Forums of the Megaverse®

All right, here's a problem that I've been struggling with for some time. How do you handle saving throws against skills that are being performed against a player? For example: Your elven female (PB 22) is in a tavern having a drink and some smooth talking casanova walks up and attempts seduction. If the percentage roll is successful, how do you handle giving the character a save against it? The player wouldn't necessarily want their character to fall for this player, but if the dice will it, so shall it be. Still... I need to be fair. How do you folks handle this?

There is no save.

Perhaps you somehow give the elf a Impress roll that would preclude Casanova from attempting Seduction. I guess it depends from the details of the situation though...

Natasha wrote:There is no save.

Perhaps you somehow give the elf a Impress roll that would preclude Casanova from attempting Seduction. I guess it depends from the details of the situation though...

So... the roll just succeeds? Just like that? Hmmm. Think I need to write some kind of anti-skill. Something that allows a player to save against the skills of another character.

Northern Ranger wrote:

Natasha wrote:There is no save.

Perhaps you somehow give the elf a Impress roll that would preclude Casanova from attempting Seduction. I guess it depends from the details of the situation though...

So... the roll just succeeds?

Or just fails....

You could apply penalties or bonuses to the skill attempt if you feel the situation warrants it.

Northern Ranger wrote:

Natasha wrote:There is no save.

Perhaps you somehow give the elf a Impress roll that would preclude Casanova from attempting Seduction. I guess it depends from the details of the situation though...

So... the roll just succeeds? Just like that? Hmmm. Think I need to write some kind of anti-skill. Something that allows a player to save against the skills of another character.

Why?

Because just arbitrarily having the skill succeed without giving the player some sort of attempt at a save is just unfair, as far as I'm concerned anyway. It's kind of the same thing as just arbitrarily saying that they get hit by a fireball rather than giving them a chance to dodge.

It's built into the roll. The player doing the seducing succeeds or fails.

I'm not saying don't do it. After all, players get to save versus poison even if they don't know that they just drank some. Make it a Perception Roll for the player to realise he's being seduced.

I actually had a thought a short time ago. Wondering if perhaps a streetwise check might make a person realize that "casanova" is attempting to seduce them. Or something like a perception check (good idea there), this just seems like something that needs to be addressed! Of course, I'm probably over analyzing it too.

I think if it's going to be countered with a skill then it has to be Casanova's own Seduction skill. If he doesn't have it, then maybe a Perception, or just maybe he doesn't realise what's going on (but he still has a chance (expressed by the elf's chance of failure)).

You can also consider whether or not you want Seduction to even be a skill.

Depends upon your group (sometimes you want to role-play seduction) and your view of what constitutes a "skill" in the Palladium system.

First of all, I would point out that the seduction skill only holds the targets attention, thus distracting the target.

2nd, the smooth talker is relying on their MA and/or PB scores. If the target rolls over the PB/PA %'s of the smooth talker then the skill bonuses from MA and PB to seduction would be eliminated.

3rd, If your PC is the target of such a scenario, then it has to be roleplayed out. Even more so if the other char is a PC.

4th, you might give a peneltiy to the smooth talker equal to the ME bonus as a % [D20-->D100, bonus x5]

Northern Ranger wrote:Because just arbitrarily having the skill succeed without giving the player some sort of attempt at a save is just unfair, as far as I'm concerned anyway. It's kind of the same thing as just arbitrarily saying that they get hit by a fireball rather than giving them a chance to dodge.

The "save" is built into the skill roll.

If Person A has a 30% chance to seduce Person B, that means there is 70% chance of failure. This 70% is the "saving throw"

To make the player feel he is getting that save, simply tell him that his character has a 70% chance to save versus seduction. If he succeeds, he can rebuff the advances. If he fails, his character is seduced.

No different than the fireball.

Okay; the problem is that there is no "counter-roll" that a player gets versus seduction. Some of you seem to think that the current "succeed/fail" system works just fine.

It does not, and for quite a few reasons.

Married man walks into a tavern. His wife (for games' sake) has a PB of 30, but is at home. Said guy (who is incredibly in love with his wife - to the point he'd die for her) runs into ye olde tavern hooker. She has a PB of 18 and rolls a success. Now all the points laid out previous mean absolutely nothing. See a problem here? This is but one.

