Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-05-2016, 12:28 PM   #11
RogerBW
 
RogerBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: near London, UK
Default Re: [Basic] Reputations for bad people

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostdancer View Post
I like it. It's a nice analogue to Unwilling on Allies/Patron and if enforced properly could be a headache - as limitations should be. Reminds me of what Biff from Back to the Future might have. Maybe give a hard number for when too much is too much? Perhaps 6 or less on 3d?
Looking at it as two separate reputations, as it might be a +1 and a -2, I got the cost by assuming that the positive one would be available ~75% of the time.

The Unwilling Patron vanishes, it's suggested, on a natural 18. Perhaps the Grudging Reputation flips when someone rolls a natural 3 on their reaction to the holder?
RogerBW is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2016, 12:32 PM   #12
evileeyore
 
evileeyore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 100 hurricane swamp
Default Re: [Basic] Reputations for bad people

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ransom View Post
I can't remember if this is RAW or a houserule, but I've been known to let a negative reputation count positive for Intimidation checks if the reputation is for bloodthirstiness or violence. It's definitely RAW to do this for Appearance.
The same with Social Stigma (Monster).

There is no problem here looking for a fix.
__________________
Feel free to steal, borrow, fold, spindle, mutilate any rule, advantage, etc I come up with it.
evileeyore is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2016, 12:43 PM   #13
Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Default Re: [Basic] Reputations for bad people

Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerBW
Having a negative Reputation makes you less intimidating. It makes your life harder, because people don't help you. And therefore it costs points. None of those things is true of the examples I gave.
Having a negative reputation doesn’t necessarily make you less intimidating. All it says in this regard under Modifiers for Intimidation skill is “Appropriate Reputation modifiers (positive or negative) certainly count!”

While it is generally true that a negative reputation is a disadvantage and hence generally a hindrance, a specific negative reputation like “town bully” or “feared chief of secret police” certainly seem ripe for treating the negative reputation penalty as a bonus rather than a penalty for the specific purpose of Intimidation.

The problem with treating “town bully” or “feared chief of secret police” as positive reputations for purposes of the reaction table is that it gives incongruous results. Let’s consider “town bully" as +2 and “feared chief of secret police” +4 for reputation under your scheme and see where that gets us on a Neutral roll (say 12).

For the “town bully” it pushes him up to a Good reaction. For a general reaction, it pushes the NPC from ignoring the bully as much as possible to liking him and being reasonably helpful. In a potential combat situation rather than him going his way and the bully going his, he finds the bully likeable or too formidable to attack. Commercial transactions go from routine to pleasant and the merchant will volunteer useful information or small bits of help. Requests for aid go from being granted if simple to being granted if reasonable, the NPC is helpful and will give helpful advice even if he can’t grant actual aid. Requests for information go from getting sketchy information about complex questions to getting accurate information. The NPC’s loyalty goes from seeing the bully as “just another boss” to liking him or the job. He’s loyal, hard-working and will accept any reasonable hazard the bully will.

The “feared chief of the secret police” gets pushed up to a Very Good reaction. Generally the NPC thinks highly of him and is helpful and friendly. In a potential combat situation, the NPC is friendly to the chief and will find an excuse to let the chief go for now even if they’re sworn enemies (italics mine). In commercial transactions he’ll sell at 80% of the fair price or buy at 150% of the fair price and he’ll offer help and advice. Any requests for aid are granted unless they’re totally unreasonable and any useful information is offered freely. Requests for information answered in detail and any related information is volunteered. The NPC works very hard, risks his life and puts the chief’s interests ahead of his own.

Sorry, it just doesn’t wash with me. Treating the values as negative and the Neutral roll as 10, the town bully now gets pushed down to a Poor reaction and the chief to a Bad reaction.

For the town bully: generally if the NPC sees a big profit or little danger, he will be hostile. In a potential combat situation the bully will be subject to shouted threats or insults (from a safe enough distance, though if the bully’s big enough, the NPC may pass on the opportunity) and asked to leave. If the bully stays, the NPC may attack or flee (It says if outnumbered but if the bully is formidable enough in Attributes, a single opponent or small group might consider themselves outnumbered by a lone bully.) Merchants will ask 120% of the fair price or offer 75% of the fair price. Requests for aid are denied but bribes, pleas or threats might work. Requests for information will have the NPC claiming not to know or giving incomplete data. The NPC considers himself overworked and underpaid and will betray the bully if offered enough.

