Balancing social skills and role playing

[Mister E]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

This whole discussion' date=' from my point of view is sliding down the well greased chute it always does, into highly theoretical examples designed to show that under certain unusual circumstances, you might sometimes get a result that could from some perspectives, be considered to be unfair. [/quote']

 

... or fair. imho, the attitude of a table of gamers should be positive towards taking certain tactical risks. For this, the table itself needs to be a safe place in all respects.

 

Don't be too critical. Feel free to express yourself appropriately.

 

Doc Democracy's point of view about playing the GM to avoid making rolls altogether' date=' I think is a more valid one ... which of course isn't going to be addressed by any rules system, since it's an attempt to slide around the rules entirely. We've probably all seen examples of that, and I confess to being occasionally guilty myself That's nothing to do with social interaction, or skill use, of course, since it's also possible to do with combat! [/quote']

 

The liberated GM is not ruled by dice rolls.

 

Of course' date=' in a game/group where personal characteristics tend to override character skills, I expect the wallflower has learned not to bother investing points into interaction skills, since he will not shine in this area, no matter how much character resources he invests. Stick to muttering "I stick him with my sword" and shining in combat.[/quote']

 

Here is a clip of a high-PRE character being controlled by a low-PRE player:

 

 

Out of game, the dance is clearly artificial. All blood elf males in WoW dance the same: like Napoleon Dynamite.

 

In game, the dance is flawless. Perhaps even super human.

 

Ultimately' date=' however, if PRE 8 Pete has a player who consistently renders Pete's interactions with impassioned and impressive, well worded, articulate speeches, with the expectation this will positively influence the results in game, I have to question whether Pete is being properly role played. If the player wanted a character with such abilities, perhaps he should have built a character whose abilities represent a great, persuasive speaker. I as GM need to translate PlayerSpeak into CharacterSpeak. Maybe that means, despite Player's great speech, Pete stutters and mumbles the same words, to much less effect, given he lacks the player's 18 PRE and oratory levels. Perhaps it indicates Pete should be denied any xp bonus for good role playing, since he is not role playing the character's design. [/quote']

 

Here is a clip of a low-PRE character being controlled by a high-PRE player:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr7djGY1fhA

 

Out of game, the dance is imaginative & rehearsed.

 

Ingame, it impresses an auditorium full of teenage rubes.

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Taking either character from "likely failure" to "probable success" on a single roll when a single roll will determine whether we succeed or fail at this step of the task is' date=' to me, more significant than taking either character from "likely failure" to "probable success" on a single to hit roll in a single combat, when that single roll still needs to do decent damage to even impact the probable outcome of the battle, much less determine it.[/quote']

 

Maybe, maybe not. You are off making unsupportable assumptions again, because lord knows, I've seen plenty of combats which ended after precisely one hit.

 

I note' date=' however, that this +3 bonus takes the 11- guy from "much more likely to fail than the 15- guy" to "almost the same possibility of success as the 15- guy". That seems like a significant chunk of 15- guy's resources being negated simply because of a difference in the players' social skills. Let's remember that we were positing a Face character (so our 15- guy) played by a socially inept player unlikely to ever get a bonus for role playing his character's social interactions, pitted against a character of limited social skills whose player is sufficiently glib, oratorical, theatrical and/or what have you to routinely convince the GM that a +3 bonus is warranted.[/quote']

 

And a +3 bonus is extremely rarely warranted. meanwhile Faceguy, who has a suite of social skills, can routinely get +1 to +2 - and occasionally +3 - via complementaries. As an issue, this is right up there with "Ego Attack" having its name changed to "mental blast"

 

In other words' date=' the glib player gets the equivalent of +3 levels with interaction skills for player skills, rather than character skills. In most games *, I think those three levels represent a pretty significant character building resource.[/quote']

 

Of course that +3 comes up ... oh, a few times a year. So yeah, every 8-12 sessions, glibguy pulls an awesome stunt that means he can - for one roll - be nearly as good as faceguy. Suuuure, that's a problem. Oh wait! It's not.

 

Your point would be much more persuasive if it wasn't built around something that rarely happens.

 

* And here we come to another "tough to compare" element. If all the players are similarly skilled' date=' such that they generally get similar bonuses, it evens out, so comparing across player groups is more difficult. Further, the manner in which the GM handles these bonuses is also difficult to compare without playing in each group over an extended period. Of course, in a game/group where personal characteristics tend to override character skills, I expect the wallflower has learned not to bother investing points into interaction skills, since he will not shine in this area, no matter how much character resources he invests. Stick to muttering "I stick him with my sword" and shining in combat.[/quote']

 

Except that we are back to superhypotheticals. Meanwhile, back in real life, I have a nonglib player. who did play the party face guy* for the last 5 years, and did well enough at it, that the other players deferred to him in that role.

 

*Actually one of the two party face guys in that game. He was the expert in "lowlife & commercial" interactions, while the other played a noble and handled "upperclass" interactions. Player #2 was glib - but as often as not, that got him in trouble as often as it helped

 

At this point, this discussion once again seems to be a solution (or more accurately the suggestion that we should have a solution) - going around trying to find a problem.

 

Yes, with poor GM'ing, I'm sure it's possible to create a problem, but that's hardly the fault of the rules: poor GM'ing can create problems out of any rules set. I actually played with a GM who did exactly what you indicate. There was no point of taking social skills because our only interaction with other characters was either a) listen to their speeches or fight them. There was no point in spending points on - for example - deduction, because you'd get the clues the GM wanted you to have (and nothing more) regardless of whether you had the skill or not. That had nothing to do with Hero system, though: he GM'ed Call of Cthulu exactly the same way - imagine our frustration! His campaigns tended not to last too long

 

Ultimately' date=' however, if PRE 8 Pete has a player who consistently renders Pete's interactions with impassioned and impressive, well worded, articulate speeches, with the expectation this will positively influence the results in game, I have to question whether Pete is being properly role played. If the player wanted a character with such abilities, perhaps he should have built a character whose abilities represent a great, persuasive speaker. I as GM need to translate PlayerSpeak into CharacterSpeak. Maybe that means, despite Player's great speech, Pete stutters and mumbles the same words, to much less effect, given he lacks the player's 18 PRE and oratory levels. Perhaps it indicates Pete should be denied any xp bonus for good role playing, since he is not role playing the character's design.[/quote']

 

Shrug. I don't give XP bonuses for "roleplaying", which is after all, very subjective. Likewise, PRE 8 does not necessarily mean stuttering or mumbling. I've met impassioned, eager speakers with low PRE: they are just not very convincing ... which is reflected in their crummy base roll.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

A bonus in a social (or other) skill tends to have more impact than the same sized bonus in combat because combat tends to involve a lot more rolls.

 

Objection! This is yet another of these unsupported statements made blank face as though they were true. Yes, combat may involve more rolls in a short period, but social interaction may involve just as many rolls (if not more), albeit distributed over a longer period. We've had many, many game sessions the featured no combat, but plenty of skill rolls. This directly contradicts your assertion, so it is clearly false some of the time, if not a lot of the time. Indeed, it's not clear it is true at all, because "number of rolls" alone is a weak metric. Consequences also need to be weighed. "Getting your head bitten off" in the context of combat with a yeti is more likely to have long term consequences than the same event in the context of an argument with a guy on the train.

 

As I said to Hugh, these are all very weak arguments: nothing said so far on this topic convinces me that any of us have actually encountered problems in-game. It's all unsupported assertions, most of which are directly contradicted by real life events. It reads more like hunting around to see if we can create a hypothetical problem.

 

If there have been actual problems, what were they?

If there haven't, why should we care?

To take a much-discussed example, Ego Attack (sorry, mental blast ) is clearly underpriced ... but in game, it doesn't seem to matter, so I simply stopped worrying about it.

 

OK' date=' I'm just making points randomly now, but Hero is not a competition. We don't want to encourage people to play for rewards for their characters, be they instant or long term. Do we?[/quote']

 

Edit: We do (or I do, anyway!) if the reward is a session filled with awesomeness that is long remembered. That's why I reward slick moves in-game with bonuses.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Objection! This is yet another of these unsupported statements made blank face as though they were true. Yes, combat may involve more rolls in a short period, but social interaction may involve just as many rolls (if not more), albeit distributed over a longer period. We've had many, many game sessions the featured no combat, but plenty of skill rolls. This directly contradicts your assertion, so it is clearly false some of the time, if not a lot of the time. Indeed, it's not clear it is true at all, because "number of rolls" alone is a weak metric. Consequences also need to be weighed. "Getting your head bitten off" in the context of combat with a yeti is more likely to have long term consequences than the same event in the context of an argument with a guy on the train.

 

As I said to Hugh, these are all very weak arguments: nothing said so far on this topic convinces me that any of us have actually encountered problems in-game. It's all unsupported assertions, most of which are directly contradicted by real life events. It reads more like hunting around to see if we can create a hypothetical problem.

 

If there have been actual problems, what were they?

If there haven't, why should we care?

To take a much-discussed example, Ego Attack (sorry, mental blast ) is clearly underpriced ... but in game, it doesn't seem to matter, so I simply stopped worrying about it.

 

 

 

Edit: We do (or I do, anyway!) if the reward is a session filled with awesomeness that is long remembered. That's why I reward slick moves in-game with bonuses.

 

cheers, Mark

 

OK...if you just look at the rules for Hero, persuading someone of something involves a Persuasion roll. You might have an appropriate skill you can make complimentary, so you might have a second roll. You might then (assuming the original persuasion roll was not a failure) need a resistance roll, and, let us say that gets a complementary skill roll too, although that is highly unlikely.

 

That is four rolls, at very most and you have a decision. It could all be decided on a single die roll.

 

Two people take it upon themselves to fight, well, you have a roll to hit by the first (and possibly a damage roll, which we will ignore for the purposes of this) and you then have a roll to hit by the second one (or a roll to do something else, like block or dive for cover) and the chances are that there will be at least three phases of combat (I'm assuming here we can ignore other things that are rolls and would affect combat like combat related skills such as breakfall and acrobatics), and I say three because most Hero characters seem to be balanced to take 3 or 4 hits before running out of Stun.

 

That gives us a minimum of six rolls and no realistic chance of it all being over in one, before we have a result.

 

That is not a hypothetical, that is a simple application of the rule system which is why I asserted that combat tends to involve more rolls than social interaction.

 

Now you can argue that social interaction actually involves rolls for perception and deduction and so on and so forth, and possibly that dealing with a problem involves dealing with a string of social situations, but so does combat, and that has more rolls.

