Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Seduction Quality

Posted by: ChronoGib Jan 15 2007, 12:47 AM

I'm thinking of a Quality that would look something like this:

Seduction
Cost: 5 BP
Character gains +2 dice pool modifier to all social interactions with opposite sex but takes a -2 dice pool modifier to all social interactions of the same sex.

I could swear I read something to this effect somewhere but I can't find it in the 4th edition book. (No pun intended putting "can't find" and "4th edition book" in the same sentence) I'm a new GM and I probably just imagine the whole thing, but anyone have any feedback?

Posted by: BlueRondo Jan 15 2007, 12:52 AM

Shouldn't it be called "Seductive"?

Anyway, you can specialize in Seduction with one of the social skills. No need to restrict it to members of the opposite sex.

Posted by: Thane36425 Jan 15 2007, 12:59 AM

Seduction is listed under the Con skill as a specialization, in SR4. You coudl use Con for seduction even without that spec. of course. SR3's Companion book might have had appearance traits, but I don't have that book handy. Appearance, the target's tastes, etc. would apply as modifiers.

Posted by: SL James Jan 15 2007, 01:11 AM

Good Looking And Knows It. It's the example Edge for "how to created edges/flaws" along with its companion Flaw, "Ugly And Doesn't Care."

But they're in the SR2 and SR3 Companions. Seduction is just, yeah... a new Social Skill specialization. However, in the (woefully short, but then again... SR4 isn't for me) Social Modifiers Table, "Subject has romatic attraction to the character" gives a +2 mod.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 15 2007, 01:19 AM

The Seductress mentor spirit provides +2 Con bonus to its followers.

It is a silly quality. For one thing, why do the bonuses only apply to members of the opposite sex? What if they're gay, bi, or bi-curious, or really drunk. For the same reasons, penalties to members to the opposite sex are not appropriate.

For that matter, what do you mean by "opposite sex." This is 2070, both medical technologies and social mores have advanced quite a bit. Some characters don't have an opposite sex for one reason or another and no one would see anything wrong with that.

How would this quality apply to a hermaphrodite, an intersexual, an asexual, a Bannaum, or anything else one might be through a quirk of nature of the miracles of modern surgery?

If anything, it should apply equally to everyone no matter what their sex or gender because sex and gender preferences are neither polar nor static. Rather, the run along a continuum and are somewhat flexible.

Those concerns aside, Pronomancers don't need any more help. It is already possible to create a social adept who can turn Jerry Falwell gay. Another +2 seduction bonus is just damn cheesy. Use the Con (Seduction) specialization, instead.

Posted by: Konsaki Jan 15 2007, 01:23 AM

Creating a Pronomancer is sooooo easy.

Mix 6 parts Magic, 6 parts spellcasting and add a liberal dose of Orgasm or Orgy. Sprinkle with Power foci and/or spellcasting foci as desired.

Taadaa. Instant Pornomancer able to make anyone feel the rhythm.

Posted by: SL James Jan 15 2007, 01:35 AM

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

Those concerns aside, Pronomancer's don't need any more help. It is already possible to cerate a social adept who can turn Jerry Falwell gay. Another +2 seduction bonus is just damn cheesy. Use the Con (Seduction) specialization, instead.

You don't need a social adept to do that, but a social adept can turn him openly gay and the president of GLAAD.

Posted by: ChronoGib Jan 15 2007, 01:47 AM

QUOTE (Thane36425)

Seduction is listed under the Con skill as a specialization, in SR4.

Yeah, I think thats what I was remembering. I think it was a combination of the Seduction specialization and the social modifiers table that I was thinking of.

I forgot to mention that it's been a good 6 months ago since I read the entire book for a game that burned viciously as it sank to the bottom of the ocean. Guess what happens when the GM is GMing for the 1st time with players that can't stand each other and the 2 rules lawyers have only read half the rules!

Thanks for the fast replies everyone.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 15 2007, 01:51 AM

QUOTE (Konsaki)

...I know, I already have on PC I have to deal with as a GM.

She also owns a strip club...

Posted by: BookWyrm Jan 15 2007, 01:59 AM

The quality is a little one-sided. If the bonus only applies to the user's opposite sex, what if he/she is gay?
The modifier should read "modifier to all social interactions with the intended partner".

Posted by: Catharz Godfoot Jan 15 2007, 03:44 AM

It's also kind of odd that the bonus works on babies. Maybe there should be some kind of age restriction.

Posted by: ChronoGib Jan 16 2007, 12:14 PM

QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)

...I know, I already have on PC I have to deal with as a GM.

She also owns a strip club...

Ah to be a player again. I could have had a strip club once, but no, I was greedy. I needed my own personal harem, a portable harem. You know, for when the villain goes into his long tedious monologue ...I'll just carefully reach into my pocket...