Another man walks into that very same tavern one hour later. He runs into that same hooker, who rolls a success again (damned loaded dice). Now this guy is suduced by a woman; one problem here though - he's gay. Yet she's 2 for 2.

Finally, Darth Vader walks in (freshly rifted over) and runs into that very same hooker in the tavern one hour after the last guy. She seduces him and succeeds (loaded dice, remember?) Now our evil lord, who lost his wife and is mostly machine has fallen head-over heels for ye-olde tavern hooker. 3 for 3, just because she rolled a success.

The problem is that nothing counters the use of the skill; when you are allowed to impliment it it is on an "I win!" basis. Some people should not have to worry about being seduced - this is the problem with the skill. I mean, it works on the blind for one, despite being under the province of Physical Beauty. Sure, you could rub his hands all over your body to have the attempt make sense - but really...


This is my solution - it does not work on player-characters. Period. It is an arbitrary ability that should only work on people who want it to work on them. Unless that player wanted to be seduced, he shouldn't be forced to act out or go along with something he knows his character wouldn't ever do.
Really, skills like this should be purely in the realm of affects NPC's only. And even then, consider what I wrote above.

Dog_O_War wrote:The problem is that nothing counters the use of the skill; when you are allowed to impliment it it is on an "I win!" basis.

Agreed.
So don't implement it on a "I win!" basis.

I've just always been a firm believer in the old addage "whatever the PC's get, the NPC's should have the same chances." And also, this was a generalized question, not just about the seduction thing. That was just the best example I could think of. But there's also the problem of prowling. A successful roll means that the thief (or whoever) prowls into a residence or castle or keep or.... whatever... and the guards didn't see him. That's just not fair.

Some of PB's games have Perception Rolls for Prowling.

Personally, I have no problems with it one way or the other. BUt I guess I"ve said that already.

Northern Ranger wrote:I've just always been a firm believer in the old addage "whatever the PC's get, the NPC's should have the same chances." And also, this was a generalized question, not just about the seduction thing. That was just the best example I could think of. But there's also the problem of prowling. A successful roll means that the thief (or whoever) prowls into a residence or castle or keep or.... whatever... and the guards didn't see him. That's just not fair.

It's Point of View, plain and simple. I don't think it's unfair to allow a prowler to determine the success of his action. A successful opera singing attempt means that somebody who hates opera will find something in the performance worthy of listening to, perhaps a charming run of notes or arpeggio, and still hate opera and still hate the song he just heard.

The skill seduction is not a psionic attack. If some PC is sitting in the bar waiting to met his
contact and some woman with a PB of 30 shows up and tries to seduce him ("Want to come
back to my place), the guy is not just going to forget what's he's there for. He might ask for
her phone number and come back to see her later, especially if what he is there for is really
important. Common sense also dictates that people of different sexual orientation are not
going to be affected because nothing about that person attracts them. A guy who is a full
conversion borg is going to have a hard time be seduced since a majority of his equipment is
likely no longer there. The guy who is married, it would have to depend upon his
personality. Some of us who are engaged or married to a woman we love with all our heart are
not going to commit adultery just because some woman has PB of 30. Just like most mind
control powers say, if a person is commanded to do something that is extremely contrarty to
his or her bliefs or ideals, it either doesn't work or he gets an extra save bonus. The same for
trying to seduced someone. And finally, if you sitting in a bar, and a woman comes over, the
characters can say before she even speak, "Sorry lady not interested." PB charm and impress
is not the same as a Charm spell. Just like MA's trust and intimidate is not the same as
Charismatic Aura or Divine Aura.

Yip. Don't implement it on an "I win!" basis.

Natasha wrote:

Northern Ranger wrote:I've just always been a firm believer in the old addage "whatever the PC's get, the NPC's should have the same chances." And also, this was a generalized question, not just about the seduction thing. That was just the best example I could think of. But there's also the problem of prowling. A successful roll means that the thief (or whoever) prowls into a residence or castle or keep or.... whatever... and the guards didn't see him. That's just not fair.

It's Point of View, plain and simple. I don't think it's unfair to allow a prowler to determine the success of his action. A successful opera singing attempt means that somebody who hates opera will find something in the performance worthy of listening to, perhaps a charming run of notes or arpeggio, and still hate opera and still hate the song he just heard.

