Topic: Seduction Skill

[dutch206]

From RM Classic:

Seduction: (Em/Pr) This skill provides a
bonus when attempting to emotionally,
sensually, or sexually manipulate
someone. This is not limited to sexual
seduction ? manipulation of a person?s
sensual sensibilities or tempting a
person to indulge in some fantasy or
desire is also seduction.

From reference.dictionary.com:

Seduce
?verb (used with object), -duced, -duc?ing. 1. to lead astray, as from duty, rectitude, or the like; corrupt. 
2. to persuade or induce to have sexual intercourse. 
3. to lead or draw away, as from principles, faith, or allegiance: He was seduced by the prospect of gain. 
4. to win over; attract; entice: a supermarket seducing customers with special sales. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1470?80; < L s?dūcere to lead aside, equiv. to s?- se- + dūcere to lead; r. earlier seduise < MF < L, as above]

?Related forms
se?duc?er, noun
se?duc?i?ble, se?duce?a?ble, adjective
se?duc?ing?ly, adverb


?Synonyms 1. beguile, inveigle, decoy, allure, lure, deceive. See tempt.
?Antonyms 1. repel.

So, my question is this.  Why include secondary skills for duping, diplomacy, and bribery?  (Or influence skills for RMFRP)  Aren't these all forms of seduction?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

1) Not everybody will be comfortable with "seduction" or even their own personal interpretation of it.

2) The RMC definition of Seduction more closely matches definitions #1, #3, and #4. In other words, it involves the corruption of the target. The leading them astray from what they normally believe.

3) Duping is fasting-talking or swindling a person.

4) Diplomacy is about knowing how to deal with people in different situations. (i.e. how to be polite).

5) Bribery is the art of offering a bribe to a person in a circumspect manner. If the "target" does not already have corruption in their heart, they won't take the bribe, or might not even understand that you are attempting to bribe them (if you were extremely subtle..)

6) No, these are not all forms of seduction. At least not in my viewpoint. Now, you could obviously trim things down by widening your definition of the skill.

7) I would recommend strongly against using ALL of the optional secondary skills. You should only include those that make sense for YOUR campaign.

[markc]

 IMO no but I do not have any say in the skills for RMC, I only have that say in my game.

 Also in your game you can reduce all of the above skills and place them in seduction. But if you are running a game with a lot of social interaction you may want to keep all the skills to let some PC shine in one area and another in another area.

MDC

[twh]

To give an example, this is how I've described the difference between bribery and seduction to my players:  Bribery is when you offer a guard a few coin to open the locked door for you.  Seduction is when you offer the guard a share of the treasure you know is behind the door.  The first is a simple transaction; the second plays on the guard's greater desires.

[Marc R]

I would personally use seduction for bribery, but if I were using both, that's the best description of the difference I ever heard.

Assuming Seduction, Duping an Intimidation were in play:

Seduction implies a positive rienforcer (a reward), Intimidation implies a negative rienforcer (a punishment) and Duping merely implies you are attempting to lie to or trick the target.

In the context of an interrogation:

Seduction would imply the use of "Good cop" strategy ala "tell me and we'll let you go". You are trying to draw out the target with the promise of a reward.

Intimidation would imply the use of "Bad cop" strategy ala "Confess or we're going to cut your fingers off", draw out the target with the threat of punishment.

Duping could be a part of either of the above, in the sense that you could never intend to let them go or cut their fingers off. (if you actually intend to follow through, you don't need to be a good lier, as you are actually telling the truth) or it could be used on its own ala "Your partner already confessed, we just need to settle a few details, he says you stabbed the elf, is that true?" when in fact the partner is refusing to talk and you're lying.

Diplomacy, at least the way I use it, when I use it, involves more complicated matters involving balancing multiple factors against each other. Like if both criminals, representatives of their families, and the dead elf's brother are all in the room:

"If you confess we'll put you in our jail for 25 years, your partner will be turned over to the elves for punishment. Your family will pay the elves 10 GP indemnity, your partner's family will pay the elves 100 GP indemnity. The Elves will be satiisfied with the payment and punishment of the actual killer and make no further reprisals. Is this acceptable to everyone?"

If a PC had Diplomacy but not seduction, bribery or intimidation (when those skills are in play), I might let them use it at a higher difficulty level to do tasks better suited to the other skill.

Likely that would be the same answer for any of these skills cross used. (i.e. intimidating someone into taking a bribe ala "Either I pay you or I break your leg") within limits of course, like intimidation is no good for a "soft" attempt at using the seduction skill.

[Balhirath]

Diplomany is also knowing what to say in different situations, where saying the wrong thing might have very bad influence on your health
As someone once said: Diplomacy is the art of getting both feet to the ground.. without stepping on anybodies toes.

[Justin]

LordMiller's interpretation is exactly how I do it.