Ok, so I admit this may have been a poorly conceived idea. It's not my fault I'm starving because I can't find anyone to fullfill my roleplaying needs.

Posted by: TBRMInsanity Jan 16 2007, 01:30 PM

QUOTE (ChronoGib)

I think it should be +2 dice for any person that is sexually attracted to you and -2 dice if they are not (-6 if they are of the same gender). This will take into account any possible situations that a seducer may encounter. Besides the future will be a more open society (more greed but more open).

Posted by: SL James Jan 17 2007, 02:24 AM

QUOTE (TBRMInsanity @ Jan 16 2007, 07:30 AM)

I think it should be +2 dice for any person that is sexually attracted to you

There's already a test modifier for that that applies to everyone.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 17 2007, 04:36 AM

QUOTE (TBRMInsanity)

the -6 to 'same gender' dispite what you may feel about it is not apropriate for SR3 or SR4. Dunno bout SR1 and 2 since i've never played under those systems.

I might say an additional -2 modifier if their not 'compatible' in their sexual tastes to yours. By 'compatible' I mean like a gay hitting on a straight, or like a guy hitting on a lesbian. But you have to really keep in mind if it even applies at all. Again SR is one of those settings where the current 'openly acceptable' standard is.. well. Alot more 'balanced' between straight/gay/bi. Probably alot more of the latter infact.

Of course the problem properly portraying that kinda thing in SR is that current day mentality just.. doesnt match the mentality of the SR world. Under SR very little is 'taboo'. Sure some of it might still be considered 'wierd' but then the reaction isnt usually 'EW! GROSS!' it's.. 'Yeah.. what ever floats your boat.'

The 'anti-gay' stance thats still quite common in many areas today might well still be prevalent in some areas of the SR world. But the vast majority of countries of the SR world an 'anti-gay' stance is infact considered a 'fringe group mentality'. I mean it's a world where spirits dont really by anyones understanding have a sexual preference... yet you've got even in SR cannon material references to 'sexual intercourse' with spirits, or magicians who have made claims of such etc. I mean.. how the hell do you 'do the deed' with a spirit? And whats it then? Gay? Bi? Straight? Other? I'd probably classify it as 'other' myself since most of that seems to still take place on the astral plane. And.... yeah.

Course if it's a possession spirit then it's I guess... what ever body it inhabits. But your partner still isnt really (meta)human. And god forbid some day you go home with some one from a bar for some nookiee and it turns out their a shapeshifter or something.

Posted by: ChronoGib Jan 17 2007, 10:02 AM

QUOTE (TBRMInsanity)

Actually, the idea did not stem from the other person's attraction to the character, but more the character's ability to communicate effectively with the other person. The idea was based on the character relying too strongly on using sex appeal to get what he or she wants. The bonus/penalty is the result of the way the character perceives the situation not the target. For example, a female character is more confident talking to men regardless of the man's sexual preference. Because she typically is able to manipulate men easily, she feels more confident talking to men regardless of their interest in her.

I suppose better wording would have been the character gains a bonus to all social interactions with a chosen sex but takes a penalty to all social interactions of another sex. I had originally left the wording simple and brief intentionally, because I wasn't trying to take into account all possibilities.

Posted by: emo samurai Jan 17 2007, 10:18 AM

You got that quality from Fallout 2, didn't you?

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 17 2007, 10:50 AM

QUOTE (ChronoGib)

QUOTE (TBRMInsanity @ Jan 16 2007, 05:30 AM)

Yeah but thats really a sort of 'situational modifier'. It's one of those zones systems like SR4's are kinda handy. They dont have one specifically stated in the book. But it's ammazingly easy to implement and as long as the modifier is seemingly appropriate doesnt 'unrealistically skew' the results as far as all involved parties are concenred.

I mean regardless of a rulings actual basis on 'true' reality, as long as both players and GMs feel a modifier is 'fair' then it is and everone can more or less be happy with the results even if they dont get what they want becuase it was 'fair'.

Heavy Gear for example if I recal actually has some listing on it's modifiers list that under X circumstances the GM can throw in modifiers of say +4 to -4. SR4 while not actually stating such, really does easily allow for it. And honestly I not only would use such a modifier but would acccept it from another GM. I might not agree and might attempt to discuss the issue because I dont feel such an action really meritied such a large modifier or what ever, but overall ti's not too hard to reach a 'balance'.

Example:
Zoe Trannis, a buxum young 20 something seductress is trying to solicit Kramer Alexander for sexual favours in exchange for money. She's a protitute and besides, to her way of thinking Kramer's abit cute and she might well enjoy 'momentary employment' with him.

So we'll give her a Charisma 5, Social group: 4 cause she's a pro.
9 dice. She's specialized in seduction (which breaks the group but i'm trying to keep it simple here) so she's got 12 for the test.

