Social Skills in RP
Rob Ciccolini
discussion at Arisia (a convention here in Boston). I
asked the panel how they would handle an NPC using a
seduction skill on a PC, or even another PC using the
seduction skill on a PC. This question could be
broadened to any social skill.
The members of the panel said that if, after applying
situational modifiers, the seduction skill roll was made,
they would enforce the situation. I disagreed, because I
felt that unless the "skill" was magical or psionic (ie
took the decision out of the players hand because of some
sort of mind control) that this was a player decision. I
might inform them that they greatly desired to do "x"
because of a social skill, but I would leave the decision
up to them.
How do you get the use of negotiation, seduction, and
other skills that enhance social abilities if the player
wants to roleplay it out? What if you feel the NPC would
be better at the particular social skill than the game
master/referee?
Leaving the whole dice versus diceless argument out of it
(assume you use dice to resolve situations where success
is not guaranteed) how do other DMs and players feel about
this?
RJC
"All I'm asking is that somebody tell me where my f%$#ing
camera is!"
A Lapalme
>I saw an interesting idea once for the use of rolls for Social Skills.
>
>If you succeed at (say) an Oratory roll the GM gives you a couple of hints
>on the best arguement to sway the audience. If yo get a critical
>success the GM tell you exactly how to sway the audience (ie you
>automatically succeed).
Which still comes out as the GM basically playing your character. Whether
the roll points to a success or failure or the GM tells you how to get a
success (depending on the roll), it still feels like a cheap victory to
me.
The problem I see with this is that the "hints" are OOC and have to be
ICed (nice verb!) to be used.
>If you fail the GM gives you no hints, and if you fumble/botch the GM
>gives you incorrect hints (or you automatically fail. Under this system
>critical success and failure are governed purely by dice, but the normal
>range of success and failure are governed by a combination of role-playing
>and dice. I like this idea and have seen it work well in play.
>
OH, it'll work. No question about that. However, I don't see any
roleplay involved.
>Leaving social skill rolls purely to dice is boring, but leaving them
>purely to the skill of the player means that only the truly charismatic
>can play charismatic characters. Both options seem remarkably limiting,
>so the goal would seem to be finding a way to combine the two techniques.
>
>Comments?
>
I agree with the principles outlined in the last paragraph. If a player
has a charismatic character but the player is a social boor, this doesn't
mean you have to accept every player word as being the exact same words
his character utters.
My take on this is a bit different. If a character is good at a social
skill, I simply am more lax for that character than I would be for the
lesser skilled character. For example:
character A is played by player X
character B is played by player Y
A is charismatic, B is a boor
X is a boor, Y is charismatic
If A tries to impress a crowd, I would still ask player X to tell me what
he says to the crowd. Then, I would take what was said, factor in the
character's charisma and produced a result (by whatever method).
If B tries to impress a crowd, I would ask player Y to tell me what he
says to the crowd. Then, I would take what was said, factor in the
character's lack of charisma and produced a result (same method as
above).
What I personally like about it is that the player is still being asked
to give it his best shot, ie to roleplay. The charismatic player should
have no problem being a boor while the boorish player, while he might
have problems being charismatic, will be challenged (and might learn a
few things in the bargain).
Alain
--
Alain
***My news feed is loosing posts. Why? I don't know. ***
***If you want to be certain that I see a post, please***
***CC it to me. ***
John R. Snead
If you succeed at (say) an Oratory roll the GM gives you a couple of hints
on the best arguement to sway the audience. If yo get a critical
success the GM tell you exactly how to sway the audience (ie you
automatically succeed).
If you fail the GM gives you no hints, and if you fumble/botch the GM
gives you incorrect hints (or you automatically fail. Under this system
critical success and failure are governed purely by dice, but the normal
range of success and failure are governed by a combination of role-playing
and dice. I like this idea and have seen it work well in play.
Leaving social skill rolls purely to dice is boring, but leaving them
purely to the skill of the player means that only the truly charismatic
can play charismatic characters. Both options seem remarkably limiting,
so the goal would seem to be finding a way to combine the two techniques.
Comments?
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
John Novak
>An interesting topic came up at a RPG roundtable
>discussion at Arisia (a convention here in Boston). I
>asked the panel how they would handle an NPC using a
>seduction skill on a PC, or even another PC using the
>seduction skill on a PC. This question could be
>broadened to any social skill.
Ah. One of the Age Old Questions.
I'll assume that we're very specifically _not_ dealing with any form
of mind control, be it psionic, magic, or whatever. Just plain old
character to character encounters, nothing special about it.
>The members of the panel said that if, after applying
>situational modifiers, the seduction skill roll was made,
>they would enforce the situation. I disagreed, because I
>felt that unless the "skill" was magical or psionic (ie
>took the decision out of the players hand because of some
>sort of mind control) that this was a player decision. I
>might inform them that they greatly desired to do "x"
>because of a social skill, but I would leave the decision
>up to them.
Speaking of NPC to PC oriented use (ie, an NPC is trying to seduce a
PC) then yes, I agree. If there is no magic, then the choice is
purely up to the player. A mitigating factor might be, for instance,
a PC with a known weakness for stunning redheads being hit upon by a
stunning redhead, in which case I'd at least want to see some
role-playing on the part of the character trying to decide whether to
give in or not as the case may be. My displeasure in that case would
be something of (if I understand the terms correctly) a metagame
concern.
But I would not _force_ the PC into anything, under ordinary
circumstances.
>How do you get the use of negotiation, seduction, and
>other skills that enhance social abilities if the player
>wants to roleplay it out?
This is the painful one.
I'm running a game right now which is, by request of the players,
politically oriented. Part of the group's duty is to act as
embassadors and negotiators for their provinces as they go about their
other duties. The player whose character is the main negotiator and
diplomat is nowhere near as good a diplomat as his character should
be.
What I try to do in these situations is:
o Downplay the effects of the minor fumbles of the PC.
o Even if it breaks play a little bit, ask the player "did you
_really_ mean to say that?" when he says something staggeringly
stupid. Often, I'll roll a die privately to see if I should do that.
o Try like hell to be instructive enough at my end of things,
both role-playing the NPCs and in those few game-breaking moments
where I ask if he's serious, that the _player_ improves his
role-playing ability through the game.
This, of course, is damned difficult, not always successful, and
time-consuming.
>What if you feel the NPC would
>be better at the particular social skill than the game
>master/referee?
Well, there, you've got some weapons up your sleeve.
Some may regard it as cheap, or not, but you as a GM are able not only
to role-play the NPCs, but to describe them verbally as well. The GM
is both a collection of NPCs and a narrator in this sense.
So while I do my best to convey both good and bad negotiators (to
extend the previous example) by my facial expressions and tone of
voice and gestures, I am also at liberty to sprinkle in the odd
comment of, "He looks you right in the eyes, saying '...'" or "His
eyes don't quite meet yours..."
>"All I'm asking is that somebody tell me where my f%$#ing
>camera is!"
Call information.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
http://cegt201.bradley.edu/~jsn/index.html
The Humblest Man on the Net
John R. Snead
: jsn...@netcom.com (John R. Snead) wrote:
: >I saw an interesting idea once for the use of rolls for Social Skills.
: >
: >If you succeed at (say) an Oratory roll the GM gives you a couple of hints
: >on the best arguement to sway the audience. If yo get a critical
: >success the GM tell you exactly how to sway the audience (ie you
: >automatically succeed).
: Which still comes out as the GM basically playing your character. Whether
: the roll points to a success or failure or the GM tells you how to get a
: success (depending on the roll), it still feels like a cheap victory to
: me.
: The problem I see with this is that the "hints" are OOC and have to be
: ICed (nice verb!) to be used.
: >If you fail the GM gives you no hints, and if you fumble/botch the GM
: >gives you incorrect hints (or you automatically fail. Under this system
: >critical success and failure are governed purely by dice, but the normal
: >range of success and failure are governed by a combination of role-playing
: >and dice. I like this idea and have seen it work well in play.
: >
: OH, it'll work. No question about that. However, I don't see any
: roleplay involved.
How so?
You succeed in your Oratory roll to convince a crowd to riot. The GM
tells you "talking about how wealthy and decadent the folks in the castle
are". From there it's up to you, pure role-playing, with hints.
