Reputation and Intimidation

[Langy]

Originally Posted by 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!?"

What about the bonus to Intimidation you get for being super-ugly, which is a disadvantage using pretty much the exact same rules and costs as Reputation? You get a penalty on nearly all reaction rolls and influence skills (at least, when they can see you - that limitation is why it's 4/level rather than 5/level), but a bonus on intimidation rolls.

In any case, I don't think the rep will wind up being a net-bonus - sky pirates will still be more likely to attack him, try to screw him over, be not-loyal to him, etc. Just being better able to intimidate them won't change all that - especially since the character doesn't have any points in the Intimidation skill at the moment (just taking the generous default from Acting).

[Bruno]

Heck, even Odious Personal Habit turns into a reaction bonus under the right circumstances (I believe the example is OPH: Constant Drooling and trolls or aliens that think the dribbles are cute), and that's -5 per -1 reaction, just like Reputation.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Dunadin777

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.

So you're aware that on page B359 that reaction modifiers explicitly add to influence rolls? Then why even mention this?

But clearly, the point where most of us differ with you is on the fact that your reputation requires details.

I'm sorry, where does that differ from what I've said.

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.

Strawman.

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.

Strawman.

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.

What?

That's not the issue

That is the issue. That's precisely the issue. Langy's original comment was "if you have a reputation for killing sky pirates..." and we have little more context than that. If he has a negative reputation, that suggests that they tend to react negatively towards him, ie, they would not help him, would tend to act aggressively when they had the chance to attack him (and would generally keep attacking him), and that he'd generally have a poor chance of persuading them with any influence skills. However, if he wants them to react to him in terror, running from him, avoiding hampering him in any way, and are generally easy for him to manipulate, then what he actually wants is a positive reaction however he chooses to characterize that.

you're saying that a Reputation can only do one or the other,

No, I'm saying that a positive reaction should generally be positive. This is hardly a controversial thing to say, as Cosmicfish points out.

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 don't know what you're saying here.

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.

Never? I seem to remember saying things like "generally" and "tend to" and "it might." I don't remember saying "never." Perhaps you can point out where I said that.

Points, point-crocks, and so on aren't even the issue.

I think they are. Points mean something, and disadvantages should generally be disadvantageous.

This is about sussing out reasonable role-playing dynamics.

And you don't think that having a -4 to your reputation with a particular group could be interpreted as being so hated that they would never help you is a reasonable roleplaying dynamic?

You know what, there are two problems with your approach, actually. The first is that you seem to be assuming that negative reptuations represent being disliked (thus, if sky pirates hate you, you'll have a negative reptuation). The second seems to be that you think a successful intimidation roll makes someone afraid of you. That's not actually what it does (though it can do that, but that's a different use of the skill than the context of our discussion). Intimidation is an influence skill. Success at an influence skill gets you a Good reaction. Thus, it makes people likely to give you information, makes them likely to assist you, gives you a better deal on something, and makes them loyal to you, and so on.

The question here is if you have a -3 reputation for killing sky pirates, does that help you influence someone with your intimidation skill? Does that necessarily translate into that? Doesn't that really depend on the context of that reputation, and that context requires far more than "I kill sky pirates?" Consider, you've got a sky pirate tied down, you have this negative reputation, and you try to intimidate him into helping you.

"I'll never help you," he says, "you'll only betray us and destroy us."

That seems a logical conclusion to me. That -3 means he doesn't like you, doesn't trust you, is unwilling to believe you and, generally, is unwilling to help you. That's not going to change just because you're using the Intimidation skill. Contrarily, if you have a positive reputation (+3) for exactly the same thing (killing sky pirates), you can just as logically interpret the situation as him rushing to assist you out of terror that you'll destroy him otherwise.