So what kind of counter modifiers can we consider for this?
Let say Kramer had a bad day. He's not in a good or recptive mood today: -1 dice
Now lets say he's effectively gay so we'll throw in another -2 dice.
Maybe he's got his eye set on Lary Kingston across the table from him so isnt really paying much attention to Zoe: -1 dice
Zoe however, being a professional and perhaps for what ever reason has a better understanding than usual of Kramer so we'll give her a 'situational' +1 as a counter.

End result:
Zoe gets to roll 9 dice in the opposed test. So she'll probably still get what she wants. If you really dont think thats still realistic you can allways throw in a few more negative dice at her and still be more or less reasonable. And then you could further declare that since Kramer is gay she's goign to need at least 3 hits over how ever many he generates to resist or what ever.

Still might be doable. If nothign else her attempts probably wont piss him off however and they might even wind up being friends. I mean even a 'social failure' isnt allways a total loss. You might get a "Thats cute but no. But since I like you here's my number anyway lets hang out some time."

It opens the way to developting a contact, as well as a chance for future atempts at seduction. Of course a massive critical failure would rpobably mean saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. Perhaps withotu even knowing why. Which earns an instant icy walkout to a bitchslap.

Posted by: Jack Kain Jan 17 2007, 05:20 PM

Actually if Kramer actually gay and not bisexual you can rule seduction impossible, try another use of the CON skill.

If it was Joe coming up to a straight Kramer you could bet any attempt at seduction would fail.

Posted by: lorechaser Jan 17 2007, 06:02 PM

QUOTE (Jack Kain)

It might fail, but in the "you're funny" sort of way.

I'm straight, but I've been hit on by gay guys a few times. It never worked, but it did occasionally result in an embarassed laugh on their part, and some friendly conversation.

Posted by: ChronoGib Jan 17 2007, 10:51 PM

QUOTE (emo samurai)

You got that quality from Fallout 2, didn't you?

You're right, I got this idea from Fallout (probably close to word for word). Best single player RPG ever.

Maybe I should just turn this into a flaw that only imposes a penalty on social interactions against people who do no find the character attractive.

Posted by: Jack Kain Jan 17 2007, 11:10 PM

The start is good, the problem is with getting a bonus to seduce members of the opposite sex. Then a penalty to the same sex. It assumes to much.

It might just be simpler to say Seduction gives you a flat +2 bonus on any seduction roles.
Leave it to the GM to decide the targets preferences and any dice pool bonus or penalties that go with it.

A flaw would be like this

5 BP
Lecher.
-2 penalty to resist seduction roles made by members of the opposite sex. (Or the same sex if you happen to swing that way)

Of course you get 1 point of Notoriety for this quality.

This is similar but not the same to addiction. Some one with the sexual addiction would have to make will power rolls rolls to resist the offer or chance at sex. Say from a hooker.
Someone with the Lecher quality is simply easily taken in and manipulated by members of the opposite sex (or there preference if the swing the other way.)

Posted by: djinni Jan 17 2007, 11:47 PM

QUOTE (Jack Kain)

by members of the opposite sex. (Or the same sex if you happen to swing that way)

Stating it as "by the Gender of your Sexual affinity"
would be more inclusive and clear.
however making things like this forces a character at character generation to denote "how they swing."

Posted by: Jack Kain Jan 18 2007, 12:13 AM

QUOTE (djinni @ Jan 17 2007, 05:47 PM)

QUOTE (Jack Kain @ Jan 17 2007, 06:10 PM)

by members of the opposite sex. (Or the same sex if you happen to swing that way)

Stating it as "by the Gender of your Sexual affinity"
would be more inclusive and clear.
however making things like this forces a character at character generation to denote "how they swing."

It was meant to sound flavorful instead of sterile

Why does it matter if it forces the player to pick thier character's sexual preference at creation? They don't have to take the quality. Taking the negative quality addiction forces the player to pick an addiction. So why is this any different? Alot of negative qualitys force a set of behaviors on a player's character.

If your thinking about this quality Lecher your either

A: Looking to round out your characters personality, in which case your going to have to decided eventually and its best to get it done before play begains. (unless you plan to play a character who is struggling with his/her sexualliity)
Or
B: You looking for all the easy BP you can get. In which case I'll slap you upside the head by having someone try and seduce every other run.

Posted by: djinni Jan 18 2007, 12:46 AM

QUOTE (Jack Kain @ Jan 17 2007, 07:13 PM)

Why does it matter if it forces the player to pick thier character's sexual preference at creation?

by adding the positive quality it forces everyone to decide, rather than allowing it to come out in roleplay.
the negative quality only forces that player to decide
the positive quality forces everyone.

my group is the kind that tries to get easy BP out of flaws, I feel like slapping them upside the head every session.
Addiction (Caffeine)
Addiction (Matrix)

Posted by: Jack Kain Jan 18 2007, 01:07 AM

I'm talking about a negative quality called Lecher right now.

