On being Feared

[Culture20]

Originally Posted by whswhs

It seems to me that that involves someone making a Disguise roll, though it need not be the Pope.

A disguise roll at +10 to effective skill. If sheriff deputies get social regard in a setting, but they hide their tin stars in their pockets, that’s all it takes for someone to consider them ordinary if they don’t know the deputies personally. Same with “wizards of the black robes”, priests, and anyone else identified by uniform instead of body features/age.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

If the difference was a significant one rather than just flavour, then Feared should probably be worth less than Respected.

Exactly.

The way to represent Reaction Bonuses which only apply a part of the time and/or have significant negative side-effects is to use Limitations designed for that purpose (which really ought to have been in Social Engineering). While most of them cost 5/level, any specific downsides ought to be balanced by upsides that Charisma doesn't have.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The way to represent Reaction Bonuses which only apply a part of the time and/or have significant negative side-effects is to use Limitations designed for that purpose (which really ought to have been in Social Engineering). While most of them cost 5/level, any specific downsides ought to be balanced by upsides that Charisma doesn't have.

In the first place, the decision to have Social Regard (Feared) cost 5/level was made during the writing of the Basic Set, and I don't recall having any involvement in it; it must have made sense to Kromm, and you should take it up with him. I'm just accepting that as a fact about the rules as written. So I'm not trying to work out the details of how SR (Feared) is or is not balanced.

In the second place, in the RAW, you get a trait that gives you the same +n to reaction and Influence rolls as Charisma, for the same 5n points, even though, unlike Charisma, it's limited to producing a specific type of favorable reaction, and even though most cases of it have inconvenient aspects. So whether that's balanced or not, those inconvenient aspects are there.

In the third place, the descriptive prose for Feared spells out that you always get the same effect as if you had made an Intimidation roll. That restriction seems to be intended to be an inconvenient aspects, given that Respected and Venerated both have inconvenient aspects attached to them. So I'm looking at what sort of inconvenient aspect it might be. You and David sound as if you thought actually having it cause any real inconvenience ought to be ruled out. I don't think that's justified, given the treatment of the other two RAW versions, and in any case it's not helping me answer the question I raised. Can you specify any sort of disadvantageous effect of SR (Feared) you think WOULD be appropriate?

[Icelander]

I think Social Regard (Feared) would make it much harder to enjoy true emotional intimacy and healthy close relationships between equals with subordinates, which might be a significant drawback to a character whose position in a group with a terrifying reputation does not reflect his personality, but this would not represent a game-mechanical limitation of the utility of the Advantage or any hirelings that the character might hire.

Any hireling with a high Loyalty score might love his master, but that love would be fundamentally different if the bonus that led to the high Loyalty score came at least partially from Social Regard (Feared) than if it was the result of positive Appearance, Charisma and good treatment.

As far as game-mechanical utility goes, the servant who loves and fears his Master as he loves and fears the Lord ought to be every bit as helpful and useful to the character who paid for positive Reactions (inc. Loyalty rolls) as a servant who loves his master as an old retainer (with shades of a familial relantionship), regards his master as a true friend and confidant or perhaps loves his master in a hopeless romantic way, but obviously, the characterisation and interactions with the master will be lightyears apart depending on how the high Loyalty score is justified.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by whswhs

In the second place, in the RAW, you get a trait that gives you the same +n to reaction and Influence rolls as Charisma, for the same 5n points, even though, unlike Charisma, it's limited to producing a specific type of favorable reaction, and even though most cases of it have inconvenient aspects. So whether that's balanced or not, those inconvenient aspects are there.

Charisma requires interaction, Social Regard does not.

In other words, just upon seeing you Social Regard triggers. With Charisma you have to talk to them, interact with them.

In the third place, the descriptive prose for Feared spells out that you always get the same effect as if you had made an Intimidation roll.

Sure, but where are you getting that an Intimidation roll turns people who could just walk away into slaves?

Remember point 2 under Influence/Reaction Rolls, "A high roll is good, not bad."

