The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Psychological Effects
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Psychological Effects Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Site Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 4607
Location: Columbus, OHIO, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
I'm not looking for a valid psychological model.

I was replying to CRM, but I'm sorry I suggested something in this thread that you're not looking for.

Bren wrote:
I do think the division between the desires or compulsions of the Id and the control of the Ego/Superego provides some commonly understood terminology for talking about the issue of a person doing things that some part of them really doesn't want to do or doing things that upon reflection they later strongly regret ever having chosen to do.

I don't disagree. But ego, shadow, anima/animus, and self work well too.

Bren wrote:
FWIW, I doubt whether Freudian or Jungian models are even validatable.

I'm a neo-Jungian, so I can personally testify to Jungian models. No, they wouldn't be objectively validatable, but I wasn't suggesting that and I do not think that is necessary for the purposes here. I was merely suggesting that if one is going to go Freudian, one might as well go Jungian. Jungian models are developed from Freudian ones, but Freud is like the rough draft and Jung is like more finely polished second draft. Going Freud over Jung is like walking past the high school to ask the junior high for help.

If Jung isn't helpful to this psychological thread, then my apologies.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10836
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
I do think the division between the desires or compulsions of the Id and the control of the Ego/Superego provides some commonly understood terminology for talking about the issue of a person doing things that some part of them really doesn't want to do or doing things that upon reflection they later strongly regret ever having chosen to do.

Whill wrote:
I don't disagree. But ego, shadow, anima/animus, and self work well too.

Whatever the terminology used, Bren has squarely hit the mark as to what I'm trying to accomplish. It speaks to a moment of personal weakness and failure that, IMO, is far more meaningful and dramatic when the player is not guaranteed control over his character, but must live with the emotional and moral consequences after the fact.
_________________
"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.
Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11757
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:

I tend to agree here. I'm not sure that a flinch or reaction should necessarily result in a penalty on ensuing rolls, but the idea is that when someone is outclassed, an intimidation roll should be harder even if the target's willpower is otherwise lower than the intimidation roll.

There is precedent for this in the RAW. A character who is physically stronger (IIRC) gets a +15 (!) bonus to resist intimidation attempts.

How the GM wants to qualify "physically stronger" could vary: the strength attribute? The lifting skill? The brawling skill? Any or all of these could be appropriate, depending on the specific scenario.


A flinch/twitch, could be a result where the jedi's willpower was within 3 up or down of the intimidation attempt. BUT if the intimidation wins over the willpower there should be some in game benefit from it..
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3606
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
I tend to agree here. I'm not sure that a flinch or reaction should necessarily result in a penalty on ensuing rolls...
I see these as two separate (though of course related) issues. One issue is
    Should there be a situational bonus/penalty applied to an Intimidation or a Willpower roll?
I come down solidly on the side of yes situational modifiers should often be applied. Intimidating someone all by your lonesome should be a more difficult roll than intimidating the same someone when you have 2, 4, 6, 10, 20, or more tough guys backing you up.

A second issue is
    What is the result of a success or a failure and should that result also vary based on the circumstances?
And once again I am solidly on the side of yes, circumstances should matter and one of the circumstances is where does the desired or statement outcome fall on a spectrum of behavior for that character(s). normal behavior would that result
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3606
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
If Jung isn't helpful to this psychological thread, then my apologies.
Jungian vs. Freudian seems like a tangent to this discussion, but thread drift and tangents happen. There really is no need to apologize. But as a layperson and not a trained psychologist, social worker, or psychiatrist I don't see greater nuance, sophistication or however you want to characterize the difference in theories as needful for this particular topic. To follow with your analogy, all we need here is the Junior High Version. In this case adding more terminology and nuance seems more likely to obfuscate than to enlighten.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11757
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:

[/list]I come down solidly on the side of yes situational modifiers should often be applied. Intimidating someone all by your lonesome should be a more difficult roll than intimidating the same someone when you have 2, 4, 6, 10, 20, or more tough guys backing you up.


