PCs with very different reaction modifiers

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by DeadParrot

I was in a D&D game where a player took the charisma as a dump stat to the extreme with a Chr of 3. He wasn't very happy when the GM had the townsfolk either run in fear or call the guard and the inn keep utter things like "I don't allow things like that in here! It sleeps in the stables." The player really wasn't expecting there to be a penalty for such a low charisma.

Probably hadn't been in a game where the DM bothered imposing that sort of penalty before. A lot of GMs/DMs don't understand or don't care about the effects of low Charisma, especially if the game's focus is on the Hack-n-Slash Dungeoncrawling.

[Kallatari]

To those who are saying you don't penalize the face PC because of the combat PC, I disagree. PCs do not pay for, nor do they receive points back, for anything that come from other PC.

Basically, if you are saying a PC should get points back (a disadvantage) for receiving penalties or flaws or other issues because of other PC, then by that logic a PC should also pay points for all the benefits they receive from the other PC. At the very least, they should have to pay for the other PC as allies.

Since the PC doesn't pay for the benefits of other players, then they shouldn't receive and disadvantage points back from the drawback of the other players.

In short, it's fine to penalize the Face because of the non-face characters.

Also, what if the warrior brutes were actual Allies advantages paid for with points, and thus cost less because the allies' disadvantages reduced their cost. Would the penalties apply then? Exact same situation except the source of trouble is an NPC instead of a PC. They should therefore be treated the same way.


The question then becomes "what is the penalty".

To that, I don't have a quick answer, and it tends to be on a situation by situation basis in my games. Attending a social ball with them usually results in applying the worse penalties of the group just by association. I tend to be neutral-ish if the stay quiet in the background and do nothing for random situations where it's not relevant (e.g., the face buying the weapons for the warrior, as the weaponsmith is probably use to that situation). On the other hand, as someone else pointed out, when you want to show strength, having the brutish mercenaries hovering around you is a bonus.

My players have done both the "it's a bodyguard" and "leave them at camp" route to avoid the problems they create, and are fine with that.

[Varyon]

It occurs to me that a good way to handle this would be to allow the Face character an appropriate skill roll - Diplomacy, Fast-Talk, Sex Appeal, etc - to get people to focus on him/her. Nobody in town pays much attention to LeFou's ugliness and generally foul attitude when Gaston is flexing his muscles, showing off his perfect teeth and hair, and otherwise showboating.

Ideally, it seems like this would be something where one character does an appropriate skill roll to draw attention (which can double as an assistance roll for sneaky characters to avoid attention*, provided they aren't too close nearby), with the result increasing the reaction modifiers for their companions (say, +1 or MoS, whichever is higher, on a Success; Failure might instead reduce the attention-drawing character's reaction modifier), up to a maximum of the attention-drawer's own reaction modifier. After this, you calculate the average (if necessary), and use that for how people react to the party. Alternatively, you could have the attention-seeker count as more than one party member - maybe +1+MoS SSR (1.5 shares for MoS 0, 2 shares for MoS 1, 3 shares for MoS 2, 5 shares for MoS 3, etc).

*Similarly, you could probably have sneaky characters roll against Stealth or similar to outright avoid drawing attention, increasing their own reaction modifier up to the Face's level - or reducing their own contribution to the average, if using that variant (maybe -(1+MoS) SSR - so MoS 2 means they only contribute a 0.3 share to the average).
EDIT: It also occurs to me that you could have the other characters purposefully increase the attention on the Face character, like LeFou singing about Gaston, rather than just trying to remain largely-unnoticed. I'd be inclined to just have this function as an assistance roll for the Face character.


For example, let's say Alice is at +5, Bob is at -4, Charlie is at +1, and Delilah is at -2. Normally, that would be an average of +0. Alice purposefully draws attention to herself with a roll against Public Speaking, getting MoS 3, while Bob tries to seem unimportant with a roll against Stealth, getting MoS 1. With the first variant, Alice's MoS 3 boosts Bob to -1, Charlie to +4, and Delilah to +1, while Bob's stealth boosts him further to +0; combined with Alice's +5, that's an average of +2.5, which the GM will probably round down to +2. With the second variant, Alice's MoS 3 means she's got 5 shares at +5, and Bob's MoS 1 means he's got 0.5 shares at -4. (5*5-4/2+1-2)/7.5=+2.93, which the GM should probably round up to +3.

The problem, of course, is that calculating all the above in play would probably get rather annoying. An alternative option is to instead have Alice's MoS directly modify the average, up to a maximum of her own modifier, and any successful attempt by the others to be less obvious simply count as rolls to assist her. So, above, she boosts the nominal average of +0 to +3 with her MoS 3, and Bob succeeding at Stealth gives her a further +1, for a net +4.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

If there's no serious prospect of violence then you _do_ split the party and leave Bob the Uncouth at the bar or back at camp.