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
Mary K. Kuhner
>If you succeed at (say) an Oratory roll the GM gives you a couple of hints
>on the best arguement to sway the audience. If yo get a critical
>success the GM tell you exactly how to sway the audience (ie you
>automatically succeed).
>If you fail the GM gives you no hints, and if you fumble/botch the GM
>gives you incorrect hints (or you automatically fail).
>-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
Two caveats:
In my experience giving bogus hints is a seriously bad idea. No hints
at all, okay, but incorrect hints can get internalized as part of "what
the GM says about the world background" and cause no end of trouble.
"But you said that Klingons don't attach any importance to pronunciation
of names!" "You heard me say that to Peter, but I was lying because his
character rolled so low." "I didn't remember that--I thought it was
established background." Transfer of information from GM to player is
already such an overloaded channel that I'd hate to sully it with
deliberately misleading info.
For this system to work, the GM has to be a reasonably competant with
the social skill involved. If he doesn't know what he's doing, his
clues will tend to shatter suspension of disbelief--"What?! You think
they'd fall for that lame approach?" As with any area of specialization,
if one or more players are much better than the GM it is best to stick
to pure mechanics. The GM has to judge for himself whether his
"briefing" on what to say to the crowd will be taken as useful advice or
as laughable display of ignorance. What you want to avoid at all costs
is giving the player advice she finds ludicrously bad, then making that
advice the only way to succeed--this tends to feel like a bad kind of
railroading.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mary K. Kuhner
PC, if the GM knows the PC's background very well, would be to say
something like:
"He is extremely appealing: he makes you feel like the lover you went
off to Europe with, or the boy you saw once on the train and dreamed
about for months afterwards. Now, what do you do?"
Then the player (who presumably knows something about what would make
the character decide to go to Europe, or what her dreams are like)
can make an informed decision.
If the background information isn't there, you could try something a
little more vague: "He hits you where your teenage heartache hit you,
as strongly as if you were a teenager again."
This works better for me than trying to describe what the NPC *does* to
get this effect, since different people have extremely different takes
on what's sexy, and the NPC with high Seduction skill is going to be
better at guessing what's needed than the GM is.
I'd rather make the ultimate decision, as a player, and not be forced:
I'd think of the die roll as determining how successful the NPC was in
being seductive, and then use my knowledge of my character to determine
how she reacted. I have had PCs go to bed with some *decidedly* unwise
people, so I don't share the common attitude that players will never let
their PCs be seduced.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Carl D. Cravens
>The members of the panel said that if, after applying
>situational modifiers, the seduction skill roll was made,
>they would enforce the situation. I disagreed, because I
>felt that unless the "skill" was magical or psionic (ie
>took the decision out of the players hand because of some
>sort of mind control) that this was a player decision. I
>might inform them that they greatly desired to do "x"
>because of a social skill, but I would leave the decision
>up to them.
This is the flip-side of the "the character can do things I can't"
discussion.
I'm a total flop at seduction, my character is James Bond. I roleplay,
then roll dice to see what happens... my roleplaying was fun, but didn't
have much affect on the outcome because my character is much better at
it than I am. (Most diced players will agree with this method.)
Personally, I have an iron will, but today I'm playing a lusty female
spy. The NPC James Bond attempts to seduce me. As a player I say, "I
resist" and that's that? Nope, no way. Just as my character's
strengths are not diluted by my weaknesses, my character's weaknesses
should not be bolstered by my strengths. A more extreme example is
torture:
GM: After hours of grueling torture, you're torturer has decided to try
the rack. As the torture-master turns the crank, you feel ligaments
stretch to their limit and you're in incredible pain.
Player: I ignore it. I won't tell them anything.
GM: Okay. The torture-master continues... your left hip pops out of
its socket. The pain is greater than anything you have imagined.
Player: So? I ignore it. They won't get nothing out of me.
See? It's silly. The player can't just go on ignoring effects that he
doesn't want to bother his character. In both the seduction and torture
examples, I'd make the player throw some Willpower checks to determine
if he can successfully avoid giving in to the situation... but I
certainly won't let him ignore something that should have an effect on
his character.
--
Carl (rave...@southwind.net)
* Old immortals never die, they just... don't.
Vanessa and Hans Dykstra
>How do you get the use of negotiation, seduction, and
>other skills that enhance social abilities if the player
>be better at the particular social skill than the game
>master/referee?
My favorite method is to use the roleplay of the
character to determine what kind of thing they are
saying, or what kind of approach they are taking.
Then roll the dice or use the character
description (whatever system you have in place for
judging skills) to determine how well they said
it.
If I feel that the situation of the character
entitles them to some additional information, I
might give them a hint or two.
For seduction, if a really crass player roleplays
it out by something crude like, "Hey babe, let's
you and me get it on," I'll interpret this as
saying that the character will make a direct
proposition in the best way his skill allows. (So
I might imagine a smoother, more genteel way of
saying essentially the same thing.) The die roll
determines just *how* smooth. But if the situation
is such that a direct proposition is just the
wrong way to go about it, a good roll might,
maybe, save him from getting slapped and no more.
In the same situation, if some other skill
(Etiquette or the equivalent) would give the
character reason to know this was not a good
approach, I'd try to drop a subtle hint.
In the case of an NPC using skills against a
character, I'd leave it up to the character, but I
would not be averse to trying to persuade the
player to take a particular action. Even to the
point of saying, "You feel tremendously attracted
to this [wo]man." (Or whatever is appropriate to
this skill. After that, you pretty much have to
rely on the player to roleplay his/her character
honestly.
***
hmd
(flaky news feed, please cc replies)
Carl D. Cravens
>I have seen PCs give into temptation by their players' free choice, and
>the resulting scenes were more intense than anything I've seen done with
>the roll-dice-for-it method. It does require developed characters and
>won't generally work early in a campaign.
Sure... a player properly roleplaying their character is going to be
better than the GM forcing them to roleplay. But that's what the player
is doing when they say "No, I refuse to be seduced"... they're refusing
to roleplay (in a general case). Now it's certainly possible that their
character might be able to resist the temptation... but not just
because the player wants it that way.
I would rather the player cooperated... but if it comes down to the
player refusing unreasonably (i.e. it goes against the character's
nature or the situation) I'm inclined to force it, via dice or other
persuasion.
--
Carl (rave...@southwind.net)
* Why get even, when you can get odd?
Xiphias Gladius
> An interesting topic came up at a RPG roundtable discussion at
> Arisia (a convention here in Boston).
Cool panel -- that was the "Sex and Marriage in RPG's", right? I was
there, too . . .
> I asked the panel how they would handle an NPC using a seduction
> skill on a PC, or even another PC using the seduction skill on a PC.
> This question could be broadened to any social skill.
> The members of the panel said that if, after applying situational
> modifiers, the seduction skill roll was made, they would enforce the
> situation.
Well, *a* member of the panel said that -- I didn't get the feeling
that all of them felt the same way. . .
> I disagreed, because I felt that unless the "skill" was magical or
> psionic (ie took the decision out of the players hand because of
> some sort of mind control) that this was a player decision. I might
> inform them that they greatly desired to do "x" because of a social
> skill, but I would leave the decision up to them.
First, I was there, and I didn't really hear anyone saying that you
were wrong to do it that way -- I actually saw a lot of people's faces
with expressions like, "Hmm, that sounds like a good idea, maybe I'll
try that a couple times and see how it works. . . "
I think that, in large part, that really depends on your personal
notions of free will, and thus, is not going to readily
resolvable. . .
No, actually I'm serious.
If I see an attractive example of a gender in which I am interested,
and I attempt to seduce it, and I *do* end up sleeping with it, what
just happened?
Did I succede in seducing? Did that person decide to sleep with me?
If I don't end up sleeping with that person, did I fail at my
attempts, or did the person decide to reject my offer?
If I had done things differently, would I have convinced that person
to sleep with me?
Is there always some sequence of events, some way to talk, some way to
present myself such that I can always seduce anyone I want?
Some would say yes. I've got a URL around here somewhere for the
"Speed Seduction" homepage, which purports to be a way to seduce
anyone, any time, anywere. I've read through it, and, well, I can
give it a solid "dunno".
But, I'm certain that if the people who wrote up that stuff were in a
roleplaying game, then, well, a simple skill roll would allow anyone
to sleep with anyone.
Is this realistic? I really have no idea.
Does this fit with how you want YOUR world to work? THAT's up to you.
