Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Steve Eley <sfeley@***.NET>
Subject: Influence (was Re: Dumb things)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 12:46:05 -0400
Gurth wrote:
>
> This is unacceptable to the PCs, so the shaman resorts to casting
> Influence on the fixer to get him to pay 20,000 for a cheap watch. He
> resists, and tells her what she can do with her watch.

This caught my curiosity, so I went and looked up the Influence spell in the
Grimoire *and* SR3. The Grimmy specifically says it's "Similar to the Control
Thoughts spell" -- which I'd take to mean the same modifiers for opposed ideas
apply. SR3 doesn't say that; it simply says that the subject can make a
Willpower test *if* someone else points out that the idea is a bad one.

So the question becomes: should control manipulation spells have modifiers on
them to account for ideas the target would agree with vs. ideas the target
would find ludicrous or damaging? In the example you cite above, I think it
should be *extremely* difficult to convince the fixer to give 'em 20,000 =Y=
for a cheap watch "as if it were his own idea," even though nobody would be
physically harmed. I'd give it a +2 or +4 modifier to reflect the NPC's common
sense. (Or just to discourage the PC's from being positively reinforced into
thinking Influence is a solution for everything. This example is completely
against what I think of as the purpose of the spell, which is more of a "These
are not the droids you're looking for" application.)

What do other people think? Is the spell too flatly powerful as it stands? Or
is it good as written, and payback should come in the form of role-playing?
(E.g., if the fixer *had* forked over 20K, he later figures out what happened
and makes enemies of the PC's?)


Have Fun,
- Steve Eley
sfeley@***.net
Message no. 2
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Influence (was Re: Dumb things)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 20:18:00 +0200
According to Steve Eley, at 12:46 on 12 Sep 98, the word on the street was...

> > This is unacceptable to the PCs, so the shaman resorts to casting
> > Influence on the fixer to get him to pay 20,000 for a cheap watch. He
> > resists, and tells her what she can do with her watch.
>
> This caught my curiosity, so I went and looked up the Influence spell in the
> Grimoire *and* SR3. The Grimmy specifically says it's "Similar to the Control
> Thoughts spell" -- which I'd take to mean the same modifiers for opposed ideas
> apply. SR3 doesn't say that; it simply says that the subject can make a
> Willpower test *if* someone else points out that the idea is a bad one.

This happened about a year ago, real time, so we'd never even heard of SR3
back then. I think it helps to explain that the player saw Influence as a
sort of "get out of trouble free" card, casting it at anything and
everything that was in the character's way. Basically, I think he
interpreted as being like Control Thoughts, while my view was (is) that it
plants an idea into someone's head -- the more successes the caster has,
the better the subject thinks the idea is, and thus the more likely he or
she is to act on it.

> So the question becomes: should control manipulation spells have modifiers on
> them to account for ideas the target would agree with vs. ideas the target
> would find ludicrous or damaging?

I say they should, at least if they're not intended to completly control
the target's mind (see above and below).

> In the example you cite above, I think it
> should be *extremely* difficult to convince the fixer to give 'em 20,000 =Y=
> for a cheap watch "as if it were his own idea," even though nobody would be
> physically harmed.

Exactly my thoughts. OTOH Control Thoughts actually forces the target to
believe it is the right thing to do -- at least for as long as the spell
is sustained *EGMG*

> I'd give it a +2 or +4 modifier to reflect the NPC's common sense.

That's what I did, yes. (And I made him roll a test to see if he noticed
the spell being cast. He did, so he knew he was being manipulated.)

> (Or just to discourage the PC's from being positively reinforced into
> thinking Influence is a solution for everything. This example is completely
> against what I think of as the purpose of the spell, which is more of a "These
> are not the droids you're looking for" application.)

Again, my view too. The player saw it differently, and it took both
reasoning with the player and applying game mechanics I normally don't
often bother with (like tests to notice spells being cast) to get him to
understand that Influence isn't like that.

> What do other people think? Is the spell too flatly powerful as it stands? Or
> is it good as written, and payback should come in the form of role-playing?
> (E.g., if the fixer *had* forked over 20K, he later figures out what happened
> and makes enemies of the PC's?)