You say that I have my interpretation set in stone, but I think you're the one who does. "I kill sky pirates" can be either a positive or a negative reputation, depending on how you interpret it or choose that context. It can even be a positive reputation in regards to the sky pirates if it generally helps you more than it hampers you. That means if you see your reputation as assisting you most of the time, you should buy a positive reputation, and if you see it as hampering you most of the time, you should buy it as a negative reputation. Likewise, as a GM, if you see a negative reputation, you should assume that it generally hampers the player, and a positive one generally supports the player, whatever the context they choose.

[Dunadin777]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

The question here is if you have a -3 reputation for killing sky pirates, does that help you influence someone with your intimidation skill? Does that necessarily translate into that? Doesn't that really depend on the context of that reputation, and that context requires far more than "I kill sky pirates?" Consider, you've got a sky pirate tied down, you have this negative reputation, and you try to intimidate him into helping you.

"I'll never help you," he says, "you'll only betray us and destroy us."

Which is an appropriate way to respond to the question. He wanted role-playing reasons for the mechanics to work out the way they do. Saying that the result (getting a bonus or penalty) in a specific situation is precluded by the fact that the Rep itself is positive or negative cheats the game of its story-telling fun. For me, anyways.

An example of a recursive reputation: my campaign has a player character who is a seductress. She has Smooth Operator, Fashion Sense, and Appearance modifiers that give something like +8 or +9 on reaction rolls. Now, she's earned a local Reputation for being a single woman in a patriarchal region, which leads everyone to presume that she is promiscuous. This reputation helps her Influence rolls in the right situations, it doesn't apply in others, and in some situations it is reversed as a penalty to reaction and influence rolls. I would only record this as one reputation, because mechanically I don't see a need to take points away from my PCs, and it is a logical consequence of the role-play. The details trump the generic rule.

Which is not a strawman, by the way. That's an affirmation of core RPG rules.

That seems a logical conclusion to me. That -3 means he doesn't like you, doesn't trust you, is unwilling to believe you and, generally, is unwilling to help you. That's not going to change just because you're using the Intimidation skill. Contrarily, if you have a positive reputation (+3) for exactly the same thing (killing sky pirates), you can just as logically interpret the situation as him rushing to assist you out of terror that you'll destroy him otherwise.

You say that I have my interpretation set in stone, but I think you're the one who does. "I kill sky pirates" can be either a positive or a negative reputation, depending on how you interpret it or choose that context. It can even be a positive reputation in regards to the sky pirates if it generally helps you more than it hampers you. That means if you see your reputation as assisting you most of the time, you should buy a positive reputation, and if you see it as hampering you most of the time, you should buy it as a negative reputation. Likewise, as a GM, if you see a negative reputation, you should assume that it generally hampers the player, and a positive one generally supports the player, whatever the context they choose.

If you read my earlier posts, I said that there is cause for either case. Reputations, in my book, are not fixed. If you're saying the same, fine. If you're refuting that point, fine. But repeatedly only acknowledging one possibility and then saying that using the word 'generally' covers other contingencies is not helpful to the OP. He wants examples, and that's what I'm providing. Obviously, if he statted his Rep as a negative, that should be negative more often than not, but that's a function of the quality of role-playing and GM decisions. I don't think it's precluded by RAW.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Dunadin777

Which is an appropriate way to respond to the question. He wanted role-playing reasons for the mechanics to work out the way they do. Saying that the result (getting a bonus or penalty) in a specific situation is precluded by the fact that the Rep itself is positive or negative cheats the game of its story-telling fun. For me, anyways.

An example of a recursive reputation: my campaign has a player character who is a seductress. She has Smooth Operator, Fashion Sense, and Appearance modifiers that give something like +8 or +9 on reaction rolls. Now, she's earned a local Reputation for being a single woman in a patriarchal region, which leads everyone to presume that she is promiscuous. This reputation helps her Influence rolls in the right situations, it doesn't apply in others, and in some situations it is reversed as a penalty to reaction and influence rolls. I would only record this as one reputation, because mechanically I don't see a need to take points away from my PCs, and it is a logical consequence of the role-play. The details trump the generic rule.

Which is not a strawman, by the way. That's an affirmation of core RPG rules.