What about the person that has a deep psychological hatred of music and hears it in passing. Are they still supposed to find something about the performance that they find worth listening to? No. In fact, the argument could be made that the greater the quality of the performance, the more reason they have to hate it. It's just not that cut and dry.

And Reagren, you're just reinforcing my viewpoint. I agree that the skill rolls shouldn't be the same as psionics, but the way they're written, they should be treated as such. (This is largely why I have re-written every skill that can be used in PF.) All I've been trying to say is that the system needed work, as do many other things within the game. It's not perfect. But then, that's one of the things I love about the Palladium system.

Northern Ranger wrote:What about the person that has a deep psychological hatred of music and hears it in passing. Are they still supposed to find something about the performance that they find worth listening to? No. In fact, the argument could be made that the greater the quality of the performance, the more reason they have to hate it.

Yea but that's totally different than giving them a Saving Throw. As such, this I totally agree with.

Northern Ranger wrote:And Reagren, you're just reinforcing my viewpoint. I agree that the skill rolls shouldn't be the same as psionics, but the way they're written, they should be treated as such. (This is largely why I have re-written every skill that can be used in PF.) All I've been trying to say is that the system needed work, as do many other things within the game. It's not perfect. But then, that's one of the things I love about the Palladium system.

Like I said before, it's Point of View, playstyle, and what you think constitutes a "skill".

I know what you were saying. I was responding only with disagreement that it needs work; not that you're wrong for working on it.

Remember that seduction does not automatically mean that Darth Vader jumps the tavern hooker. It's like how a Bargain or Merchant skill can not make someone sell their glitter boy for a dollar. Success at seducation means that Darth is very open and interested and listening...and horny.

Trust me, all those lovey dovey hubbies will pay hefty attention to the PB 30 girl. Also remember the power of pheremones, body language and psychology is extremely strong.

Shadowmagic wrote:I think a major aspect of what I believe the intent of the skills Charm/Impress and Trust/Intimidate, is being over-looked. Let's use two examples.

Pamela Anderson is sporting a PB of 22 and is coming on to you. Here are some possible ways you are affected.

a)OMG-wut!!!???(you are feeling lucky tonite!)

b)*Thinks to self*: She is looking good but, that whole Hepatits thing with Kid Rock...Ewww.

c)WoW! Pam and Kid make such a good couple. Wish I had her tush and maybe I could get a piece of the Rock.

Point is, you notice she is attractive.

Clint Eastwood has just unloaded his revolver on you. Or did he? "Do you feel lucky punk?" his MA of 20 is causing the gears to turn in your head.

a) I DO feel lucky, I'm going to call his bluff, good as it is.

b)Clint's partner: "That's right, you bust that punk!"(Trust)

c)*dropping weapon*: "I give up man, just take it easy!!! Don't be getting all crazy now...."

Point is, Clint seems pretty dead serious, your call.

These skills are just a means to point out when someone stands out from the norm.

So the actual stats then mean nothing? They just point out when someone stands out from the norm? People as hot as Pam An are normal?
People toting guns and sticking them in others' faces are normal?

Did you even read the section of the book describing what the rest of us are talking about here? These have tangible in-game effects. Even a low stat has a tangible effect; a low MA (for instance) makes it easier to bluff at a card table, or to tail someone. The opposite (a high stat) has the same tangible effect that is undeniable. When someone is in a position to roll an intimidation via MA, that has everyone around him affected; they can't just shrug it off as "okay this guy is scary, but that doesn't mean a thing here".

I have a dynamic in place when I GM to handle this. First I scrap the whole idea of rolling these skills using percentile dice. I have the players roll on a D20 like they would any other character vs. character contested roll. The character with the highest total between die roll and bonuses wins. Simple.

To get each characters bonus first convert the skills involved into a bonus to add to the D20 roll. To do this, simply divide the character’s skill percentage by 5. So a character with a seduction skill of 35% would have a +7 bonus on the die roll. Drop and remainders when doing this conversion.

The second source of bonuses would be from attributes. Simply match a character’s corresponding attribute to the attribute chart for ME to get their bonus.

I use IQ as the base for defending against being tricked, deceived or fooled and I use ME for the base defense attribute against being bullied or intimidated.

