Forums of the Megaverse®

I know that Mental Affinity and Physical Beauty are not well defined in terms of their effects. But my game has a character with an MA of 27 (massive god roll made in my presence). The player of this character wants to utilize his MA in a leadership capacity, essentially trying to force characters into doing things his way. I already have some issue with the concept and won't allow it as suggested, but I wanted some opinions about how you handle high MA characters attempting to influence other player characters.

Do you give bonuses if they follow, etc.? Penalties if they are intimidated?

Its up to the individual player to decide how they react to his M.A.

Another broken part of this game... Generally this stuff doesn't come up in my games. Back in the day, I had a godling and I'd just say "Trust Me" after almost everything I said and then roll my Trust/Intimidate % and if I made that roll (Just like a skill roll) then the GM said they trusted me or whatever, so basically NPC's had no real save. However, considering how Perception is now defined, I'd think a mechanic like perception vs. stealth work be much better. Where a D20 is rolled, the NPC or PC being effected would basically just have a straight die roll, unless they had pluses to "all saves" or maybe had a trust/intimdate & of there own. In which case I would divide by 10 and add it to the roll as a bonus.

Example. I have 65% to trust/intimidate. I want the glitter boy PC in the group or the random NPC to trust me that going down the dark alley alone is a good idea. I roll a D20 and add a +6 modifier to my roll (65/10 = 6.5, rounded down to 6) and they just roll a straight D20. So, if my roll is higher, they trust me. If I fail, then they don't trust what I said.

Same set up could work with P.B. also. But like I said if the opposing person also has a trust/intimdate% then they should get to divide by 10 and have that as a bonus vs. other people trying to do it to them.

Obviously house rules, but that's how I'd do it, if I ever had to. Luckily, I have not had to house rule anything like that, I hate house rules.

Expanded Trust/Intimidate Rules: Rifter #60 http://palladium-store.com/1001/product/160-The-Rifter-60.html "Rifts® Black Market™ – Trust and Intimidate: A Way of Life" can also click sneak peak followed by full size preview to see that listed in its table of contents.

Expanded Charm/Impress Rules: Rifter #61 https://palladium-store.com/1001/product/161-The-Rifter-61.html "ALL Game Settings – Charm & Impress, the Keys to Success". Same verification.

-------

Alternatively A Combined Elements Approach:

Black Market Book: Game Player (page 80). Provides a +# to save vs charm, impress, intimidation, and seduction...
= There is a saving throw vs such things...

Since this is a Mundane Saving Throw by nature (not magic or psionic in nature or whatever) utilizing the same base saving throw as for the similar mundane effect of Control Others (DB4:Skraypers) makes a lot of sense. In particular it gives an edge to psionic characters who are used to dealing with mental abilities. However they are specialized in using and resisting Psionic Energy/Nature Mental Effects so while it is an edge Master or Psi-Stalker's are not as resistant as they are to actual psionics.

Finally this IS a form of Mind Control. Therefor any character with a bonus to save vs mind control (or immunity to) would be able to apply it vs these.

Further, there are some very limited sources of effects that reduce the percent effectiveness of such abilities. In particular the Slayer OCC (W18: Mystic Russia) that reduces the % success of Seduction attempts.

----

Some Basic Theoretical Approaches Beyond This:

Only the best of the following should apply not cumulative (just designed to give folks a fighting chance).

Could in theory also reduce the effectiveness of trust/intimidate and charm/impress by the % of the same abilities possess by the target player or NPC.

Any targeted being with a natural Horror Factor higher than the 'attacker' should probably reduce the effectiveness of trust/intimi by 50% or 5% per point of HF (or per point of difference between the two).

Similarly for an AWE factor vs charm/impress or seduction.

Similarly for Perception. (Sees through the 'performance'.)

Similarly for special skills: Eyeball A Fella (Vagabond). (See through the 'performance'.)