I agree. Many years back i posted an excerpt from a session i Played in at Gencon, and asked 'what would you as DM have done'.. Many said "Given one hell of a large bonus to your intimidate roll"

Bren wrote:

And once again I am solidly on the side of yes, circumstances should matter and one of the circumstances is where does the desired or statement outcome fall on a spectrum of behavior for that character(s). normal behavior would that result


Why should circumstances matter to what effect a successful intimidate roll has/?
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2237

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

After thinking about this some more, I'm agreeing with this.

I'm still inclined to allow for a no-roll threshold: that is, there are certain times when there is zero chance of success. This of course falls into GM discretion. But to give an example: is there any scenario where a GM here would allow for a jawa to successfully intimidate Darth Vader? Palpatine? Yoda?



garhkal wrote:
Naaman wrote:

I tend to agree here. I'm not sure that a flinch or reaction should necessarily result in a penalty on ensuing rolls, but the idea is that when someone is outclassed, an intimidation roll should be harder even if the target's willpower is otherwise lower than the intimidation roll.

There is precedent for this in the RAW. A character who is physically stronger (IIRC) gets a +15 (!) bonus to resist intimidation attempts.

How the GM wants to qualify "physically stronger" could vary: the strength attribute? The lifting skill? The brawling skill? Any or all of these could be appropriate, depending on the specific scenario.


A flinch/twitch, could be a result where the jedi's willpower was within 3 up or down of the intimidation attempt. BUT if the intimidation wins over the willpower there should be some in game benefit from it..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10836
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agreed. There are some times when Intimidation just won't work. Case in point...


_________________
"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.
Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2237

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Bren wrote:

[/list]I come down solidly on the side of yes situational modifiers should often be applied. Intimidating someone all by your lonesome should be a more difficult roll than intimidating the same someone when you have 2, 4, 6, 10, 20, or more tough guys backing you up.


I agree. Many years back i posted an excerpt from a session i Played in at Gencon, and asked 'what would you as DM have done'.. Many said "Given one hell of a large bonus to your intimidate roll"

Bren wrote:

And once again I am solidly on the side of yes, circumstances should matter and one of the circumstances is where does the desired or statement outcome fall on a spectrum of behavior for that character(s). normal behavior would that result


Why should circumstances matter to what effect a successful intimidate roll has/?


I assume you're referring to a roll that is successful after all circumstances have been taken into account and modifiers applied?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11757
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
After thinking about this some more, I'm agreeing with this.

I'm still inclined to allow for a no-roll threshold: that is, there are certain times when there is zero chance of success. This of course falls into GM discretion. But to give an example: is there any scenario where a GM here would allow for a jawa to successfully intimidate Darth Vader? Palpatine? Yoda?


Not just no, but hell no.. I can't see ANY way a piddly jawa could intimidate any of those 3.

Quote:
I assume you're referring to a roll that is successful after all circumstances have been taken into account and modifiers applied?


Yes. it seemed from my understanding of what bren said, that even with mods, a successful roll should still have 'circumstances modify how successful it is..
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2237

PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:


Not just no, but hell no.. I can't see ANY way a piddly jawa could intimidate any of those 3.

Quote:
I assume you're referring to a roll that is successful after all circumstances have been taken into account and modifiers applied?


Yes. it seemed from my understanding of what bren said, that even with mods, a successful roll should still have 'circumstances modify how successful it is..


Okay, wait, what if said jawa actually rolled higher on the roll? Your two positions seem to contradict each other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11757
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With palpaltine's and vaders willpower, PLUS a massive situation mods for those 2, i just can't see it happening..
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2237

PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, I see. But, to be fair, it doesnt address the question: would you fudge the willpower roll if it had actually failed even after bonuses/modifiers, etc?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11757
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hate fudging. Even for named NPCs..
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2237

PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I appreciate the consistency, sir. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 9 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0