That restriction seems to be intended to be an inconvenient aspects, given that Respected and Venerated both have inconvenient aspects attached to them.

Yes, a 'Bad' reaction roll becomes 'Very Bad'.

Does it really need more?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Yes, a 'Bad' reaction roll becomes 'Very Bad'.

I have no idea where you get that. In the first place, a failed attempt at Intimidation does not produce a Very Bad reaction roll; you only get that with specious Intimidation, and there's nothing to suggest that Social Regard (Feared) is specious. In the second place, I don't think that the intent can be to literally turn a reaction roll into an Influence roll, where the only possible outcomes are Good and Bad (or Very Bad); I think that it still has to be possible to roll a Very Good, or Neutral, or Poor reaction—but whatever you roll is interpreted AS IF you had been threatening the person with harm.

So the question is, in what way is being limited to producing fear problematic? How does it decrease your options in dealing with people? Specifically, how does it work when you're hiring somebody, and the GM has made a reaction roll to check their loyalty?

[Varyon]

In theory, there should be those who resent* a class that has Social Regard (Feared), but there should also be those who want to ingratiate themselves with such. The bonus for Social Regard (Feared) could be treated as an average, with a roll to determine where a given individual actually stood (to a minimum of reversing the sign, and a maximum of doubling the value). Honestly, it might be appropriate to treat all cases of Social Regard - or even Social Stigma - this way, although I suspect Feared would be more “swingy” than most.

As for using the rules for slaves and the like, I’d only bring that in in a case where the bonus from Feared makes a difference in whether a potential hireling turns down or accepts the job - if the character being Feared is what made them decide to get the job, it’s possible they feel they were forced into it. Some of those results should be rewritten, however - notably, the bit about getting higher Loyalty by treating them better than previous masters would be more along the lines of high Loyalty by treating them much better than they expected.

Following that, the effect of Feared is going to be more of how the hireling acts, although it could have effects on the hireling’s actions. For example, Feared is going to make a less-loyal hireling less likely to screw the character over in a manner that leaves the character able to exact retribution. So, a low-Loyalty character is less likely to steal something from a Feared character, but would still take advantage of an opportunity to literally stab the character in the back.

*Or simply distrust, or similar. I know someone who once had an opportunity for a rather profitable arrangement, but it would have involved being functionally employed by what he rather suspected was the mob. He declined, as he didn’t want to run the risk of getting killed if he screwed up.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I have no idea where you get that. In the first place, a failed attempt at Intimidation does not produce a Very Bad reaction roll; you only get that with specious Intimidation, and there's nothing to suggest that Social Regard (Feared) is specious. In the second place, I don't think that the intent can be to literally turn a reaction roll into an Influence roll, where the only possible outcomes are Good and Bad (or Very Bad); I think that it still has to be possible to roll a Very Good, or Neutral, or Poor reaction—but whatever you roll is interpreted AS IF you had been threatening the person with harm.

So the question is, in what way is being limited to producing fear problematic? How does it decrease your options in dealing with people? Specifically, how does it work when you're hiring somebody, and the GM has made a reaction roll to check their loyalty?

It kind of makes sense that a failed reaction with someone who fears you can be more dangerous than just a regular reaction roll.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I have no idea where you get that. In the first place, a failed attempt at Intimidation does not produce a Very Bad reaction roll; you only get that with specious Intimidation, and there's nothing to suggest that Social Regard (Feared) is specious.

Ah. I missed that singular word. Hmmm.

So the question is, in what way is being limited to producing fear problematic? How does it decrease your options in dealing with people? Specifically, how does it work when you're hiring somebody, and the GM has made a reaction roll to check their loyalty?

All I can see is this line: "You are met with silent deference, and perhaps even respect, but never friendly familiarity."

So, as a few have said, you can have underlings and comrades, but no 'real' friends.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

All I can see is this line: "You are met with silent deference, and perhaps even respect, but never friendly familiarity."

So, as a few have said, you can have underlings and comrades, but no 'real' friends.

But an employee/hireling isn't normally a friend anyway. That's not much of a restriction.