Finally regardless of relative abilities if one being can "Goad" (T/I) or "Entice" (C/I or S) another appropriate being into a round of "Trash Talking" (T/I) or "Suave Banter" (C/I or S) wherein they are both attempting to affect the other (regardless of the reason, thrill of the hunt, etc) then a Perception style roll-off (opposed rolls) could be made (best 2 out of 3 rolls). With the resulting winner gaining a momentary edge.

Interestingly as listed the actual Performance skill (RUE) could be used to simulate trust/intimidate, charm/impress, and seduction chances of success. However presumably a failed usage should result in a horrible backfire of the effect. Similar to attempting to intimidate/bluff a bunch of Gunslingers/Gunfighters and failing the roll.

Dlanaan wrote:I know that Mental Affinity and Physical Beauty are not well defined in terms of their effects. But my game has a character with an MA of 27 (massive god roll made in my presence). The player of this character wants to utilize his MA in a leadership capacity, essentially trying to force characters into doing things his way. I already have some issue with the concept and won't allow it as suggested, but I wanted some opinions about how you handle high MA characters attempting to influence other player characters.

Do you give bonuses if they follow, etc.? Penalties if they are intimidated?

There are not hard rules across the board on the use of the MA% (& the PB%).

However, the only place that gives any example of how the MA% (& the PB% in reflection) is used, is in the Ninja and Superspies revised book in the Warrior's Spirit Kata. Where it says the other(s) targeted by the kata have to roll over the kata's user's MA% +the bonus to the % from the kata, or be intimidated.

(Note: this is a disputed example. The dispute is over whether this shows how to use the MA% or just how the Warrior's Spirit Kata works.)
----------------------
Rifter 60&61....this article gives no hard numbers of how to use the MA% in the tactical/personal scale, but does have much about how it might effect the story of the game on a macro scale.

You really have to decide whether or not Social Rules = Mind Control for your games. If they do, then tell the players they're at the mercy of their fellow PC. If they don't, go with the idea that they can be influenced, and it's their responsibility to roleplay that, but ultimately their decisions are always their own.

It's a game, there's nothing wrong with playing along. Just don't let it rule you.

Alrik Vas wrote:You really have to decide whether or not Social Rules = Mind Control for your games. If they do, then tell the players they're at the mercy of their fellow PC. If they don't, go with the idea that they can be influenced, and it's their responsibility to roleplay that, but ultimately their decisions are always their own.

It's a game, there's nothing wrong with playing along. Just don't let it rule you.

I've been thinking about it a bit and think I'm going to go with potential bonuses for players following a successful trust and complying with the high-MA's orders. These bonuses would apply to either skills or combat bonuses (with similar penalties for intimidation).
The bonus would be proportional to how successful the Trust roll succeeds. For example, a character with an MA that has a Trust/Intimidate of 80% that rolls a 25% succeeded by 55%. In terms of skills, I would increase the skill bonus by 5% (10% of the success difference rounding down). For combat, I would increase relevant combat bonuses by +2 (5% of the success difference, rounding down.)

I'm going to see how well this works in practice, but it should mitigate the High MA = Mind control, which I think is ridiculous, and give players the freedom to choose not to act as that high-MA character wishes, but giving benefits to those who do.

I appreciate all the feedback, and would love to hear more thoughts.

There is a difference in knowing someone and meeting them for the first time. I think a rule of diminishing returns should be made

Palladiums choice on how skills work with social interacts is particularly poorly handled (in a game full of poorly handled rules). Having it just "roll vs skill" completely fails to take into account the target (and generally only vaguely takes into account the general difficulty of the task at hand, something palladium has generally left in a completely vague shroud of 'GM makes something up'). Things like this should either never have rules connected to them and left purely in the realm of role playing, or be opposed checks (similar to how strike and dodge work).

Cinos wrote:Palladiums choice on how skills work with social interacts is particularly poorly handled (in a game full of poorly handled rules). Having it just "roll vs skill" completely fails to take into account the target (and generally only vaguely takes into account the general difficulty of the task at hand, something palladium has generally left in a completely vague shroud of 'GM makes something up'). Things like this should either never have rules connected to them and left purely in the realm of role playing, or be opposed checks (similar to how strike and dodge work).