A strawman is where you set up an argument that your opponent isn't claiming to be true, and then batter it down and say "See? You're wrong." You're trying to claim that I'm requiring a completely strict reading of the rules that never deviates, which wasn't what I said.

And I'm still not entirely sure what you're trying to say in your example. Give me something more concrete.

If you read my earlier posts, I said that there is cause for either case. Reputations, in my book, are not fixed. If you're saying the same, fine. If you're refuting that point, fine. But repeatedly only acknowledging one possibility and then saying that using the word 'generally' covers other contingencies is not helpful to the OP. He wants examples, and that's what I'm providing. Obviously, if he statted his Rep as a negative, that should be negative more often than not, but that's a function of the quality of role-playing and GM decisions. I don't think it's precluded by RAW.

You can hardly criticize me for saying that you should "never" let someone use a negative trait in a positive way, and then turn around and criticize me for saying "generally."

But if you want me to make a hard judgment without knowing any additional context, then I will: I don't think he should get a bonus on his intimidation roll, and I'll explain, again, why:

First, you run the risk of the point crock. If Langy says "I have a negative reputation with Sky Pirates because I'm constantly killing them and destroying them and they're utterly terrified of me, so -4 for [-20]." If he constantly points out how they should be running away from him (thus a bonus during potential combat situations), that he should get a bonus on intimidation and interrogation rolls out of their fear of him, and that they generally won't bother him, then what you really have is a +4 in all situations that Langy cares about for -20 points, and that's pure point crock.

Intimidation often runs this risk, because players will try to justify how all their disadvantages should act as bonuses to Intimidation. What you end up with, if you follow that path too far, is that Intimidation becomes simply better than Diplomacy or Sex-Appeal or what have you, because those require modifiers that cost points while Intimidation requires modifiers that gives points.

Second, mechanics mean something. A negative reaction modifier generally results in negative reactions and in the player not getting what he wants. A successful influence roll generally results in positive reactions and in the player getting what he wants. This includes intimidation: The primary purpose of intimidation is to get the player what he wants, whatever that is. In this function, it's no different than Diplomacy, Fast-Talk or Sex-Appeal. All of these skills are about getting what you want. Thus, without context (and "I kill sky pirates" is not enough context), we should assume that a negative reputation should result in a player having a harder time getting what he wants, and that means a harder time with influence skills. Obviously, he should have a hard time negotiating with them (Diplomacy) or tricking them (Fast-talk)... but he should be better at Intimidating them? I have a hard time accepting them. Sure, he can be scary, but (and this is key) he's unlikely to get what he wants.

That's a key difference, there. "Being scary" can be either advantageous or disadvantageous. Horrific or Social Stigma: Monster is an example of a disadvantageous "being scary." It tends to result in people chasing you out of town with pitchforks, refusing service, lying to you, and assuming that they're morally justified in killing you. They don't tend to result in people giving you what you want or necessarily running from you in battle. "Terrify" on the other hand, represents an advantageous form of "being scary." Someone with Terrify has people running away from him, his foes being stunned or puking in the corner. Fear becomes a weapon that he uses against his foes.

The question, then, is whether a fearful reputation is advantageous or disadvantageous. It can be either. You say "context" is enough, but I disagree. I think if someone takes "I'm really scary" as a negative reputation, then it amounts to Social Stigma: Monster, and you should generally, where possible, look at it in the worst possible light, and that will generally mean penalties, not bonuses, on influence skills. If it's says "I'm really scary" as a positive reputation, then you should interpret it more like Terrify, where the player can use his reputation to his advantage against foes, and you should interpret beneficially wherever that's reasonable, especially on influence rolls.

Finally, you say that context should override mechanics, but that way lies the path of point-crock. I say that context should be represented in the mechanics. The problem with the Sky Pirate example is that it doesn't provide enough context on how people actually feel about all that killing. The negative itself provides additional context: it tells us that Langy intends for it to be a generally problematic reputation, and it's easy to interpret that problematic reputation as being problematic for (or at least not helpful to) influence skills, including Intimidation. If he really intended for his character to be scary and to get his way often, he should have taken it as a positive modifier.