I use MA as the base for tricking or intimidating. However, I don’t use the percentage bonues listed in the book at all, I match the MA skill to the ME bonus chart. So an MA of 20 gets a +3 to trust or intimidate. I add this bonus to other bonuses if the character also has a skill like seduction.

As an example:
Bob wants to fool Tom into giving some money for a worthless fake coin. Bob has an MA of 20 and Tom an IQ of 12. So, Bob gets a +3 and Tom has no bonus. They each roll a die and add the bonus to see if Bob is successful. There is small edge for Bob to win here, but not huge.

I actually use this type of skill percentage to D20 bonus for many other skills too, like tracking vs. prowl or concealment vs. detect concealment.

In my opinion, Seduction doesn mean instant love. All it should mean is "Sarah, the guy your elf is talking so notices how smooth he is, how charming... if you didnt know any better, you would say he was putting the moves on you... but alas, his pretty boy face IS to die for." and you let the player decide how to take it from there. Just because someone is godly in the PB department, or rolled a 1 on seduction, to go along with it is always up to the other person. Maybe her Elf doesnt like pretty boys.

Shadowmagic wrote:I think a major aspect of what I believe the intent of the skills Charm/Impress and Trust/Intimidate, is being over-looked. Let's use two examples.

Pamela Anderson is sporting a PB of 22 and is coming on to you. Here are some possible ways you are affected.

a)OMG-wut!!!???(you are feeling lucky tonite!)

b)*Thinks to self*: She is looking good but, that whole Hepatits thing with Kid Rock...Ewww.

c)WoW! Pam and Kid make such a good couple. Wish I had her tush and maybe I could get a piece of the Rock.

Point is, you notice she is attractive.

Clint Eastwood has just unloaded his revolver on you. Or did he? "Do you feel lucky punk?" his MA of 20 is causing the gears to turn in your head.

a) I DO feel lucky, I'm going to call his bluff, good as it is.

b)Clint's partner: "That's right, you bust that punk!"(Trust)

c)*dropping weapon*: "I give up man, just take it easy!!! Don't be getting all crazy now...."

Point is, Clint seems pretty dead serious, your call.

These skills are just a means to point out when someone stands out from the norm.

the problems I see...
most often result from the "Eastwood" situation...
Every PC has the tendency to see themselves as a Billy Bad@$$ and will always call the "Bluff"...even when its wisest to "fold".

My advice is roleplay it out. A skilled roleplayer will do it correctly and earn the right to make a roll. But if the player says "Hey, Baby, wanna do the nasty in the back of my humvee while it plays "The Lion Sleeps Tonight?" instead of knowing the right thing to say in the situation, chances are, they're not going to GET a roll. Understanding how to behave is part of roleplaying. If you don't know how to behave properly, there shouldn't be a roll for it.

In general, actions speak louder than words. I don't care what your MA is. If Fred Foopernak betrays you to the Coalition, and you catch up with Fred, and he says "Aww, come on guys, it was just a little business" and uses Trust/Intimidate on you, not only should he not succeed, but follow through with me here:

The PC's are going after Fred Foopernak. They're loaded for bear, they've scouted his guards, the whole ten yards....

"We better watch out, he's pretty charismatic. Better wear your earplugs."

This is retarded. Plain and simple. The GM needs to adjucate when rolls like this are allowed. This is the kind of thing that can cause players to LEAVE your game if you allow this stuff too much. I urge you not to do it at all.

Balabanto wrote:My advice is roleplay it out. A skilled roleplayer will do it correctly and earn the right to make a roll. But if the player says "Hey, Baby, wanna do the nasty in the back of my humvee while it plays "The Lion Sleeps Tonight?" instead of knowing the right thing to say in the situation, chances are, they're not going to GET a roll. Understanding how to behave is part of roleplaying. If you don't know how to behave properly, there shouldn't be a roll for it.

In general, actions speak louder than words. I don't care what your MA is. If Fred Foopernak betrays you to the Coalition, and you catch up with Fred, and he says "Aww, come on guys, it was just a little business" and uses Trust/Intimidate on you, not only should he not succeed, but follow through with me here:

The PC's are going after Fred Foopernak. They're loaded for bear, they've scouted his guards, the whole ten yards....

"We better watch out, he's pretty charismatic. Better wear your earplugs."

