Social Rolls, being Inscrutable

[Tywyll]

One place I think in which BRP shows its age is it's poor contested skill mechanics.

I was noticing this recently when I was thinking of people who are 'hard to read'. As the game works now, a character gets an Insight roll versus another character and, unless they are lying deliberately, that's it. You can't play a 'Mystery Man' style character who simply conceals their motive and emotions, or has a good poker face. Your poker face is determined by how well the other character rolls, which seems odd.

I suppose you could make it an opposed Insight roll. ANy other ideas on how to handle this sort of thing?

[rust]

According to the rules, "willful deceit" (which in my opinion would include a

"poker face") would force the character using Insight to make an opposed

Insight check against the target's relevant skill, with Fast Talk and Etiquet-

te (good for diplomats, I think) provided as examples.

This seems a good approach to me, I have no problems at all with it.

[Tywyll]

See, it's possible to be 'hard to read' without lying or concealing anything. It's a property of the person who's being read, which only allowing a roll for the viewer misses out on the opportunity to represent that.

[rust]

See, it's possible to be 'hard to read' without lying or concealing anything.

Frankly, I very much doubt this.

It is a part of my real life job to "read" people, and unless the patient in

question willfully suppresses his body language, this is really not difficult

for someone with the right training and experience (= Insight skill).

[sdavies2720]

See, it's possible to be 'hard to read' without lying or concealing anything. It's a property of the person who's being read, which only allowing a roll for the viewer misses out on the opportunity to represent that.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if the character is not lying nor is he concealing something, why is an Insight role even necessary?

GM: "You meet someone, he's hard to read, you can't tell what he's thinking."

Player: "I do an Insight check."

roll: Succeeds or fails, doesn't matter

GM: "As far as you can tell he isn't thinking anything..."

Steve

[rust]

Maybe I'm missing something, but if the character is not lying nor is he concealing something, why is an Insight role even necessary?

I would not consider it necessary, but since the player character normally

does not know whether the other character is lying or concealing something,

an Insight roll could help him to discover that.

Example: When a trader tells the character that a horse is so cheap because

black is considered an unlucky colour in this region, an Insight roll could help

the character to find out whether this is true - or whether the low price may

have other reasons (but not which reasons).

[vagabond]

In Poker, a successful "Poker Face" is achieved with some skill.

Some are good at it, some aren't. It takes effort.

I would say, a general "Bluff" skill roll would suffice. One need not

say something to bluff someone, just providing a demeanor is

sufficient (trying to look cool under duress for example).

-V

[Tywyll]

In Poker, a successful "Poker Face" is achieved with some skill.

Some are good at it, some aren't. It takes effort.

I would say, a general "Bluff" skill roll would suffice. One need not

say something to bluff someone, just providing a demeanor is

sufficient (trying to look cool under duress for example).

-V

I guess that's it. Perhaps I'll just tweak 'Fast Talk' to make it 'Bluff' because Fast Talk is very specific, to me at least, while Bluff is a bit more generic.

[vagabond]

I'll have to check, but I believe Elric!/Stormbringer actually had

a separate Bluff skill at one time. I think it was SB 1- 4, and

it was removed in Elric!

-V

[Trifletraxor]

My players often ask for Human Lore rolls, Psychology rolls or Perceptions rolls to determine whether someone is lying or not. I have stopped allowing that alltogether. The human lie detector is notoriously unreliable, and not well emulated with skill roll.

:beetle:

[Dalmuti]

I would call "Poker Face" a Performance skill, because thats most like what it is. Your not bluffing really, because a bluff is an active thing with a specific purpose, "I have the best cards" for example. A poker face is when you are hiding all your thoughts or emotions from showing through your physical and emotional demeanor altogether. It is really only effective over a period of time too because it works by creating a uniform expression across all reactions, good, bad and indifferent, so as to not give away any change and therefore any way to distinguish any thoughts or emotions. A poker face can be a blank or neutral expression or a happy or sad one, as long as it is consistent regardless of the situation.

For example: Poker Face always wears a thin smile and speaks in a mildly amused manner, he never seems to be unhappy or even just neutral. He is confronted with a terrible fact about his work; everyone is actually an alien who eat babies and replaces them with their own spawn! Poker Face heads to work an puts on his normal mildly amused expression (rolls Performance), because he now has to go into work and get proof so as to stop this. While in the records room he sees the girl from accounting, who he had been interested in before finding out she's a hideous tentacled baby eater, he must maintain his mildly amused demeanor or tip her off. Normally she would only need an insight roll to notice something different about a character's demeanor, but because of PFs Poker Face Performance skill she now has to not only succeed her roll but beat PFs Performance success as well. If successful she will notice a difference in PFs normal behavior, if she fails she will not. If she succeeds and she starts asking questions then PF is looking at a Bluff or Fast Talk to cover why he broke from his normally amused demeanor.

They way to play it is to have the Character or NPC choose a demeanor such as "neutral" and make a Performance roll for a period of time. If the character is successful then their demeanor hold throughout that period of time, if they fail then treat them normally, if they fumble then they fail but think they didn't or some other effect (such as a bonus to others Insight rolls). The GM would determine if additional rolls were necessary depending on changes in the situation. When someone encounters them they will get a description that includes their demeanor as "neutral" (or whatever the character chooses) no roll is necessary at this point, if anyone attempts to make an Insight roll however they must also beat the character's successful Performance roll (if they were successful). Basically have the Poker Face Performance skill turns an Insight skill roll into an opposed roll.

Anyway thats my take on it.

Dalmuti

Edited February 6, 2009 by Dalmuti

[RosenMcStern]

Yep, it should work as Dalmuti explained. The mechanics for the opposed roll is there, in the basic rules. It is just that the rules do not suggest which skill should be used to oppose the investigator's Insight Roll. Performance? Fast Talk?

[Dalmuti]

I'd argue that Fast Talk is too off the cuff and too impermanent to be the appropriate skill for a Poker Face type thing. Fast Talk is more of a BSing kind of action. It doesn't have to be BS, just that it's presented quickly with the intended effect being to overwhelm your target and get them to agree/accept your point of view before they have the time to really consider it. Bluffing would be Fast Talking with a lie or half truth.

A Poker Face is different because, as I said earlier, it requires some time to establish your neutral state (neutral in the sense of whatever demeanor you choose), before it can be effective. It's the same difference in a way as Oratory and Debate vs Fast Talk.

The other problem that I see with having it a Fast Talk based skill is that it becomes too generalized. Just because you have a good poker face doesn't mean you are a convincing talker.

A side note:

I prefer Oratory & Debate over Persuade because unlike Oratory or Debate, the word Persuade implies that a success makes the target do or believe what you want them too regardless of whether or not your idea is reasonable, so it often gets used as an exploit, intentionally or not. It doesn't imply that you need any leverage. By leverage I mean something like information, a compelling story or argument, a thing, whatever, but without it you have no leverage in which to persuade with (note that the "leverage" does not have to be real, your argument could be a lie or false information). With Oratory and Debate it only says that whatever your leverage was, you presented it well enough to be considered. Whether or not they actually come around to your point of view depends on if you had anything to back up that point of view.

~Dalmuti

[Tywyll]

thanks Dalmuti, that is exactly what I was looking for. Cheers!

And I agree that Fast Talk, Persuade, etc have certain expectations that make them fail for less specific uses. It's why I wish there was a 'Bluff' skill rather than Fast Talk, because Fast Talking is very specific while Bluff is much more general. To me at least.