Palladium uses a penalty system to indicate the challenge rating of a target.
You should be assigning penalties to your social roles depending on the situation the same way you give a -30% penalty when working on Alien tech with Mechanical Engineering for example. The target is taken into consideration.

happy Jacks did a thing of social combat. but here is what I would do;
a) understand that the characters are not the players. so the characters will be stronger and weaker in different areas than they are
b) recognize that an MA of 27 is HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE and should be respected
c) Do one of two things; 1) Take the ME of a resistant character and use that as a penalty to the MA roll. 2) Use it as a psionic power-dominate or hypnotic suggestion. You can give bonuses based on alignments depending on what they are being asked to do. Will nevers get +5, selfish character acting non selfishly get +2 etc but otherwise its a straight roll.

Yes Timmy doesn't have an MA of 27, and no one would follow him into a burning building, but his character does.

KillWatch wrote:happy Jacks did a thing of social combat. but here is what I would do;
a) understand that the characters are not the players. so the characters will be stronger and weaker in different areas than they are
b) recognize that an MA of 27 is HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE and should be respected
c) Do one of two things; 1) Take the ME of a resistant character and use that as a penalty to the MA roll. 2) Use it as a psionic power-dominate or hypnotic suggestion. You can give bonuses based on alignments depending on what they are being asked to do. Will nevers get +5, selfish character acting non selfishly get +2 etc but otherwise its a straight roll.

Yes Timmy doesn't have an MA of 27, and no one would follow him into a burning building, but his character does.

If one of the players tries to force his will on the others because he has high social rolls and the GM actually allows it? then the other players aren't even playing, they are just watching the game and possibly fooled into thinking they are playing. Both that control-freak of a player and the GM should both hand in their roleplayer cards and perhaps pick up one of the Solitaire Adventures from Tunnels and Trolls. That seems to be more their style.

I would have to disagree. The other players who don't play along should hand in their cards. Those are the stats and the way it is supposed to work. Now like hypnotic suggestion when things go against their alignment, or is just blatantly untrue or too many things stack up to say hey wait a minute then play that as well.

This is only really an issue if they are being told to do things they wouldn't normally do. he is a charismatic bastardo and just because they are players doesn't make them immune

One of the issues that comes up is where the player acts as if the NPC is now one of his PC's, because of the stat.

One oldish trick is that the NPC is strongly inclined to do what he says BUT can do something else, but at a substantial negative to all skill rolls and combat rolls for several days for resisting the PC's will. This way it's not absolutely controling the NPC, but it does give a huge incentive to the NPC to follow the orders.

I think I stole that one from the sorcerer RPG (not that I actually own it, just heard about it!).

KillWatch wrote:I would have to disagree. The other players who don't play along should hand in their cards. Those are the stats and the way it is supposed to work. Now like hypnotic suggestion when things go against their alignment, or is just blatantly untrue or too many things stack up to say hey wait a minute then play that as well.

This is only really an issue if they are being told to do things they wouldn't normally do. he is a charismatic bastardo and just because they are players doesn't make them immune

I think I'd watch it happening to your PC first, to see how you handle it and go from that working example.

well I guess it depends on how much role playing you are willing to do....

there is plenty of RPing to be done between what they are being told to what the character believes. If you don't know who the character is then yes, it will be like controlling an automaton because there is no IC resistance to what they are being told. Of course a persuasive personality backed up by a reasonable argument can change someone's mind even if its just until they get someone or something to think the other way.

And I have played this. I've killed NPC friends and family members. And that was a good story. As I slowly realized what I had done (in character) I allowed my character to feel that anger and take it out on the other character. The problem comes when the GM does not allow you to pick up on discrepancies, and just say no this is it everytime. Even with drugs there is a build up resistance. The question then becomes which way do you break when you realize the horrible things you have done. many people psychologically refuse to see what they have done or to admit it was wrong, that they were wrong, that they were manipulated and so the manipulation continues.

But if its in line with the character's beleifs then where is the conflict?