Reputation and Intimidation

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Langy;1211478


This is pretty much how I saw it going. I [i

certainly[/i] don't think that it should provide any kind of intimidation penalty just because they don't like him.
e.

Well that wouldn't be "appropriate" and the Intimidation writeup says "appropriate"

[Bruno]

If your Reputation was -3 because you're a clown who makes his business mocking Sky Pirates in the national media, I wouldn't give you a bonus on Intimidation. But I would probably give you a +3 on an Acting check to convince a group of Sky Pirates that you're a harmless buffoon not worth guarding closely while held captive. They don't LIKE you, but your Reputation is that you're a clown, not a fierce adventurer.

Since it's -3 because you're a fierce and dangerous foe of Sky Pirates, I would give you the +3 when threatening Sky Pirates (and after that T-Rex stunt, a +3 to Fast Talk that your dinosaur armies are on their way to overrun their secret base). But a penalty to convince them that you're a harmless buffoon who doesn't need guards :)


Social bonuses and penalties are contextual. I look forward to Social Engineering, which will probably deal with this at least in part.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Bruno

If your Reputation was -3 because you're a clown who makes his business mocking Sky Pirates in the national media, I wouldn't give you a bonus on Intimidation. But I would probably give you a +3 on an Acting check to convince a group of Sky Pirates that you're a harmless buffoon not worth guarding closely while held captive. They don't LIKE you, but your Reputation is that you're a clown, not a fierce adventurer.

Since it's -3 because you're a fierce and dangerous foe of Sky Pirates, I would give you the +3 when threatening Sky Pirates (and after that T-Rex stunt, a +3 to Fast Talk that your dinosaur armies are on their way to overrun their secret base). But a penalty to convince them that you're a harmless buffoon who doesn't need guards :)

On the other hand, a penalty is a penalty, and he got points for it. It might make more sense to say that it doesn't apply at all, not because he isn't scary, but because the sky pirates hate him so damn much that they're likely to keep fighting him anyway. In any case, because it's a negative reputation, it will tend to prevent him from getting what he wants. It's a disadvantage, after all, and thus should generally hamper him.

In my samurai game, we have a ninja who has a +4 reputation because he's just so scary that people generally give him what he want, retreat from him in battle, and generally react in a way that's beneficial to him. I don't think we should look at positive reputation as "nice" or "disliked" and negative reputation as "sinister" or "disliked", but rather, a positive reputation tends to get you what you want, and a negative one tends to prevent you from getting what you want.

[Dunadin777]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

On the other hand, a penalty is a penalty, and he got points for it.

That doesn't make sense from a role-playing perspective, and it doesn't make sense from a GURPS perspective. There are several disadvantages which provide limited bonuses--Callous, for instance. GURPS doesn't operate from a sense that all disadvantages are always bad. If it did, then that would be limiting the amount of roleplay inherent to the system and the hobby.

In my samurai game, we have a ninja who has a +4 reputation because he's just so scary that people generally give him what he want, retreat from him in battle, and generally react in a way that's beneficial to him. I don't think we should look at positive reputation as "nice" or "disliked" and negative reputation as "sinister" or "disliked", but rather, a positive reputation tends to get you what you want, and a negative one tends to prevent you from getting what you want.

That sounds painfully like another, more popular system that exchanges role-playing for game balance and over-wrought mechanics. The advantage of GURPS is the versimilitude, and if you say that good things (things you pay points for) never work against your character's goals in a specific situation, then you are grossly compromising that wonderful trait. Your method might work as shorthand in your games, but I'd never make a compact with my players that an Advantage would never work against them. The alternate sounds like a wargame to me, where the players are certain that X trait will always work in X way, and never have unexpected consequences.

[Lamech]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

On the other hand, a penalty is a penalty, and he got points for it. It might make more sense to say that it doesn't apply at all, not because he isn't scary, but because the sky pirates hate him so damn much that they're likely to keep fighting him anyway. In any case, because it's a negative reputation, it will tend to prevent him from getting what he wants. It's a disadvantage, after all, and thus should generally hamper him.

There a bunch of things that give both benefits and problems. Indeed reputation is one of them. For example take the rep of Bob the Orc Slayer. Orcs hate him since he poisoned a village full of orcs and always react at -4. Elves on the other hand think that was cool so react at +2. The reputation comes to a -5 disadvantage.

Now if you do have bonuses from a negative rep, you probably want additional penalties. So in the above rep Bob would probably get a bonus to convincing people they were poisoned, or he was an expert on poisons or whatever. On the other hand, he'll be a prime suspect if someone poisons Elven the well of the village he's in.

[Xplo]

It doesn't make sense that someone would get a penalty to Intimidation for having a fearsome Reputation, but being able to use your negative Reputation (that you got points back for!) as a bonus feels abusive.

So how about this: no bonus or penalty to Intimidation for the Reputation itself, but a +1 to Intimidation for being a "credible threat" without needing to roleplay it much beyond "you know who I am, punk!?"

[Dunadin777]

Originally Posted by Lamech

There a bunch of things that give both benefits and problems. Indeed reputation is one of them. For example take the rep of Bob the Orc Slayer. Orcs hate him since he poisoned a village full of orcs and always react at -4. Elves on the other hand think that was cool so react at +2. The reputation comes to a -5 disadvantage.

Well, I think RAW you'd consider that as two related Reputations that are separate in points, but you're very correct. The rules, the in-character descriptions, and the specific situation should determine whether or not something is useful at a given moment--not the presence or absence of a negative point value.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Dunadin777

That sounds painfully like another, more popular system that exchanges role-playing for game balance and over-wrought mechanics.

It's not overwrought, it's what the rules state. A positive reaction modifier helps you: convince people not to fight you (potential combat situation), with commercial transactions, with requests for aid, requests for information, and gaining the loyalty of your hirelings. 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.

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.

You can be liked and have a negative modifier: If you have a reputation for being a "nice guy" who never hits back, never objects when people take his stuff, and is always generously willing to let people take advantage of him, then you're generally not going to get your way, and your "nice guy" reputation is going to actively harm you. You can be disliked and have a positive modifier: If your opponents fear you and refuse to fight you in combat, break down as soon as you ask them a question of out fear for what you're going to do to them, and they would never dare double cross you, then you have a positive reputation. Batman, despite being disliked by criminals, certainly has a positive reputation among them, since just whispering his name is enough to end a fight or make someone crack under questioning.

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.

The advantage of GURPS is the versimilitude, and if you say that good things (things you pay points for) never work against your character's goals in a specific situation, then you are grossly compromising that wonderful trait.

You mischaracterize my position.

[Dunadin777]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

It's not overwrought, it's what the rules state.

The overwrought system is the other system I was referencing--namely D&D.

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.

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.

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.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

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.

That's all anyone is saying! If disadvantages occasionally help out a character, that is okay so long as it does not become unbalancing. In the OP's case, unless the campaign focuses on interrogating sky pirates it seems unlikely that this would be more than a once-in-a-rare-while situation, not enough to prevent the reputation from being an overall disadvantage at roughly the indicated points. If it is getting abused, the GM can always impose a penalty - perhaps the character gains a NEW reputation that springs from his role-played behaviors.