This is retarded. Plain and simple. The GM needs to adjucate when rolls like this are allowed. This is the kind of thing that can cause players to LEAVE your game if you allow this stuff too much. I urge you not to do it at all.

For the most part, I agree with you on this. But another part of Role Playing is that the players want to play the role of a person who can do things they can't. For instance the casting of magic. Now the reason they have skill percentage checks is because not everything can be acted out. Not everyone knows the right thing to say to a woman, but that doesn't mean the character they're playing in the game wouldn't. Hence the skill check. But I agree that you can't let it go unchecked or uncountered, hence the reason I asked this question. Trying to be fair to everyone. That's what I'm all about as a GM. Fairness all around.

I've always done things like fairfairer, with the contested roles.

Also give +% or -% depending on the situation. +5% to seduce per alcoholic beverage consumed or such. -70% to the role if the PB 18 hooker is trying to seduce the guy with the PB 30 wife at home (if she succeeds, maybe she seems a -little- exotic...he sees something about her that his wife lacks..maybe a certain skankiness...).

Also, a success is not a 'slam dunk'. I use each success on a sliding scale. Something like

Hate-Hostile-dislike-aggravated-rude-annoyed-apathy-doesn't care-ok-hospitable-like-friend-'family'-love

When you hate that guy who sold you out and he pulls out a quick thinking "listen to me" that seems plausable, you might give him a -40% to his roll and -5% more for each person he is doing it against. The PCs might hesitate. Now they are still hostile, ready to kill him on any 'iffy' action on his part. He smoozes some more, -30% -5% more per each PC arguing against him. If he fails, boom the con stops there. If he succeeds, now the PCs still dislike him, but are starting to fall for his BS. And so on. Once he gets to the 'positive' side of the scale, they're more likely to believe him add +% for each 'level' and +5% for each PC -agreeing- with his version of the events to his skill%

I don't always agree with the whole 'no one is always 100% successfull skill limit to 98%. When I am awake, sober, paying attention and in light, I will 100% of the time get my key in the door to unlock it. I NEVER will fail.

Turn out the lights, give me a few beers, have me being followed by a monster.. all those should lower my skill %. I see varying conditions; mental, physical, atmosphere, etc. adjusting the Base skill %

that's my $1.50

farfairer wrote:See those are the situations I always view as "no roll required".

Then you would have missed out on the awesome Shadowrun story!

But yes, use the dice only when failure is important to the story or adds to the fun.

Northern Ranger wrote:All right, here's a problem that I've been struggling with for some time. How do you handle saving throws against skills that are being performed against a player? For example: Your elven female (PB 22) is in a tavern having a drink and some smooth talking casanova walks up and attempts seduction. If the percentage roll is successful, how do you handle giving the character a save against it? The player wouldn't necessarily want their character to fall for this player, but if the dice will it, so shall it be. Still... I need to be fair. How do you folks handle this?

For this specific example I would use MEx5% as they use MAx5%. The success of the "attacking" roll is subtracted from the willpower (ME) of the defending roll. So if you havea seductin of 75% and roll 50% on the die, the opposing penalty is 25%

On the other hand you have to take into account races and preferences. Soemtimes guys go for a blonde even if they like brunettes, but it would have to be a kick ass blonde. In this case I might add a +5 or 10% to the defender's willpower. Other areas to consider, thought all of this requires a good sense of character realization prior to encounter, age, height, weight, eyes, language, nationality, cup size, past relationships (is the PC damaged goods and jaded towards relationships?), personality (is she a flower when he prefers a warrior princess?), does he beome infatuated following her-sending her bad poetry-stalking-getting more than she bargained for?

Even more so on races. Humans might find elves anemic, dwarves might see elves as being to "romantic" and courtships are too complicated.

farfairer wrote:But I don't really consider the story "awesome". I consider the sorry depressing, a bit silly in that horrible-car-wreck sort of sense, but mostly just depressing.

For me, my favorite RPG stories often begin with crit fumbles and the craziness that occurs as the situation suddenly takes a left turn into insanity.

Of course, everything depends on how the GM presents the situation. No scene is fun if the GM is just being vindictive. But wasting characters after a few minutes of play is tough with games that demand way to much time to roll them up.

My first Cyberpunk 2020 character took 45 minutes to create and died in the first round of the game that happened 5 minutes into play. Stuff happens when you have random dice controlling the action, but we all had a laugh.

