Thread 96407119

In some RPGs, a PC having a negative reputation gives the PC extra points or resources to spend. This is the case in GURPS 4e, for example, where a bad reputation is considered a disadvantage, thus granting extra points as compensation.

Other systems, like Fate and Legends of the Wulin, have a "pay-as-you-go" rule for disadvantages. Whenever, say, your PC's ill reputation becomes a meaningful inconvenience in-game, you gain some amount of points as compensation.

Some games, like most D&D editions, do not care. If you are playing a tiefling in a setting wherein tieflings have a poor reputation, you receive no compensation for such. Tieflings are as mechanically balanced as any other species, but having a stigma does not give tieflings a stronger "power budget" as a species, or anything like that.

Draw Steel's summoner class, currently in playtest, strikes me as a fascinating case. There are four types of summoners: demon, elemental, fey, and undead. ("Fey" is a special case. In the default setting, elves are fey-keyworded, and the eldest of the elves are the celestials, also known as archfey. It is somewhat Tolkienian. So fey have a heavenly aspect to them, down to the ultimate fey summon being a "Celestial Attendant.")

According to the class lore, their reputations are as follows: fey > elemental > undead > demon. Fey summoners are "the most celebrated and benign" and "lauded in folklore," while demon summoners are "often outlawed. One may argue that animating a soulless carcass is a morally neutral act. No such argument exists to defend those who summon the armies of that wasted abyssal land." (Malconvoker logic does not seem to apply.)

The four summoner types are mechanically balanced against one another, though. Fey summoners' summons are as strong as those of demon summoners. Even so, a fey summoner PC has a much better reputation by default than an "often outlawed" demon summoner.

What are your thoughts on these various methods of handling reputations?

For drawbacks on general (including reputation) I like the Mini Six approach.
You can take a couple of drawbacks at character creation, and might get them during play. You do t get anything for them up front. However, the first time each session a disadvantage meaningfully harm's you, you get XP. Thus, you don't get the GURPS problem of insomniac egomaniac neurotic PCs being much stronger than others.

>>96407164

Yes, that is the Fate or Legends of the Wulin approach: "pay-as-you-go," receiving compensation whenever meaningfully inconvenienced.

>>96407119 (OP)

To expound a little further, I do not like the default lore behind the Draw Steel summoner class's subclasses.

It is fine for the four of them to be mechanically balanced against one another. That is just how I like it.

I find it unreasonable, however, for them to have varying degrees of reputation, to the point wherein one is "the most celebrated and benign" and "lauded in folklore," while another is "often outlawed. One may argue that animating a soulless carcass is a morally neutral act. No such argument exists to defend those who summon the armies of that wasted abyssal land." (Again, because "summon up evil creatures specifically to waste Team Evil's manpower" malconvoker logic does not seem to apply.)

If the four subclasses are mechanically balanced against one another, yet they have wildly different in-world reputations that could very well influence how NPCs treat my character (and, importantly, the rest of the party), why would I ever choose the demon summoner unless I specifically want my character and my party to be shunned by the common man?

The way I see it is that negative reputations should be opt-in, rather than baked in as the default. If someone wants to play a demon summoner just because they want to conjure up cool demons, and they do not want to have to deal with being outlawed, then that player should be free to do so: particularly since the mechanics of the four subclasses are balanced against one another anyway.

>>96407119 (OP)

To expound a little further, I do not like the default lore behind the Draw Steel summoner class's subclasses.

It is fine for the four of them to be mechanically balanced against one another. That is just how I like it.

I find it unreasonable, however, for them to have varying degrees of reputation, to the point wherein one is "the most celebrated and benign" and "lauded in folklore," while another is "often outlawed. One may argue that animating a soulless carcass is a morally neutral act. No such argument exists to defend those who summon the armies of that wasted abyssal land." (Again, because "summon up evil creatures specifically to waste Team Evil's manpower" malconvoker logic does not seem to apply.)

If the four subclasses are mechanically balanced against one another, yet they have wildly different in-world reputations that could very well influence how NPCs treat my character (and, importantly, the rest of the party), why would I ever choose the demon summoner unless I specifically want my character and my party to be shunned by the common man?

The way I see it is that negative reputations should be opt-in, rather than baked in as the default. If someone wants to play a demon summoner just because they like the mechanics (and/or the imagery of conjuring up cool demons), and they do not want to have to deal with being outlawed, then that player should be free to do so: particularly since the mechanics of the four subclasses are balanced against one another anyway.

>>96407119 (OP)
>What are your thoughts on these various methods of handling reputations?
Recently I liked the Legend of the Five Rings 5e (version by Fantasy Flight Games) method of doing disadvantages which includes infamy.
Disadvantages in that game 1) penalizes character on doing x actions in y situations, 2) sets a fact in the game world for your character (past and present). So if you have a reputation of being a gambling addict you 100% did something to earn that, and mostly everyone knows about it. If you want to convince people to lend you money it will be difficult, and everyone will assume you to be irresponsible until proven false on a individual basis.
On the plus side, when disadvantages give you hardship you get a void point (this game's version of fate/action points) that you can use to give yourself bonuses and activate abilities. Thematically it represents your character gaining insight and enlightenment from the hardship.

