[DF, DFRPG] Social Stigma - Savage versus Minority

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Bruno

That's quite a view on flirting with bar maids... :)

It's clearly a negotiation. You are negotiating for their attention using whatever resources are at your disposal, be that charm, looks, wit, talent, or money.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

If I instead read it as "business transactions" explicitly buying and selling, then it comes into line. I'd probably lump "negotiations to avoid fighting" into that, it seems appropriate after all.

I wouldn't. The town merchants probably figure that a "savage" doesn't understand the value of money and may be surprised to learn it can count past 10...usually correctly but people who encounter savages in potential combat situations aren't going to take them so lightly.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Emphasis added by me:

Minority Group: ‑2 on all reaction rolls.*

Savage: -2 on reaction rolls and -4 on skill rolls when buying or selling goods, finding backers, or engaging in similar negotiations, and a 6 or less chance of being denied entry to town.*

* Except from others of your own kind, in both cases.

This is unfortunate phrasing, as it is not clear whether "when buying or selling goods..." limits the -2 to reaction rolls (blame English not having strong rules for operator precedence).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anthony

This is unfortunate phrasing, as it is not clear whether "when buying or selling goods..." limits the -2 to reaction rolls (blame English not having strong rules for operator precedence).

I don't agree. There's an easy way to mark the condition where the limitation applies only to the latter modifier: -2 on reaction rolls, -4 on skill rolls when buying or selling goods, finding backers, or engaging in similar negotiations, and a 6 or less chance of being denied entry to town.

(It could be made even clearer by separating the main phrases with semicolons, but the grammar works without them.)

In the absence of a comma or other punctuation mark, the limitation would be assumed to apply to both penalties, especially if they are joined by an "and"; the "and" is redundant and inappropriate if this is not what is meant, as there is already an "and" before "a 6 or less chance", and "A and B, and C" is not correct grammar or punctuation. The only way it can be correct is if the "when" applies to both A and B.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I don't agree.

The OP was confused, therefore it's unclear phrasing (this could be a case of 'the formal rule are clear, but it's still worth rephrasing', something can be formally correct and still elicit confusion).

[Flyndaran]

Even if grammatically correct, most native speakers would not read it that way. I didn't, and I'm reasonably okay at English.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

I wouldn't. The town merchants probably figure that a "savage" doesn't understand the value of money and may be surprised to learn it can count past 10...usually correctly but people who encounter savages in potential combat situations aren't going to take them so lightly.

It isn't about "taking them lightly" it's about trusting them to keep their word once the "not going to fight" deal is done.

Why would a civilized person trust a savage?

But yeah, I could easily see only limiting Savages to the "Buying and Selling" penalties (and occasionally being bared from town).

[Nemoricus]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The OP was confused, therefore it's unclear phrasing (this could be a case of 'the formal rule are clear, but it's still worth rephrasing', something can be formally correct and still elicit confusion).

Count me among the people who were initially confused by the phrasing of the rule. The intent of the rule is quite clear now that I've seen it explained, but I didn't immediately read it that way.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

It isn't about "taking them lightly" it's about trusting them to keep their word once the "not going to fight" deal is done.

Why would a civilized person trust a savage?
.

Honestly "treacherous backstabber" is more of a civilized reputation than a "savage" one. You expect them to be aggressive but rarely tricky.

[Gnomasz]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

It isn't about "taking them lightly" it's about trusting them to keep their word once the "not going to fight" deal is done.

Why would a civilized person trust a savage?

I'd say it cancels out. Npc-s might be more afraid that a savage kills them even if they surrender, but they might just as well be less keen to continue fighting with a savage than with a civilized person (savage being more dangerous). It's good to keep in mind (low roll means they shout "you'd kill me anyway, savage!"), but shouldn't modify the roll.