For the chief: The NPC cares nothing for him and will act against him if he can profit from it. In a potential combat situation, they’ll attack the chief if they outnumber him and flee if they don’t. Merchants will ask twice the fair price or offer half the fair price. Requests for aid are denied. Requests for information are denied. The NPC will lie maliciously or demand payment. If paid the information will be true but incomplete. The NPC is a sluggish worker and will leave or betray the chief given even moderate temptation.

Now, you can, and probably should, substitute Intimidation to get what you want if you’re the bully or the chief and that will, assuming their skill is high enough, get you Good and Very Good reactions as long as they keep it up but Poor and Bad, not Good and Very Good, should be the normal reaction of others to these people when they aren’t successfully Intimidating people.

One other point, the Reaction Tables are for those occasions where there’s some uncertainty about how people will react. If your PC is Town Bully: -2, all the time, large class of people, or Feared Chief of the Secret Police: -4, almost everyone, all the time, you can bake some reactions in. Locals at the pub know to steer clear of Bad Bill, especially when he’s belting them back because “he’d as soon break your arm or leg as look at you, sooner actually.” Ordinary citizens restrain their Bad reactions to the chief because “he doesn’t like it and he’ll disappear you, then your family, then your pets, then your friends and maybe even a couple of casual acquaintances just because.”

Last edited by Curmudgeon; 12-05-2016 at 01:55 PM. Reason: changed you to your
Curmudgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2016, 12:45 PM   #14
Joe
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: [Basic] Reputations for bad people

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
In short, I think your solution is in need of a more appropriate problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore View Post
There is no problem here looking for a fix.
I agree that there's some precedent for treating disadvantages that give negative reaction modifiers as advantages for the purpose of Intimidation, coercion, etc - but I still think that RogerBW is trying address a real problem.

If you're the most feared person in town, and this gives you all sorts of benefits in social situations, then surely you ought to pay points for it? Rather than getting points for it? If, on balance, you're getting more good than grief from something, then surely it must be an advantage, not a disadvantage.

Another way to put it: GURPS already provides for social traits that are mostly detrimental, but which are sometime a bit beneficial - they're the disadvantages you guys mention; disadvantages such as Horrific Appearance, etc.

But RogerBW is asking about the opposite case: social traits that are mostly beneficial, but sometimes a bit detrimental.

I think it's a real problem - and I quite like the proposed solution, too.

EDIT: Ninja's by Curmudgeon's latest post; that's food for thought.
__________________
My (ahem... hugely entertaining... ahem) GURPS blog: The Collaborative Gamer
Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2016, 01:58 PM   #15
evileeyore
 
evileeyore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 100 hurricane swamp
Default Re: [Basic] Reputations for bad people

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post
If you're the most feared person in town, and this gives you all sorts of benefits in social situations, then surely you ought to pay points for it?
If you gain your social regard from fear, then it stands to reason it only aids in items when you are intimidating someone into helping you. If it does more than this, then yes, it is an Advantage and should be purchased as such.


The feared Chief of Police has more than just Bad Reputation (Brutal, Corrupt, Tyrannical Cop), they'd also have Status and Rank and likely Wealth, and all the social benes that come with those Advantages.


What Curmudgeon is missing is that those results must be tempered by the means used to get them. Instead of the CoP gatting this Reaction from Very Good: "Generally the NPC thinks highly of him and is helpful and friendly. In a potential combat situation, the NPC is friendly to the chief and will find an excuse to let the chief go for now even if theyíre sworn enemies."

They get this: "Generally the NPCis terrified of him and is helpful and friendly in order to avoid the Character's wrath. In a potential combat situation, the NPC will flee the situation or surrender even if theyíre sworn enemies."

It's a GM call.
__________________
Feel free to steal, borrow, fold, spindle, mutilate any rule, advantage, etc I come up with it.
evileeyore is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2016, 02:07 PM   #16
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: [Basic] Reputations for bad people

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
Being the town bully or feared chief of the secret police is a positive reputation in GURPS terms? Where did that come from?
The way reaction and influence rolls work. If it helps you get people to do what you want them to do, it's a positive reputation.