>>96407119 (OP)
Reputation is generally something I don't want included in my games. Any form of "social mechanics" bring down the whole process, for numerous reasons, but the most important reason is that I don't have fun with such things.
Games are meant for having fun; if you don't have fun with one kind of game, it stands to reason to play something else, and TTRPGs have the advantages of having a low bar to entry, and seemingly limitless potential to modify.
With these things in mind, it only makes sense to make what I want, instead of hinging on D&D this, or Draw Steel that, and I encourage others to do the same.

>>96407119 (OP)
bruh my eyes just glazed over trying to read your walls of text, do you always feel the need to give a billion bits of useless context?
by the time my brain gets done processing the tangents I've forgotten wtf your thread is even meant to be about.

>>96407119 (OP)
Why is draw steel's summoner case fascinating to you? You seem to have forgotten to mention that

Sex with Grimmi

>>96407119 (OP)
All are basically valid, but compensation for negative rep is often a cheap way to power game or slow a session down while a player argues an NPC should be racist so they get metacurrency.

>>96407449
I don't see you complaining about short characters. Do you?

>>96407119 (OP)
>a fey summoner PC has a much better reputation by default than an "often outlawed" demon summoner.
Well, sure. There needs to be an upside to playing something as gay as a 'fairy summoner' when you had the choice of being a fucking demonologist or necromancer

>>96407119 (OP)
My take is that I like to think of "reputation" or "rapport" as a stat that grows when you do notable or heroic deeds. The PCs with low reputation should have the option to improve it through gameplay and role playing instead of heaving it set in stone. It should feel dynamic and account for different factions and groups like maybe the mage guild specifically hates the party summoner for engaging in magic they do not approve of, or the party clerk is mistrusted by the followers of the war god because she worships a god of peace and honor or some such.

>>96407449
Not every drawback (especially 100% narrative ones) needs mechanical compensation. This is doubly true for ones based on setting IMO, 99% of non-generic games have their setting baked into the mechanics in some way (or have settings built around their mechanics), but class balance really shouldn't fall apart the moment you say "people don't have much of an issue with your presence in the region".
>why would I ever choose the demon summoner
Because it fits your character? Because you want the demon summoning specific abilities? Because there's tons of fun role play potential in the premise? Do you make all your characters flawless Mary Sues if you aren't given explicit mechanical payment for making them well rounded?

>>96407164
Never played Mini Six, but that sounds even dumber.
I never once had problems with disadvantaged PCs starting stronger in other areas, because it's fair and balanced, and they still progress at the same rate as other PCs. I never let players take disadvantages that would make their PCs unplayable, and I never give them points for disadvantages that wouldn't be genuinely inconveniencing.
Letting disadvantaged PCs start off weaker in all areas, but giving them faster XP progression, sounds like a recipe for disaster.
It'd be fine if disadvantages gave back some sort of metacurrency like Fate/Luck points that could be used later. That's a choice I give my players when they take a disadvantage. They have two choices: hard disadvantages or soft disadvantages.
>Hard disadvantages have precise game mechanical rules for when and how the disadvantage hurts the PC. These give back XP that can be traded for hard advantages.
>Soft disadvantages don't have any precise game mechanics other than a phrase or descriptor, like character aspects from Fate. Their effects are up to the GM. They don't give any XP, but give Fate/Luck points when they trigger, according to the level of inconvenience, which can then be traded to trigger soft advantages.

>>96409798
Enda is never going to understand this post, because RPGs to them are just numbers interacting with other numbers. The concept that you would do something flavorful for your character, or that a choice wouldn't have mechanical compensation, is totally foreign to them, because they play RPGs in a way that is essentially orthogonal to how RPGs are actually played at most tables.

>>96407449
>why would I ever choose the demon summoner
It's an Evil Campaign. Demons hornswoggled you. Demons treat you nicer than regular folks. You're already a part of a hated outgroup so you're fixing to give them to shoot dirty looks about. You just really want to be someone people around you are afraid of. A demon is gaslighting you. Loads of reasons.