 

Now the way you play your games may involve lots of social skill rolls and not many combat rolls, but that is hardly relevant: we are not discussing your games and, if we were, the point would still stand: a + 2 bonus spread over six rolls has less impact than a +2 bonus spread over four rolls.

 

As for problems actually encountered in-game, your own example is perfect: Mental Blast works because we DON'T play it as written. If we did, it would need changing. If you are playing something other than the rules as written, well, that makes all this a bit pointless.

 

Combat in Hero has a player element, because there are a lot of tactical options and choosing the best combination is a player skill. Social skills do not have that inherent tactical element, so we resort to judging the player and awarding a bonus for them. Obviously whether they get a bonus and how much depends on whether you as GM like the idea, or think it will work, and that, in large part, will turn on your relationship with the player. Maybe you like everyone in your group equally and are completely even handed, if so, congratulations. Maybe you just assume that you are even handed, and no one raises any objections, works around it and, eventually everyone assumes that is just how it is, and stops worrying about it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Maybe' date=' maybe not. You are off making unsupportable assumptions again, because lord knows, I've seen plenty of combats which ended after precisely one hit.[/quote']

 

So how valuable was the bonus to hit? Would the character likely have missed otherwise? Would that miss have had serious or dire consequences, or just meant having to roll again next phase, with nothing of great note or long-term impact likely to happen in between?

 

And a +3 bonus is extremely rarely warranted. meanwhile Faceguy' date=' who has a suite of social skills, can routinely get +1 to +2 - and occasionally +3 - via complementaries.[/quote']

 

In your game. We're discussing general theory. In your game it works because, first, you are not awarding significant bonuses with any frequency (so the well spoken player doesn't override the skilled character) and, second, because you are making generous use of complementary skills. Magnitude of bonus, frequency of bonus and applicability of complementary skills are all "GM Discretion" items within the rules. They are there and available for use but, IIRC, there is very little guidance as to the manner of their use. I have definitely seen GM's make far less use of complementaries and/or far more use of RP/well spoken player bonuses. Same rules set, just as supported by the RAW (GM exercising discretion) but completely different outcome.

 

Your point would be much more persuasive if it wasn't built around something that rarely happens.

 

Yours would be much more persuasive if they were based around universal campaign norms. Your game is not run that way, so this is not a problem in your games. That does not mean all games are run that way (or even that the rules indicate the should be), so it does not mean it is not a problem in the broader gaming world. The solution is exactly as you describe - significant bonuses are made extremely rare and hard to come by, where liberal use of complementaries is allowed and encouraged. But show me where in the rules that relative scarcity and frequency is mandated, or even suggested, as the best way to run the game.

 

Except that we are back to superhypotheticals. Meanwhile' date=' back in real life, I [b']have [/b]a nonglib player. who did play the party face guy* for the last 5 years, and did well enough at it, that the other players deferred to him in that role.

 

Because your model ensures that the character's abilities will generate a greater return than the player abilities - which is what I believe those arguing with you are suggesting should be the norm. [so why are we arguing? Well, because it's the Internet - but also because your earlier statements can easily be taken to mean "I toss out +3 bonuses all the time and that's not a problem, it's a feature".]

 

*Actually one of the two party face guys in that game. He was the expert in "lowlife & commercial" interactions' date=' while the other played a noble and handled "upperclass" interactions. Player #2 was glib - but as often as not, that got him in trouble as often as it helped [/quote']

 

If it hurt as often as it helps, it's not the gamesmanship we're discussing. The "glib" shorthand we've adopted means the player is able to portray great social skill in such a fashion that the player's skills routinely generate bonuses for the character lacking those skills.

 

Yes' date=' with poor GM'ing, I'm sure it's possible to create a problem, but that's hardly the fault of the rules: poor GM'ing can create problems out of any rules set. I actually played with a GM who did exactly what you indicate.[/quote']

 

So show me, in the rules, where this approach is suggested to be inappropriate or incorrect. Should the rules not guide the GM to be a better GM?

 

There was no point of taking social skills because our only interaction with other characters was either a) listen to their speeches or fight them. There was no point in spending points on - for example - deduction' date=' because you'd get the clues the GM wanted you to have (and nothing more) regardless of whether you had the skill or not. That had nothing to do with Hero system, though: he GM'ed Call of Cthulu exactly the same way - imagine our frustration! His campaigns tended not to last too long [/quote']

 

Deduction is a great example - I believe the rules even suggest the GM NOT allow it to replace player legwork, so the GM can certainly interpret that to mean "you get the clues I laid out for you, now put them together yourselves, players, skill rolls on your character sheet won't hand out the answers". Again, I welcome rules cites that I am overlooking which suggest the GM not take this approach.

 

Shrug. I don't give XP bonuses for "roleplaying"' date=' which is after all, very subjective. [/quote']

 

"A good speech" and "a clever combat maneuver" having much more objective measures, of course.

 

Likewise' date=' PRE 8 does not necessarily mean stuttering or mumbling. I've met impassioned, eager speakers with low PRE: they are just not very convincing ... which is reflected in their crummy base roll.[/quote']

 

If the player is trying to portray the character as being very convincing, and the GM allows the player's very convincing speech to add, say, a +2 bonus to the character's rolls, it seems like the player's 18 PRE is being permitted to overwrite the character's 8 PRE. Meanwhile that player's 8 DEX and 2 CV will not overwrite the character's 29 DEX and 12 CV - "he paid for those".

 

Objection! This is yet another of these unsupported statements made blank face as though they were true. Yes' date=' combat may involve more rolls in a short period, but social interaction may involve just as many rolls (if not more), albeit distributed over a longer period. We've had many, many game sessions the featured no combat, but plenty of skill rolls. [/quote']

 

And what happens when one combat roll fails? We move on to another, as a single roll is rarely determinative of the outcome. What happens, in that "argument with a guy on the train", based on the result of the skill roll? If it succeeds, is the fellow persuaded? "OK, I'll give up my seat so's the lady can sit down". That one roll resolved the issue. If it fails, do we get to ask again, and he'll move after all if that one succeeds? If my to hit roll fails, I can make the same attack next phase with no change in the likelihood I will land the blow (assuming no other changes). My miss last phase didn't result in a penalty to my attack this phase. Does the failure of the social skill impose a penalty to a subsequent attempt?

 

This directly contradicts your assertion' date=' so it is clearly false some of the time, if not a lot of the time. Indeed, it's not clear it is true at all, because "number of rolls" alone is a weak metric. Consequences also need to be weighed. [/quote']

 

Yup. How often is the consequence of a single failed combat roll "you lose the battle"? How often does a single failed social skill roll mean "the Duke is no longer interested in discussing the matter - leave before he summons his guards"? In most games, in my experience, the answer to the former is "not very often", while the latter is much more frequently the case. "We get another attack next phase" is a lot different consequence than "that avenue is now closed to us".

 

As I said to Hugh, these are all very weak arguments: nothing said so far on this topic convinces me that any of us have actually encountered problems in-game. It's all unsupported assertions, most of which are directly contradicted by real life events. It reads more like hunting around to see if we can create a hypothetical problem.

 

If there have been actual problems, what were they?

If there haven't, why should we care?

 

A poor GM who overemphasizes bonuses for player "role playing" social skills and underemphasizes the benefits of character investment in skills creates the problem. You provide an example of the ultimate negative in this post - where there is no benefit putting any points in social skills because they never have any benefit.

 

To take a much-discussed example' date=' Ego Attack (sorry, mental blast ) is clearly underpriced ... but in game, it doesn't seem to matter, so I simply stopped worrying about it.[/quote']

 

Does it work out in-game because it's not really underpriced, or because we make in-game decisions that rebalance the price? For example, many GM's will not allow the "mentalist sniper", thus mitigating or denying the benefits of LoS Range and IPE. If those benefits are not there, then the extra price that should be paid for those advantages would be wasted.

 

Similarly, if you rarely allow substantial bonuses for the persuasive player and make lots of use of character purchased social skills, you might not recognize that a problem exists where GM's rarely make use of character purchased social skills but often allow substantial bonuses for the persuasive player, because you don't recognize the rules allowing for both results depending on the manner in which they are reasonably interpreted.

 

Another example? Pushing. In some games, Pushing is a free bonus to AP if you shell out the END. In others, "heroic actions" are much less liberally defined, and Pushing becomes much rarer. I'd say the latter is much better supported by the rules, but others differ significantly, to the point we get rules questions answered with "well, can't he just push to get that result?"

 

You are incorporating the manner in which you read, interpret and apply the rules into your discussion of what the rules say. Read without the benefit of your own gaming experience, a lot of other interpretations turn up in play.

 

I never had a problem with killing attacks in Supers games, and for a long time used to rebut problems raised with that statement. But, in one discussion, I was persuaded to math it out, and it was pretty clear the KA was more effective at getting Stun through to high defense targets. That forced me to evaluate why I didn't see it as a problem. The "why" was simple - our group didn't use KA's that way. It just wasn't done - they were used to do BOD on the inanimate. So, of course, the problem never arose in my experience. But the dozen or three Hero players I've gamed with don't make up all the Hero gamers in the world, or even a meaningful sample thereof.

 

Perhaps yours do, or you regularly have experienced Hero players sit at your table and learn that your way is better than the way they learned and played the system, but I rather tend to doubt that. Instead, I think most Hero gamers learned Hero from an existing game group, and assess the rules the way that group played, rather than reading the rules in detail and forming different conclusions. Once in a while, someone might raise a rules argument, but I think, by and large, we tend to play with the same group of gamers and have a pretty common mindset within that group.

 

Any comments, perhaps, from convention GM's or players who have a broader range of players/GM's to draw on?

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Supers are somewhat abundant and known for decades in the Marvel and DC Universes' date=' though not so much in the movie universes where they always seem secreted away and/or just starting out. The president is not presented with superpowered bodyguards or supertech in those universes, the oldest around and the staples of the genre, are they?[/quote']

Then normals are useless and there is no reason to go to the president in the first palce.

 

Ignored the rest of your post, because it was too much text.

 

See, I do not see the issue the way Hugh does.

 

A singular bonus for the glib player of +1-3 (whose character has an 8-) is far outweighed by the Face character's 12-15- roll, with multiple complimentary skills for bonuses, for direct skill bonuses purchased for the character, for situational bonuses that their particular build allows them access to, etc. It is outweighed in any given roll and even more so when you look at it over time.

To put it in a simplified way:

+3 equals +30%

having 8- means having -20% (to the 50% base chance)

having a 12- Roll means having +20%

having a 15- Roll means having +50%

 

As I said to Hugh' date=' these are all very weak arguments: nothing said so far on this topic convinces me that any of us have actually encountered problems in-game. It's all unsupported assertions, most of which are directly contradicted by real life events. It reads more like hunting around to see if we can create a hypothetical problem.[/quote']

It's far easier to delevop Rainy day scenarios, than focus on reality.