[A somewhat tasteless paragraph was here in the original version of
this post that I canceled. It wasn't worth it. . .]
Now -- for me. . .
I really, honestly believe that it is POSSIBLE to convince anybody to
do anything. Just not easy. Maybe it would be beyond the abilities
of anyone who's ever lived to convince John Doe that it would be a
good idea to take his clothes off, and run up and down the street
singing "When The Saints Go Marching In," but there really is
SOMETHING that you could say to him that would convince him to do so.
And, if someone had a Fast-Talk skill of, like 30 in GURPS terms
(think way, really, really, superhuman -- beyond what is beyond what
is reasonable for characters to ever get), I would assume that they
basically could tell, just by looking at him, that John Doe had a fear
of spiders, and had once seen a movie on TV about tarantulas while
listening to "Saints", and would, somehow, be able to parley this
knowledge into some REALLY convincing reason for John Doe to do the
above.
And John Doe would do it.
Even if he was a PC.
But, for levels of skills that players will actually encounter, I
rather prefer your system.
> How do you get the use of negotiation, seduction, and other skills
> that enhance social abilities if the player wants to roleplay it
> out?
Umm, you make sure that every GM is a master negotiator, more
seductive than Lucifer, an expert diplomat and haggler, a brilliant
tactician, and so forth.
(If they can do all that, then why are they running a game?)
Okay, you gloss over it with, "After a while, you think that you've
got a pretty good treaty, but you're not really sure you wanted to
give up those trade concessions."
(But you wanted to roleplay it out. . .)
If you, as the GM, feel that you can make a good enough stab at a
particular action, roleplay it. Otherwise, gloss it.
> What if you feel the NPC would be better at the particular social
> skill than the game master/referee?
Gloss it. Or, start in roleplaying, and then, when you're over your
head, THEN gloss.
These are, naturally, all just ideas. I only GM Teenagers from Outer
Space, where Tactics consists of, "Well, if WE can get the drink
machine, we'll have strategic command of the Boy's Locker Room," and
Diplomacy consists of, "No, my dog really DID eat it -- he's specially
bred to eat tungsten." And all seduction is futile, because your
parents will come home. . .
- Ian
Mary K. Kuhner
>Personally, I have an iron will, but today I'm playing a lusty female
>spy. The NPC James Bond attempts to seduce me. As a player I say, "I
>resist" and that's that? Nope, no way. Just as my character's
>strengths are not diluted by my weaknesses, my character's weaknesses
>should not be bolstered by my strengths.
An alternative to using dice here is for the player to try to map his
character's weakness mentally onto one of his own weaknesses. If you
have a good enough feeling for the character, you can say "She wants
that really badly, just like I would want X if it were offered--now,
would duty be enough to stop me?" Or you can try to empathetically feel
her lustiness and judge her response from that.
I have seen PCs give into temptation by their players' free choice, and
the resulting scenes were more intense than anything I've seen done with
the roll-dice-for-it method. It does require developed characters and
won't generally work early in a campaign.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Anne B. Nonie Rider
> Sure... a player properly roleplaying their character is going to be
> better than the GM forcing them to roleplay. But that's what the player
> is doing when they say "No, I refuse to be seduced"... they're refusing
> to roleplay (in a general case).
WHAT?!? I refuse to let most of my characters be seduced because
they don't have the sort of personality susceptible to short-term
sexual liaisons, despite someone else's die rolls. And you call
that refusing to roleplay?
If someone really wants to seduce my character, they're going
to have to convince me through roleplaying that they can find
an approach that could appeal to my character. And it would
have to be a mutual personal bond, NOT a seductress's attempt
to add another notch to her dangling earrings.
Remember that most versions/editions of the rules have strongly
suggested that Seduction skill can't be used against PCs.
If you, as GM, overruled my roleplaying of the character and
ruled that my character was seduced by a bored player's die roll,
I'd be out of your house and your game in five minutes. Your
players' mileage must vary.
--Nonie
Mark Grundy
writes:
> An interesting topic came up at a RPG roundtable discussion at Arisia
(a convention here in Boston). I asked the panel how they would
handle an NPC using a seduction skill on a PC, or even another PC
using the seduction skill on a PC. This question could be broadened
to any social skill.
> How do you get the use of negotiation, seduction, and other skills
that enhance social abilities if the player wants to roleplay it out?
What if you feel the NPC would be better at the particular social
skill than the game master/referee?
A seduction scene is a very particular kind of play contract, in
which you ask the player to make the character vulnerable to some kind
of temptation. Before asking a player to commit to such a scene, it's
worthwhile asking yourself what the player will get out of it -- because
the player will likely be asking the same question. If you, as
narrator, haven't got an answer to this question, then players can quite
understandably resist your seduction scenes no matter how well you run
them.
The trick to making a seduction work is to make the player want it
to work. Then, whether you do it as dice or as a fully played scene
becomes just a matter of taste -- you play it to some mutually agreed
level of comfort.
What will please the player? Is it the chance to develop or grow
the character, or expose some new side to its nature? Will the scene
open new opportunities for the character's success? Will it affect the
character's social situation, material circumstances or reputation? Are
these things that the player wants?
If the answer is none of the above, then don't run that scene with
that player. It won't work. Find a player it will work for.
Recall that not all seductions are sexual. A seduction could be
about food, power, vengeance, wealth, even freedom or family love -- a
seduction occurs any time someone's heart is manipulated to dominate
their head. In stories, seduction scenes work best when there is
already evidence of strong feelings in the character. If the character
is mostly played as a sexless ascetic, then don't try seducing him with
wine, women and song -- the audience won't believe it. But if the
character has just burst out of three years confinement in some stinking
dungeon, you could seduce him with nothing more than a hot bath and a
glass of fresh water.
A seduction should never be a sure thing. Seductions are
temptations, and temptations are about the consequences of choice. If
you need a specific outcome and nothing else will do, then don't run the
scene as a seduction. Build it some other way. Seduce an NPC, or
spring a trap. Don't give the players the feeling that they have choice
when you won't deliver on that.
In short, my rules for running seductions are:
1) Make 'em credible. Find emotions already latent in the character,
build them up, then tempt them. Don't look to seduce emotions that
haven't been played.
2) Make sure the player trusts you to give value from a seduction scene.
Make sure they _get_ value when it's run.
3) Play 'em to the level of comfort of the whole group. Use dice if
necessary, cut scenes, or play it out moment by moment if the group
wants that -- whatever keeps the players involved.
4) Prepare to play out the consequences of refusing the seduction. A
properly seduced victim should initially kick himself if he says no,
but the players should decide for themselves at the end, whether the
decision was right or wrong. Don't make that decision for them.
-------
Dr Mark Grundy, Phone: +61-6-249 0159
Education Co-ordinator, Fax: +61-6-249 0747
CRC for Advanced Computational Systems,
The Australian National University,
0200 Australia Email: ma...@cisr.anu.edu.au
Mark Grundy
This time I'd like to write about negotiations.
In article <30FC00...@avid.com>, Rob Ciccolini <bob_ci...@avid.com>
writes:
> An interesting topic came up at a RPG roundtable discussion at Arisia
(a convention here in Boston). I asked the panel how they would
handle an NPC using a seduction skill on a PC, or even another PC
using the seduction skill on a PC. This question could be broadened
to any social skill.
> How do you get the use of negotiation, seduction, and other skills
that enhance social abilities if the player wants to roleplay it out?
What if you feel the NPC would be better at the particular social
skill than the game master/referee?
Recall that the final measure of plausibility in any story is the
audience's measure. In roleplaying, the players are the game's main
audience. In cases where the social skills are being used on a
player-character, I think it's essential that the player believes in the
scene. Otherwise, you may as well be writing stories just for yourself,
and leaving the players out of it.
It is credible to play negotiation skills against NPCs, and let some
abstract result determine the outcome, without going into details. Many
NPCs are flexible enough dramatic entities to go along with such devices
without hitches. Storywise, it can be dissatisfying, but at least it
doesn't cause arguments.
When it comes to playing negotiations against other PCs, though,
it's important that the players stay in touch with ther characters'
motives. If you insist that the character do things for which the
player can't find a motive, then the player loses faith in your game.
Having a character with high negotiation skills may give the player
unreasonable expectations for what can be achieved with other PCs. For
some games (like TOON, say), it's quite plausible to simply make a roll,
and ask the other PC to `act dumb' and go along with the fast-talk
schtick, because that's part of the play agreement underlying the genre.