>>96407119 (OP)
I really like how GURPS doesn't just have a generic social stat and that's it. You have over a dozen different ways in terms of game mechanics to define precisely why people like you or are willing to go along with what you say. And each method has slightly different rules for how they apply depending on the situation.
Before you make any skill check or any attributes come into play, NPCs first make a Reaction roll to decide their attitude, modified by traits such as Appearance, Charisma, Rank, Reputation, Social Regard, Status, and so on. Many of these traits come in multiple levels and different versions, depending on how precisely you want to define your social advantage.
Only after that do Influence skills (Fast-Talk, Diplomacy, Intimidation, Savoir-Faire, Streetwise, Sex Appeal) and attributes (Intelligence vs. Willpower) come into play, and only if you choose to roll. If you try using a skill other than Diplomacy (which is a Hard skill) and your skill is lower than the NPC's Will, then you might just make things worse.
Most of the games I run don't feature lots of social engineering, so I just tell my players to not sweat the details. But it's still nice to have these option. In games without much social interaction, I can just refund everyone's points. As opposed to some other games, where you might invest heavily into a social-heavy class or archetype, but if the GM half-asses or straight up ignores the rules for social interaction, then you're just kind of fucked.

>>96407119 (OP)
I prefer having rep as a proper system that can be raised or lowered during the course of a game. The Root rpg comes to mind, although I play with a more in-depth (though similar) custom system.

>>96410382
never played Mini Six either, but it sounds fine to me.
>I never give them points for disadvantages that wouldn't be genuinely inconveniencing.
I believe this is what that anon is referencing with
>the GURPS problem of insomniac egomaniac neurotic PCs being much stronger than others.
The idea that people can take disadvantages that are easy to work around, or won't come up in a particular campaign. Whether or not this is possible is based both on the GM allowing it and how hard-coded disadvantages are into the game. There's a huge difference between games that say
>Kleptomaniac - Your character compulsively steals
and
>Kleptomaniac - If you have the chance to steal and refuse you gain -5 penalty on all rolls for the next day
Not a GURPS player so I don't know which style of disadvantage GURPS uses.
>PCs start off weaker in all areas,
Really depends what "weaker" means in the context of the system. For example some games have xp triggers where you get xp for behaviours that fit your class/archetype/character. Not inherently a drawback, but they can be negative things like "jump into danger without thinking". That character isn't weaker, even though their trigger is more disadvantageous than someone else that has "aid an ally" as theirs.

It also depends on how progression works. What can you do with xp? Are there levels? Is there a cap to how far ahead you can go compared to the rest of the party? In DnD it sucks to be level 1 standing next to a level 10 ally because of massively different health, attack damage, attack bonuses, number of attacks, number of spells, spell power, etc., but in other games that extra xp might amount to +1 to a single skill rating or an extra class-specific ability, in which case progression disparity is fine

>>96410572

Demons in Draw Steel's setting work poorly with mortals, mostly because they are characterized as too ravenous for their own good.

>Mortal Alliances
>Demons form temporary alliances with evil mortals in exchange for souls to consume. Such alliances create carnage with alarming efficiency, though they inevitably collapse when the demons decide to devour their foolish partners. The only creature who can truly keep a demon in line is a more powerful demon.

>Soul Reavers
>Demons feast not on food or liquids, but on souls. Souls fuel their anarchic powers, and while a demon is starved for souls, they can scarcely think. Whenever a demon kills a creature who has a soul, they consume that soul and keep its energy within their body. A demon can then burn that soul energy to enact their most devastating abilities.

>Lethe
>When a demon’s soul energy begins to flag, they fall into a state known as lethe—a violent hunger wherein they can only lash out in a desperate search for sustenance. Demons who have fallen into lethe become single-minded and violent, seeking only to consume.

>>96411036
>some games have xp triggers where you get xp for behaviours that fit your class/archetype/character
>in other games that extra xp might amount to +1 to a single skill rating or an extra class-specific ability
Alright, fair. If a game is designed around different XP triggers, and progression is more horizontal than vertical, then that can maybe work.
I generally try to keep PCs at similar power levels. The only exception is when each PC has a strongly defined niche that doesn't overlap with other PCs (this requires a game that doesn't focus only combat); then power levels may be allowed to vary.
I've seen too many games crash and burn because the GM let one PC become way too overpowered, outshining multiple other PCs in the one thing they were supposed to be good at.

>>96411178
I've noticed it the most in highly narrative games, like PbTA and Blades in The Dark. In powered by the abyss games playbooks are quite specialised in terms of the roles they allow you to fill in the group, with specific stat arrays you have to pick from, and progression gives you more abilities in whatever your niche is, but not more raw stats or health (though increasing 1 stat by 1 is normally an option you can pick once or twice).

>>96411230
>PbTA and Blades in The Dark
Nta. It's also to remember both of these games allows and encourages the GM to aggressively progress the plot, so in practice a lot of the times the players are forced to break away from their comfortable specializations.

>>96407119 (OP)
All these 'mechanical' ways of handling rep seem to forget the VERY basic concept of 'enemy of my enemy'.

Got beef with a town's militia? Operate with the criminal underworld instead.
Some power figure hates your guts? Find his rivals.
Got a whole kingdom pissed off? Strike a deal with their neighbor.

Giving a tanglible benefit for RP where players harm relations to someone can be a nice way to encourage story progression, but I'd never codify it unless I want a campaign of where the party comes up with increasingly horrible ways to terrorize some random population. Hell, that happens with my players regardless.