More on my D&D 3.5 social interaction house rules
OK, so in Part 1, I discussed everyday influencing of NPC attitudes.
However, I alluded to an additional mechanic to determine how NPCs might feel about a PC in a non-platonic dimension. We're talking romance here. Or perhaps other, more primal urges. He says, delicately skirting around the subject. This is another of those Marmite things in RPGs. Some tables eschew all mention of such matters and there is a literal ban in force against (tired cliché alert) 'bards seducing everything'. Other tables might reach for Book of Erotic Fantasy cheese at every available opportunity. Another table might declare that all attempts at "seduction" are "creepy" and constitute a form of sexual harassment (arguably, repeated retries after failure could fall into this category I suppose) and say that such things are off-limits.
I think I know my players, people I've gamed with for decades and what is and isn't likely to cause offence. My own table rules and culture are - if it can happen in real life, between real people, far be it for me to declare it a no-go area in my campaign. But I'll fade-to-black before people get too carried away with intimate details in the middle of a session.
I try very hard to avoid the descent into the vulgarity of the BoEF in what follows. I would like to think I have a little more sensitivity. However, these rules won't appeal to every table. Be aware they are not essential for the rest of my social mechanics to function, but serve as an optional add-on.
In Part 1 I spoke of a thing I call DAG: Diplomatic Attitude Grade; and the way I handle the non-platonic dimension, is an analogous system of graded attitude levels I call Physical Attraction Grade.
Like DAG, an NPC's PAG is a subjective matter between themselves and a PC (or other NPC, if NPC-vs-NPC attitude is being determined in such a manner). And a PAG of +1 is the precursor for anything to happen at all sexually, at least on the basis of genuine feelings rather than more transactional or (shudder) coercive activities, which we will not say any more about here.
It's worth taking a while to unpack what I mean by "Physical" Attraction Grade. Why did I choose that? Well, to be honest, I was mainly looking for a snappy acronym that would rhyme with DAG. Other candidates, Sexual Attraction Grade (SAG) and Bodily Attraction Grade (BAG) just didn't seem appealing for some reason, while Erotic Attraction Grade (EAG) doesn't really trip off the tongue. Romantic Attraction Grade (RAG) I had already reserved for something else.
Let's get Physical
...as Olivia Newton-John once sang. When I say "Physical" Attraction, am I talking about a quality in the perceived or the perceiver? I think I'm inclined towards the latter - the perceiver feels "physically" attracted rather than just admiring someone on an intellectual or intuitive level. This is not any kind of attempt at objective judgement on how "physically attractive" someone is. It might be because the perceiver finds the perceived visually pleasing, or it might be some other quality. It's whatever floats their boat.
In fact I avoid any direct reference to an attribute that quantifies "Comeliness" in an objective sense. Discussion of it isn't banned; if they wish, players are free to state that the source of their character's Charisma or lack thereof is what they think of as their physical beauty (or grotesqueness) in a classical or culturally normative sense and provide further details, descriptively; or else they might decide that their charm is more rooted in personality. There is no quantified difference in these rules that relies on a "Comeliness" stat.
The way I determine NPC's reactions to a character's described qualities, is case-by-case. I did say at the start of this that sometimes fiat judgement is involved. This is one of those cases, because it is very difficult to create a rules framework that captures the vast range of human preference for particular attributes, let alone those of the vast array of potentially playable species in D&D, in a way that is sufficiently detailed and that does not descend into potentially offensive generalisations.
GM's using these house rules might handle PAG in a way that encapsulates their personal biases, and I am not immune to doing so. But it was not my wish for my own biases to end up getting baked into the rules.
Determining Initial PAG
Here we touch on another thorny subject; sexuality and attraction towards presented gender.
Let's deal firstly with an NPC's feelings about a character who is of a gender that they are (according to the GM's judgement) attracted to, at least as a possibility.