For most games, though, PCs shouldn't be asked to do that. It's up to
the GM to give the players a clear understanding of what is possible
with the skill, and why.
If a player chooses a character with high negotiation skills, it may
be that the player is interested in negotiation itself. Roleplaying
offers one of the best means for learning negotiation that I've ever
seen. If, as GMs, we offer interesting negotiation opportunities for
players, and the chance for some honest discussion afterwards, I think
we're doing well both for our stories, and for the skills that our
players will take back with them into other parts of their lives.
Negotiation is about understanding motives (yours and others), about
working those motives into a vision, and then about communicating the
vision so other people will see it the way you want them to. We can
explore this very easily in roleplaying by discussing player and
character motives, by discussing visions out of character, and by
playing question and answer in character to help a player explain the
vision.
Something I do when a PC has high levels of Persuade and Intimidate
skills in my Cyberpunk games, or Oratory and Intrigue skills in my
Pendragon games, is to give the player a clear indication (in or out of
character) of what the victims want, and what they'd like to hear, or
else what they're afraid of, and will try to avoid. I lead my NPCs with
their chins, to give the player both confidence and understanding of how
to deal with them.
After a few scenes like this, I generally find that the player is
getting more confident in the character's negotiation skills, and is
rapidly working out how to apply them. The other players also begin to
see the character as successful, and start to play to it in that way.
Sometimes, they'll lead with their chins too, or skirt the character
cautiously. Sometimes they'll explain out of character, what their
character is feeling. Either way, it achieves the desired effect, and
perhaps the players learn a little from each other along the way.
--
Carl D. Cravens
>WHAT?!? I refuse to let most of my characters be seduced because
>they don't have the sort of personality susceptible to short-term
>sexual liaisons, despite someone else's die rolls. And you call
>that refusing to roleplay?
I'm referring to a reasonable situation. If the GM gives you a
reasonable situation in which there is a chance your character might be
seduced, I expect you to roleplay it properly... not say "my character
isn't seduced" because you the player doesn't want it to happen. It's
about as unreasonable as saying "my character isn't injured by that
sword blow" just because you don't want it to happen. If your character
happens to be immune to sword blows or seduction, that's fine... but
otherwise I'd expect the character to react appropriately to situations
presented. If the character's not the type to be easily seduced,
okay... but I expect a skillful seductress with the appropriate tack to
have a chance of success, no matter what the _player_ wants for the
character. Roleplaying is full of things happening to the character
that the player might dislike... I don't see why this should be any
different.
>Remember that most versions/editions of the rules have strongly
>suggested that Seduction skill can't be used against PCs.
I'm not much into what the rules of any particular system say. If I can
use my sword skill, fast talk skill, and torture skill on your PC, I can
certainly use seduction. It all depends on the situation as to whether
or not I should be successful.
--
Carl (rave...@southwind.net)
* It's only a hobby ... only a hobby ... only a
Lydia Leong
Mark Grundy <ma...@arp.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <30FC00...@avid.com>, Rob Ciccolini <bob_ci...@avid.com>
>writes:
>
> necessary, cut scenes, or play it out moment by moment if the group
> wants that -- whatever keeps the players involved.
Jumping somewhat off-topic... Another thread in this group, recently,
argued the use of personality-determination game mechanics (Pendragon
and Ars Magica both offer these, for example).
I find that a Personality Trait game mechanic comes in very handy in
these sorts of situations, where the _player_ is not necessarily
comfortable making a "decision" one way or another. The "neutrality"
of the roll saves the player some potential embarassment of trying
to figure out what to do. (I find that there are times in many
groups when "getting into things" slips into "feeling vaguely
embarassed at one's actions.)
Pendragon has that useful Chaste/Lustful mechanic, as well as Flirting
and Romance, for those times when you don't really have a group or a
mood to talk out such things.
More on-topic... I think that the key to "seduction", in terms of
character development, is to give the character something he
desperately wants and knows he shouldn't have. Whether this is a
favored sword with a nasty curse attached, gold extorted from the city
treasury, or the married wife of his lord, you want something which
the character wants _really badly_, but will feel _really guilty_
about. Simple seductions don't quite have the impact of self-corruption.
-- Lydia
David Boatright
nri...@hadron.us.oracle.com (Anne B. "Nonie" Rider) writes:
> Path:
dboat.demon.co.uk!news.demon.co.uk!demon!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet.eel.
ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com!hadron.us.oracle
com!nrider
> From: nri...@hadron.us.oracle.com (Anne B. "Nonie" Rider)
> Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
> Subject: Re: Social Skills in RP
> Date: 22 Jan 1996 18:55:24 GMT
> Organization: Oracle Corp.
> Lines: 28
> Distribution: world
> Message-ID: <4e0mis$4...@inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com>
> References: <dbEAxwIe...@southwind.net> <30FC00...@avid.com>
<3Jk/wwIeE7...@southwind.net> <4dp9jf$p...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>
> Reply-To: nri...@hadron.us.oracle.com (Anne B. "Nonie" Rider)
> NNTP-Posting-Host: hadron.us.oracle.com
>
> rave...@southwind.net (Carl D. Cravens) wrote:
>
> > Sure... a player properly roleplaying their character is going to be
> > better than the GM forcing them to roleplay. But that's what the player
> > is doing when they say "No, I refuse to be seduced"... they're refusing
> > to roleplay (in a general case).
>
>
> they don't have the sort of personality susceptible to short-term
> sexual liaisons, despite someone else's die rolls. And you call
> that refusing to roleplay?
>
> to have to convince me through roleplaying that they can find
> an approach that could appeal to my character. And it would
> have to be a mutual personal bond, NOT a seductress's attempt
> to add another notch to her dangling earrings.
>
> suggested that Seduction skill can't be used against PCs.
>
> ruled that my character was seduced by a bored player's die roll,
> I'd be out of your house and your game in five minutes. Your
> players' mileage must vary.
>
> --Nonie
>
>
Has none of your characters ever been seduced. Have your character's
personalities ever varied. Surely your falling into the same bad rolpeplaying
trap.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| David Boatright EMail da...@dboat.demon.co.uk
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary K. Kuhner
>Has none of your characters ever been seduced. Have your character's
>personalities ever varied. Surely your falling into the same bad
>roleplaying trap.
>| David Boatright EMail da...@dboat.demon.co.uk
There's a difference between "my character won't be seduced because of a
GM decision" and "my character won't be seduced."
It's also true that most players have character types they prefer not to
play; if a particular player just doesn't do sexually active characters,
that doesn't strike me as bad roleplaying. Some people don't do mages.
Some people don't do pacifists. I have tried repeatedly, and failed, to
do convincing characters motivated by money. As long as the player isn't
constantly producing characters just like him/herself I don't see a
problem.
In any case, if the player doesn't go for the idea, is forcing them
really contributing to the fun of the game, for them or anyone else?
That's not been my experience.
One of the key turns of the _Paradisio_ campaign was one of the
characters falling in love with an enemy agent. I don't see any way the
GM could possibly have forced this to happen that would have been
satisfactory; but it did happen, despite the obvious prudential reasons
it shouldn't, because I felt strongly that that was what the character
would do. If I hadn't felt that way and the GM had said "Jay is in love
with Martha" I would have been baffled--how to roleplay something that
makes no sense to me? The character becomes mechanical, not alive.
The only way I could cope, I think, would be to assume that mind control
was involved--so the character's feelings didn't *have* to flow from her
personality.
Interestingly, the character didn't really understand why she felt that
way, and initially neither did I: I just knew she did. After some
thought I realized that what was going on was Stockholm Syndrome, the
tendency of kidnap victims to side with their captors; but the emotion
came well before the explanation.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Reimer Behrends
: In article: <4e0mis$4...@inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com>
: > WHAT?!? I refuse to let most of my characters be seduced because
: > they don't have the sort of personality susceptible to short-term
: > sexual liaisons, despite someone else's die rolls. And you call
: > that refusing to roleplay?
: Has none of your characters ever been seduced. Have your character's
: personalities ever varied. Surely your falling into the same bad
: rolpeplaying trap.
<SARCASM ON>
My, what on expert on character depth. You only role-play properly if
about half your characters are amenable to casual seduction attempts,
huh? Why didn't it occur to me earlier how much depth susceptibility to
seduction attempts will add to any character. Let me immediately check
out `Fanny Hill' - it must be the best novel in history.