 

It think we might have reached the "but what if it rains frogs?" level by now.

 

Two people take it upon themselves to fight, well, you have a roll to hit by the first (and possibly a damage roll, which we will ignore for the purposes of this) and you then have a roll to hit by the second one (or a roll to do something else, like block or dive for cover) and the chances are that there will be at least three phases of combat (I'm assuming here we can ignore other things that are rolls and would affect combat like combat related skills such as breakfall and acrobatics), and I say three because most Hero characters seem to be balanced to take 3 or 4 hits before running out of Stun.

 

That gives us a minimum of six rolls and no realistic chance of it all being over in one, before we have a result.

I would not count Attack Roll and Damage Rolls as two Rolls, but only as one. Because they move on a "zero sum sliding scale":

If an attack has Area of Effect it's very easy to hit with it. But it also does less damage.

If you use Martial Arts, your strongest attacks won't be the ones with the highest OCV (or DCV).

If you use CSL, then it's pretty obvious that you can't have high damage and good chance to hit at the same time.

For characters with only one range (12 DC Blaster or 60 STR brick), no good GM will allow a high OCV or vice versa.

For player with Brick defenses, no good GM will allow high Defenses.

 

And the character with bad combat ability will loose.

 

In your game. We're discussing general theory.

The bonus Range is from 1 too 3. Not from 3 too 3. If the GM does not realises that: Bad GM.

 

Also, please stop with those Mega Post that deconstruct other peoples message sentence by sentence. They help neither with readability, nor bringing across what you want to say. In fact they always look like you try to attack people personally, rather than continue the discussion.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

To put it in a simplified way:

+3 equals +30%

having 8- means having -20% (to the 50% base chance)

having a 12- Roll means having +20%

having a 15- Roll means having +50%

 

Yes. Which means that the Face character with the 12-15- will consistently have better odds of success, since they start from a higher percentage of success and then will almost always have multiple bonuses that equal or surpass the rare, intermittent, legendary +3 to the 8- guy.

[Mister E]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

[bold emphasis is mine]

 

Combat in Hero has a player element' date=' because there are a lot of tactical options and choosing the best combination is a player skill. Social skills do not have that [b']inherent[/b] tactical element, so we resort to judging the player and awarding a bonus for them. Obviously whether they get a bonus and how much depends on whether you as GM like the idea, or think it will work, and that, in large part, will turn on your relationship with the player. Maybe you like everyone in your group equally and are completely even handed, if so, congratulations. Maybe you just assume that you are even handed, and no one raises any objections, works around it and, eventually everyone assumes that is just how it is, and stops worrying about it.

 

Inherent? Of course not. Immanent? Only when it is.

 

This reminds me of my very last game session a couple months ago:

 

[Mr. E] GM as the Hostile Psychiatric Orderly ("HPO"): [moves into w/in arm's reach & points finger once] "You don't belong here, boy."

 

[Mr. X] Player as the Mystic Martial Artist ("MMA"): [still] "I'm looking for Doc Dharma."

 

HPO: [points again & looks to be about to put his finger on the MMA]

 

MMA: [still]

 

HPO: [moves to put his finger on the MMA]

 

MMA: [still]

 

HPO: [puts his finger on the MMA]

 

MMA: [attacks the HPO's finger like THIS!!!]

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

OK...if you just look at the rules for Hero, persuading someone of something involves a Persuasion roll. You might have an appropriate skill you can make complimentary, so you might have a second roll. You might then (assuming the original persuasion roll was not a failure) need a resistance roll, and, let us say that gets a complementary skill roll too, although that is highly unlikely.

 

That is four rolls, at very most and you have a decision. It could all be decided on a single die roll.

 

It could be. That's one interaction.

 

Two people take it upon themselves to fight, well, you have a roll to hit by the first (and possibly a damage roll, which we will ignore for the purposes of this) and you then have a roll to hit by the second one (or a roll to do something else, like block or dive for cover) and the chances are that there will be at least three phases of combat (I'm assuming here we can ignore other things that are rolls and would affect combat like combat related skills such as breakfall and acrobatics), and I say three because most Hero characters seem to be balanced to take 3 or 4 hits before running out of Stun.

 

That gives us a minimum of six rolls and no realistic chance of it all being over in one, before we have a result.

 

Again! Objection! Statement contrary to fact! I have in fact seen many fights which have ended with the first blow in Hero system - in fact at Heroic level, it's not even particularly unusual.

 

That is not a hypothetical' date=' that is a simple application of the rule system which is why I asserted that combat [i']tends [/i]to involve more rolls than social interaction.

 

No, it's not hypothetical. Merely wrong, as pointed out above.

 

Now you can argue that social interaction actually involves rolls for perception and deduction and so on and so forth' date=' and possibly that dealing with a problem involves dealing with a string of social situations, but so does combat, and that has more rolls.[/quote']

 

Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't.

 

Now the way you play your games may involve lots of social skill rolls and not many combat rolls' date=' but that is hardly relevant: we are not discussing your games and, if we were, the point would still stand: a + 2 bonus spread over six rolls has less impact than a +2 bonus spread over four rolls.[/quote']

 

Rubbish. The impact depends entirely on what those rolls, were, who made them and what the outcome was. As a blunt statement it's meaningless.

 

As for problems actually encountered in-game' date=' your own example is perfect: Mental Blast works because we DON'T play it as written. If we did, it would need changing. If you are playing something other than the rules as written, well, that makes all this a bit pointless.[/quote']

 

Speak for yourself. In no game I played in has it ever been played differently from RAW.

 

Combat in Hero has a player element' date=' because there are a lot of tactical options and choosing the best combination is a player skill. Social skills do not have that inherent tactical element, so we resort to judging the player and awarding a bonus for them. Obviously whether they get a bonus and how much depends on whether you as GM like the idea, or think it will work, and that, in large part, will turn on your relationship with the player. Maybe you like everyone in your group equally and are completely even handed, if so, congratulations. Maybe you just assume that you are even handed, and no one raises any objections, works around it and, eventually everyone assumes that is just how it is, and stops worrying about it.[/quote']

 

Or alternatively, one could assume that Combat in Hero has a player element, because there are a lot of tactical options and choosing the best combination is a player skill - and that social interaction in Hero has a player element, because there are a lot of tactical options and choosing the best combination is a player skill.

 

Which is how it seems to work, actually.

 

As an aside, have you noticed how you have turned your argument completely around from where you started and are now arguing that the glib player doesn't has an advantage in social interaction? After all, if there's no player skill involved ...

 

Cheers, Mark

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Then normals are useless and there is no reason to go to the president in the first palce.

Ignored the rest of your post, because it was too much text.

How does the president not having superpowered body guards in any possible way equal the president and all "normals" are thus useless?! There is no logic or reasoning behind that assertion what so ever. It is simply and utterly ridiculous. Also, how can we possibly take your argument seriously when your response is essentially “I’m too lazy to actually read the well written response”, which, BTW, basically destroys your argument and illustrates your initial point was completely wrong.

 

To put it in a simplified way:

+3 equals +30%

having 8- means having -20% (to the 50% base chance)

having a 12- Roll means having +20%

having a 15- Roll means having +50%

But the base roll is 11-, not 10-, and has a 62%.

I would not count Attack Roll and Damage Rolls as two Rolls, but only as one. Because they move on a "zero sum sliding scale":

If an attack has Area of Effect it's very easy to hit with it. But it also does less damage.

If you use Martial Arts, your strongest attacks won't be the ones with the highest OCV (or DCV).

If you use CSL, then it's pretty obvious that you can't have high damage and good chance to hit at the same time.

For characters with only one range (12 DC Blaster or 60 STR brick), no good GM will allow a high OCV or vice versa.

For player with Brick defenses, no good GM will allow high Defenses.

Blasters are not allowed to have high OCV? That’s news to me. And by definition “Brick defenses” are “high Defenses”. Perhaps you meant DCV?

 

Also' date=' please stop with those Mega Post that deconstruct other peoples message sentence by sentence. They help neither with readability, nor bringing across what you want to say. In fact they always look like you try to attack people personally, rather than continue the discussion.[/quote']

Speak for yourself. When discussing multiple points I find it helpful when the quote is broken up and things are discussed/addressed point by point. Also, this is the second time in the same thread you have publicly accused someone of a personal attack when the supposed recipient has not complained or even suggested they felt that way. If anything you are closer to “personally attacking” Hugh with these pointless accusations.

 

[Greywind]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I agree with Bigby. It's a lot easier to follow the discussion if the points are broken down to be replied to individually within the same post.

 

On the other hand, if the post needs to be highlighted to be read, you're doing it wrong.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Now the way you play your games may involve lots of social skill rolls and not many combat rolls, but that is hardly relevant: we are not discussing your games and, if we were, the point would still stand: a + 2 bonus spread over six rolls has less impact than a +2 bonus spread over four rolls.

 

Objective: To gain access to the king so that the heroes may knock the mentally dominating crown from his head, thus restoring him to his wits and offering hope to the land.

 

Scenario 1: Pure social interaction, reduced (SEVERELY reduced) to a mere 6 rolls- the first to get past the guards at the gate, the second to get past the captain of the watch in the inner courtyard, the third to get past the seneschal just inside the atrium once inside the palace, the fourth to get past a suspicious prince, the fifth to get past the master of spies/chief aide of the king, and the sixth to get past the king's champion, who begrudgingly allows you access to the king's inner sanctum to present him with your evidence of a dire plot against the kingdom.

 

Scenario 2: PCs ignore the peaceful option, and decide to fight their way into the palace. Four rolls, two dead gate guards later..... how much closer are they to the king?

 

I would posit that the +2 would be far more useful over the course of Scenario 1 than the four rolls of Scenario 2. Thus, context is important when determining the relative importance of specific rolls.... and again, more rolls over time seem to trump fewer rolls in a short period of time (Which would you rather have: a +1 one time bonus, or a +1 Overall Skill level you can use again and again and again?).

[Greywind]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Sniper with a crossbow to just shoot it off his head.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

It could be. That's one interaction.

 

However, if I recall the example correctly, the single bonus impacts the entire interaction. It enhances the roll which is also ehanced by the complementary skill, making it more difficult for the resistance roll to succeed, with or without its own complementary skill. A bonus to my OCV will not assist me in getting past defenses once the attack has been determined to have hit.