It's important in GURPS to dot your i's and cross your t's. This is an example of that. I'm not saying that being wanted by the police shouldn't give you an edge when you're hanging with criminals, or that being attractive never results in a Jealous character having a negative reaction to you, but I am saying that in the vast majority of cases, as a rule of thumb, when you have no additional information, then negative reputations should harm you (or at least not help you) and positive reputations should help you (or at least not harm you).

[Langy]

You want more detail on the reputation - here's an excerpt from my character's background, which goes into detail on exactly how he got it and what people say about it.

One of the most important events of this time in Jack's life was what happened on one of his false safaris when it strayed close to one of the old ruined cities. It was night, and the group of clients was 'hunting' the T-Rex whom Jack had placed into his little play. The exact details of the event are a bit hazy, even for Jack, but what he's been able to piece together is that he was near the edge of one of the ancient cities when he heard firearms begin to sound in the night, and under that cacophony the faint sound of a dirigible's engines. He could hear odd screaming, not what he'd normally associate with any animal he had ever heard - it sounded like a language, though Jack could not place which one. Realizing that someone was in trouble, Jack ordered his clients to hunker down until daylight and, if he hadn't returned by then, to ride the Triceratops they were using as a mount back to his base camp. He then took his rifle, a bandoleer of bullets, and ran out into the night.

Jack doesn't quite remember how, nor does he truly remember it, but from witness accounts he knows that he came charging out of the forest on the back of the Safari Adventure's T-Rex (which he had never ridden before or since). It didn't appear all that happy about this turn of events, and it charged into the ancient city and towards the gunfire. What he found there was a dirigible, hanging motionlessly above a camp of Martians, a number of men hearding the martians around, collecting them. Jack went on the attack, firing his rifle while his mount ripping into the sky pirates, a number of whom began fleeing. Jack himself launched into the air and grabbed a dangling rope, climbing up into the dirigible itself, and began fighting the pirates still aboard. In the midst of the fighting, something important was struck, and the dirigible went down in flames. This is about when Jack lost conciousness.

When he awoke, he was being cared for by one of the Martians. He had been badly burned, mostly along his back and through his hair, and his legs were both crushed in the collapse of the airship. For the next three months as he healed, Jack was cared for by the Martian Jack began to call Marty and his clan, though Marty was the only one who spoke the trade pigin that had developed on Mars. Marty taught Jack the rudiments of the Martian language, and Jack slowly began to understand what the Martians were saying, or at least their words - they were still a very strange and enigmatic people, and while he knew the words they would say it he still doesn't truly understand them. Jack also learned, through Marty, what had happened that night, and he was named by the Martians as the 'Death Rider', for he had rode the creature they call a 'Death Walker' into battle and brought destruction upon their enemies. Jack was to learn that this was an appelation that the Sky Pirates had learned themselves, and now they use the 'Death Rider' as a bogeyman between each other, as if he were a ghost story - though one of the pirates he had fought off had recognized him from the novel, and now all the Sky Pirates seem to know, and hate and fear, Jack on sight.

To give more context, Jack had a non-fiction adventure novel written about him by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle detailing an adventure they had together, complete with photographic illustrations documenting it. It was a huge hit, and some major memetic mutation later Jack has had entire series of adventure books published about him (most fiction, some based on fact), and he's basically turned into a mixture of Chuck Norris and Indiana Jones in the minds of the people of this setting. Thus, everyone knows what he looks like and who he is. He's very much a household name., and it's no different with sky pirates - except they're bloody terrified of him. They hate him, try to kill him when they can, etc - but when he's caught them by surprise, already killed several of their men, and apparently in the middle of destroying their airship? I think his reputation should count as a bonus when trying to intimidate them into surrendering, but count as a penalty in almost all other circumstances - he won't get his way when trying diplomacy, fast-talk, etc to influence, and they'll always react negatively on general reaction rolls, etc. If it was a bonus, he might get a bonus to intimidation, but he'd also get a bonus to general reaction rolls (which I do *not* want), and the pirates would be unlikely to try and kill him, again something I do *not* want.

