Hooking Up With Pussy Galore

Honor Blackman as the titular Pussy Galore

As I have said previously, “A role-playing game based on a given intellectual property ought to be able to emulate situations from the source material.”  Since James Bond is famous for his womanizing, it is no surprise that the James Bond 007 role-playing game provides rules for “attempting to form an intimate romantic relationship with a Non-Player Character.”

One of the skills available to James Bond 007 characters is Seduction.  As explained in last week's post, a skill is based on one or two characteristics.  Seduction is unique in that it is derived from another skill as well as a characteristic.  The Primary Chance 'formula' for the Seduction skill is:

[ ( Charisma Skill Levels + Willpower ) / 2 ] + Skill Levels

Every player character has the Charisma skill at no cost and thus has one skill level automatically.  Charisma regards “making good impressions upon the Non-Player Characters your character encounters and convincing them that he is a great human being and deserving of their respect, love and admiration.”  Like Seduction, Charisma is based on the Willpower characteristic.  Willpower is defined on page 18 as:

The character's mental ability to control his bodily reactions to such things as pain, abuse, attacks (whether verbal or physical) and stress.  It is also a general measure of discipline.

James Bond's Willpower value is 13 and he has a total of 15 Skill Levels in Charisma.  (This is the maximum number of Charisma Skill Levels he can have – two more than his Willpower.)  Bond has 14 Skill Levels in Seduction, giving him a Primary Chance of 28.  ([(15 + 13) / 2] + 14)

The “How to Interact with Non-Player Characters” chapter of James Bond 007 explains that Seduction “is used to establish a close, romantic relationship with an NPC of the opposite sex with the intent of changing the NPC's reaction towards the character.”  Also, “The relationship will probably develop to include some kind of physical encounter.”  Nowadays, “of the opposite sex” would be replaced with a phrase along the lines of “sexually predisposed to the PC's gender.”  It's not as if Fleming excluded characters of alternative sexuality from his works; of course, his attitudes in this regard were not exactly enlightened.  Fleming stated that Pussy Galore's lesbianism was a “psycho-pathological malady” and she “only needed the right man to come along...”  Although a flawed character, Bond is nonetheless the quintessential white male power fantasy.  No woman can resist him – not for long.

There five stages in a Seduction attempt:

1.  The Look (Ease Factor 10)
2.  Opening Line (Ease Factor 9)
3.  Witty Conversation (Ease Factor 8)
4.  Beginning Intimacies (Ease Factor 5)
5.  When and Where? (Ease Factor 4)

Despite names like “Opening Line” and “Witty Conversation,” each stage is effectively a die roll.  Specifically, each stage requires the seducer to succeed with a Seduction roll at the listed Ease Factor.  The Ease Factor lowers as the stages progress – meaning the rolls become more difficult.  The Ease Factors can be modified for a number of reasons.  If the seducer previously impressed the character to be seduced with the Connoisseur Ability, the seducer receives a +1 Ease Factor.  “If the NPC is male and the Player Character is female,” there is a +2 Ease Factor.  If the person to be seduced “has a Weakness for Members of the Opposite Sex,” there is a +2 Ease Factor.  There is a –2 Ease Factor when a seducer attempts to seduce someone who has “successfully resisted“ his or her prior attempt.  As might be expected, a seducer's appearance affects the Seduction roll.  For example, a “Normal” character has a –1 Ease Factor while a “Striking” character (Bond's appearance 'level') has a +2 Ease Factor.

An NPC can attempt to resist a Seduction attempt at any stage “by making a Willpower roll at an Ease Factor equal to the Quality Rating [of the Seduction roll].”  Even if a Player Character fails a Seduction roll, the NPC must succeed with a Willpower roll at an Ease Factor of 10 in order to resist.  Player Characters can automatically resist Seduction attempts and NPCs successful in resisting can “pretend to have the Seduction continue.”

Anyway, according to the Goldfinger Adventure Module:

Galore should be played as a frigid woman.  She distrusts all men and, therefore, Seduction attempts against her will be very difficult (a –2 Ease Factor modifier) and will probably require the expenditure of Hero Points.  Because of her innate distrust of men, she gets a +3 Ease Factor modifier on her Willpower roll to resist being seduced.

Bond's first stage Seduction attempt has an Ease Factor of 10.  This represents a base Ease Factor of 10, with –2 on account of Galore's modifier, but +2 for Bond's Striking appearance.  With Bond's Primary Chance of 28, an Ease Factor of 10 means a Success Chance of 280.  For the final stage of the Seduction, Bond's Success Chance is 112.  Because of Bond's high Success Chances, he can fail only with a roll of 100.  What differs with the various stages are the rolls necessary for the different Quality Rating results.  On the first stage, Bond can achieve a “Good” result with a roll of 57 – 98; on the last stage, he can obtain the same result with a roll of 25 – 60.