You know how sometimes you take a new character off to the side and run them thrugh a setup before the night's game?

I had a character die in the pre-set

The die rolls though also allow for the interpretation of the seduction. if you fail miserably then there is something about her that is just really appealing. If you hands down resist then he clumsy attempts are bawdy at best.

I feel that not allowing the players to be involuntarily seduced is taking the bad decisions out of life that we all make because of a "pretty face", or a sultry voice. Where our better judgement was screaming no, but we just gave in to temptation.

Wow! I thought I was asking a pretty simple question and got a plethora of good debate! I appreciate everyone's input on the subject and I have a lot of food for thought. It all comes down to a matter of preference, I guess. I prefer, for example, to find a way for PC's or NPC's to counter an opposing skill check. I'll think of something and there were some great ideas presented here for that. Thanks again, all.

asking gamers for a simple answer is like asking jews their thoughts on god

killgore wrote:

KillWatch wrote:The die rolls though also allow for the interpretation of the seduction. if you fail miserably then there is something about her that is just really appealing. If you hands down resist then he clumsy attempts are bawdy at best.

I feel that not allowing the players to be involuntarily seduced is taking the bad decisions out of life that we all make because of a "pretty face", or a sultry voice. Where our better judgement was screaming no, but we just gave in to temptation.

So it's not their character? Let them decide if it's a bad decision or not on their own. If the girl is pretty, get a really good picture of who you’re basing the description on and show it to them (I've mentioned this in another thread). As long as you have good and neutral (as far as results) happen from these encounters, you'd be surprised at how often players will go along.
Personally, I've found that when GMs go on about PCs being effected by looks based on a die roll, it's usually because the GM lacks role-playing ability, or it's because all he ever does with said encounters is screw the players. Neither of which is good GMing.
If you the GM are deciding character actions in cases outside of magic or psionics, there are issues with your game that a dice system isn't going to fix.

I agree it isn't good GMing, but conversely it isn't good RPing to assume that the player's taste are that of the PCs, that the PC/Player have the same experiences or sensibilities.

I guess I've never had trust issues with my players, and those that I have don't play with me so It wasn't ongoing. I also look at gaming as an art, a fun art but still art. When I make stories I allow things to unfold whether or not I wanted it to go a certain direction

I've had players one hit my major villains who I had written extensive stories on. He was suppose to be a long term antagonist who got away. But my player rolled a nat twenty with a headshot and disruptive death touch. Dead he was before he hit the ground.

I understand the level of maturity that might be found in allowing a player to decide their reaction to others, but I find it perhaps even more mature if the player themselves sets up a scale on what their character would do, giving bonuses and penalties to a roll on whether or not they would be attracted to person X. On the extreme side there are those who let the dice make every decision from ordering pizza toppings to fighting v running away. When it is a thing of personal taste that isn't guided by pre-generated means then I think allowing the dice to determine things and then RPing the result shows talent and flexibility.

I am looking for people to play characters as seperate people to tell a story. For example, If you play superman, don't go around being a jerk just cuz you got his powers. Don't bang or rape wonder woman, just cuz. Sure the character sheet says superman, but the actions don't.

Some of the fun as a GM is watching people get out of their own skin and into that of the PCs, and seeing how the story unfolds. As a poor example we all know going into the basement with a lit match to light the way when the power goes out is a stupid move in the moves. But apparently it is what the character would do.

Sometimes letting the dice decide provides for better RPing, strange situations, and stories to tell in the future. But I guess it depends on the goal of the group. Blow of steam by killing orcs with your bosses faces o it while you throw back some beers, to tell one bawdy nantucket joke in character after another, to play an eight hour D&D version of monty python. I'm in it for the story and it's permutations of chaos and consequences. I like my humor and my drama. I like my action and angst. and again sometimes we do things against our better judgment, that we as players might see bad things coming a mile away.

For example We know that a great wyrm dragon is nothing to joke about. But a first level idiot might think what's so terrifying about a worm? First level characters are stupid and inexperienced. They should bumble around andget stuck in stupid situatinons depending on their skills and intelligence. If they don't have monster lore they shouldn't know what a medusa can do and take proper precautions.

I think I am getting off topic so I will shut up now

Bye