<SARCASM OFF>
Now, not to be misunderstood - there can be much fun in playing a
character along the lines of, say, a Lorenzo da Ponte. But you should
perhaps read more carefully before you make such stupid accusations
(especially learning what the English word `most' means).
Reimer Behrends
Reimer Behrends
: On 22 Jan 1996 18:55:24 GMT, nri...@hadron.us.oracle.com (Anne B. "Nonie" Rider)
: wrote:
: >WHAT?!? I refuse to let most of my characters be seduced because
: >they don't have the sort of personality susceptible to short-term
: >sexual liaisons, despite someone else's die rolls. And you call
: >that refusing to roleplay?
Let me begin by stating that I'm more or less 100% with Nonie on this
one.
: I'm referring to a reasonable situation. If the GM gives you a
: reasonable situation in which there is a chance your character might be
: seduced, I expect you to roleplay it properly... not say "my character
: isn't seduced" because you the player doesn't want it to happen.
So would you react the same way to a refusal that is roleplayed properly?
: It's
: about as unreasonable as saying "my character isn't injured by that
: sword blow" just because you don't want it to happen.
Apples and oranges. Not only are sword blows and seduction attempts two
totally different things (external vs. internal results), but if you
were enforcing the success of a seduction attempt on my character I'd
be mightily annoyed. The character concept is my private property and I
won't allow a GM to ruin it just because he thinks he knows better, as
he quite possibly isn't in a capacity to make such a judgement.
: If your character
: happens to be immune to sword blows or seduction, that's fine... but
: otherwise I'd expect the character to react appropriately to situations
: presented.
Why should refusing a seduction attempt be inappropriate just because
the GM thinks the character should react favourably?
: If the character's not the type to be easily seduced,
: okay... but I expect a skillful seductress with the appropriate tack to
: have a chance of success, no matter what the _player_ wants for the
: character.
Nonsense. The area of personal attraction to other persons is a _wide_
field and depends on a lot of psychological and cultural factors, and
there is no such thing as a guaranteed chance of success at seduction.
A game where such things are resolved by a die roll is little better
than a dungoen crawl, for this works properly only for cardboard
characters.
: Roleplaying is full of things happening to the character
: that the player might dislike... I don't see why this should be any
: different.
See the discussion on autocratic GMs. This is just as bad as the case of
the GM saying that the Cessna couldn't be landed safely, despite
somebody else knowing better.
[...]
Reimer Behrends
G Benage
>But you should perhaps read more carefully before you make such stupid
>accusations (especially learning what the English word `most' means).
>
> Reimer Behrends
Mr. Behrends makes this comment just after his own misinterpretation:
>: If the character's not the type to be easily seduced,
>: okay... but I expect a skillful seductress with the appropriate tack to
>: have a chance of success, no matter what the _player_ wants for the
>: character.
>
>Nonsense. The area of personal attraction to other persons is a _wide_
>field and depends on a lot of psychological and cultural factors, and
>there is no such thing as a guaranteed chance of success at seduction.
Did the poster say *anything* about a "guaranteed chance of success at
seduction"? Nope. The poster believes that a skillfull seductress with
an appropriate angle will have a *chance* of success. Doesn't strike me
as particularly nonsensical.
Mr. Behrends, perhaps you should consider the distinction between the
words "guarantee" and "chance" in the English language before making your
own...er...less-than-brilliant accusations.
I don't want to flame Mr. Behrends...but I think that, if one is going to
be rude to another poster and ascribe "stupid accusations" to them, one
ought to be careful to avoid them in turn.
Regards,
Greg
G Benage
John R. Snead
: Reimer Behrends makes a few comments on the "seduction issue":
: >But you should perhaps read more carefully before you make such stupid
: >accusations (especially learning what the English word `most' means).
: >
: > Reimer Behrends
: Mr. Behrends makes this comment just after his own misinterpretation:
: >: If the character's not the type to be easily seduced,
: >: okay... but I expect a skillful seductress with the appropriate tack to
: >: have a chance of success, no matter what the _player_ wants for the
: >: character.
: >
: >Nonsense. The area of personal attraction to other persons is a _wide_
: >field and depends on a lot of psychological and cultural factors, and
: >there is no such thing as a guaranteed chance of success at seduction.
: Did the poster say *anything* about a "guaranteed chance of success at
: seduction"? Nope. The poster believes that a skillfull seductress with
: an appropriate angle will have a *chance* of success. Doesn't strike me
: as particularly nonsensical.
This doesn't strike me as nonsensical. There are numerous characters,
just as there are numerous folks in real life who simply cannot be
seduced. Many individuals who are happily married, or celibate by vow
are simply *not* vulnerable to seduction, no matter how skilled.
If the seducer is using magic or paranormal abilities then things are
much less certain, but simple skill will give the seducer a chance with
many people, but certainly not all. If someone's character concept
is a devote priest or a character who is happily married, or someone
in a similar position, then I see no reason to allow *any* roll, since
there is *no* change of success.
The concept of suing seduction rolls on PCs also bothers me quite a bit,
as does similar acts such as using rolls convince a PC to perform any
action. I prefer diced gaming, but I hate games where dice are used to
to determine personality or behavior of PCs.
-John jsn...@netcom.com
Mary K. Kuhner
>The poster believes that a skillfull seductress with
>an appropriate angle will have a *chance* of success. Doesn't strike me
>as particularly nonsensical.
I just don't think so. If the person being seduced has a strong sexual
orientation, for example, and it's the wrong one, the seductress may be
out of luck. I've seen a very attractive gay man flirt with my husband
and it just leaves my husband baffled because he doesn't see men as
sexually attractive. Women get a different reaction.
On the other hand, I don't have that strong orientation and a woman
might be able to seduce me. It really varies with the person, and I
tend to think that some people cannot be seduced at all, and many people
cannot possibly be seduced by a particular seducer or in a particular
situation, no matter what angle is tried.
I would not expect my PC with this skill to have a chance of success
against every target, either. I just don't see the skill as working
that way. You can't use money to bribe someone who doesn't want money;
you can't use sex to sway someone who isn't interested in sex, or who
finds you horribly unappealing. Those are the breaks.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Scott Olson
> The concept of suing seduction rolls on PCs also bothers me quite a bit,
> as does similar acts such as using rolls convince a PC to perform any
> action. I prefer diced gaming, but I hate games where dice are used to
> to determine personality or behavior of PCs.
Uhm, how about on NPCs? I can see using them in cases where the GM
is unsure about the NPCs reaction, but how about in a situation where the
NPC is fully developed enough that the GM would be able to make a decision
based on the NPCs character (not on dramatic considerations or advancing
some plot)?
Scott
Scott Olson
> In article <4ecdao$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> gbe...@aol.com (G Benage) writes:
>
> >The poster believes that a skillfull seductress with
> >an appropriate angle will have a *chance* of success. Doesn't strike me
> >as particularly nonsensical.
>
> I just don't think so. If the person being seduced has a strong sexual
> orientation, for example, and it's the wrong one, the seductress may be
> out of luck. I've seen a very attractive gay man flirt with my husband
> and it just leaves my husband baffled because he doesn't see men as
> sexually attractive. Women get a different reaction.
> On the other hand, I don't have that strong orientation and a woman
> might be able to seduce me. It really varies with the person, and I
> tend to think that some people cannot be seduced at all, and many people
> cannot possibly be seduced by a particular seducer or in a particular
> situation, no matter what angle is tried.
Heh, I think the operative term here is 'appropriate'. The wrong
sex, to someone with a strong orientation, might be enough to prevent the
existence of that appropriate angle for that seducer.
> I would not expect my PC with this skill to have a chance of success
> against every target, either. I just don't see the skill as working
> that way. You can't use money to bribe someone who doesn't want money;
> you can't use sex to sway someone who isn't interested in sex, or who
> finds you horribly unappealing. Those are the breaks.
Sure, but seduction isn't necessarily sex. That's the common form in
this culture, but there's others: the seduction of power (see Darth
Vader's attempt to seduce Luke in The Empire Strikes Back), wealth, etc.
Most people have angles that can be exploited, IF you know them. Finding
them can be rather difficult, though.
Scott
Andy Gibson
[snip]
>There's a difference between "my character won't be seduced because of a
>GM decision" and "my character won't be seduced."
