New Perception Skill: Discernment

[CRMcNeill]

I've been thinking about this one for a while.

Discernment

Time Taken: One round or longer.

Specializations: Specific skill being resisted (Con, Persuasion, etc.)

Discernment is a measurement of a character's ability to see through attempts by others to manipulate them. A person with this skill may not be all that adept at conning or manipulating others, but is quite good at spotting it when someone tries it on him.

In game terms, Discernment is treated as a reaction skill to resist Con and Persuasion attempts (as well as Gambling and Intimidation, under the right circumstances). This does not mean that the character using Discernment must automatically reject these attempts, merely that he recognizes what the other person is attempting to do.


EDIT: Updated skill write-up - Sep 29, 2018
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[garhkal]

Interesting. Would someone who had this skill AND say Con, get the higher of the 2 to resist, or just this, THEN the con?
What about if they have the body language skil (or are a loordian?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[CRMcNeill]

[CRMcNeill]

Considering how good the Lorrdians are with this, I'd probably make what they do an Advanced skill with this as a prerequisite.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[garhkal]

[CRMcNeill]

[Naaman]

I always thought willpower covered this (discernment).

Might need to be a skill rolled in secret, though.

Also, for persuasion (and possibly other skills) those skills only work against NPCs (a PC is never compelled to do something based on a persuasion roll made against him), so it might be a hard sell for a PC.

[garhkal]

[CRMcNeill]

[CRMcNeill]

[Whill]

[garhkal]

[CRMcNeill]

[CRMcNeill]

[Naaman]

Of course that's a double edged sword:

Many GMs want to subject PCs to unfortunate circumstances based on the results of a die roll even when the player knows something that would allow his character to avoid the scenario (even if the character doesn't know).

On the other hand (as we've discussed with skills like tactics, for example), there are times when the character should know things that the player (and even the GM) don't know, but since the player can't come up with the idea, the character can't benefit from the CPs dumped into a skill that the GM doesn't even have (IRL) so doesn't know how to arbitrate the results of the roll.

I'd say, if we want to play the "dice dictate" card, then we need to play both sides of it:

If the player (for example) out rolls the NPC general in tactics, then the players side wins the war/battle/fight automatically, regardless of how the NPC's "player" (i.e. GM) feels about it.

Likewise, a player might do an awesome job roleplaying a persuasion attempt, but then he botches his skill roll, so he still fails. The player's persuasiveness was irrelevant to the in-game results. On the flip side, if the player sucks at his persuasion roleplaying, but explodes the wild die 10 times, his "because I said so" must compel Palpatine to do whatever it is he has requested/demanded, etc.

My position is the player characteristics should have no bearing on the in-game results, EVEN if that means that the character succeeds where the player fails (for example, if the character should know something that the player would never even think of, then it is GM's responsibility to inform the player of what his character should reasonably know, even if the player doesn't know that his character knows it).

However, if we want to make "roleplaying" a factor in interaction skills, then I say, it's up to the GM to convince the player (by way of in-character roleplaying) to go along with whatever it is that the persuasion roll was supposed to simulate. In other words, put the player in the character's position so that the player is actually convinced that he got a good deal or that he's making the best possible choice, etc. After all, the players already bare that responsibility with respect to many of the knowledge and perception based skills that a character can get.

Or do you guys allow a player to simply say, "I convince Darth Vader to release me unharmed to a safe place of my choosing." And then let the "persuasion" roll dictate results?