Steve Jackson Games Forums - View Single Post

hal · 09-17-2018, 11:02 AM

Have you by chance, read the book series by Terry Goodkind with THE SWORD OF TRUTH? WIZARD'S FIRST RULE, etc?

In it, they have the confessors who probably would get the social regard(Feared) aspect.

In the same book series? Dahilia of the Mord-Sith (or more specifically, the Mord-Sith qualify as a group) qualifies for "Social Regard (Feared) on a personal level. No social laws protect her other than the fact that you can't simply murder her out of hand (where she comes from that is). That the Mord-Sith is a group that is effectively an elite group who train under standards few ordinary people can, just heightens the fearful aspects of their reputation as a group.

So, why not share with us, what makes your player's character "feared" by being a member of an identifiable group? What can members of her group do that causes fear? Turning a man into a guppy (fish) is a fearful power. Changing his voice a little is not. Being able to force a compact upon someone like a geas might be feared, but making them do an involuntary dance for an hour that is embarrassing will not. Being able to point to one person a year saying "You're now the involuntary sacrifice this year to the gods" is scary (and no one wants to risk being rude or what have you to ensure that they or their loved one's won't be singled out for that yearly honor).

The fact that the social regard requires a society to interact with, implies there may be some sort of social compact involved that limits what society can do to the class, or what the class can do to society. Society implies either of laws or customs that are binding on both classes - the socially regarded, and those who aren't socially regarded.

My analysis of the rules as written on page 87 and elsewhere, to me, implies that there is a problem with the wording. To wit: How can you have an automatic successful intimidation effect AND have both possibilities of "bad reaction" and "good reaction" be possible if a bad reaction can only occur on a failed intimidation result?

Game mechanics wise? I think that what I would do in that situation is this: For as long as the player character can be identified as belonging to a socially feared group, they can't make normal reaction rolls, but instead, must utilize the results of intimidation in lieu of reaction rolls. Because it is given in terms of a +3 reaction bonus, what I'd do is this: Rolling reactions with a +3 bonus, treat all good plus results as a successful use of Intimidation, and all other results as failed intimidation roll. For non-combat situations, that results in people fleeing or getting away from the individual in question. For potential combat situations, it can through fear, cause the combat that people in fact, might wish to avoid.

Oddly enough, it does beg the question - do those who have social regard (feared) find a small class of people who are immune to their social regard simply because they don't feel fear (such as Unfazeable)?

09-17-2018, 11:02 AM	#19
hal Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Buffalo, New York	Re: On being Feared Have you by chance, read the book series by Terry Goodkind with THE SWORD OF TRUTH? WIZARD'S FIRST RULE, etc? In it, they have the confessors who probably would get the social regard(Feared) aspect. In the same book series? Dahilia of the Mord-Sith (or more specifically, the Mord-Sith qualify as a group) qualifies for "Social Regard (Feared) on a personal level. No social laws protect her other than the fact that you can't simply murder her out of hand (where she comes from that is). That the Mord-Sith is a group that is effectively an elite group who train under standards few ordinary people can, just heightens the fearful aspects of their reputation as a group. So, why not share with us, what makes your player's character "feared" by being a member of an identifiable group? What can members of her group do that causes fear? Turning a man into a guppy (fish) is a fearful power. Changing his voice a little is not. Being able to force a compact upon someone like a geas might be feared, but making them do an involuntary dance for an hour that is embarrassing will not. Being able to point to one person a year saying "You're now the involuntary sacrifice this year to the gods" is scary (and no one wants to risk being rude or what have you to ensure that they or their loved one's won't be singled out for that yearly honor). The fact that the social regard requires a society to interact with, implies there may be some sort of social compact involved that limits what society can do to the class, or what the class can do to society. Society implies either of laws or customs that are binding on both classes - the socially regarded, and those who aren't socially regarded. My analysis of the rules as written on page 87 and elsewhere, to me, implies that there is a problem with the wording. To wit: How can you have an automatic successful intimidation effect AND have both possibilities of "bad reaction" and "good reaction" be possible if a bad reaction can only occur on a failed intimidation result? Game mechanics wise? I think that what I would do in that situation is this: For as long as the player character can be identified as belonging to a socially feared group, they can't make normal reaction rolls, but instead, must utilize the results of intimidation in lieu of reaction rolls. Because it is given in terms of a +3 reaction bonus, what I'd do is this: Rolling reactions with a +3 bonus, treat all good plus results as a successful use of Intimidation, and all other results as failed intimidation roll. For non-combat situations, that results in people fleeing or getting away from the individual in question. For potential combat situations, it can through fear, cause the combat that people in fact, might wish to avoid. Oddly enough, it does beg the question - do those who have social regard (feared) find a small class of people who are immune to their social regard simply because they don't feel fear (such as Unfazeable)?