We can assign a baseline PAG similarly to the way we assigned a baseline DAG; choose a fixed number based on circumstance. Here, the circumstance in question is particular to the NPC. The question the GM should consider is: does this NPC find (statistically speaking) a majority of people of this gender physically attractive enough to become romantically involved with, if other preconditions are met? If the answer is "yes, most (by a small margin)" then the baseline PAG should be +1. If the majority is a larger one, then make it +2. Make it +3 and you're heading into "anyone with a pulse will do" territory...
Choose 0, and only a minority (though a sizeable one) of potential suitors will excite their interest. -1, -2 and so on for increasingly reduced levels of interest in the gender in question (while still allowing for the possibility of some interest).
Now a variation is applied, specific to the person the NPC is interacting with.
The most typical type of roll here to determine initial PAG is the same kind of 2-die roll I use for variation in initial DAG. There I stated use of 2d6, but in an afterword I allowed for the possibility of larger dice being used to reduce the variability. So here I refer to 'maximum' rather than 'six'.
Two high: +1
Double high: +2
Double maximum: +3
Double low: -2
Snake Eyes: -3
Now, here comes the big fiat judgement that a GM makes. Does the NPC just use 2 dice, or is the PC interacting with them more or less their "type"? Do they like beefcake or delicate types? Do they like blondes or brunettes? Do they have a thing for elves? Or orcs? And so on. NB, it does not even have to be a physical attribute of the person they are interacting with that decides whether they are their type, the "physical" in PAG refers to the sense of their own feelings but those feelings could be aroused by non-physical qualities. Personality can be a turn-on.
If unsure the GM can reduce even this decision to a die roll: give the PC a 1-in-6 chance of just happening to be the kind of person the NPC tends to be attracted to. Or 1-in-4, or 1-in-3 being more generous. Or a coin toss. There might be a chance of the converse, also. Personally, with most NPCs I will just make a judgement call, but I might sometimes choose to randomize.
Suppose the answer to that question, however it is arrived at, is "Yes, the PC is their type" then you can weight the 2-die roll accordingly by rolling 3, or 4 dice and picking the best 2 dice that give the highest result. If the PC is not their type, reverse this and pick the 2 dice from 3 or 4 that give the worst result.
The GM may also exercise discretion to shift the baseline PAG in the case where the NPC's "type" preference is particularly well-satisfied/unsatisfied by the PC's characteristics. A Vampire fetish, and the PC happens to be one (and demonstrates this)?. Boost that PAG baseline.
Much of this depends on the extent to which the GM wants to swing things in the PC's favour, while still including an element of unpredictability. There is nothing at all to stop the GM just deciding that the NPC is going to make a pass at the PC at the first chance they get. The rules are there to provide a structure for determining things when the GM has no instinctive feel for the NPCs reactions or wants to add an element of suspense for the player.
The output from this process is the Physical Attraction Grade that the NPC feels for the character. Unlike DAG, it won't prompt the NPC to attack the character in a rage, even if the PAG is a deeply negative number. But it may have some bearing on whether the NPC is likely to spontaneously make a pass at a PC, regardless of whether the PC has made any moves themselves towards non-platonic relations.
The Diplomatic Attraction Grades had names assigned to them. I decline to do so for the PAG numbers, as once you get into the negatives it is hard to find suitable adjectives that don't sound rather insulting. Let's just stick with numbers.
Physical Attraction towards other genders
I have spoken about determining PAG towards a gender the character is attracted to. Is it meaningful to talk about attraction towards a gender...they aren't "attracted" to?
An NPC who is solidly heterosexual/homosexual to the point that the GM does not want to allow for the remotest possibility they might feel any same/opposite sex attraction, can have a maximum PAG ceiling set to -1 for any and all interactions with PCs of the same/opposite gender. The rules allow for shifts in PAG to occur, but if it is the GM's judgement that the NPC has not even a shred of latent attraction outside their preferred gender, then declare a -1 PAG ceiling on non-preferred genders and that's that; no attempt at romance or seduction by a member of their non-preferred gender will succeed.
Conversely, a "true" bisexual or pansexual being will have the same process of determining PAG for all genders. There will be no such gender-dependent ceilings on their PAG values.
