View Single Post
Old 07-14-2011, 10:02 AM   #19
Dunadin777
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Default Re: Reputation and Intimidation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mailanka View Post
It's not overwrought, it's what the rules state.
The overwrought system is the other system I was referencing--namely D&D.

Quote:
Moreover, reaction modifiers add to your influence skils, of which Intimidation is one. Finally, reread the reputation section. It says nothing about a positive reputation representing "being liked" and a negative reputation representing "being disliked." In fact, it says that you must specify the nature of your reputation, and says nothing beyond that. Reputation is about how well-known you are, not how well-liked.
First of all, Reputation is described on B26 as affecting Reaction rolls, not Influence skills--that's just a logical extension of the rules, since influence rolls use all reaction-based modifiers. But clearly, the point where most of us differ with you is on the fact that your reputation requires details. You clearly feel that those details are fluff and shouldn't change the application of the rules, but I think that a descriptive element always bears more weight than a generic rule. If a reputation is based on ferocity to a specific group of people, then it stands to reason that it should work against you in certain circumstances. By your reading of the rules, I'd require that all players take recursive reputations--if they take a good Rep for ferocity, they should take a bad one that applies to the minority--but this seems beyond my appreciation for the rules and would result in players getting too much benefit for minimal points.

Quote:
My point is that if a reputation generally assists you with the above, if it helps you scare away opponents, convinces people to be loyal to you and gets you what you want, then it's a positive modifier. That's what a positive modifier means. If, in general, it results in people being eager to fight you, unlikely to give you what you want, and convinces people to be disloyal to you, then it's a negative modifier. That's what a negative modifier means.
That's not the issue, you're saying that a Reputation can only do one or the other, and if you can't explain how a single reputation can do that, then it's a needless abstraction of something that would otherwise be concrete. The Reputations described above are for concrete actions that lead to specific Reputations that lead to results that can conflict based on the situation.

Quote:
I'm not saying that this is universal. Batman's reputation is certainly going to hamper him in some situations, and the nice guy's reputation might help him (for example, when it comes to trust). But by and large, positives should help you, and negatives should harm you. If you're getting points for something that helps you more than it hinders you, it's point-crock.

You mischaracterize my position.
Your earlier comments were not in regards to being a point-crock. You said that a penalty is a penalty and that if he got points for it the Reputation should never be helpful. The thread is discussing when Reputations flip--when a character's positive Rep as a trustworthy guy becomes a liability, and when the guy known as the bane of pirates can use that to his advantage.

Points, point-crocks, and so on aren't even the issue. This is about sussing out reasonable role-playing dynamics. You should never preclude something that fits the established rules and--more importantly--the in-character actions of those involved just because it conflicts with how you spent your points.
__________________
Finds party's farmboy-helper about to skewer the captive brigand who attacked his sister.

"I don't think I'm morally obligated to stop this..."
Ten Green Gem Vine--Warrior-poet, bane of highwaymen
Dunadin777 is offline   Reply With Quote