(So You Think You’ve Got A) Reputation
This is a post in three almost completely unrelated segments. I start with some sad news, follow that with our regularly-scheduled article, and conclude with a sneak preview of next week’s article, for reasons that will become obvious.
In MemoriumI have to open today’s post with some sad news: Brian “Fitz” Fitzpatrick has passed away, quite unexpectedly. I got the news through KODT and immediately went to his Twitter account to verify it, finding that his last post was the day before his passing. Brian first came onto my radar in 2010 with a review of Johnn’s book “Filling The Empty Chair”, which was previewed here at Campaign Mastery. From 2011 to 2012, Campaign Mastery was regularly featured amongst many others as part of his “Game Knight Reviews” of RPG Blog content, and in the years that followed he occasionally dipped his toe back into those waters. He very generously wrote a review of our game supplement “Assassin’s Amulet” that was so substantial that he had to split it into two parts. He participated in the RPG Blog Carnival regularly through to 2014. It was around then that he started / revived Moebius Adventures – I remember offering advice and doing some image editing work on his logo. I reviewed a number of his products here at Campaign Mastery and amazingly, saw actual changes to the products as a result. Throughout this, Brian was warm and supportive, a friend to the entire RPG community. He will be sorely missed. My deepest condolences to his friends and family. We are all diminished by his loss. |

Image by prettysleepy1 from Pixabay
Reputation Fragility
I was deleting a number of pieces of spam from Campaign Mastery’s inbox the other day (as I have to do a couple of times a day) when one caught my eye.
I’d seen this offer before, many times – promises to raise the profile of the website by direct marketing it to other sites, bringing thousands of new visitors to my site for a low, low fee.
Have no fear, I wasn’t even tempted. It seemed all too likely that they would “promote” the site by spamming thousands of other sites with links back to mine, an act that would not be conducive to repeat visitors – and charge me for the ‘privilege’.
I would rather 10 real readers who care about what I have to offer them than 1000 visitors who would vanish, never to return, within seconds of arrival. The latter might be good for the visitor numbers, but the reputation campaign mastery would get from any such promotional campaign would be counterproductive in the long run.
I think the same thing every time such spam offers intrude upon my awareness – which is to say, several times a week, most weeks.
But, on this particular occasion, the thought went further, wandering off to the question of character reputations and how to handle them. This is one area where almost every rules system is noticeably silent, and there’s good reason for that: it’s notoriously difficult and subjective, and that’s not exactly conducive to good rules.
I’m not going to pretend to solve all the problems in this post, I’ll leave that to someone far cleverer than I. But I’ll try to make the problems clear, and offer the vague and partial solutions that I use when issues of reputation arise in my campaigns.
Multiple Reputations
If the adventuring party has been around for a while, they will have a reputation of some sort. If they’ve been around for a while, they might even be famous.
That reputation is actually a lot more complex than people usually realize when they think about it. Every different group will have a different connection with it, depending on their own proclivities and interests.
A fighter might know that the group has never been defeated. A merchant, that they are known to drive a hard bargain but can be suckers for a sob-story, well-told. A nobleman might know that they have supported the commons in struggles with abusive members of the Nobility, a gambler that they are willing to take chances. An Orc might know that one member of the group has a predilection for killing others of his kind, while a priest might know that the group as a whole has a particular dislike of Undead.
As this example shows, a ‘reputation’ is actually a compound of many smaller reputations – and that’s assuming that the recognition is correct in the first place (you can have loads of fun with a group of NPCs who misidentify the PCs and assign them a reputation that’s not rightfully theirs, treats the PCs like visiting kings, and then dumps a really hard problem in their laps).
Combat Correlation
Some elements of a reputation can be interpreted as correlating with the combat capabilities, usual tactics, and overall style of the group with the reputation. Some of these may make the group sound so impressive that they gain a psychological advantage over the opposition. At other times, it may cause the opposition to attempt to avoid combat altogether, or to alter their own usual tactics. It can even be that a particular reputation can give the group a net combat disadvantage that their enemies can attempt to take advantage of.