How about someone who feels unequal degrees of attraction towards genders but rules nothing out? Such a person might be referred to as "bi-curious" if that phrase hasn't fallen entirely out of fashionable usage yet (which I suspect it may have). However the GM decides that an NPC swings, it is a simple matter of figuring out baseline PAG towards the gender in question, then deciding if a character is their "type" and deciding how many dice to roll to determine PAG variation.
One way to determine the preferences of someone who is asymmetrically bisexual, for example, someone who usually forms relationships with men but occasionally could be attracted to women, might be: assume a baseline PAG of +1 for men, also +1 for women, but to determine variation roll 3d6 and pick best two for men and roll 3d6 and pick worst two for women.
Influencing Physical Attraction Grade
All of the above has led us to putting a number, probably in a range of -5 to +5, on someone's initial "physical attraction" towards another. There are perhaps slightly more complex questions involving sexuality and gender to consider than for Diplomatic Attitude, but essentially PAG is analogous to DAG and is determined, broadly speaking, in a similar way.
Can someone influence PAG in the same way as DAG?
Once someone is in an actual non-platonic relationship, I do allow for a PAG increase (or decrease, if things don't work out) but these are matters I may cover in a later post. I don't allow for Diplomacy to alter someone's PAG; Diplomacy is for DAG.
I do allow for another skill that can influence PAG before the event of a relationship being formed, but unlike Diplomacy, it cannot be used "untrained".
That skill is Profession (Allure).
The "Profession" tag might be misleading here. It does not have to refer to a skill the character is monetising. In D&D 3.5, this really just means, a Wisdom-based skill that can't be used unless you've invested at least 1 skill rank in it. I made it a trained-only skill because unlike Diplomacy, which anyone can have a stab at based on their Charisma and a lucky die roll, I wanted the Allure skill to represent a talent that the person has consciously nurtured. Many people aren't so heavily invested in the business of making themselves appealing to others and just rely on "being themselves", so they will not have put any skill ranks into this skill; they just take it as it comes as far as PAG is concerned.
But this will be a skill Courtesans, Gigolos, Lotharios, Charlatans, Pick-Up Artists and Confidence Tricksters, and yes maybe some Bards or other kinds of entertainer, invest ranks in; and sometimes, people who follow other callings who decide they want to put their valuable skill ranks into being good at making themselves appealing to others, just because it fits their roleplay persona. Certainly, there are ethical questions around using "tricks of the trade" to make oneself more sexually appealing for seduction purposes. It could be said that the real ethical consideration is what you are using those talents for and whether you are deceiving the other person. If we want to start talking about the ethics of deception we could be here all day. Though the skill used to hide motives, of course, is Bluff. Suffice to say, the Profession (Allure) skill exists, and may be used in an analogous fashion to the Diplomacy skill, to influence PAG. The roll is an opposed one versus the target's d20+ECL+Wisdom Modifier, and differentials shift PAG up or down in the same way.
PAG+1 to PAG+2 needs a +10
PAG+3 to PAG+4, +20
PAG+4 to PAG+5, +25
and so on.
Going the other way for negative differentials:
PAG+4 to PAG+3 needs -40
PAG+3 to PAG+2 needs -30
PAG+2 to PAG+1 needs a -20
PAG+1 to PAG+0 needs a -10
PAG+0 to PAG-1 needs a -10
PAG-1 to PAG-2 needs a -20
etc.
Whilst I have defined Physical Attraction Grade in this post, and discussed a way to shift the numbers up and down via Profession (Allure), I haven't yet said anything about "Seduction" per se; which I personally strip of its negative connotations and take to mean: an attempt to navigate the boundary between platonic and non-platonic interaction successfully, in a way that involves mutual consent, initiated by one or both parties. Once you have the numbers, that might be enough in itself to give players and GM a "feel" for how likely a hook-up is going to be and freeform roleplay can take over; or else a mechanical approach may be desirable to resolve matters. More on that, later.
No comments:
Post a Comment