Reputation and Intimidation

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Genesis

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.

Well said.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

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.

I don't think anyone was suggesting this wouldn't be the normal case.

Originally Posted by Mailanka

He's going to get that +3 or +4 because when he makes threats of violence or bloodthirstiness, they're much more believable.

That's exactly why I suggested it, and exactly how I thought it would be working.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Genesis

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.

For what its worth, that's not what I said.

I was specifically noting a trade up in effect - "sure, you can leverage that into a bonus on Intimidation, but it's also logically going to penalize non-Influence skills as well as some Influence skills in non-Influence situations where your Reputation otherwise might not be relevant"

Or to put it another way "If you want to grind out extra detail on things, it's going to apply evenly, not just to the awesome parts."

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I don't think anyone was suggesting this wouldn't be the normal case.

Several people seem to believe that it would, in fact, act as a bonus to Intimidation. That is, you quote me as saying that "this has nothing to do with his intimidation ability," and then reply that nobody was suggesting that it would, when in fact that's what the thread is about.

I'm saying a negative reputation modifier shouldn't generally have a positive effect on your Intimidation roll, while Langy is saying it should.

That's exactly why I suggested it, and exactly how I thought it would be working.

"Gaining +4 for show of strength, bloodthirstiness or threats of violence" has nothing to do with reputation, though. That is, you can get that particular +4 if you have a reputation modifier of anywhere from +4 to -4. We're not talking about that. We're talking about directly applying someone's negative reputation modifier to their intimidation score. Say, a nazi with a -4 reputation making threats of violence getting a +8 because of both his threats AND his reputation.

For what its worth, that's not what I said.

Which is why I, at least, have not directly addressed you. :)

[Langy]

I think the frequency-of-recognition bit is a terrible way to go at this, because it makes it much more complicated. Further, a positive reputation results in a whole lot of things that make no sense if the people dislike him, try to kill him, and otherwise serve as enemies.

A reputation for bloodthirstiness should help in some situations and hinder in others. It should help if you make threats, but hinder if you try and convince people that you won't hurt them, for example. You should apply these modifiers intelligently, not just say 'this is a negative point cost trait, so it shouldn't ever be treated as other than a penalty'.

Reputations are inherently complex and fluff-heavy. It's much simpler, and probably more proper, for the GM to make a call rather than creating a complex build of reputations.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Langy

I think the frequency-of-recognition bit is a terrible way to go at this, because it makes it much more complicated. Further, a positive reputation results in a whole lot of things that make no sense if the people dislike him, try to kill him, and otherwise serve as enemies.

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.

Certainly, people who dislike someone, try to kill him and otherwise serve as enemies will have a negative view towards someone, and that certainly qualifies as a negative reputation. But that's not necessarily going to translate into an intimidation bonus. I mean, I disliked Osama Bin Laden, I supported efforts to kill him, and I would otherwise serve as his enemy, but I wouldn't quake in my boots if I saw him.

EDIT: Oh, and an accessibility modifier on the reputation, IMO, would make more sense than frequency of recognition.

A reputation for bloodthirstiness should help in some situations and hinder in others.

If you have a complex reputation, perhaps you should represent it in a complex way. As Genesis points out, if a reputation for bloodthirstiness helps you more than a reputation for being a dork, then it shouldn't give you as many points (and might even be an advantage).

Reputations are inherently complex and fluff-heavy. It's much simpler, and probably more proper, for the GM to make a call rather than creating a complex build of reputations.

Some reputations are more complex than others, and the points you spend or get should accurately reflect the utility of your traits.

[LordOfDorkness]

Just adding my 2 cents here.

I guess the basic problem is that in my eyes your intimidation attempt in this case is sepperate from your reputation. Your reputation means that the pirates hate your guts, they think you are just a bit of a jerk.

But that doesn't make you scary, as said before. What does make you more intimidating, is the fact that you probably killed quite a few of them, they know you will toss them overboard and that you will be mean to them. For the rest, they still think you are pretty much an awful person and that won't make you love them more.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

If you have a complex reputation, perhaps you should represent it in a complex way. As Genesis points out, if a reputation for bloodthirstiness helps you more than a reputation for being a dork, then it shouldn't give you as many points (and might even be an advantage)

A reputation for being a dork could help in certain situations, too. How am I supposed to know which ones will be more important prior to the game starting? I doubt even the GM will be able to tell. Or should every single reputation include complex descriptions of every situation where a different bonus or penalty might be in order?

That seems like an extremely silly idea. I think the GM should be able to decide, and leave the reputation as-is.

In any case, for this character, the rep should really be -6 (to cancel out the +3 for famous-adventurer that effects all humans, and get the penalty from being a -3 rep), and I could also build in a +3 for being scary, and it'd be the same point cost.

And no, just because you're terrified of someone doesn't mean you'll run away from them, especially if you've got a weapon. You'll try and kill them, especially if you've got surprise on your side. On the other hand, if he's got surprise on his, then running away might seem to be a much better idea.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Langy

A reputation for being a dork could help in certain situations, too. How am I supposed to know which ones will be more important prior to the game starting? I doubt even the GM will be able to tell. Or should every single reputation include complex descriptions of every situation where a different bonus or penalty might be in order?

You can take a stab at it. I'm fairly confident that "They generally don't like me, but I always get a bonus on my intimidation rolls" should be worth more than "they don't like me."

That seems like an extremely silly idea.

Look, man, you asked. You started this thread. You wanted to know our opinion, that's my opinion. If already knew the answer, then I'm not sure why you asked the question.

And no, just because you're terrified of someone doesn't mean you'll run away from them,

Ok. You use your dictionary, I'll use mine.

[Lamech]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

You can take a stab at it. I'm fairly confident that "They generally don't like me, but I always get a bonus on my intimidation rolls" should be worth more than "they don't like me."

Lets compare to say... appearance! An appearance that gives you a -4 to reactions nets a +2 to intimidate. It even specifies "appropriate" in the modifier description (of intimidate) for reputations, so you can't blindly add your reputation to the influence roll you should try and figure out what effect it would have (if any)

Really you just need to make sure that the extra benefits and penalties balance out.