 

Again! Objection! Statement contrary to fact! I have in fact seen many fights which have ended with the first blow in Hero system - in fact at Heroic level' date=' it's not even particularly unusual.[/quote']

 

I find very few credible opponents go down in one hit. Certainly, a mook/agent might, but then there are lots more of them so, again, that one blow did not end the combat. Opponents meant to go one on one with the PC's, and those expected to battle the PC's alone, do not often, in my experience, go down in a single shot. Those that do were not significant opponents, and missing one phase to hit the next is less of a big deal (other than to one's pride).

 

Speak for yourself. In no game I played in has it ever been played differently from RAW.

 

To clarify, how often do you see a game where the Mentalist fully uses the IPE and LoS range to its full potential. That is, he attacks routinely from a vantage point that is far enough away, or well enough concealed, or both, to significantly frustrate any effort at counterattack.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Then normals are useless and there is no reason to go to the president in the first palce.

 

Normals tend to be poor combatants. They are as useless as you allow them to be. You can kill him, likely with one attack. What have you gained if you do? Problems that can't be solved by punching them are often more complex and challenging, to some extent because they aren't what a lot of characters were designed to do. Superman wraps up the Parasite in an issue or two, but Lex Luthor is another matter entirely.

 

Ignored the rest of your post' date=' because it was too much text.[/quote']

 

Sorry for your short attention span.

 

I would not count Attack Roll and Damage Rolls as two Rolls, but only as one. Because they move on a "zero sum sliding scale":

If an attack has Area of Effect it's very easy to hit with it. But it also does less damage.

 

It is also not often assisted by a bonus to OCV, rendering that bonus utterly meaningless.

 

If you use Martial Arts' date=' your strongest attacks won't be the ones with the highest OCV (or DCV).[/quote']

 

Unless I buy levels with my strongest attacks.

 

If you use CSL' date=' then it's pretty obvious that you can't have high damage and good chance to hit at the same time.[/quote']

 

I have to trade between the two. I can have both if I have enough levels and/or base scores.

 

For characters with only one range (12 DC Blaster or 60 STR brick), no good GM will allow a high OCV or vice versa.

For player with Brick defenses, no good GM will allow high Defenses.

 

Actually, a good GM can balance characters on a broader base than "sum of OCV and DC" or "Sum of DCV + 1/3 defenses". Speed, movement, versatility, higher offense and lower defense or vice versa, standard defenses vs exotic defense, STUN and REC vs Defenses and DCV - these are all relevant considerations.

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

However' date=' if I recall the example correctly, the single bonus impacts the entire interaction. It enhances the roll which is also ehanced by the complementary skill, making it more difficult for the resistance roll to succeed, with or without its own complementary skill. A bonus to my OCV will not assist me in getting past defenses once the attack has been determined to have hit.[/quote']

 

If you are using hit locations, then, yes, indeed it will.

 

I find very few credible opponents go down in one hit. Certainly' date=' a mook/agent might, but then there are lots more of them so, again, that one blow did not end the combat. Opponents meant to go one on one with the PC's, and those expected to battle the PC's alone, do not often, in my experience, go down in a single shot. Those that do were not significant opponents, and missing one phase to hit the next is less of a big deal (other than to one's pride).[/quote']

 

In a supers game, that might not be the case. In a heroic game, getting the first shot in is often crucial: one good shot to the head is usually a fight-ender, and hit locations add significant importance to bonuses. In addition, even where that's not the case, when two opponents are equally matched, a +1 can - not always, but can - be a crucial factor.

You simply keep making flat, un-nuanced statements as though they were true ... and as I keep pointing out, in many cases they are not.

 

To clarify' date=' how often do you see a game where the Mentalist fully uses the IPE and LoS range to its full potential. That is, he attacks routinely from a vantage point that is far enough away, or well enough concealed, or both, to significantly frustrate any effort at counterattack.[/quote']

 

Well, it would clearly be a problem if that happened a lot. The reason that Mental blast is rarely a problem in actual practice (even though I fully agree it's underpriced) is because to exploit those advantages, he needs (in most cases) to be able to see his opponents from far away. In theory, that could be problematic, no arguments. But in real life, in most games, combat does not occur in environments where it is possible to maintain a long-range, unobstructed line of sight, and doing so also generally requires either the whole team to hold back, or it requires the mentalist to operate far away from the rest of the team. As a result, in practice, it's much less of a problem than it appears when taken out of game context and in abstract theory.

 

You could, without too much difficulty, build a character to exploit that price-break - a teleporting mentalist who uses telescopic n-ray vision, for example - but to be honest, purpose-built abusive builds are relatively easy for the GM to identify, and as extremes, they are a terrible basis to build rules from.

 

cheers, Mark

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

How does the president not having superpowered body guards in any possible way equal the president and all "normals" are thus useless?! There is no logic or reasoning behind that assertion what so ever. It is simply and utterly ridiculous. Also' date=' how can we possibly take your argument seriously when your response is essentially “I’m too lazy to actually read the well written response”, which, BTW, basically destroys your argument and illustrates your initial point was completely wrong[/size'].

Asumption one: There are problems that are a credible threat to you.

Asumption two: the president and his Bodyguards is in now way a credible threat to you.

 

You can define threat as Combat power, but as you yourself point out it can also mean non-combat power.

 

So if Asumption one and two hold true, there is nothing to fear.

If asumption two is wrong, then you can get damn well bitten in the back for just jumping in his office - even if you succed with your main goal, you will now be regarded as a treath because you have just shown that you are.

 

But the base roll is 11-' date=' not 10-, and has a 62%.[/size']

So everyone get's a +1 by default and the expression that "+1 equals 60%" has a 3.3% error margin.

I built Radios with Resistors that had a Higher Tolerance Values. I regard anything that is true 95% of the time, true in all cases that it mater. Otherwise we are just landing at "but what if it rains frogs?" and that won't lead anywhere.

 

Blasters are not allowed to have high OCV? That’s news to me. And by definition “Brick defenses” are “high Defenses”. Perhaps you meant DCV?

Complete context please. High OCV, top Damage and Range PSL in a game where Range Modifiers plays a role? OCV that is high as "close to the highest" or "higher than the slowest birck"?

What house rules/situation are happening that prevent him from dominating the game with High OCV and High Damage?

 

As for the later: Yes i meant DCV.

 

Speak for yourself. When discussing multiple points I find it helpful when the quote is broken up and things are discussed/addressed point by point. Also' date=' this is the second time in the same thread you have publicly accused someone of a personal attack when the supposed recipient has not complained or even suggested they felt that way. If anything you are closer to “personally attacking” Hugh with these pointless accusations. [/size']

I asumed our goal is to bring a point across. Wirting verbose and going against the same point on mutiple times is simply not helping at that goal.

 

Scenario 1: Pure social interaction, reduced (SEVERELY reduced) to a mere 6 rolls- the first to get past the guards at the gate, the second to get past the captain of the watch in the inner courtyard, the third to get past the seneschal just inside the atrium once inside the palace, the fourth to get past a suspicious prince, the fifth to get past the master of spies/chief aide of the king, and the sixth to get past the king's champion, who begrudgingly allows you access to the king's inner sanctum to present him with your evidence of a dire plot against the kingdom.

 

Scenario 2: PCs ignore the peaceful option, and decide to fight their way into the palace. Four rolls, two dead gate guards later..... how much closer are they to the king?

 

I find very few credible opponents go down in one hit. Certainly' date=' a mook/agent might, but then there are lots more of them so, again, that one blow did not end the combat. Opponents meant to go one on one with the PC's, and those expected to battle the PC's alone, do not often, in my experience, go down in a single shot. Those that do were not significant opponents, and missing one phase to hit the next is less of a big deal (other than to one's pride).[/quote']

This could actually get us closer to the Problem you have:

Problem one is, that you asume all Opponents must be credible. That should certainly not be true - difficulties should mix.

Problem two is that you fail to make Credible Combat Threats into Credible Social Threaths/Problems.

 

Regarding the Scenario of Manic typist:

The guards are no credible threat (and should not be), so just cutting them down or talking them down with one Roll is totally what should happen here.

But now we get to the camptain of the Watch. Apparently he should be a credible Problem for both approaches (in fact he should be more than credible for combat, as he can call down the entire guard on the heroes). Don't solve him in one roll. Solve him in multiple Rolls:

One to Convince him of the Plots existance.

Another to convince him that you can handle it better than he - because you know, it is his job to handle such things!

And a third that he should let pass you with your weapons/everything else you have uninspected.

 

At tops one of these four rolls so far will get a bonus by any written evidence. Because the guards at the door propably can't read or understand it's meaning and the guard captain only needs it to see the plot - it won't help with the other ones one tiny step.

 

Four social Rolls, and you are mearly 1/3 of the way. Sorry, but I don't see why there is a problem with the Rules. It looks clearly like a user error from my point of view

 

Unless I buy levels with my strongest attacks.

If your answer to any point but your owns is to cast "Summon Frog Rain", we will just end up casting it all over the conversation until they reah our knees.

 

I have to trade between the two. I can have both if I have enough levels and/or base scores.

When you buy 4 CSL you have to choose between 4 OCV, 4 DC or 2 DC. You can't have more than 1/3 of this at once.

If you buy 8 CSL isntead - you still can't use more than 1/3 at once.

And you just doubeled your cost for one element, wich you have to balance by not buying something else.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

If you are using hit locations' date=' then, yes, indeed it will.[/quote']

 

Assuming that the attacker is targeting a specific hit location, a bonus that enables him to hit that specific hit location could indeed be very significant. A +3 bonus is hard pressed to offset a -8 bonus, though. If the target is big and slow, say my 7 OCV vs his 3 DCV, then I guess I move from a 7- (unlikely) to a 10- (50/50), but I'd expect a foe that easy to hit would be very resistant to damage - even damage from a head shot - to be a credible opponent.

 

PSL's against hit location penalties are a lot cheaper than standard levels, though. And I suppose if I have the CSL's to make it work, being able to reliably persuade the GM I should get a +2 bonus to OCV can effectively translate into +1 DC, so there can be some linkage to damage. But, to exploit this reliably, I need to be pretty confident I will get that bonus. I very much doubt any GM will accept "well, since you are giving me a nice bonus to hit, change that to a called shot to the head" or "since you're giving me +2 to hit, I'll change 2 levels from OCV to DC.

 

And the guy with the AoE still gets no real benefit from a bonus to OCV for creative use of his power.