Malinka, you seem to have completely misunderstood the question. It was not 'should he get a penalty in general situations?' It was 'should he get a bonus in specific situations?' You seem to be agreeing that, yes, he should - sometimes a bonus turns into a penalty, and vice-versa. You've just used a lot of words to say that in general a penalty should be treated as a penalty and mostly ignored the actual question, which had nothing at all to do with 'in general'.

[Dunadin777]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

A strawman is where you set up an argument that your opponent isn't claiming to be true, and then batter it down and say "See? You're wrong." You're trying to claim that I'm requiring a completely strict reading of the rules that never deviates, which wasn't what I said.

And I wasn't saying that was your argument in the first place. I was supposing that since you decided to refer to the letter of the rules that you were more concerned with RAW than the situation Langy was describing. So I referred to one of the foremost rules of the Basic Set.

And I'm still not entirely sure what you're trying to say in your example. Give me something more concrete.

Seductress has been in the village she's been staying in for several weeks. She has been living on her own in a village of seventy families, or just outside the village camping with an enthralled huntsman who is training her in survival skills. I deem as GM that this will be Reputation -3 (exotic foreigner 'on the wind') for the PC, as these are purely negative traits to the society at large. So, it takes affect on rolls for virtually all of the women of the village and many of the men. For young men and unhappily married husbands, it reverses and becomes a positive trait when she is using wiles on them.

In my campaign, that Reputation could be milked for the bonus to be worth more than the points would indicate, but I wouldn't dock points (which I don't use in play) or even reverse the Reputation if the PC was behaving in character. If she was slumming it to sleaze past every obstacle, that'd be a problem. But if she was playing the role properly and using it as the character would, I'd find a narrative way to make the Rep still be negative. For instance, increasing her Recognition so that she'd be fighting off advances at inconvenient times--or even giving her a low-key stalker.

In fact, something similar to this has grown out of the Seductress having a critical success and using it in a bad way since then. Yes, I let a critical success turn out to be more or less a bad thing for a PC.

You can hardly criticize me for saying that you should "never" let someone use a negative trait in a positive way, and then turn around and criticize me for saying "generally."

That's not the criticism. The criticism was that using the word 'generally' is not enough to acknowledge that you accepted the previous statements. If you accept that a Rep can flip-flop, that's fine. No need to discuss further.

But if you want me to make a hard judgment without knowing any additional context, then I will:

The question is not a judgment of general application. We were all saying that it depended on the circumstances, and then offering specific situations in which that would happen.

First, you run the risk of the point crock. If Langy says "I have a negative reputation with Sky Pirates because I'm constantly killing them and destroying them and they're utterly terrified of me, so -4 for [-20]." If he constantly points out how they should be running away from him (thus a bonus during potential combat situations), that he should get a bonus on intimidation and interrogation rolls out of their fear of him, and that they generally won't bother him, then what you really have is a +4 in all situations that Langy cares about for -20 points, and that's pure point crock.

That's up to his GM, but it is a definite avenue for abuse if the GM is too passive. If the GM decides to allow the Intimidation bonus (and for intimidation to be used this way), he can always make sure he gets the points' worth out of the player for this. For instance, in combat any relevant Reputation of that kind could easily be used for target preference. Being the Sky Pirates' preferred foe in a firefight should definitely get those 20 points back.

Intimidation often runs this risk, because players will try to justify how all their disadvantages should act as bonuses to Intimidation. What you end up with, if you follow that path too far, is that Intimidation becomes simply better than Diplomacy or Sex-Appeal or what have you, because those require modifiers that cost points while Intimidation requires modifiers that gives points.

Being unbalanced in a specific campaign can be okay if everything is based on what is appropriately in-character for the setting. For instance, in your above example of abuse, it is totally okay if the GM doesn't really want Diplomacy or Sex Appeal to come up very much in the setting.