Galore's Willpower value is 8.  So, depending upon the Quality Rating of Bond's  successful Seduction roll at any stage, Galore has a 32%, 40%, 48%, or 56% chance to resist.  (A woman of equivalent Willpower, but without Galore's modifiers, would have an 8%, 16%, 24%, or 32% chance to resist.)  Successfully resisting at any stage would require Bond to start the Seduction sequence again, beginning at the first stage.  The –2 Ease Factor for a repeated attempt would apply.

The 'consummation' of Bond's seduction of Galore is immediately preceded by violence.  Assaulting a woman is hardly heroic and I would not condone such behavior in the real world.  Fortunately, Bond is fictional and we need not countenance his actions as we consider them.  Bond's opportunities to succeed in his mission dwindled.  His 'conversion' of Galore was necessary in order to save the day, protect thousands of innocent lives, and prevent economic chaos in the Western world.  What would you do to accomplish the same?

Dallas of the Gods (also: Dealing with Sandestins)

Scenes from Jason and the Argonauts (1963)

I obtained these images from this blog, which may be of interest to the reader.

Dallas: The Television Role-Playing Game differs from “traditional” RPGs in several respects.  In this post, we ask if these differences can be employed suitably for settings other than a television soap opera.

In most RPGs intended for campaign play, player characters do not usually compete with one another.  The general assumption is that player characters (as well as the players) will work together towards a common goal; there is no definite winner.  In Dallas, each major character has explicit victory conditions.  Although the victory conditions are not mutually exclusive, they prompt the players to vie with one another to acquire specific resources (i.e., minor characters and plot devices).  In Dallas, therefore, the essential conflict is not between the player characters and an external force, the conflict is among the player characters.

Each Dallas 'Script' is a self-contained episode; each session is a 'one-shot.'  There is no campaign play, no continuing storyline.  For an 'entry level' RPG – what Dallas was intended to be – this is acceptable (and perhaps preferable).  At any rate, it can be difficult to maintain a campaign where the primary motive for player characters is conflict among themselves; difficult, but not impossible.  Wujcik's Amber is an excellent example of a game where the player characters are their own adversaries in a campaign story arc.  Dallas, however, would not be an appropriate rules set to emulate the adventures of Corwin and his kin given that Dallas does not address physical combat.

Other than player-to-player negotiation and plot devices, conflict resolution in Dallas is limited to Persuasion, Coercion, Seduction, and Investigation.  (Instead of 'Investigation,' let us use the genre-neutral term 'Intrigue.')  The lack of emphasis on violence makes a player-vs-player campaign more feasible; character elimination is practically impossible – shooting J.R. causes only a temporary inconvenience.

With Dallas, we have players opposed to one another in an effort to gain specified resources.  Aside from resource acquisition, we have resource management.  In Dallas, there is a currency of 'Power' – it can be used to modify Affect attempts and it can also be traded.  Other than Power, there is time to be managed.  Each player gets only three 'actions' per Scene.  When should you make a critical move?  When the opportunity presents itself?  Or at the last possible moment so you won't have defend what you gain?  Due to the nature of Victory Conditions in Dallas, there must be a set end-point when those conditions are determined.  I suppose Dallas could be played so that any given Episode ends as soon as any player achieves his or her Victory Conditions.  I think the set end-point would probably be the more entertaining of the two options.  Regardless, in a campaign, there would need to be an advantage conferred by 'winning' an Episode that could be employed in future Episodes.  More Power?  Improved attribute Values?  The ability to determine turn order during the Conflict Phase?  Perhaps retaining the Victory Condition resources would be sufficient reward.

The essential features of the Dallas rules set are (1) players as adversaries and (2) influence-based/non-combat conflict resolution.  What setting would be appropriate?  I envision a game where players assume the roles of the Greek gods.  Instead of J.R. and Sue Ellen, we would have Zeus and Hera.  Instead of oil companies and secretaries as resources, we would have heroes and monsters, cities and armies.  Yes, the resources could fight and kill one another, but the gods would not resort to physical violence among themselves.  Also, they wouldn't directly destroy resources – it wouldn't be sporting.  Gods would provide aid to their own heroes and attempt to thwart their opponents' heroes.  Victory Conditions could include the Golden Fleece and the rescue of Andromeda.  But why be limited to the Olympian pantheon?  There are plenty of mythologies.  Why not a 'mix and match' pantheon?  We could have Loki and Isis conspiring against Themis and Ishtar.

In less lofty spheres, I can see the Dallas rules used to simulate the interactions of 21st Aeon arch-magicians as portrayed in Jack Vance's Rhialto the Marvellous.  Yes, The Dying Earth Role Playing Game covers this milieu but the Dallas rules might offer a more structured alternative.  Among the minor characters would be the sandestins that the magicians use to carry out their spells.  In “Fader's Waft,” a sandestin's loyalty could be altered by Persuasion or Coercion.  Other resources would be spells and various magical “adjuncts” such as the highly coveted IOUN stones.