Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:55 pm**

How do you deal with players who have an extraordinary MA attribute when they are talking to NPCs.

I have a player with a trust/intimidate of over 90%. Against average your average Joe, his extraordinary MA makes civilians butter in his hands, but I'm not sure how to treat his MA against NPCs with a high MA or ME themselves.

Any ideas on any penalties to apply to his trust/intimidate rolls when dealing with superbeings , etc?

Posted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:00 pm**

I see it something that works against people of a similar or lower power level.

He's not intimidating superbeings in my game. Not even close.

Posted: **Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:29 pm**

TheLlamaFarmer wrote:How do you deal with players who have an extraordinary MA attribute when they are talking to NPCs.

I have a player with a trust/intimidate of over 90%. Against average your average Joe, his extraordinary MA makes civilians butter in his hands, but I'm not sure how to treat his MA against NPCs with a high MA or ME themselves.

Any ideas on any penalties to apply to his trust/intimidate rolls when dealing with superbeings , etc?

i'd subtract any similar bonuses the target of the trust/intimidate effort has against the player's bonuses. so that player with the 90% chance going up against another guy with a 60% chance, the player only has a 30% chance, reflecting the fact the person being influenced is just as talented at manipulating people, and thus will be more likely to see through the efforts.

Posted: **Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:07 am**

The only example of how to use the MA rolls is found in Ninja and Superspys. Its in the Kata called Warriors Spirit. and it Calls for the the one facing the one with the high MA to make a roll over the MA %, or otherwise be intimidated by the char with the High MA stat.
This also shows how the PB % stat is used, because it is an example of how to use a stat % that is otherwise 'not explained how to be used'.

However, this explanation of how the MA stat's % (and reflectively the PB stat %) is in dispute because others believe that the example set forth in the Warrior's Spirit Kata in the N&S book shows only how the Kata works. (the penalties for failing the % roll are stiff, so for a none combat setting I "Might" agree that the penalties wouldn't be applicable.)

As for chars with high ME stats, you take their ME PSI bonus times it by 5 to get a +% to add to their roll vs the other char's ME % (Or PB %).

Posted: **Sun Apr 13, 2008 12:07 pm**

TheLlamaFarmer wrote:How do you deal with players who have an extraordinary MA attribute when they are talking to NPCs.

I have a player with a trust/intimidate of over 90%. Against average your average Joe, his extraordinary MA makes civilians butter in his hands, but I'm not sure how to treat his MA against NPCs with a high MA or ME themselves.

Any ideas on any penalties to apply to his trust/intimidate rolls when dealing with superbeings , etc?

Role-play it, just keep the context.
If a PC uses his MA to intimidate a cop, then it will have the same effect that intimidating a cop would have in real life (probably a call for backup, depending on the situation).
If a PC uses his MA to intimidate somebody with a higher MA, that person can still be intimidate as normal... but they get to intimidate the PC as well. ME doesn't really factor into it.
If it's a mortal dealing with a super being, then he might intimidate the super being... as much as a mortal can.
I've seen some intimidating spiders in my time, but even the most intimidating spider isn't going to affect me enough to keep me from squishing it if I really want to.

Posted: **Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:10 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:Role-play it, just keep the context.
If a PC uses his MA to intimidate a cop, then it will have the same effect that intimidating a cop would have in real life (probably a call for backup, depending on the situation).
If a PC uses his MA to intimidate somebody with a higher MA, that person can still be intimidate as normal... but they get to intimidate the PC as well. ME doesn't really factor into it.
If it's a mortal dealing with a super being, then he might intimidate the super being... as much as a mortal can.
I've seen some intimidating spiders in my time, but even the most intimidating spider isn't going to affect me enough to keep me from squishing it if I really want to.

I'd say do the same for a trust type situation although you might get a slightly different result if you fail (one sus cop on your tail and so on).

Posted: **Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:17 pm**

What do you mean by role play it?

Posted: **Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm**

Natasha wrote:What do you mean by role play it?

Posted: **Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:32 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Natasha wrote:What do you mean by role play it?

I'm sorry that I don't understand the point. I can't help it.

Posted: **Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:47 pm**

Natasha wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Natasha wrote:What do you mean by role play it?

I'm sorry that I don't understand the point. I can't help it.

Yea, I read it as do what you want to do and then roll to see if it does it.

In other words, roll to see if your war face actually scared Gunny Hartmann.

Posted: **Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:49 pm**

lather wrote:
Natasha wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Natasha wrote:What do you mean by role play it?

I'm sorry that I don't understand the point. I can't help it.

Yea, I read it as do what you want to do and then roll to see if it does it.

In other words, roll to see if your war face actually scared Gunny Hartmann.

Ah. Well that does make sense to me.

Posted: **Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:51 pm**

You can't be serious.

Posted: **Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:45 pm**

I'm seeing it now, thanks :-D

Posted: **Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:14 pm**

gadrin wrote:
Natasha wrote:What do you mean by role play it?

I think he means that it shouldn't just always be a table-made-ready answer.

A guy with a high MA or other attribute doesn't just get it by percentages. Make the player play the part. If he's got a high MA make him prove it. Obviously some people are better than others at this sort of thing. The GM can fudge it to make a close call work or not. A GM with new role-players might ask them to interpret what having a high MA means in the game system; then have them RP that out. It should plant a seed and get the player thinking about the next time they use it and how...because once you've got an edge you'll probably keep going back to it.