The positve quality can still come out in roleplay. Say after roleplaying the seduction you find out, opps wrong gender.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 18 2007, 05:46 AM

Yeah like you hit up that gay crossdresser you thought was a girl.

Personally I wouldnt even have any 'positive' quality having anything to do with forcing some one's sexual preferences. Some one who's straight, but being paid say.. 50 grand to get close to some guy who's gay. And is feelign 'secure' enough in their sexual preferences to use their charming wiles to come onto said gay person to get close to them so they can kill them shouldnt have any harder time of doing it than if they were normally going after a woman.

I mean there's even some movie out there where an assassin does exactly that. He's not gay. But he pretends to be, to get close to then eventually 'seduce' the gay target. This allows him to get the target away from his two body guards. Where uppon he promptly kills him. Oh! Hey I rember now. This hapens in Lucky Number Sleiven.

Honestly though? I really think it should be a falt out requirement, to go along with pickign your race as to what your at least 'starting' sexual preference is. And it CAN change. Dispite what some people say. I've met a number of gay guys who used to only ever date girls. Mostly because that was what was 'expected' of them. Eventually they break from the mould. But before they do that for several years their 'straight'.

A few of them wound up deciding ultimately they were bi.

I mean if seduction is something thats goign to come up at the very least I'd definately say. Yes. Define your sexual preference in CG. And no you cant just change it on a whim. If your gay one day and straight the next? Well as a GM I now rule your bisexual and subject to the same degree of seduction from both sexes.

And really thats what being Bi is all about in the end. You -are- willing to go with either sex. You may, infact more than very likely -will- have a 'nautural inclination' towards either men or women. But you'll still sleep with either one so long as the right buttons are pushed. WHere as soem one who is 'solidly' Gay or Straight will almost never go the other way. I say almost, because it still happens from time to time in real life. Often subject to hormonal changes in the body, but the whole thing still isnt properly understood. It is however proven fact that one's sexual preference has alot more to do with your chemical body make up than simple 'choice'. You can afterall choose to force yourself to go through with somethign you dont enjoy to achieve some ultimate end goal. But you generally only do things you actually derive real enjoyment from.

I suppose overall as a GM I've never forced players to choose. Largely because.. well it's simply never come up in any of my games. I might have the odd player go 'I'm gonna go find a hooker!' and state their preference as to male or female. But.. now that I think of it. I've never actually put a 'striaght' character in a position where a gay character is hitting on them.

Maybe I should

Posted by: Jack Kain Jan 18 2007, 01:07 PM

To be clear, my version of the seduction quality gives a flat +2 bonus on seduction rolls at all times.
The player whos picked it doesn't have to decide there preference.

When I said oppos wrong gender I didn't mean the target, I meant the seducer was the wrong gender for the target. Now in your example of the assasin who pretends to be Gay in order to get close to his target what if he then discovered that his target wasn't actually gay

Now be Lecher quality does require the person choose. Now there are complaints that it should come up in role play. But technically there's alot about a character that should come up in role play but is still written down on there character sheet.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 18 2007, 01:19 PM

Eh. Dunno about then. As I said it was out of a movie. Besides, if your a 'professional' you do your homework right? Enough of the right kind of legwork shoudl easily show what someone's sexual preferences are when they dont have to hide them.

That isnt allways the case of course. But there's usually some sort of telling behaviour even then. That doesnt mean you'll properly interpret them of course. And then you've got the whole thing of loyalty (or lack thereof) to one specific partner.

And yeah. Thats basically what I was arguing for. If it's a quality it should just be flat out bonus. Any other modifiers are applied as necessary depending on the nature of your target. To me a seduction quality is just something that enhances that 'natural charismatic aura' about you in no really quanitfyable way. Where asthe actual use of a seduction skill at least in part, hits uppon actual knowledge of how to seduce some one.

Knowing by intuition what to say when, how to hit all the right buttons. As a profession itself you'd likely also at least to a degree study what turns on what sort of person. Study all those little kinks out there that you can capitalize uppon. That way if say we go back to that assassin scenario. You know what sort of stuff your target is into when you find out via legwork that he's heavily into BDSM. Then it's just a matter of zeroing in on what particular aspects that turn them on.

Afterall folk migth be willing to do different things. If I had a partner I trusted enough for example. I -might- let a partner who thought it was inkyt o do it with handcuffs on to cuff me or something. But to hell with whips and such. Yet I do know one girl who's all into being tied up and whipped. I find it slightly disturbing myself. But what ever.