, if you knew the person well enough, you could change out all the furniture for something they would like better, but I'm a bit leery to allow a "lab" that requires you to do that much changing around of what it contains. And really, most of the setting material(candles, music, etc) are things that can be covered by the rules of "extra time, good equipment/preparation". You can give a bonus for them without making it into an actual "lab". A lab, to me is a fairly permanent set up and probably contains a lot of "equipment"(however loosely you care to interpret it) that is not readily available or portable. But most people can run to the store and buy some candles and a CD, turn the lights on the lowest setting, and download a couple recipes if they don't cook that well. There is no real need for a "lab" to do everything necessary to set the scene. There is, in short, nothing to separate the lab from most people's living rooms, if they take a little time to dress up the living room.

 

Finally, yes, the "roll" ultimately determines success, but I think that since this is "role" playing, the talking still needs to count a bit, especially for personal interaction skills. I know that part of the point of roleplaying is to take on characters with traits you don't have, but there are still certain things you can say that help a lot(or that are simply going to fail miserably no matter how charming you are).

[actingkeith]

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab"

 

I have always, when buying 'hot' sports cars with points, purchased a Seduction Skill with the car to simulate how attractive a hot car makes a person (note that this also includes limos).

 

And when I have a character who is Bruce Wayne-ish, I always buy a Seduction Lab for the house. It's usually a nice room with a pool table, a huge plasma TV, a wet bar, interesting selections in a bookcase, a sunken floor with a really comfortable conversation pit and central fireplace, and a nice sound system as its Special Effect. It can also include a butler/maid/servant who is respectful... It's the room that makes people say to themselves "this guy is freakin' cool... I want to be his friend."

 

Truth is that in the game, that's what Seduction Skill is...

 

Peace,

 

Keith

[Robyn]

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab"

 

(and if you really want to have a discussion over the meaning of language' date=' we can start another thread[/quote']

 

Unlikely. It wouldn't be appropriate anywhere in the HERO forums except the NGD, and I go there even less than Thia (which is saying something). I'll send you a PM about what incrdbil may have latched onto, though it isn't really semantics.

Or, since you appear to have opted out of PM's, perhaps I won't

 

Now for this particular instance of building a seduction "lab"' date=' while yes I realize that a lab doesn't have to mean scientific equipment, I also think that some skills don't lend themselves well to such a thing.[/quote']

 

Because the skills aren't "scientific", yes. I wasn't just saying that the equipment wouldn't be scientific, though; I was speaking of the mindset involved.

 

Principally' date=' I think those are social skills because the variability of human nature and interaction just isn't necessarily going to let you pin down a formula that always works when it comes to what they find appealing.[/quote']

 

Science doesn't require that formulae always work; it requires that the results be reproducible, which is a subtle but vital distinction. If the rate is "mostly", other observers must be able to gather their own data independently, and also come up with "mostly". The demographics of those few exceptions is mainly of importance when trying to predict which formula would be best* for each case, and that only matters when they have the "rooms with interchangeable parts" you described.

 

*and even then, not (necessarily) guaranteed; just, "calculations show that this is most likely to produce desired results".

 

The variability of human nature (and interaction) doesn't create an even split; there are minorities, and majorities. There are methods (not just techniques) which will work more often than other methods, and there are methods which will work better than other methods; again, a subtle but vital distinction. The latter is how much of a bonus you get, the former is a SFX that defines how easily the target's player can turn to the GM and say "He's not like most people, this should have a penalty against him."

 

Of course, even with the bonus, there is a chance the roll will fail. Just as, even if the penalties outweigh the bonus, the roll may nonetheless succeed; perhaps the tasteless and gaudy decorations neither attracted nor repelled the target, leaving their decisions up to other factors, or perhaps the other positive influences were sufficient to overwhelm the discomfort from sitting in that room Von D-Man showed us

[Mike W]

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab"

 

Unlikely. It wouldn't be appropriate anywhere in the HERO forums except the NGD' date=' and I go there even less than Thia (which is saying something). I'll send you a PM about what incrdbil may have latched onto, though it isn't really semantics.

Or, since you appear to have opted out of PM's, perhaps I won't

 

 

 

Because the skills aren't "scientific", yes. I wasn't just saying that the equipment wouldn't be scientific, though; I was speaking of the mindset involved.

 

 

 

Science doesn't require that formulae always work; it requires that the results be reproducible, which is a subtle but vital distinction. If the rate is "mostly", other observers must be able to gather their own data independently, and also come up with "mostly". The demographics of those few exceptions is mainly of importance when trying to predict which formula would be best* for each case, and that only matters when they have the "rooms with interchangeable parts" you described.

 

*and even then, not (necessarily) guaranteed; just, "calculations show that this is most likely to produce desired results".

 

The variability of human nature (and interaction) doesn't create an even split; there are minorities, and majorities. There are methods (not just techniques) which will work more often than other methods, and there are methods which will work better than other methods; again, a subtle but vital distinction. The latter is how much of a bonus you get, the former is a SFX that defines how easily the target's player can turn to the GM and say "He's not like most people, this should have a penalty against him."

 

Of course, even with the bonus, there is a chance the roll will fail. Just as, even if the penalties outweigh the bonus, the roll may nonetheless succeed; perhaps the tasteless and gaudy decorations neither attracted nor repelled the target, leaving their decisions up to other factors, or perhaps the other positive influences were sufficient to overwhelm the discomfort from sitting in that room Von D-Man showed us

 

Even if I grant everything you just said(and I could go with most of it), I still don't see a need to call a room a "lab" just because it is furnished better than another. I also think that by introducing another random roll into the equation, you increase the likelihood of anomalous results and any good scientific experiment not only needs to be reproduceable but it should produce similar results. This means controlling any "random" elements as much as possible. Giving a random Seduction roll to a room(or a car as someone else suggested) to me adds an unnecessary random element. The rules already allow you to assign bonuses to cover many such things without introducing an additional complimentary roll. To me the car and the room are merely equipment that fall into the same category has having, say a better set of lockpicks. They provide a bonus to the roll, but the bonus is finite, if you will, not random. Such an approach also makes it easy to decide on applying negatives(sorry the bearskin rug isn't a +2, it's a -2 this time because the target is an animal rights activist).

[Robyn]

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab"

 

Even if I grant everything you just said(and I could go with most of it)' date=' I still don't see a need to call a room a "lab" just because it is furnished better than another.[/quote']

 

I take it that, by "better", you mean "efficiently furnished", not "more furnishings"? A sparse cell could appeal to the ascetics.

 

That said, we shouldn't get too focused on the exact words HERO uses. Entire debates have taken place over the use of "Block" versus "Dodge", for instance.

 

The rules already allow you to assign bonuses to cover many such things without introducing an additional complimentary roll.

 

Those are set bonuses, though. You can add an Activation Roll to them, but it's still all-or-nothing. The complementary skill roll allows the exact bonus to vary from use to use, depending on how well it was made by.

 

Of course, with the cost reduction for bases being what it is, it's far too easy to simply push the lab's skill level through the proverbial roof and make the exact bonus irrelevant. Let's see, assume a base skill roll of 11 (since you need to have the skill in the first place to use a lab's complementary skill with it), you can only roll a 17 or less without failing, so we need at least a +6 bonus, meaning we need to make our roll by 12, and to ensure we do that on the lab roll (even with a 17), we need to push the skill up to 40 or so.