 

In a supers game' date=' that might not be the case. In a heroic game, getting the first shot in is often crucial: one good shot to the head is usually a fight-ender, and hit locations add significant importance to bonuses. In addition, even where that's not the case, when two opponents are equally matched, a +1 can - not always, but can - be a crucial factor.[/quote']

 

It seems we have at least reached the point of agreeing the value of a one time +1 bonus is less where more rolls are required. I don't believe anyone is arguing that the same bonus in a combat challenge vs a social challenge will always be more valuable in combat - that is, that even the most valuable combat bonus will never be as valuable as the least valuable social bonus. At the same time, I believe that each social challenge roll's success or failure in a significant challenge is generally more effective in advancing to success than a single to hit roll in a significant combat challenge. Perhaps your experience has been different, but I think the number of people who feel this is an issue suggests it is an issue in a significant number of games.

 

Well' date=' it would clearly be a problem if that happened a lot.[/quote']

 

I can tell you that if I pay for +1 1/4 in advantages, my expectation is that they will be usable a lot. As a GM, I would look at those advantages on a power and either say "No - I am not going to allow the sniper strategy to be effective very often in this game" or "Yes - my campaign will accommodate the frequent use of these advantages to gain a significant benefit". Maybe I would say "those won't be useful very often - if you're OK with that, I'll allow them at a reduced price to reflect their infrequent utility". Allowing the player to spend 50 points to add these advantages to an 8 DC power, then neutering that 50 point investment at every turn would be unfair.

 

Just like allowing a player to spend 50 points on enhanced PRE, a suite of social skills and interaction skill levels, then basing social success on player skill/role playing to an extent that those 50 points rarely generate a benefit would be unfair.

 

In the case of Mental Blast, I can easily turn that around - you didn't actually pay for those advantages (the price of the ability does not reflect the price of those advantages), so it is not remotely unfair for me to deny you the benefit those advantages should bring to justify their theoretical cost. My view is that those advantages should not automatically apply to mental powers. If the player wants them, they should be paid for. If they are paid for, they should be effective. If they will not be permitted to be effective, they should not be allowed by the GM. In the same manner, if a player invests significant points in social skills, the GM should either approve the character, and ensure those points generate value in game, or disallow the build because he will not permit those points to generate value in game.

 

Clearly, in your games, the social skills are valuable - players are buying them and are happy with the results, so "player bonuses" are not a problem. You also note that these bonuses are not common, so they're not the "well spoken player always gets a bonus" issue that a lot of us are concerned with.

 

Asumption one: There are problems that are a credible threat to you.

Asumption two: the president and his Bodyguards is in now way a credible threat to you.

 

You can define threat as Combat power, but as you yourself point out it can also mean non-combat power.

 

So if Asumption one and two hold true, there is nothing to fear.

If asumption two is wrong, then you can get damn well bitten in the back for just jumping in his office - even if you succed with your main goal, you will now be regarded as a treath because you have just shown that you are.

 

No one denied that you may experience problems going forward from teleporting into the office of the President. Going back through the thread for some context, what I said, at least, was that the source material did not support your assertion that:

 

I would bet the Oval office is protected agaisnt teleports and the Secret Service has weapons that do (Killing)damage against Superhumans' date=' even once with Desolidification or Brick Powers.[/quote']

 

When challenged on the consistency of that claim with the source material, you replied:

 

We do talk about a Champions Universe or something similar here, right?

Where Supers are somewhat abundant and known for decades, as well as tech to counter them. And the president is just about the most important being on the planet (at least for most comics perspective). So he propably has superpowered bodyguards.

 

I again challenged the consistency of this assertion with the source material, particularly Marvel and DC as the longest running Supers universes, and those most emulated by the CU. Your response was:

 

Then normals are useless and there is no reason to go to the president in the first palce.

 

My response referred to differences in dealing with the Parasite (combat threats) and Lex Luthor (non-combat threats).

 

It appears you have now been persuaded that it is not necessary that the President be a combat threat for him to be a significant challenge. If you return way back to the original discussion that lead to this side trek, you will find that it contrasted following proper channels through social means to work one's way up the ladder to an audience with an important leader (King and President were both used, I believe), and circumventing those channels to access this leader directly, which is where I think teleporting into the president's office came in as an example.

 

The initial discussion noted that the first approach probably gives you a much better chance to persuade this leader, assuming you succeed in all the steps needed to gain access, since his own trusted advisors had already been persuaded that your claims have merit, and should be heard by this leader. Their social skills, contacts, reputation, etc. has been used to persuade the President that you are credible. Whereas teleporting in or otherwise gaining "surprise" access would make persuading the King or the President a much tougher feat to pull off (ie a much more difficult roll). One very difficult social challenge versus some number of less difficult social challenges.

 

Different campaigns, or even different situations, may call for different approaches. A Court Intrigue focused game would clearly call for the social skills approach. Markdoc, I think court intrigue, politics, etc. are a significant aspect of your game. I could also see a different game where the threat is imminent and "There's no time for that - the invasion begins at dawn" with a very cinematic teleport into the President's office/King's chambers experiencing success because that is how the scenario has been written. Much less realistic, I grant. Very cinematic, though. And, if you have three hours to mobilize the troops, waiting until morning to see if you can't get in to see the First Undersecretary to start the six month process of getting an audience with the right person is likely not to be an option.

 

Funny how, no matter how it is ultimately arranged, the audience with the leader ALWAYS occurs when the threat is imminent, and we either need to persuade him right now or All Will Be Lost!

 

Finally, on a more personal note, if you have a problem with my posting style, you are welcome to communicate that to a moderator. This post is probably a good one to report in that regard - if there is any post which can be interpreted as personally attacking you, this would be the one. That is not my intention - my intention is to illustrate the manner in which I, at least, and possibly others, have interpreted your comments to indicate that you consider the President relevant only if he is a credible combat threat. It seems that side issue, at least, has been resolved.

 

Apologies for the clear thread drift.

 

 

 

No comments on your math - the bell curve, and its impact on the relative value of bonuses, is discussed on lots of other threads.

 

 

 

Problem one is, that you asume all Opponents must be credible. That should certainly not be true - difficulties should mix.

Problem two is that you fail to make Credible Combat Threats into Credible Social Threaths/Problems.

 

I'm not sure how you conclude that all opponents must be credible. My point, likely poorly conveyed, is that a bonus awarded against a threat which is not credible, like the mook who can be taken down in one shot, is of little or no value. If I miss the mook this time, how much harm will he do before I get another chance? The value of the bonus rises with the level of consequences of this one single roll failing.

 

If that one single roll determines whether the King is persuaded of the reality of the invasion threat, and acts quickly to mobilize the troops so that the nation can mount a credible defense rather than being overrun in hours, and have the Lich Lord seated on the throne by nightfall, any bonus to that roll is very significant - even if it only reduces the chance of failure from 4.63% (15- succeeds) to 1.85% (16- succeeds). [ASIDE: a much more meaningful bonus in this instance is that, rather than complete failure, the King is not persuaded by your initial arguments, but rather than dismiss you summarily, he expresses his misgivings, and asks if you have any further evidence of your claims, so you get another chance.]

 

If that one single roll determines whether Generic Goblin #17 falls on Phase 3 or Phase 5, a bonus to that roll - even one that takes me from 8- (25.93%) to hit the bouncy dodging goblin to 11- (62.5%) - is pretty meaningless. Similarly meaningless is any bonus - however large - that will permit me to hit the 8 rPD Automaton with my 1d6+1 killing attack.

 

Regarding the Scenario of Manic typist:

The guards are no credible threat (and should not be), so just cutting them down or talking them down with one Roll is totally what should happen here.

But now we get to the camptain of the Watch. Apparently he should be a credible Problem for both approaches (in fact he should be more than credible for combat, as he can call down the entire guard on the heroes). Don't solve him in one roll. Solve him in multiple Rolls:

One to Convince him of the Plots existance.

 

Assume this roll fails. What happens? If the answer is "you are turned away", that roll was critical. If that is the answer to any of the rolls you suggest failing, then those rolls are critical, as failure of any one of those rolls means failure of the mission.

 

Another to convince him that you can handle it better than he - because you know, it is his job to handle such things!

And a third that he should let pass you with your weapons/everything else you have uninspected.

 

At tops one of these four rolls so far will get a bonus by any written evidence. Because the guards at the door propably can't read or understand it's meaning and the guard captain only needs it to see the plot - it won't help with the other ones one tiny step.

 

We're still talking about different bonuses, though. Having written evidence of the plot that grants a bonus to one of the rolls (maybe to the second with the captain - you've ferreted out a plot that his resources did not - but that's beside the point) is an in-game benefit. It's no different than gaining a combat advantage from the Blessing you secured from the old lady who lives in the swamp. These bonuses don't invalidate the social skills of the character making the pitch.

 

The bonus I find more objectionable in theory is that the player made a beautiful speech about "700 years of undisturbed rule by the Benevolent Lords of the Land coming to an end unless you act on this now" so his 8 INT, 8 PRE character with no knowledge or social skills gets a bonus putting his chance of a successful roll to move to the next step at the same level as the Party Face (higher PRE and better social skills) backed up with that history provided by the Party Sage (18 INT and half his points spent on KS's like history of the land). The more we discuss, the more I believe that bonus would not be granted in your game. At the extreme, however, I have seen some GM's who have decided the only way to persuade this NPC is to raise the spectre of 700 years, benevolent rule coming to an end, so no matter how persuasive or skilled your character is, failure to raise that one point means you fail, and anyone - no matter how unskilled - mentioning that threat in any context will succeed, and others who base the character's success on their view of the quality of the player's speech.

 

Four social Rolls' date=' and you are mearly 1/3 of the way. Sorry, but I don't see why there is a problem with the Rules. It looks clearly like a user error from my point of view [/quote']

 

And, as I have asked Markdoc, I ask you to cite the rule book where it is suggested that your approach is the appropriate one, and granting a +3 bonus for a pretty speech, or a -3 penalty for no speech, is not appropriate. I agree with you that the rules can be used to create a rich and positive experience such as the one you describe. I do not agree that the published rules provide any significant guidance towards your approach as contrasted with handing out +3 bonuses whenever the player makes a nice speech, and minimizing the effect skill rolls have on interaction.

 

I also question whether we need three rolls for the Captain of the Guard. A commonly used approach is to establish degrees of success. That is, perhaps Waldo the Well Spoken needs an 11- to persuade the Captain of the existence of the plot (Urtho the Unwashed would need a 6- - spend a point on social skills, cheapskate!). He's skeptical, but it's his job to investigate these. Your "written evidence" provides a +3 bonus, so now you need a 14-.

 

However, the Captain still considers he, and his men, are the best suited to handle this. You need to succeed by 3 to have him accept your aid, and your presence meeting with the King, as valuable. So, if you roll 11-, you accompany him to the King, but a 12-14 sees you thanked for your service to the kingdom and summarily dismissed. Perhaps, either now, with quick words, or later, you may have an opportunity to persuade him your continued involvement is mandated.