I say that context should be represented in the mechanics. The problem with the Sky Pirate example is that it doesn't provide enough context on how people actually feel about all that killing. The negative itself provides additional context: it tells us that Langy intends for it to be a generally problematic reputation, and it's easy to interpret that problematic reputation as being problematic for (or at least not helpful to) influence skills, including Intimidation. If he really intended for his character to be scary and to get his way often, he should have taken it as a positive modifier.

Which, I imagine, is why everyone had been saying that it depended on the circumstance. And to be fair, your guideline is a good one--if it is a negative Rep, it should be deleterious more often than not. Your other statements sounded to me like they were ruling it out from being even an occasional occurrence, though, and that's what I was addressing.

[Mailanka]

Jack was to learn that this was an appelation that the Sky Pirates had learned themselves, and now they use the 'Death Rider' as a bogeyman between each other, as if he were a ghost story - though one of the pirates he had fought off had recognized him from the novel, and now all the Sky Pirates seem to know, and hate and fear, Jack on sight.

That sounds like a positive reputation to me, not a negative one.

Malinka, you seem to have completely misunderstood the question. It was not 'should he get a penalty in general situations?' It was 'should he get a bonus in specific situations?' You seem to be agreeing that, yes, he should - sometimes a bonus turns into a penalty, and vice-versa. You've just used a lot of words to say that in general a penalty should be treated as a penalty and mostly ignored the actual question, which had nothing at all to do with 'in general'.

I don't think I have. I do think you've taken a negative reputation when you meant to take a positive reputation.

If you're just trying to ask "Would you ever, ever, in a million years, allow someone to use a negative reaction modifier in a positive fashion, in really odd circumstances, ever?" then sure, yeah, I'm sure it would come up. But if you're asking "Would you apply a negative reputation as a positive modifier for intimidation," no, I generally wouldn't.

Let's ask the question in a different want, and go ahead and invoke Godwin. Let's say you have a member of Mossad, an Israeli intelligence agent. In scenario 1, he's been captured by a Nazi, who obviously has a negative reputation with Jews. In scenario 2, we have he's been captured by an Italian Mafioso who has no specific beef or reputation with Jews. Both attempt to intimidate their target, and both had an intimidation of 16. Who do you think will fare better? Do you really think that the Nazi deserves a +4 and the Mafioso doesn't? I think it's more likely that the Mossad agent will do everything he can to resist the terror-tactics of the Nazi precisely because he doesn't like the guy, whereas he's less likely to have a strong opinion about the Mafioso one way or another.

I think Xplo is right: You're conflating negative reputations with threats of violence. Obviously, a saintly saint has a hard time making a believable threat of violence and bloodthirstiness against his target, but the Nazi isn't more believable than the Mafioso. Both are violent men. Both should be able to earn up to +4 because they're obviously dangerous and bloodthirsy, but I don't think the Nazi is going to be MORE intimidating. I also don't think his reputation is going to hurt him in this case, so I simply wouldn't apply it.

EDIT:

He's very much a household name., and it's no different with sky pirates - except they're bloody terrified of him. They hate him, try to kill him when they can, etc - but when he's caught them by surprise, already killed several of their men, and apparently in the middle of destroying their airship? I think his reputation should count as a bonus when trying to intimidate them into surrendering, but count as a penalty in almost all other circumstances - he won't get his way when trying diplomacy, fast-talk, etc to influence, and they'll always react negatively on general reaction rolls, etc. If it was a bonus, he might get a bonus to intimidation, but he'd also get a bonus to general reaction rolls (which I do *not* want), and the pirates would be unlikely to try and kill him, again something I do *not* want.

I still say that sounds more like a positive modifier than a negative one. As soon as they find out they have to fight him, they're going to be more likely to retreat or surrender. If there's something he wants, they're more likely to give it to him just to get him to go away. They're probably not going to doubt him when he Fast-Talks them to tell him that he's got some terrible advantage over them. He has a definite advantage among them, so that should be treated like an advantage.