Another example might be the Charismatic Aura spell, where the word "trust" is offered as it's trigger. However if the game becomes:

PC: "I say a phrase with TRUST in it to the Lizard Mage's henchmen."

it becomes roll-playing.

I think that using that spell anything worded along the lines of building trust with an individual should work, not the "magic word" or phrase.

Make it interesting.

Good guess, but no.

All I'm saying is to role-play the results of the roll.
Yes, it's always good when a player can act with enough charisma to back up the stats on his/her sheet, but that's not exactly role-playing.
Role-Playing means taking on the role of a character, and this often means taking on the role of somebody who can do things that you simply cannot do.
But a socially awkward person playing the character of a dashing con-man is still role-playing, even if he can't back it up in person.
Just like some guy in a wheelchair who plays a nimble acrobat is still role-playing even if he can't walk a tightrope or do a backflip.
This is what the dice are for: to help us take on the role of characters with different abilities from us.

In this case, it's going to be the rare player who can back up an 80% chance to charm/intimidate just with his personality. Most people won't even come close.
That's what the dice are for here: to show what the character can do that the player cannot.

All I'm saying is, in answer to the original question, that there are no specific penalties for the person who is charmed/intimidated, other than the fact that they are now charmed or intimidated.
THIS is where role-playing comes in.
The person playing the character who is charmed/intimidated (probably the GM in this case) has to play out the results of that effect while sticking within the role of the character being affects.
A God who is intimidated by a mortal isn't going to turn into a boot-licking sycophant, because that doesn't fit with the God's character, with the role that the GM is trying to fill.
A more fitting reaction, one that sticks more to the nature of the gods, would be for the God to react by destroying the mortal, or by retreating and sending in minions to kill the mortal, or by cursing the mortal,or by temporarily backing off (but holding a grudge), or by even giving the mortal a measure of respect... but only the kind of respect that a God might have for a mortal, which is about the same measure of respect that a human might have for a rabbit, not the level of respect that is found between two equals (or even near-equals).
Just do whatever is the natural reaction for the character that is affected, to whatever extent is reasonable for that character in that situation.
Role-Play it.

Posted: **Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:51 pm**

Do people not know how to role play?

Posted: **Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:55 pm**

verdilak wrote:Do people not know how to role play?

I do.

Posted: **Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:45 pm**

gadrin wrote:
gadrin wrote:
then have them RP that out.

gee, I thought I typed that

You did, but you were coming from the other side of things, focusing on the person making the check role-playing things out, when I was talking about the person on the receiving end of the check.

Posted: **Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:25 pm**

Natasha wrote:
verdilak wrote:Do people not know how to role play?

I do.

I wonder because of

Natasha wrote:What do you mean by role play it?

Posted: **Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:27 pm**

verdilak wrote:
Natasha wrote:
verdilak wrote:Do people not know how to role play?

I do.

I wonder because of

Natasha wrote:What do you mean by role play it?

I know how to role play.
I don't know how to read his mind.

Posted: **Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:40 pm**

verdilak wrote:
Natasha wrote:
verdilak wrote:Do people not know how to role play?

I do.

I wonder because of

Natasha wrote:What do you mean by role play it?

Seriously?

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:02 pm**

Good point, Killer Cyborg... Only I'm talking only about the MA attribute. You keep saying Charm/intimidate... Charm/Impress is from PB.

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:11 pm**

TheLlamaFarmer wrote:Good point, Killer Cyborg... Only I'm talking only about the MA attribute. You keep saying Charm/intimidate... Charm/Impress is from PB.

Touche.

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:29 pm**

My rule of thumb is that I drop 5% off their skill for every +1 to Save vs Insanity the target has, the reason being Save vs Insanity (i.e a general willpower roll), would be a good defense to retain your own choice in a matter rather then get swept up with what someone else is saying, and if you try to cram a D100 into a D20, 5% equals out to 1 pip. If the character in question is outright lieing, a Perception rather then Save vs Insanity to try and unravel the lies.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:35 am**

gadrin wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
You did, but you were coming from the other side of things, focusing on the person making the check role-playing things out, when I was talking about the person on the receiving end of the check.

well unless you're from another universe where they only do things half-way, there's no way not to involve both.

GM: "Stop right there buddy. These guys don't get to play."

Only one half was asked about in this question, so that was the half I addressed.
You only addressed the other half, which was not asked about.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:27 am**

Which half was asked about?

And if you are going to shake your head at me instead of answering this time, please don't bother whatsoever.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:36 am**

Natasha wrote:Which half was asked about?

And if you are going to shake your head at me instead of answering this time, please don't bother whatsoever.

Done.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:00 am**

Natasha wrote:Which half was asked about?

Both halfs really. The one making the roll when dealing with supernatural beings. If you had to pick a half, which doesn't make any sense, it'd be the one making the roll. I'm not sure why he has such a hard time answering your questions in this thread. :-(

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:11 pm**

I re-read things several more times and I think I figure it out by myself what he was talking about.

Forums of the Megaverse®

Trust/intimidate rolls.

Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.

Re: Trust/intimidate rolls.