>It's also true that most players have character types they prefer not to
>play; if a particular player just doesn't do sexually active characters,
>that doesn't strike me as bad roleplaying. Some people don't do mages.
>Some people don't do pacifists. I have tried repeatedly, and failed, to
>do convincing characters motivated by money. As long as the player isn't
>constantly producing characters just like him/herself I don't see a
>problem.
>In any case, if the player doesn't go for the idea, is forcing them
>really contributing to the fun of the game, for them or anyone else?
>That's not been my experience.
Hmm. Whether this is going to contribute to the fun or not must, IMO,
be a GM judgement issue at the time, but I do have real problems with
allowing the PCs some sort of "immunity". I have, on one occasion,
seen a boor who claimed (in an argument about criminal confessions)
that no-one innocent would ever confess without extreme physical
torture. Two opponents in the discussion then proceeded to
"interrogate" him until he "confessed" to jumping a red light on his
way to the venue. No torture (not even any physical contact). No
magic. No mysterious mental powers. Just skill at human psychology
and "interrogation" techniques (both "interrogators" had, I
understand, been in the army). Many gamers seem to be quite happy
that their character might be affected by a "magic spell" or some
such, but seem horrified at the idea that a skill might have similar
power. Maybe they need to feel that *they* themselves are immune to
such skills. A word of warning: you're not. I don't see why PCs in a
roleplaying game should be, either, but the area certainly needs
careful handling if it is not to make players feel threatened and
endanger SOD/IC.
Andy
Thomas Lindgren
: Did the poster say *anything* about a "guaranteed chance of success at
: an appropriate angle will have a *chance* of success. Doesn't strike me
: as particularly nonsensical.
This doesn't strike me as nonsensical. There are numerous characters,
just as there are numerous folks in real life who simply cannot be
seduced. Many individuals who are happily married, or celibate by vow
are simply *not* vulnerable to seduction, no matter how skilled.
First of all, "seduction" as a simple skill roll seems a bit daft.
Seduction skills usually seem a bit too much like "Ummm ...
I take'er/'im out on a date ... Do I score?". I'd say you are
right in that respect.
But, there's been good books written about blackguards seducing the
virtuous (I'm thinking in particular of the book of Choderlos Laclos (hmm,
I think) that became the movie Dangerous Liaisons). This is often
the _point_ of many a play or book, esp. from times past: Is such a
thing possible? What are the consequences?
So, I'd say there is a chance, but over a longer period of time.
Yeah, yeah, call me a cynic :-)
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren, Uppsala University "Scientists now consider the rhino
tho...@csd.uu.se, lind...@sics.se to be extinct" - TV4 News, 27/12 '95
http://www.csd.uu.se/~thomasl/ We'll miss you.
Copyright Thomas Lindgren, 1996. Distribution on Microsoft Network prohibited.
A Lapalme
>
> Hmm. Whether this is going to contribute to the fun or not must, IMO,
> be a GM judgement issue at the time, but I do have real problems with
> allowing the PCs some sort of "immunity". I have, on one occasion,
> seen a boor who claimed (in an argument about criminal confessions)
> that no-one innocent would ever confess without extreme physical
> torture. Two opponents in the discussion then proceeded to
> "interrogate" him until he "confessed" to jumping a red light on his
> way to the venue. No torture (not even any physical contact). No
> magic. No mysterious mental powers. Just skill at human psychology
> and "interrogation" techniques (both "interrogators" had, I
> understand, been in the army). Many gamers seem to be quite happy
> that their character might be affected by a "magic spell" or some
> such, but seem horrified at the idea that a skill might have similar
> power. Maybe they need to feel that *they* themselves are immune to
> such skills. A word of warning: you're not. I don't see why PCs in a
> roleplaying game should be, either, but the area certainly needs
> careful handling if it is not to make players feel threatened and
> endanger SOD/IC.
>
little problem in making me admit I ran a red light even though I hadn't.
It's just not that important. OTOH, something critical to me, such as
making me admit that my daughterh committed a hideous crime which she
didn't do, would be an entirely different thing.
As somoene else posted, we all have our price. Sometimes, though the
offer isn't worth it, so we don't sell our soul.
*********
I can see the problem of character immunity. However, I've come to the
conclusion that my job as GM does not require that I force a moral outcome
on a character. That's the players's job to decide on the outcome. My
job is to force them to make a choice.
Alain
Kevin Lowe
: I have, on one occasion,
: seen a boor who claimed (in an argument about criminal confessions)
: that no-one innocent would ever confess without extreme physical
: torture. Two opponents in the discussion then proceeded to
: "interrogate" him until he "confessed" to jumping a red light on his
: way to the venue. No torture (not even any physical contact). No
: magic. No mysterious mental powers. Just skill at human psychology
: and "interrogation" techniques (both "interrogators" had, I
: understand, been in the army). Many gamers seem to be quite happy
: that their character might be affected by a "magic spell" or some
: such, but seem horrified at the idea that a skill might have similar
: power. Maybe they need to feel that *they* themselves are immune to
: such skills. A word of warning: you're not. I don't see why PCs in a
: roleplaying game should be, either, but the area certainly needs
: careful handling if it is not to make players feel threatened and
: endanger SOD/IC.
: Andy
An excellent point, and one, I think, that needs further exploration.
In our real world, mind control and brainwashing are real, well
understood and widely applied mental phenomena. The communists used it
during the cold war, fringe religious groups use it to gain converts, the
military uses it to create controllable killers, and I'm sure it goes on
in many other places and ways. Having seperately researched domestic
violence and mind control for different projects, I noted widespread
similarities in what goes on in both situations.
(Sorry if tenses and forms got a little screwy there, my sentences were
getting complicated. I hope I was clear, anyway.)
So, what if a PC is captured by the enemy and brainwashed? Or decides to
go to a fortnight retreat with the Moonies, or the Family of Love
(Children of God), or the Boston Church of Christ? Or joins the
Marines? Or marries and lives with a violent partner?
In all of these situations, perfectly normal people act in predictable,
maladaptive and (from an external point of view) irrational ways. If a
magic spell of some sort can coerce a PC into doing something they
normally would never consider, I think it is a very short step to
allowing a PC to be controlled by purely psychological means.
The problems this would cause are obvious, I think. Especially if either
the player or referee involved didn't know a whole lot about the mental
phenomena involved, and most people don't.
I can't think of any constructive advice on how to handle such situations
right now, so I'll throw it open to discussion...
Kevin Lowe, (Brisbane, Australia, had most of a psychology degree before
realising he had no desire to be a psychologist, now pursuing a
philosophy degree, if you really want to know, which you probably don't.
Oh well).
Mary K. Kuhner
> Scott
If a player in my game were using Seduction, as a diced skill, against a
well-developed NPC, I would ask for a roll and think about the
situation. Perhaps this seduction is impossible: if so, the roll
determines how quickly the PC realizes and how much offense s/he causes
in the process. Perhaps it's possible: then the roll will give me some
indication how well the PC does at finding the right approach. I'll
listen to what the player says and think about what the dice say, and
decide accordingly. Detail level will depend on what the player is
comfortable with.
It's analogous, in some ways, to a Search roll. If there is
nothing to be found, even a 100% roll won't find anything; but it can
make the search quick, efficient, unobtrusive and certain. If this PC
can't seduce this NPC no matter what, the roll does the same sorts of
things. If the player tells me a really good guess where the hidden
object is, or how the NPC can be seduced, I'll interpret the die roll
more favorably.
I don't mind, as a player, a similar approach applied to seduction of my
PC, except I'd like to make the final determination myself. NPC rolls
85%, GM says "Tanith takes Chernoi out to dinner and makes a very
stylish, very appealing pass at her. Chernoi finds her unexpectedly
attractive. What does Chernoi do?"
As it happens, Chernoi said "I just killed a man, and I'm too shaken up
to think about sex tonight; but I'm terribly flattered...and there might
be an opportunity in the future." But I really can't expect the GM to
know that, so I needed to have the last call. As it happens, the GM
didn't even know whether Chernoi was interested in women: the answer
might as well have been "Heavens, you should try that line on my
husband; you're just not my type."
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mary K. Kuhner
>In all of these situations, perfectly normal people act in predictable,
>maladaptive and (from an external point of view) irrational ways. If a
>magic spell of some sort can coerce a PC into doing something they
>normally would never consider, I think it is a very short step to
>allowing a PC to be controlled by purely psychological means.