 

And it's his JOB to protect the King - so letting you in armed? FAT CHANCE! That's another -5 penalty, so you will be allowed to accompany him to speak with the King AFTER your weapons have been searched and removed on a 7 - 11 roll. Only on a 6- will the urgency of the situation, and your trustworthiness, have been so clearly conveyed by your persuasiveness that he will allow you into His Majesty's presence armed.

 

Good thing you had Waldo, and he rolled well. Urtho needed a 9- to get the Captain moving, even with the evidence, a 6- to get in to see the king, and rolling a 1 or less to get in armed just ain't gonna happen!

 

I would consider these degrees of success. At least action was taken if the Captain was persuaded of the plot (maybe less action than needed, so the PC's will have to assist in displacing the invaders and restoring the rightful King, but at least enough action to mitigate the harm and get the King to safety). It would have been better had the PC's been involved - the invasion could have been repelled. Not having their equipment could mean that the assassin in the King's inner circle is much tougher to stop (or way easier if they made that tough roll), or it could just be a role playing hook, or maybe cost them a phase or two as they scramble to regain their gear.

 

Markdoc, I'd be interested in your comments on the "banter with the Captain - three rolls" approach versus the "abstracted banter - one roll with degrees of success" approach. I think both could work - the same results could occur under either model.

[Christopher]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

And the guy with the AoE still gets no real benefit from a bonus to OCV for creative use of his power.

You choose to have an AoE and choose to use it because it's so easy to hit with it and you were willing to loose some damage for it. In the end you turn up so good at hitting, that you don't profit from a bonus. So your build and choise make you soo good, that you don't need a bonus.

Why exactly did you mention that time and again? What point do you want to proove?

 

Assume this roll fails. What happens? If the answer is "you are turned away"' date=' that roll was critical. If that is the answer to any of the rolls you suggest failing, then those rolls are critical, as failure of any one of those rolls means failure of the mission.[/quote']

When you insist on them having to all succed or being forced to fight: Yes.

I never said that. That is your interpratation of what should happen. Or maybe what a bad GM will let happen.*

 

The bonus I find more objectionable in theory is that the player made a beautiful speech about "700 years of undisturbed rule by the Benevolent Lords of the Land coming to an end unless you act on this now" so his 8 INT' date=' 8 PRE character with no knowledge or social skills gets a bonus putting his chance of a successful roll to move to the next step at the same level as the Party Face (higher PRE and better social skills) backed up with that history provided by the Party Sage (18 INT and half his points spent on KS's like history of the land).[/quote']

The Face will easily outclass any +3 by two times just with his higher skill roll. And then he has complimentary rolls. Unless a bad GM screws it up.*

 

At the extreme' date=' however, I have seen some GM's who have decided the only way to persuade this NPC is to raise the spectre of 700 years, benevolent rule coming to an end, so no matter how persuasive or skilled your character is, failure to raise that one point means you fail, and anyone - no matter how unskilled - mentioning that threat in any context will succeed, and others who base the character's success on their view of the quality of the player's speech.[/quote']

Again you come: Solution is bad, because bad GM's will screw it up.*

 

*Regaring that I only have to say:

It's like saying "drinking stops thirst". It is true. But also totally, utterly worthless:

No amount of rules can prevent GM from being a bad GM. It only will increase the amount of rules he can ignore while being bad. There is no point in bringing it up over and over again. Or that "bad builts will screw it up".

We know it. We know it for years. It is true. It will always be true. It's like the law of gravity or thermodynamics. But repeating it won't get us anywhere.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

You choose to have an AoE and choose to use it because it's so easy to hit with it and you were willing to loose some damage for it. In the end you turn up so good at hitting, that you don't profit from a bonus. So your build and choise make you soo good, that you don't need a bonus.

Why exactly did you mention that time and again? What point do you want to proove?

 

That awarding +1 to +3 bonuses for creative use of an ability, or excellent description of an ability, in combat is not equivalent to awarding +1 to +3 bonuses for great speeches or excellent descriptions of skill use, such as social skills. Against a more difficult social challenge, that bonus is useful even to the Party Face. Against a more difficult combat challenge, enhancing OCV may or may not be useful, depending on whether the challenge is difficult because the target is hard to hit, or because he is hard to hurt. "Hard to Persuade" does not come in CV and Defense modes. "Hard to beat in combat" does.

 

 

When you insist on them having to all succed or being forced to fight: Yes.

I never said that. That is your interpratation of what should happen. Or maybe what a bad GM will let happen.

 

Then tell us. At each step of the interaction, each of the four rolls you suggest, what happens if the roll fails? If the guards turn you back, none of the rolls against the captain of the guard will happen, so they become irrelevant. If success or failure when I make that single skill roll against the guards ends the matter, then that single roll is determinative of the result, making it a critical roll. If, on the other hand, I get to just stand beside the guard whining and wheedling until I finally make a successful roll, then the whole encounter is pointless - we're only measuring how long it takes me to finally get a roll good enough to get me in to see the Captain.

 

I don't miss by 3, so now the guards ask me to leave and make a roll to reduce my Social Stun, after which I try again to convince them to let me see the Captain, this time succeeding, but not by enough to actually be let in to see the Captain, only enough that they pull out his appointment book and ask whether two weeks from next Tuesday would fit with my schedule, only to have their roll fail, so I take no added Social Stun and retaliate with another roll as I relate the urgency of my plight - all right, rolled a 3, so I am now ushered in to see the Captain.

 

The Face will easily outclass any +3 by two times just with his higher skill roll. And then he has complimentary rolls. Unless a bad GM screws it up.*

 

I'm not sure how you measure "outclass any +3 by two times". A +3 is the difference between a character with an 8 PRE and one with a 23 PRE, both having a standard skill roll. That seems reasonably significant from where I sit. But then, I like to go by the book definitions of a strong skill, and they suggest a 14- is "a master with the skill", with a 16- being "one of the very best people in the world". Should every adventuring group have, as a prerequisite, a character with interaction skills which makes him "one of the very best people in the world", or would it seem sufficient that the Heroes can be successful with only "a master with the skill"?

 

The rules can't prevent intentionally poor GMing. They can provide guidance that prevent accidental errors arising.

 

Hmmm...I also note that

A failed Skill Roll means the character can’t perform the chosen action (such as picking a particular lock) or receives no benefit from the Skill until the situation changes in the character’s favor

 

This would seem to imply that, having failed to persuade the guards the first time, I need to somehow gain a bonus to be permitted a second attempt. I guess all the PC's can line up and take turns trying to persuade the guard. Does that strike you as something that should work out well?

 

In fairness, while the rules suggest the GM may want to allow a lot, or only one, complementary skill roll, they do suggest that "the GM should be careful not to go overboard with modifiers; don’t forget that on the HERO System’s 3d6 bell curve, even a +/-1 modifier can significantly alter a character’s chances of success". That should suggest that modifiers should not be commonplace.

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

And' date=' as I have asked Markdoc, I ask you to cite the rule book where it is suggested that your approach is the appropriate one, and granting a +3 bonus for a pretty speech, or a -3 penalty for no speech, is not appropriate. I agree with you that the rules can be used to create a rich and positive experience such as the one you describe. I do not agree that the published rules provide any significant guidance towards your approach as contrasted with handing out +3 bonuses whenever the player makes a nice speech, and minimizing the effect skill rolls have on interaction.[/quote']

 

The specific rules on situational bonuses are:

For skills, it suggested that the max you can get from complementaries is +3 (6E1 56) this is reinforced by the table on 6E1 58 where the maximum "well roleplayed" bonus suggested is again +3, and reinforced by the comment on the same page "Also, the GM should be careful not to go overboard with modifiers; don’t forget that on the HERO System’s 3d6 bell curve, even a +/-1 modifier can significantly alter a character’s chances of success"

For combat (6E2 40) where the the maximum bonus suggested is also +3, the point is again reinforced by text on page 6E2 55 ". Truly unusual moves should earn a Surprise Move bonus, but GMs must be careful not to give out bonuses unless a move really deserves it. The listed Maneuvers assume that both the attacker and defender are fighting intelligently. Only very surprising, risky, or exciting actions should get additional bonuses."

And on gamemastering 6E2 280, where the point is made that even +1 can be potentially important and that larger bonuses are potentially unbalancing.

A further note - and this was in earlier editions, too - is that many skills are also listed which can give bonuses to other actions. Acrobatics can be used to get the surprise combat bonus .... but to get a +3 OCV, you'd need to roll 9 under your skill. Everything written on the subject suggests a +1 is often appropriate, a +2 is a very nice bonus and +3 (or more) should be extremely unusual. There's more in a similar vein, but that makes the point solidly, I'd say.

 

You really are trying to swim against a tsunami here: the outline I gave on awarding bonuses is well-documented, absolutely vanilla rules-as-written stuff, and it's been that way for at least the last 3 editions.

 

I also question whether we need three rolls for the Captain of the Guard. A commonly used approach is to establish degrees of success. That is, perhaps Waldo the Well Spoken needs an 11- to persuade the Captain of the existence of the plot (Urtho the Unwashed would need a 6- - spend a point on social skills, cheapskate!). He's skeptical, but it's his job to investigate these. Your "written evidence" provides a +3 bonus, so now you need a 14-.

 

However, the Captain still considers he, and his men, are the best suited to handle this. You need to succeed by 3 to have him accept your aid, and your presence meeting with the King, as valuable. So, if you roll 11-, you accompany him to the King, but a 12-14 sees you thanked for your service to the kingdom and summarily dismissed. Perhaps, either now, with quick words, or later, you may have an opportunity to persuade him your continued involvement is mandated.

 

And it's his JOB to protect the King - so letting you in armed? FAT CHANCE! That's another -5 penalty, so you will be allowed to accompany him to speak with the King AFTER your weapons have been searched and removed on a 7 - 11 roll. Only on a 6- will the urgency of the situation, and your trustworthiness, have been so clearly conveyed by your persuasiveness that he will allow you into His Majesty's presence armed.

 

Good thing you had Waldo, and he rolled well. Urtho needed a 9- to get the Captain moving, even with the evidence, a 6- to get in to see the king, and rolling a 1 or less to get in armed just ain't gonna happen!

 

I would consider these degrees of success. At least action was taken if the Captain was persuaded of the plot (maybe less action than needed, so the PC's will have to assist in displacing the invaders and restoring the rightful King, but at least enough action to mitigate the harm and get the King to safety). It would have been better had the PC's been involved - the invasion could have been repelled. Not having their equipment could mean that the assassin in the King's inner circle is much tougher to stop (or way easier if they made that tough roll), or it could just be a role playing hook, or maybe cost them a phase or two as they scramble to regain their gear.