The real issue is that people with that type of reputation are vulnerable to secret betrayals and being kicked when down, so it's a somewhat fragile bonus.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2016, 02:14 PM   #17
Donny Brook
 
Donny Brook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Default Re: [Basic] Reputations for bad people

Consider what is supposed to happen when a person like the town bully or crooked police chief encounter someone way beyond their power.

Say the police chief comes before the Duke. Which way will positive or negative reps work on him?
Donny Brook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2016, 02:32 PM   #18
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: [Basic] Reputations for bad people

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook View Post
Say the police chief comes before the Duke. Which way will positive or negative reps work on him?
Depends on the desires or needs of the duke. A bully might be exactly what he wants.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2016, 02:45 PM   #19
TGLS
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Default Re: [Basic] Reputations for bad people

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook View Post
Say the police chief comes before the Duke. Which way will positive or negative reps work on him?
Here's a few ideas:
"You're the police chief who caught that killer!"
"You tortured all those people to catch that killer. I suppose your methods get results."
"You're a torturer. I don't need scum like you in my ranks."
"You're my kind of scum! One of my servants stole my wife's necklace, can you help find it?"
"Please, please! I am a loyal subject to the King! Don't take me away!"
TGLS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2016, 03:06 PM   #20
Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Default Re: [Basic] Reputations for bad people

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe
Another way to put it: GURPS already provides for social traits that are mostly detrimental, but which are sometime a bit beneficial - they're the disadvantages you guys mention; disadvantages such as Horrific Appearance, etc.

But RogerBW is asking about the opposite case: social traits that are mostly beneficial, but sometimes a bit detrimental.

I think it's a real problem - and I quite like the proposed solution, too.
I donít quite think thatís it. GURPS does have social traits that are mostly detrimental but sometimes a bit beneficial but both effects come ďbaked intoĒ the price. While I canít think of a proper example offhand, the same ought to be true of effects that are mostly beneficial but sometimes a bit detrimental.

Grudging, and I might call it Unwilling or Coerced Cooperation, is a bit closer to the concept of an Unwilling Ally/Patron but it doesnít quite fit if the idea is an occasional detriment to a benefit.

A person giving Coerced Cooperation will probably slip away at the first reasonable opportunity. Whatís reasonable depends. You probably arenít going to leave your little room if there are a pair of thugs with SMGs on the stairwell leading down, even if the ďbossĒ isnít looking over your shoulder but if the stairwell is empty and itís just a short trip across the warehouse floor to the door out, that NPC is likely gone. If heís got a conscientious disadvantage, he may gather up his ďworking papersĒ and any prototype before leaving to mitigate any damage his Coerced Cooperation might bring about but Iím having a hard time seeing this as deserving points nor point reductions. This just seems to be the natural outcome of the situation, no special rules needed.

Iím having a bit of a failure of imagination about what a benefit with a sometimes detriment would look like. I keep thinking of something along the lines of ďI donít have to worry. I told Charlie to call the police at 1400 hrs, if he didnít hear from me.Ē, only Charlie didnít.

This needs some more thought.

Thinking about Grudging in connection with Reputations, whether positive or negative, brings me to the idea of Grudgingly Conceded as a Limitation. As currently envisioned itís worth nothing as a modifier. It is intended to represent certain characters such as Spider-Man or Robin Hood. Most people in Robin Hood are aware that heís an outlaw/highway robber (negative reputation) but donít particularly care. Likewise, most heroes and villains take Spider-Man as a hero despite the negative reputation Jolly J. Jonah Jameson has hung on him. A Reputation (Grudgingly Conceded) takes the following form:

[-5] Scarecrow (Grudgingly Conceded): -4 Murderer/Smuggler, [Almost everyone except one large class (Spaniards), All the time], large class of people (Kingís soldiers, pressgangs, excisemen, and Bow Street Runners), Sometimes 10-

The difference in a Grudgingly Conceded Reputation is that you are more widely known for your reputation than your points would suggest but the points are received only for the group that cares about it enough to make it an issue.
Curmudgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
rules

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.