I'd say it isn't too powerful, as long as the GM doesn't let the players
abuse it. Show them that it most definitely has its limitations, and
they'll figure out that it isn't the best spell in existence.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It may look to the untrained eye I'm sitting on my arse all day.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 3
From: Steve Collins <einan@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: Influence (was Re: Dumb things)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 23:16:06 -0400
>So the question becomes: should control manipulation spells have modifiers on
>them to account for ideas the target would agree with vs. ideas the target
>would find ludicrous or damaging? In the example you cite above, I think it
>should be *extremely* difficult to convince the fixer to give 'em 20,000 =Y=
>for a cheap watch "as if it were his own idea," even though nobody would be
>physically harmed. I'd give it a +2 or +4 modifier to reflect the NPC's
>common sense. (Or just to discourage the PC's from being positively
reinforced into
>thinking Influence is a solution for everything. This example is completely
>against what I think of as the purpose of the spell, which is more of a
>"These are not the droids you're looking for" application.)

Absolutely there should be a modifier but it should be based on exactly
what you are trying to Influence the Person to do. In the example cited
trying to get the fixer to just give you the cash should be nearly
impossible. It may work but 2 minutes later he's gonna say "wait I just
gave those guys 20K for a worthless piece of junk, why the hell did I do
that,get back here". On the other hand if the mage cast it while the
fixer was appraising the watch and the effect he was going for was to
make the Fixer believe it was actually worth 20K, well that would
probably work fairly easily. Especially since he has no predispotion to
believe it is worth less than that. The Catch, when he does realize he's
been had he's gonna be slightly upset. Possibly enough to give the
runners a suicide run, but at least screw them over for twice that
ammount the next time they ask for his help and then never deal with them
again.

>
>What do other people think? Is the spell too flatly powerful as it
>stands? Or
>is it good as written, and payback should come in the form of role-playing?
>(E.g., if the fixer *had* forked over 20K, he later figures out what happened
>and makes enemies of the PC's?)
>
>
>Have Fun,
> - Steve Eley
> sfeley@***.net
>
Message no. 4
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Influence (was Re: Dumb things)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 12:46:37 +0200
According to Steve Collins, at 23:16 on 12 Sep 98, the word on the street was...

> Absolutely there should be a modifier but it should be based on exactly
> what you are trying to Influence the Person to do. In the example cited
> trying to get the fixer to just give you the cash should be nearly
> impossible. It may work but 2 minutes later he's gonna say "wait I just
> gave those guys 20K for a worthless piece of junk, why the hell did I do
> that,get back here".

Well, no. The trouble with Influence is that it's a permanent spell. As
far as the fixer is concerned, it was a good idea to pay 20K for that
watch, because it's his own idea. Only when someone else would point out
to him that "Hey, you gave them a thousand times more than it's worth"
would he start to reconsider.

> On the other hand if the mage cast it while the
> fixer was appraising the watch and the effect he was going for was to
> make the Fixer believe it was actually worth 20K, well that would
> probably work fairly easily. Especially since he has no predispotion to
> believe it is worth less than that. The Catch, when he does realize he's
> been had he's gonna be slightly upset. Possibly enough to give the
> runners a suicide run, but at least screw them over for twice that
> ammount the next time they ask for his help and then never deal with them
> again.

This would work better than casting it after the ifxer has evaluated the
watch (to stick with the example), I agree.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It may look to the untrained eye I'm sitting on my arse all day.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 5
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Influence (was Re: Dumb things)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 13:35:52 -0700
>Well, no. The trouble with Influence is that it's a permanent spell. As
>far as the fixer is concerned, it was a good idea to pay 20K for that
>watch, because it's his own idea. Only when someone else would point out
>to him that "Hey, you gave them a thousand times more than it's worth"
>would he start to reconsider.


But you would have to sustain it for (x) rounds, since it is a
permanent spell. (X being 15, given the drain, I think). Note that that
used to be MINUTES in SR2. Does it take effect at the start or end of
that time? I think in SR3, its at the END. That gives him some good time
to notice you are casting a spell, and looking straight at him.

Mongoose
Message no. 6
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Influence (was Re: Dumb things)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:03:11 +0200
According to Mongoose, at 13:35 on 13 Sep 98, the word on the street was...

> But you would have to sustain it for (x) rounds, since it is a
> permanent spell. (X being 15, given the drain, I think).

10 turns.

> Note that that used to be MINUTES in SR2.

Nope, it has always been turns for SR spells, never minutes. The longest
time anyone will have to sustain a spell is one minute (for those 20-turn
spells with no successes allocated to reducing casting time).

> Does it take effect at the start or end of
> that time? I think in SR3, its at the END. That gives him some good time
> to notice you are casting a spell, and looking straight at him.

As far as I'm concerned, spells like this take effect at the end of
casting, not at the beginning. I agree with you about them getting a
chance to notice the spell being cast, and it's a rule I applied a lot at
the time just to prevent these kinds of things from getting out of hand.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
On a wave of mutilation...
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Influence (was Re: Dumb things), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.