 

Markdoc, I'd be interested in your comments on the "banter with the Captain - three rolls" approach versus the "abstracted banter - one roll with degrees of success" approach. I think both could work - the same results could occur under either model.

 

Both approaches can work. This is where tactics on the part of the players comes in. As I said, I am not fond of breaking tasks up just to break tasks up. However, faced with a tough task, it's often easier to take it a chunk at a time.

Here's two examples.

 

The players bustle up to the Guard captain and demand to see the King. He doesn't know them, and they look (to him) like a heavily-armed, potentially dangerous bunch. If they insist they want to retain their weapons, that's even more suspicious. Like you, I'm thinking -5 at least, probably more.

 

However, if the players have a face man with appropriate social skills, I feed some information back to them (no roll needed for this: I figure that anyone who has a skill should be able to make some general estimate of how to use the skill, and how tough a given task should be. I thus warn players when their character is about to do something they would know to be difficult). They may decide, in that case, to break the task up.

In that case the players - not the GM - may decide a different approach. For example:

1. Let's persuade him to read the evidence first before we start making any demands

2. Once he's read it, we should get a bonus

3. Then we persuade him we need to see the king, not just have the documents delivered

4. Then, once he's agreed to take us to the king, persuade him we need our weapons because we fear assassins (and evidence of assassins would help here: if the players are smart, they can try and work up evidence in advance to give them more bonuses). They could also try to enlist a person trusted by the captain to get a bonus, run up some blackmail on him, try to impress him with rank, if one of them is a noble ... there's more than one way to tackle problems like this.

 

So the players have a choice: run into possibly difficult-to-overcome odds, or try to even the odds a bit and tackle it a bit at a time. In that regard, I don't really play it very differently from combat: if the players want to storm into the castle with weapons out, they'll get a warning that it's likely to be the last thing they ever do, but still, it's their choice. Of course, if there are things they could not or should not know (like: the guard captain is in on the plot!) they don't get warnings about things they don't know.

 

As for the comments about the consequences of rolls, that's so context-dependant, it is completely impossible to generalise. A refusal is going to mean different things depending on who the PCs are, how they behave .... too many variables to say anything useful.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I definitely agree the comments should guide the GM to a maximum bonus. However, the statement on the same page that "The GM should provide modifiers to deal with

each situation that comes up in the course of the game." weakens the statement that "the GM should be careful not to go overboard with modifiers".

 

The comments on complementary skills seem weaker - "The GM may impose a limit on how much of a bonus Complementary Skills can provide (such as no more than +2, or +3 if two or more characters both make Complementary rolls) to keep Complementary Skills from becoming too effective." isn't, as I read it, very strong as a suggestion, especially when watered down with "Gamemasters who want to improve characters’ chances of success should allow many Complementary Skills; GMs who want to make things difficult should permit only one." suggesting this is a campaign/GM style matter, not even a strong guideline.

 

The discussion of combat modifiers seems, to me at least, more clear in restricting these modifiers. I find one of the biggest problems there is whether a "surprise maneuver" would surprise the opponent, or fails to surprise the GM (the former not having seen it before or even heard of it, but the latter recognizing it as one of the PC's standard maneuvers).

 

Adding to your comment that a lot of issues come from a GM overriding the rules, I note there is no listed modifier for "use of the skill is role played poorly or not at all". Penalizing the wallflower player's rolls seems a deviation from the RAW, so that should be attributed to bad GMing.

 

Both approaches can work. This is where tactics on the part of the players comes in. As I said, I am not fond of breaking tasks up just to break tasks up. However, faced with a tough task, it's often easier to take it a chunk at a time.

Here's two examples.

 

The players bustle up to the Guard captain and demand to see the King. He doesn't know them, and they look (to him) like a heavily-armed, potentially dangerous bunch. If they insist they want to retain their weapons, that's even more suspicious. Like you, I'm thinking -5 at least, probably more.

 

As indicated previously, I could see the potential for partial success here as well. He's persuaded there's a plot, perhaps even that you should be involved in thwarting it, but there's no way he's letting you get close to the King when you're armed to the teeth. And it's possible that, if you push it, your refusal on that point may cause him to reconsider whether you should be involved, or even (6e1 "failed by 4 or more may have negative consequences") whether this "plot" is, after all, a fabrication to allow you to get close enough to assassinate the King. Sure you want to keep pushing that issue?

 

However' date=' if the players have a face man with appropriate social skills, I feed some information back to them (no roll needed for this: I figure that anyone who has a skill should be able to make some general estimate of how to use the skill, and how tough a given task should be. I thus warn players when their character is about to do something they would know to be difficult). [/quote']

 

I think that's appropriate in a lot of cases, be it a specific skill use or a combat maneuver or what have you. Just as players should not be using out of character knowledge, GM's should be certain players are aware of logical in character knowledge. A player referring to the Queen as "him" should probably be reminded his character knows the King is a man, not have a penalty imposed on his roll because the player isn't demonstrating knowledge his character would clearly have. For that matter, it's probably "routine" to know the proper form of address to the King versus the Duke, so that High Society skill should pretty much grant that automatically, even if the PC uses the wrong one.

 

They may decide, in that case, to break the task up.

In that case the players - not the GM - may decide a different approach. For example:

1. Let's persuade him to read the evidence first before we start making any demands

2. Once he's read it, we should get a bonus

 

Unless any roll at this point fails miserably, at any rate. [ugh - an 18 - "the Captain thinks this is a forgery you have fabricated"] But simply persuading him to look at the evidence shouldn't be that tough - definitely not as tough as "no, we will only show the King, it has to be right now, and we stay armed to the teeth".

 

3. Then we persuade him we need to see the king, not just have the documents delivered

4. Then, once he's agreed to take us to the king, persuade him we need our weapons because we fear assassins (and evidence of assassins would help here: if the players are smart, they can try and work up evidence in advance to give them more bonuses). They could also try to enlist a person trusted by the captain to get a bonus, run up some blackmail on him, try to impress him with rank, if one of them is a noble ... there's more than one way to tackle problems like this.

 

Lots of options - and it would sure be a lot easier if we had several months to curry favour with the Captain, rather than several hours before the plot moves into action. And we're assuming no prior interaction with the Captain, and no reputation with him, which would also clearly have an impact - but all in-game.

 

So the players have a choice: run into possibly difficult-to-overcome odds' date=' or try to even the odds a bit and tackle it a bit at a time. In that regard, I don't really play it very differently from combat: if the players want to storm into the castle with weapons out, they'll get a warning that it's likely to be the last thing they ever do, but still, it's their choice. Of course, if there are things they could not or should not know (like: the guard captain is in on the plot!) they don't get warnings about things they don't know.[/quote']

 

Well, here we come to the issue of whether an astute character might get a skill roll to recognize the captain seems to react differently than one would expect (perhaps he lets slip some minor detail that wasn't actually in that evidence, or maybe it's just his reaction to the evidence that seems just a bit off), but we're again having to assess this based on the characters' skills. But it seems much less likely we'll be persuading the Captain to assist us in thwarting the plot, in any event.

 

As for the comments about the consequences of rolls' date=' that's so context-dependant, it is completely impossible to generalise. A refusal is going to mean different things depending on who the PCs are, how they behave .... too many variables to say anything useful.[/quote']

 

Well, to some extent I'd agree. However, I refer back to 6eV2p57 - "If the character rolls greater than his Skill Roll, taking all modifiers into account, he fails. A failed Skill Roll means the character can’t perform the chosen action (such as picking a particular lock) or receives no benefit from the Skill until the situation changes in the character’s favor — in other words, until he somehow gets at least a +1 modifier to the Skill Roll.

 

So, if we blow the roll with the Captain, we need a tactic that provides a bonus to have any chance now. Of course, we could try to persuade him of something else ("Well, at least show the evidence to the King and let HIM decide!", perhaps), assuming he's prepared to listen any further. "Taking more time" is suggested, but interaction skills require the target be willing to listen for that extra time, so it may not be viable, and "extra time" may not be the appropriate modifier for interaction anyway (saying it more, longer and slower isn't likely to achieve the desired result). Of course, if I apply a tactically mechanistic view, maybe I should have told the story without the evidence first, since giving him the evidence should provide a bonus to the roll and I get another chance. If I just get all the positive modifiers up front, getting a second roll becomes more difficult, mechanically speaking.

 

I also note that "taking all modifiers into account" suggests, albeit indirectly, that it's pretty common to have multiple modifiers in play, contrary to other statements that suggest modifiers be less frequent. Compared to the admonition to "Resist the temptation to overuse the Skill Versus Skill system — in obvious situations, there’s no need to make Skill Rolls." many of the other comments we cite seem pretty weak. And a poor GM can easily extrapolate "For instance, if the first character conceals an object in a drawer, and the opposing character searches that very drawer, he’ll find the object. Roleplaying these situations reduces the need to make die rolls." to "well, that means unless they mention searching that drawer, they shouldn't find it, and since I think the Captain of the Guard is ill disposed to let them see the King, no roll there either".

 

Perhaps the rules would be better served to clearly set out the defaults, and let the GM who wishes to deviate from them decide to do so under his prerogative as GM to change the rules.

[Mister E]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

My own what if's:

 

What if we didn't award any xp for 5 years, for any reason whatsoever, because everyone has a great time playing their existing characters?

 

"If it isn't broken, don't fix it," is the easiest answer.

 

What if those two players who want the bonus xp' date=' keep cracking wise all night to the detriment of anyone trying to make choices or face the obstacles of the game? I came to play, not watch Warrior and Wizard's Stand Up Comedy Show. Maybe players who disrupt the game and make immersion more difficult should not be rewarded for that. [/quote']

 

They shouldn't.

 

That is exactly the kind of scenario that would raise my party tension meter, a meta-game tool I stole from Warhammer Fantasy RP 3rd edition.

 

And what if everyone is having such a great time with the standup comedy' date=' character pictures, or what have you, that we don't actually play the game? If EVERYONE is having a great time, great - the game will still be there. But if half the players are having a blast while the other half are wondering why they bothered to show up, that is a problem. [/quote']

 

zero xp

[Markdoc]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

I definitely agree the comments should guide the GM to a maximum bonus. However, the statement on the same page that "The GM should provide modifiers to deal with

each situation that comes up in the course of the game." weakens the statement that "the GM should be careful not to go overboard with modifiers".

 

The comments on complementary skills seem weaker - "The GM may impose a limit on how much of a bonus Complementary Skills can provide (such as no more than +2, or +3 if two or more characters both make Complementary rolls) to keep Complementary Skills from becoming too effective." isn't, as I read it, very strong as a suggestion, especially when watered down with "Gamemasters who want to improve characters’ chances of success should allow many Complementary Skills; GMs who want to make things difficult should permit only one." suggesting this is a campaign/GM style matter, not even a strong guideline.