>The problems this would cause are obvious, I think. Especially if either
>the player or referee involved didn't know a whole lot about the mental
>phenomena involved, and most people don't.
>Kevin Lowe
Players and GMs who are willing to do very in-depth roleplaying and
really get into it can actually rediscover some of this stuff without
formal knowledge. I got a first-hand lesson in how Stockhold Syndrome
works in a game once; it was startling, since I had never understood
that and the GM had never even heard of it. It took several months of
one-on-one roleplaying of the PC's captivity to accomplish, though.
It was fascinating, in an upsetting way. As I think I understand it in
retrospect, what happens is that people define themselves by those
around them--they know themselves by the reactions of others. It's very
hard to be a human being in a vacuum. After a point it was
psychologically easier for Jayhawk to engage herself with her captors
than to be engaged with nothing. And it's not that far from relating to
them to caring what they think of you, and what happens to them.
Scary stuff. I was particularly impressed that the GM, although he was
obviously willing to use GM decree, never actually had to do so.
The question you have to ask is: does this, for a given group of
players, make a good game? In the game I was referring to,
when the PC was captured the GM said "The party think's she's
dead, so rescue is terribly unlikely; and you know Paradisio's
reputation for turning their prisoners. Are you interested
in playing this out?" Had there been other players, I would probably
have said No....the needed detail work would take too much time away
from them. I don't think it can be done without detail work, unless
both GM and player are intimately familiar with psych-warfare tactics:
the results are just too counterintuitive.
Many psych-warfare situations really remove the PC from playability;
a half-starved, dazed cult member is more of an object to be rescued
than a person to be played, in most games. So this needs to be handled
circumspectly, or the player may rightly question why she's bothering to
play.
If the detail work can't be done, I'd use dice--that's how I handle
interrogation under torture, because the details make me ill. But I'd
also shy away from putting a PC in that situation unless I had no
choice: both using dice and making decrees interfere with player
understanding of character, while detail work may be too painful to
be part of a fun game.
I think I'd be willing to accept a die roll followed by "You talk under
torture" for most of my PCs, but I can see why many players wouldn't.
If you've never encountered the bits of your own psyche that would
cause *you* to talk under torture, it's hard to understand. Even harder
when only psychological pressure is involved. The GM can't really say
"Go out and read some cult-survivor accounts" just to make a scenario
run smoothly (though you'll certainly get more intense results if you
do).
A tricky topic, indeed. I think it's really important to bear in mind
that just because something *can* happen in the game doesn't necessarily
mean it's a good thing to depict, or even allow, for a particular
group. It's almost never bad to ask, as my GM did: Can we really enjoy
doing this, or had we better not?
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Reimer Behrends
: Reimer Behrends makes a few comments on the "seduction issue":
: >But you should perhaps read more carefully before you make such stupid
: >accusations (especially learning what the English word `most' means).
: >
: > Reimer Behrends
: Mr. Behrends makes this comment just after his own misinterpretation:
Eh, let's drop this formality, yes? By the way, you don't debate the
accuracy of my criticism, do you?
: >: If the character's not the type to be easily seduced,
: >: okay... but I expect a skillful seductress with the appropriate tack to
: >: have a chance of success, no matter what the _player_ wants for the
: >: character.
: >
: >Nonsense. The area of personal attraction to other persons is a _wide_
: >field and depends on a lot of psychological and cultural factors, and
: >there is no such thing as a guaranteed chance of success at seduction.
: Did the poster say *anything* about a "guaranteed chance of success at
: seduction"? Nope.
I still think that I was more or less paraphrasing what Carl said (who
is more than welcome to correct me).
: The poster believes that a skillfull seductress with
: an appropriate angle will have a *chance* of success. Doesn't strike me
: as particularly nonsensical.
It is, because the situation may be one where there simply is no chance
of the seductress being successful. The victim may just find her
unattractive, no matter how appropriate her angle is, to give a simple
example. He may not have the desire to enter a casual liaison (even
to the point of finding this detestable).
: Mr. Behrends, perhaps you should consider the distinction between the
: words "guarantee" and "chance" in the English language before making your
: own...er...less-than-brilliant accusations.
I wasn't talking about a `guarantee', but about a `guaranteed chance',
which is a different beast. Fairly synonymous to `definite possibility'
or `minimum probability' in this context. An adjective, for your
information, qualifies the noun to which it is attached, it doesn't
replace it.
: I don't want to flame Mr. Behrends...
Then you're sailing under false colours. Your article is quite obviously
a flame (especially considering your previous paragraph). Now if you
want to write a flame, go ahead, but at least you should have the
courage to stand by it, instead of weaseling out of it in a way that
would be the pride of Black Adder.
: but I think that, if one is going to
: be rude to another poster and ascribe "stupid accusations" to them, one
: ought to be careful to avoid them in turn.
<shrug> I've never claimed that I am perfect (although I happen to
think that in this particular case you are barking up the wrong tree),
but I was just replying to a particularly nasty article (namely David
Boatright's) and therefore didn't concern myself overly with politeness,
as I made quite clear.
Reimer Behrends
Reimer Behrends
: mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
[...]
: >In any case, if the player doesn't go for the idea, is forcing them
: >really contributing to the fun of the game, for them or anyone else?
: >That's not been my experience.
: Hmm. Whether this is going to contribute to the fun or not must, IMO,
: be a GM judgement issue at the time, but I do have real problems with
: allowing the PCs some sort of "immunity".
Nobody here is saying that the PCs should have immunity, just that
having the GM enforce such reactions usually is a bad idea.
: I have, on one occasion,
: seen a boor who claimed (in an argument about criminal confessions)
: that no-one innocent would ever confess without extreme physical
: torture.
Which is obviously wrong (too many counterexamples). However, if he had
said that there are innocent people who wouldn't ever confess, even
under extreme physical torture, I would have to agree with him.
: Two opponents in the discussion then proceeded to
: "interrogate" him until he "confessed" to jumping a red light on his
: way to the venue. No torture (not even any physical contact).
Torture doesn't need to be physical. The former East-German
`Staatssicherheit' (their secret police) specialized in psychological
torture. The only thing that is remotely unrealistic about how Orwell's
`1984' ends is that they probably wouldn't have needed the rats
(although it makes the scene far more convincing to the average reader
and is also excellent use of dramatic techniques).
: No
: magic. No mysterious mental powers. Just skill at human psychology
: and "interrogation" techniques (both "interrogators" had, I
: understand, been in the army).
Well, of course. After a few weeks in a `Staatssicherheit' prison, the
average person was glad to confess everything the interrogators asked
him or her to confess. Sometimes simply because he was the only
one who showed some compassion. But I digress ...
: Many gamers seem to be quite happy
: that their character might be affected by a "magic spell" or some
: such, but seem horrified at the idea that a skill might have similar
: power. Maybe they need to feel that *they* themselves are immune to
: such skills. A word of warning: you're not.
Right. (Although it depends on what is done to the character; for
instance, I myself would probably be fairly immune against the
psychological torture mentioned above, because I know a lot about how to
counter such attempts.)
: I don't see why PCs in a
: roleplaying game should be, either, but the area certainly needs
: careful handling if it is not to make players feel threatened and
: endanger SOD/IC.
Precisely. Inappropriate handling of such a situation is what I was
arguing against primarily (and also that the character may indeed not
fall for it).
Reimer Behrends
russell wallace
>If a player in my game were using Seduction, as a diced skill, against a
>well-developed NPC, I would ask for a roll and think about the
>situation. Perhaps this seduction is impossible: if so, the roll
>determines how quickly the PC realizes and how much offense s/he causes
>in the process. Perhaps it's possible: then the roll will give me some
>indication how well the PC does at finding the right approach. I'll
>listen to what the player says and think about what the dice say, and
>decide accordingly. Detail level will depend on what the player is
>comfortable with.
I think this approach is quite reasonable, though as it happens I don't
make rolls for skills like Seduction (I do allow PCs to take them, but I
take them into account in a diceless manner. Same for the Charisma
stat.)
>I don't mind, as a player, a similar approach applied to seduction of my
>PC, except I'd like to make the final determination myself. NPC rolls
>85%, GM says "Tanith takes Chernoi out to dinner and makes a very
>stylish, very appealing pass at her. Chernoi finds her unexpectedly
>attractive. What does Chernoi do?"