But you WANT it to be a negative modifier. That's fine, but it should be have like a negative modifier. That means they're going to attack rather than retreat, they're going to refuse his requests for aid, and are generally going to try to stymie him wherever possible. That has nothing to do with his intimidation ability, though. He's going to get that +3 or +4 because when he makes threats of violence or bloodthirstiness, they're much more believable. You might say that translates as his reputation as a bonus, but I don't think that'll be the case. I mean, if he does nothing but stand there, he's not going to have a +4 against them in potential combat situations. Quite the opposite: They're going to try to attack him and destroy him. If he says "I wouldn't do that if I were you," that's just a base Intimidation roll. If he triggers an explosive on a nearby airship, turns his dour expression on them and says "leave, before I do the same to you," that'd be a +4, but that'd be true if he didn't have a reputation at all. It would certainly earn him a reputation of some kind, though.

Personally, I'd do it in an entirely different way: I'd give him a +4 reputation among the Sky Pirates, described as "Bloody Terrified" and "Bogeyman," and then give him Sky Pirates as Enemies. That seems closer to what's actually going on: Every few sessions, Sky Pirates try to screw over Jack, but face to face with him, they're likely to bolt, surrender, and/or give him whatever he wants just to make him go away.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Dunadin777

And to be fair, your guideline is a good one--if it is a negative Rep, it should be deleterious more often than not. Your other statements sounded to me like they were ruling it out from being even an occasional occurrence, though, and that's what I was addressing.

Fair enough. It seems we understand one another.

[Genesis]

The reputation rules include the ability to make multi-faceted reputations. Use them! A -4 reputation, with no corresponding positive one, indicates "Sky pirates loathe you as a monster and will tirelessly attack you whenever possible." Intimidation is difficult against people who are so fanatically opposed to you! I set these things up with the Frequency of Recognition modifier, which I take to mean "Frequency that this Reputation Applies." If Sky Pirates are likely to react negatively to you on a 12 or less, you get the -4 on a 12 or less. That's what the points you've spent say.

Now, the same story-based motivation might be a good excuse for an entirely opposite Reputation! Sky Pirates might sometimes bow and scrape or cower in fear before their mighty foe! That's a Positive reaction modifier, which you buy with a Positive Reputation. You can have both at the same time! Just modify them with the appropriate frequencies, add together the point costs, and you'll find out if the multi-faceted reputation is a net advantage or a net disadvantage. If you haven't paid points (or, in this case, sacrificed some of the points you might have gotten back) for getting a positive reaction sometimes, I don't think you should get a positive reaction except in extraordinary circumstances. "All Intimidation rolls" is not extraordinary circumstances, in my book.

There's a player in my old west game who had a negative reaction modifier with honest citizens (he's a semi-reformed bandit). When he tried to intimidate people his reputation for betrayal and bloodthirstiness worked against him - citizens would cower and pray (if they're a fearful sort), or spit and curse (if they're brave), but they steadfastly refused to give the character what he wanted. The memory of all those people dead was a barrier he had to overcome. After a few sessions of being (occasionally) reasonable, I let the player ameliorate his reputation with a lower-frequency positive reputation based on the same background. Now he's well-known as a "hard man," a dangerous and quick-tempered thug, but people know that he'll spare them if they cooperate. He still gets penalties to most "civilized" interactions, but under the right conditions... The multi-faceted reputation is a disadvantage. But it's not worth as much as it was before - sometimes it's helpful now, where it wasn't before.

It seems that some people on this thread are arguing that a reputation for bloodthirstiness is worth the same amount, whether it sometimes helps or not. That seems very anti-GURPS to me - you ought to get what you pay for. If you get points for the reputation never helping, it should never help (except perhaps in the <4% or the time not well covered by a positive reputation with frequency of 6 or less). If you want your reputation to help in some significant subset of cases (say, Intimidation checks), you should pay for that. The reputation might still be a net Disadvantage, but it's not as much of a Disadvantage as a reputation that never helps.