Reputation and Intimidation

[Xplo]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

But that's not what you described. You described people who were "bloody terrified" of the guy. That's not people who merely dislike someone, try to kill him and serve as enemies. Those are people running away at the mention of someone's name. That's certainly a positive reputation, an advantage.

The problem with this interpretation is that someone with a positive Rep could also (plausibly!) ask Sky Pirates for favors, do business with Sky Pirates, etc. and that's clearly not what's supposed to happen here.

To me, it seems much more sensible to accept that negative Reputations occasionally help, or at least do no harm, than to accept your premise that having Sky Pirates hate and fear you is actually an advantage.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Xplo

The problem with this interpretation is that someone with a positive Rep could also (plausibly!) ask Sky Pirates for favors, do business with Sky Pirates, etc. and that's clearly not what's supposed to happen here.

To me, it seems much more sensible to accept that negative Reputations occasionally help, or at least do no harm, than to accept your premise that having Sky Pirates hate and fear you is actually an advantage.

If you're willing to accept that a disadvantage can actually be a bonus, why can't you accept the less extreme position that sometimes an advantage doesn't help?

Look, a guy who terrifies a group CAN ask for favors or information or do business. It happens all the time. "Better to be feared than loved," as Machiavelli always says. It's a fallacy that if a group fears you, they'll have nothing to do with you (and I seriously don't know where Langy gets the notion that terror translates into bloodlust). If giving you what you want gets you to go away, then why not do it?

But let's say you totally disagree with that position. Fine. You end up in a situation where a guy has a positive modifier that let's him win potential combat scenarios and gives him a buff on a few of his influence skills, like Intimidation, Fast-Talk and Streetwise, but doesn't help him with Diplomacy and a few other skills. Should that be worth [20] or [-20]? Because it sounds like an advantage to me. Combat Reflexes doesn't help you 100% of the time either, nor does being famous for being an excellent cook.

But being famous for being an excellent cook, I'm sure everyone would agree, is worth [20], not [-20], while someone, being famous for destroying a bunch of people and driving them before you in utter terror is somehow a disadvantage that's often advantageous...?

[Miles]

Precedent (if you can call it that) seems to suggest that you can apply a negative reputation to positive effect in certain circumstances.

As previously mentioned, you get a bonus to Intimidate for having an Appearance level of Hideous or worse.

Even more relevantly, the notes for Streetwise say "+3 if you have a tough reputation (either "good" or "bad")". If having a "bad but tough" reputation gives you a bonus to Streetwise, it seems like it should do the same for Intimidation.

[Xplo]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

If you're willing to accept that a disadvantage can actually be a bonus, why can't you accept the less extreme position that sometimes an advantage doesn't help?

I can. But an advantage should be advantageous more than it is disadvantageous, and I have a hard time seeing how being hated and feared leads to that. I think that the idea that a group that hates and fears you will be more inclined to help you in most situations doesn't make sense. Yes, you might be able to terrify them into doing what you want, if you can get them in a weak position with no alternative, but as soon as you turn your back they're going to stick a knife in it.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Xplo

I can. But an advantage should be advantageous more than it is disadvantageous, and I have a hard time seeing how being hated and feared leads to that. I think that the idea that a group that hates and fears you will be more inclined to help you in most situations doesn't make sense. Yes, you might be able to terrify them into doing what you want, if you can get them in a weak position with no alternative, but as soon as you turn your back they're going to stick a knife in it.

This is exactly what I'm after, and I can't see building that as a positive reputation.

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Langy

This is exactly what I'm after, and I can't see building that as a positive reputation.

Right, I'm not sure what the confusion is about. From Basic Set: "A reaction bonus is any factor that makes NPCs friendlier, while a reaction penalty is something that biases NPCs against the PCs." On p.B560 it says "A successful roll against an appropriate skill (Administration to deal with bureaucrats, Carousing when partying, etc.) can give +2 to
reactions." So, in your case a successful Intimidation roll can give a +2 reaction roll. Callous (p. 125), Monster (p. 155) and Appearance (p. 202) add to Intimidation. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to have a -3 reaction from Sky Pirates (see Monster, p. 155) most of the time because they want to kill you, but that gives you a +3 in Intimidation rolls in certain situations. If you look at the Reaction Table you will see six categories: general reaction, potential combat situation, commercial transactions, requests for aid, requests for information , and loyalty. Your "bonus," if you will, applies to only one of them -- potential combat situations. On all the others, you're hosed. I realize there is nothing totally definitive on this in Basic Set, but it's pretty clear this is well within the rules. The section on Reputation even suggests how to have a Rep which cancels out. In your case it's even more limiting, as you only get a "bonus" in two cases: when using Intimidation (assumign you have it!), or if trying to resolve potential combat situations on the Reaction Table (in scenes for which the GM has not planned a certain fight). I find that reasonable and not at all unbalancing.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by safisher

So, in your case a successful Intimidation roll can give a +2 reaction roll.

Why would you do that instead of just getting an automatic "Good" reaction as an influence roll?

[safisher]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Why would you do that instead of just getting an automatic "Good" reaction as an influence roll?

Because you wanted something better than Good.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by safisher

Because you wanted something better than Good.

Ah, a gambling man! Very well.

At any rate I don't personally have a problem with reversing the signs of any any reaction modifier when it makes sense to do so. I've done this for years.