>As it happens, Chernoi said "I just killed a man, and I'm too shaken up
>to think about sex tonight; but I'm terribly flattered...and there might
>be an opportunity in the future." But I really can't expect the GM to
>know that, so I needed to have the last call. As it happens, the GM
>didn't even know whether Chernoi was interested in women: the answer
>might as well have been "Heavens, you should try that line on my
>husband; you're just not my type."
>Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Agreed, but more strongly. Having the GM tell me outright what my
character does or does not do is almost the only thing I can think of
that could immediately break a game for me. What I mean is, my response
to a GM *telling* me that an NPC's seduction attempt (or other use of
social abilities) succeeded could very well be: "I'm sorry, but that's
not acceptable. NPC actions are determined by the GM; by definition PC
actions are determined by the player. If this character is still a PC,
by definition, my decision about how he reacts is definitive. If you
want to take him over as an NPC, I'll give you the character sheet and
find another game."
Does anyone else feel this strongly about the issue?
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwal...@vax1.tcd.ie
G Benage
<behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de> writes:
"Definite maybe," eh? Whatever. In any case, the poster already
bracketed-out the cases in which there was *no chance*: those
cases in which the seducer does not have an appropriate angle.
This "angle" will have to include the factors you mention, and the
degree to which they do will influence the probability of success.
As you unintentionally point out, the "angle" might be very simple--
if you're attempting a sexual seduction, you'd better make yourself
attractive to the target of your affections; if the target is simply not
interested in a casual encounter, you'd better offer (at least the
illusion) of something more, something the target *does* desire.
As has already been noted, that is the nature of temptation and
no human being is immune to it.
: I don't want to flame Mr. Behrends...
>Then you're sailing under false colours. Your article is quite obviously
>a flame (especially considering your previous paragraph). Now if you
>want to write a flame, go ahead, but at least you should have the
>courage to stand by it, instead of weaseling out of it in a way that
>would be the pride of Black Adder.
Is it so obviously a flame? You misinterpreted a post in the process of
ascribing "stupid accusations" to its author, and I pointed it out. I
sincerely apologize if my comments were received as an unwarranted
attack.
However, I don't consider this "weaseling," I consider it an attempt to
qualify what might otherwise appear as a personal attack...I consider it
an attempt to maintain civility. Perhaps the attempt is misplaced.
Greg
Dave Flowers
>really get into it can actually rediscover some of this stuff without
>formal knowledge. I got a first-hand lesson in how Stockhold Syndrome
>works in a game once; it was startling, since I had never understood
>that and the GM had never even heard of it. It took several months of
>one-on-one roleplaying of the PC's captivity to accomplish, though.
If anyone would like to read about what happened, Mary wrote up the
adventure and posted it to Usenet a while back. You can read it at
Mary K. Kuhner
>What I mean is, my response
>to a GM *telling* me that an NPC's seduction attempt (or other use of
>social abilities) succeeded could very well be: "I'm sorry, but that's
>not acceptable. NPC actions are determined by the GM; by definition PC
>actions are determined by the player. If this character is still a PC,
>by definition, my decision about how he reacts is definitive. If you
>want to take him over as an NPC, I'll give you the character sheet and
>find another game."
>Does anyone else feel this strongly about the issue?
>Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
>rwal...@vax1.tcd.ie
While I don't feel that strongly, I do see where you're coming from. I
had a character once, a fighter/mage, who decided that using unenchanted
steel was more stylish and truer to the warrior's art than using a magic
sword. The GM said, in essence, "NO, that's not how fighters feel."
This essentially doomed that character, and quickly the campaign.
The only way I have found GM determination of PC decision (outside of
mind control, etc.) to work is when there is an element of negotiation
and compromise involved. I played PBeM with someone who felt fairly
free to say "Catalina feels such-and-such" but the understanding was
that he could be wrong, and I would cut what he'd written and put in the
real response if necessary. (Similarly, I could extrapolate NPCs and
background beyond what he gave, but he'd cut things that were wrong and
replace them.) It was strange, but it helped make the PBeM go faster,
and that was very important to us, so we stuck with it. It also allowed
some exploration of PC insanity--in particular memory lapses and
multiple personality--that I've not seen done in a more conventional
game.
I picked up the habit after that game and tried it in face to face
games. It's risky at best--the player may well feel more pressure to go
along in FTF than in PBeM because of pacing differences and the social
issues of really being able to see and hear each other. But it can
work, and there are some neat effects you can get that way. The
essential element is the player's right of refusal. The GM must not
push her point after the initial statement, or it rapidly becomes
coercive.
For players who've been burned by coercive GMs or who are naturally
touchy on this point I just wouldn't do it. Also, player and GM have to
be on the same wavelength most of the time--unless the GM's suggestions
are generally good ones, it's more distracting than helpful.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
James
D. Cravens) writes:
> Why is it we can accept a Call of Cthulu GM saying "Your character has
> gone insane" but we can't accept the GM suggesting that your character
> might do something you would rather he/she didn't? Why don't we say,
> "No, my character doesn't go insane (isn't seduced)! He resists the
> effects of the mind-twisting horror (tantalizing offer) he has
> experienced"?
Well a lot of people don't like the sanity rule in CoC for precisely the
same reason. Perhaps someone who knows the literature better (I've never
been fond of Lovecraft) can explain this more clearly, but I'll give it a
shot. CoC, like a few other Chaosium games are geared to reproduce very
specific type of atmoshpere. You can run CoC as a generic horror game, hell
I've seen it run with gun fights against cultists. But it is designed to
reproduce a very dated, romantic, dare I say even quaint,
concept of horror in which losing sanity points is very appropriated.
This argument goes hand in hand with are monthly Pendragon personality trait
argument. You can run a feuadal knights campaign easily just scrapping the
traits. The traits are there to help recapture those specific elements
portrayed in the literature. I've got not first hand experience with the
Elric/Stormbringer rules, but I understand they follow the same principle of
closely emulating the books which in the specific case I am told results in
a very unbalanced game.
Regards,
--- James ---
Carl D. Cravens
>social abilities) succeeded could very well be: "I'm sorry, but that's
>not acceptable. NPC actions are determined by the GM; by definition PC
>actions are determined by the player. If this character is still a PC,
>by definition, my decision about how he reacts is definitive. If you
>want to take him over as an NPC, I'll give you the character sheet and
>find another game."
I don't exactly agree with this. PC actions are determined by the
CHARACTER, empowered by the player. PC actions, as well as NPC actions,
should be in-character. This should not be a question of "Do I want my
character to be seduced," but a question of "Should my character be able
to resist this particular enticing proposal?" (Whether that proposal is
a bribe, job offer, offer of relief from torture, or a seduction
attempt.)
Not everything that happens to the character is at the player's
choosing. Granted, I advocate a certain amount of OOC decision based on
the needs of the campaign and group-play. And I'm certainly not
suggesting that the GM should be able to make characters perform
inappropriate actions. I've said that the character should act
appropriately. If the GM expects a seduction attempt to be successful,
the player should be able to explain why it's not. Simply saying, "I
refuse to let my character be seduced" is not an acceptable answer. If
the player has a good reason (the character isn't that type, the player
is not comfortable roleplaying such situations, etc.) then I don't have
a problem with it. But making PC's automatically immune to NPC social
skills is unfair to the GM.
Why is it we can accept a Call of Cthulu GM saying "Your character has
gone insane" but we can't accept the GM suggesting that your character
might do something you would rather he/she didn't? Why don't we say,
"No, my character doesn't go insane (isn't seduced)! He resists the
effects of the mind-twisting horror (tantalizing offer) he has
experienced"?
--
Carl (rave...@southwind.net)
* I was internet when internet wasn't cool.
John Novak
>Agreed, but more strongly. Having the GM tell me outright what my
>character does or does not do is almost the only thing I can think of
>that could immediately break a game for me.
>Does anyone else feel this strongly about the issue?
Yes. I've walked out of games where the GM said, "No, that's _not_
how your character would act!" and tried to make me do something else.
Sorry, no. I know my character better than you do. I left.
That sort of thing can even make me abandon entire game systems.
Champions has silly-assed rules about that sort of thing, and the
first two Champions campaigns I played in, the GMs used them.
I will not play Champions.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
http://cegt201.bradley.edu/~jsn/index.html
The Humblest Man on the Net