 

The discussion of combat modifiers seems, to me at least, more clear in restricting these modifiers. I find one of the biggest problems there is whether a "surprise maneuver" would surprise the opponent, or fails to surprise the GM (the former not having seen it before or even heard of it, but the latter recognizing it as one of the PC's standard maneuvers).

 

Adding to your comment that a lot of issues come from a GM overriding the rules, I note there is no listed modifier for "use of the skill is role played poorly or not at all". Penalizing the wallflower player's rolls seems a deviation from the RAW, so that should be attributed to bad GMing.

 

Agreed. I don't think I have ever given a penalty for "bad roleplaying" (however that's defined). If you simply state what you are doing, that's the base case. Bonuses are for doing something more. The overall tenor about adding bonuses however, when looked at in toto is pretty damn conclusive. Taking one comment out of context, it may not seem conclusive, but it's hard to read the rules and get any impression other than that roleplaying and tactical bonuses should range from +1 to +3 with the higher end being for unusual actions.

 

As indicated previously' date=' I could see the potential for partial success here as well. He's persuaded there's a plot, perhaps even that you should be involved in thwarting it, but there's no way he's letting you get close to the King when you're armed to the teeth. And it's possible that, if you push it, your refusal on that point may cause him to reconsider whether you should be involved, or even (6e1 "failed by 4 or more may have negative consequences") whether this "plot" is, after all, a fabrication to allow you to get close enough to assassinate the King. Sure you want to keep pushing that issue?[/quote']

 

Yes, I think that appropriate. It's also RAW: there are comments about skill checks that are failed by small amounts being potentially regarded as "partial success". This however, is very context dependant, IMO. In normal social interactions, a "near success" is unlikely to have drastic consequences. However, high-stress, high risk situations like someone hanging by one hand from a rope below a speeding helicopter, might well. A near success might mean you can't pull yourself up, but there should be a point at which you simply fall off.

 

I think that's appropriate in a lot of cases' date=' be it a specific skill use or a combat maneuver or what have you. Just as players should not be using out of character knowledge, GM's should be certain players are aware of logical in character knowledge. A player referring to the Queen as "him" should probably be reminded his character knows the King is a man, not have a penalty imposed on his roll because the player isn't demonstrating knowledge his character would clearly have. For that matter, it's probably "routine" to know the proper form of address to the King versus the Duke, so that High Society skill should pretty much grant that automatically, even if the PC uses the wrong one.[/quote']

 

Agreed: GM's who persecute players for not knowing or remembering things their PCs should logically know is a pet peeve of mine. The fact that having skills grants basic competency in the area is a clear assumption of the rules and simply makes sense. It does more, as well: a character with an aristocratic background and the appropriate skills can expect people to behave differently to him than someone who doesn't. That can include invitation to stay at the castle, or being singled out for pickpocket attempts

 

Unless any roll at this point fails miserably' date=' at any rate. [ugh - an 18 - "the Captain thinks this is a forgery you have fabricated"'] But simply persuading him to look at the evidence shouldn't be that tough - definitely not as tough as "no, we will only show the King, it has to be right now, and we stay armed to the teeth".

 

Exactly. Also breaking the task up allows for the possibility of partial failures: the captain may refuse to let you in with weapons, but that's still yards better than not being allowed in at all.

 

Lots of options - and it would sure be a lot easier if we had several months to curry favour with the Captain, rather than several hours before the plot moves into action. And we're assuming no prior interaction with the Captain, and no reputation with him, which would also clearly have an impact - but all in-game.

 

Of course: this is the strategic/tactical aspect of social interaction. A skilled player will set up the ground: make contacts, build a reputation, etc, so they can take advantage of it when they really need it. Sometimes you don't have time to set up the ground, but even then a couple of hours might allow a well-connected character to (say) find out who's going to be in charge at a specific time and choose to maybe wait a couple of hours so that they avoid trying to persuade Captain Highbrow, who's known to be stickler for protocol and instead talk to Captain Lowbrow, who's known to be a cheerful sort of chap.

 

These in-game differences are the "terrain" on which social interaction takes place: as I noted last time we had this discussion the backstory makes generalisation about interaction entirely impossible: the whole "persuade the captain" thing takes on a whole different light if the PCs last interaction with him was cutting his hand off as they escaped his attempt to arrest them!

 

Well' date=' here we come to the issue of whether an astute character might get a skill roll to recognize the captain seems to react differently than one would expect (perhaps he lets slip some minor detail that wasn't actually in that evidence, or maybe it's just his reaction to the evidence that seems just a bit off), but we're again having to assess this based on the characters' skills. But it seems much less likely we'll be persuading the Captain to assist us in thwarting the plot, in any event. [/quote']

 

That depends on the skills and the context, but in general, if the players wants to get a sense of how his target is reacting to a discussion, they can get an appropriate skill roll. In the last game we had a player actually buy his PC a "detect" power which let him read a person' body language with great accuracy, precisely so that the party could get this kind of feedback.

 

Well, to some extent I'd agree. However, I refer back to 6eV2p57 - "If the character rolls greater than his Skill Roll, taking all modifiers into account, he fails. A failed Skill Roll means the character can’t perform the chosen action (such as picking a particular lock) or receives no benefit from the Skill until the situation changes in the character’s favor — in other words, until he somehow gets at least a +1 modifier to the Skill Roll.

 

So, if we blow the roll with the Captain, we need a tactic that provides a bonus to have any chance now. Of course, we could try to persuade him of something else ("Well, at least show the evidence to the King and let HIM decide!", perhaps), assuming he's prepared to listen any further. "Taking more time" is suggested, but interaction skills require the target be willing to listen for that extra time, so it may not be viable, and "extra time" may not be the appropriate modifier for interaction anyway (saying it more, longer and slower isn't likely to achieve the desired result). Of course, if I apply a tactically mechanistic view, maybe I should have told the story without the evidence first, since giving him the evidence should provide a bonus to the roll and I get another chance. If I just get all the positive modifiers up front, getting a second roll becomes more difficult, mechanically speaking.

 

Excellent! Now, you are starting to think like a skills-oriented GM! I do enforce the rule you mention, and I encourage thinking tactically (also in social interactions). However, tactical considerations need to also look at the possibility of failure: if you have a good chance to succeed at first, it actually does make sense to hold some bonuses back. If you are not sure of success, it may be better to throw them in up front, because the consequence of failure may be that you don't get a second chance, or that you begin to stack up negative modifiers. That's a decision for the players to make.

 

I also note that "taking all modifiers into account" suggests' date=' albeit indirectly, that it's pretty common to have multiple modifiers in play, contrary to other statements that suggest modifiers be less frequent.[/quote']

 

The statement was not that modifiers be less frequent - at all. It was specifically that roleplaying bonuses - especially at the upper end of +3 - be less frequent.

 

Compared to the admonition to "Resist the temptation to overuse the Skill Versus Skill system — in obvious situations, there’s no need to make Skill Rolls." many of the other comments we cite seem pretty weak. And a poor GM can easily extrapolate "For instance, if the first character conceals an object in a drawer, and the opposing character searches that very drawer, he’ll find the object. Roleplaying these situations reduces the need to make die rolls." to "well, that means unless they mention searching that drawer, they shouldn't find it, and since I think the Captain of the Guard is ill disposed to let them see the King, no roll there either".

 

Perhaps the rules would be better served to clearly set out the defaults, and let the GM who wishes to deviate from them decide to do so under his prerogative as GM to change the rules.

 

As far as I can read, the rules are pretty clear. As you note, the use of modifiers (note the plural) is encouraged (at multiple sites in the rules) but the over-use of roleplaying or surprise modifiers should not be overdone: they should be reserved for actions that are noteworthy, especially with regard to the higher bonuses. At the same time, GMs should not go completely overboard: you don't need to make a PER rolls to find your keys on your night-table (as Sean suggested he should, in another thread). You don't need a climbing roll to climb a ladder in your backyard, or make a concealment roll when you are looking exactly where something is hidden. This comes back to the routine tasks and "things players should know" discussion we just had above. Making the rolls is an important part of the system, but you don't want to go overboard, and require rolls for every little thing.

 

My general rule of thumb (and this applies to combat as well) is to make rolls when it seems appropriate. That's most of the time, but if failure has no discernible consequences, I don't bother. If the Stealth 18-, OCV8 assassin wants to sneak up on an unaware, 10 point guardsman, in a part of the castle where there is no-one nearby, I'm more like to say "You take him out without problem" as require a stealth roll and a phase of combat. Why slow the game down with rolls that - even if failed - will simply be rolled again until success is obtained?

 

Likewise, there will be times when no roll is allowed: even if the assassin has 18- Stealth, I'm not going to give him a roll to hide himself in a well-lit, open space, with nothing to hide behind, while people are watching him. Climbing 18- isn't going to get you up a perfectly smooth, glass-like wall without some help, and conversation 18- isn't going to get Tarkofanes to renounce his evil ways, lay his undead minions to rest and take up making multiracial dolls for handicapped children.

 

So the chunk of rules you quote - far from contradicting what we have been saying - is all of a piece with them. You need to read things in context, not treat each sentence or sentence fragment as something to be analysed by itself. Where a particular GM draws the "no roll allowed/required" line seems to me to be common sense, but obviously, every GM will have slightly different place to draw that line and - for that matter - the same GM might draw it two different places in two different games. I'd treat "Deduction 15- differently if I was GM'ing a grim-n-gritty police procedural or an anime-inspired space opera game. I'm not sure that rules on "How to GM your game" would add anything positive at all.

 

cheers, Mark

[casualplayer]

Re: Balancing social skills and role playing

 

Likewise, there will be times when no roll is allowed: even if the assassin has 18- Stealth, I'm not going to give him a roll to hide himself in a well-lit, open space, with nothing to hide behind, while people are watching him. Climbing 18- isn't going to get you up a perfectly smooth, glass-like wall without some help, and conversation 18- isn't going to get Tarkofanes to renounce his evil ways, lay his undead minions to rest and take up making multiracial dolls for handicapped children.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I'm right there with you up til this point. The whole idea of ratcheting up the skill rolls is to be able to succeed under adverse conditions. If you can shoulder the penalty for a well-lit, open space with nothing to hide behind while people are watching you, and still succeed, then that makes you a force to be reckoned with and those were points well spent. Batman's disappearing in plain sight shtick and such.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42702[/ATTACH]

 

Most just punt this kind of thing to a Skill constructed as a Power but I've never been a fan of that.