Give the PCs a chance to solve their problem in character before you fret about them not being able to.

As I said, this is something I've run into, I'm not preemptively fretting about it. Specifically, the situation involved a Dungeon Fantasy campaign with a minotaur barbarian, a half-ogre barbarian, and at least one character who took Social Stigma (Minority Group) in spite of not being a barbarian. I didn't describe this in the OP because the campaign is no longer active and I thought maybe a less-extreme hypothetical might make for a better discussion.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Specifically, the situation involved a Dungeon Fantasy campaign with a minotaur barbarian, a half-ogre barbarian, and at least one character who took Social Stigma (Minority Group) in spite of not being a barbarian. I didn't describe this in the OP because the campaign is no longer active and I thought maybe a less-extreme hypothetical might make for a better discussion.

It appears that the party in question had voted (with their feet during character creation) against doing much Reaction Roll-based roleplay.

If there was one player attempting to make a Reaction Roll-based character they needed to e warned that their party wasn't interested in this sort of stuff and they were going to face great frustration in the forthcoming game..

It's not up to the GM to make such seriously conflicting goals work out anyway. Some times you jsut have to let things fall with a "crash!".

[Donny Brook]

Applying the Reaction rules will run into problems whenever a too gamist approach is taken.

The Reaction rules should always be subject to the GMs narrative needs and sense of verisimilitude. Reaction bonuses and penalties should only be relevant when the in-game reality invokes them. If an NPC can't tell from events that a PC is, for example, Social Status 4, then that bonus shouldn't count for the reaction test. Likewise, if the NPC can't discern that a PC is a convict, then that penalty should not apply for the reaction test.

Extrapolating to the OP question, the GM has to assess how much the presence of a nasty brute will affect the impression given by the Face in that specific situation, and this will depend on in-game conditions. Is the brute prominent in the interaction or in the background? Would the Face be expected to have a brute with him or is it unusual? Does the NPC have inherent or situational reasons to react to the brute?

I think it would be quite unusual for a Face's bonuses to be directly offset by the brute's penalties if it's the Face who is having the reaction check. Bringing droids into the cantina doesn't mean the human can't get a drink.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

It's not up to the GM to make such seriously conflicting goals work out anyway. Some times you jsut have to let things fall with a "crash!".

IME it never hurts to get as much information from the GM about what the other PCs are building before heading out to the Points Forge.

The players do not need to harmonize like the Temptations but actively clashing goals are just begging for pain.

That said things really depend on the environment.

In a dungeon or the 'wilderness' for obvious reasons spliting the party is 90+% of the time a BAD idea.

In a town or city when 'hostilities' are not currently expected (especially in one's hometown) a party split is IME relatively common.

Caution might recommend staying in pairs or small groups but if the campaign is not 'all combat, all the time' then the party spliting makes some sense.

Now if they split in a small town where everyone knows everyone and their business I might well assign Mr Face a penalty for 'known associates' of less than savory character (certainly more if said person is RIGHT THERE).

If the party is separated in the Local equivalent of New York, London or Paris...I probably would only penalize if the PCs are notorious (FREX yes it is New York but he is one of the Fantastic Four!) or the NPC specifically knows the PCs. Otherwise in a city that large a person just would not know the associates of everyone else regardless of reputation or appearance of said associates.

As always YMMV

[Anthony]

The core problem is that personal disadvantages should result in personal costs -- "I'm more powerful at a cost of the rest of the party being weaker" causes table problems. However, reaction penalties aren't worth their point value if you can ignore them by just sitting in the back and letting other people talk.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by Varyon

It occurs to me that a good way to handle this would be to allow the Face character an appropriate skill roll - Diplomacy, Fast-Talk, Sex Appeal, etc - to get people to focus on him/her.

I like this. It is like a social version of the Taunt and Bluster rules.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

It appears that the party in question had voted (with their feet during character creation) against doing much Reaction Roll-based roleplay.

If there was one player attempting to make a Reaction Roll-based character they needed to e warned that their party wasn't interested in this sort of stuff and they were going to face great frustration in the forthcoming game..

It's not up to the GM to make such seriously conflicting goals work out anyway. Some times you jsut have to let things fall with a "crash!".

Many players made this choice but not all did—a notable exception was the party's cleric. And I didn't initially expect it to come up in the way it did. But they decided they wanted to chase down a rumor about something that had happened several towns over, which meant this scary group was now passing through several small towns trying to talk to people. I let the cleric smooth things over with a bit of roleplaying and no need to overcome any game-mechanical penalties. That wasn't a terrible solution, but my current thinking is if I had to do it again I'd have imposed a modest (just -1 or -2) penalty on the cleric's reaction rolls.