Combat is usually a part of any game system for which players demand hard-and-fast rules, and such situations are so complex in their permutations that they don’t lend themselves to hard-and-fast rules. The best solution is often some sort of guideline and some limits.
For example, “a strong reputation may be worth no more than (d20-based system) ±4 (3d6-based system) ±2 or (d% system) ±20%. This bonus may be applied before any attempt to hit is made (a normal combat bonus) or may be added to the damage done in the event of a successful hit in exchange for an equal amount of damage being received by the attacking force”.
There are lots of permutations, and they can all be valid. They can all also complicate combat rules massively.
Non-Combat Correlation
Outside of combat, reputations can enable encounters to anticipate and even manipulate attitudes, behaviors, and opinions; can create expectations; can influence reactions, bend people either toward or against alliances, can manifestly alter the reception that characters receive, and so on.
These can materially impact character interactions to the point of conferring bonuses or penalties to the use of some skills (oratory and interpersonal skills, for example). Reactions and responses are likely to be as individual as the characters encountered.
The one thing that you can be sure of is that the reactions and any bonuses to either side that result will be different in nature and independent in valuation to those that are relevant to combat.
One size will not fit all, in other words.
Incrementation
One approach that some game systems have employed is to make reputation a trackable stat. Do things that negatively impact on your reputation and it goes down. Trade on your reputation and it goes down. Do things that positively impact on your reputation and it goes up.
This is remarkably similar to the approach I attempted to take with Piety – see The Woes Of Magic & Piety. In a nutshell, so many actions and events impact these stats that the paperwork becomes a real drag on a campaign. No matter how much you might want to abstract and streamline the process, it only takes one exception for the mechanics to become overwhelming and the rules, untenable.
Known Reputation
Recognition of a reputation is another complex issue. For a reputation to have any impact at all, it has to first be known to the potential target of the reputation, and correctly assigned to this particular group of characters.
Look back at the list of reputational aspects listed earlier – does anyone really think that they will all have the same penetration? On top of that, there is the question of how well-informed a specific individual or group might be. Both factors have to be taken into account to determine if a reputation is even known.
What is to be avoided is having an array of reputations, each with their own penetration, each with their own chance of being known, that have to be checked or even compiled with each encounter. This would be an efficiency nightmare – but anything more efficient seriously compromises the fidelity of the resulting mechanics.
Triggered Consequence
Let’s simplify for a moment, and take a ‘monochromatic’ reputation – the PCs have a reputation for being extremely effective in combat. Such a simple reputation, uncolored by anything else, makes it easier to explore the next range of problems.
Assume, furthermore, that this reputation is known to an encounter, and correctly assigned to the characters in question. This will clearly trigger some sort of consequence – but the nature of that consequence is quite varied. Some encounters will attempt to attack by surprise, others may attempt to avoid conflict, and still others will view this as an opportunity to grow their own reputations. Some may quake with fear, others attack with desperation.
Once again, there is no one-size-fits-all answer, and that complicates any game mechanics, because you need some mechanism for selecting the most appropriate consequence, and translating that into game mechanics.
Reputations Swing Both Ways
The GM always has to bear in mind that NPCs may have a reputation that is known to the PCs, too, and this can either compound with, or can oppose, the effects of a PCs reputation.
Things can grow even more complicated when the NPC has a reputation that they have to live up to and the PCs do not, because this steps into the area of taking agency away from the players with regards to their characters.
The best approach is to inform the players of the reputation and deliberately get them to consider that reputation from the point of view of their characters – with the GM able to then function as an editor should that response be inadequate to the reputations scale, scope, and specifics, and translate that into game mechanics as necessary.
Using Reputation: A roleplaying decision
The concept of “Reputation” poses so many problems that it’s easy to see why game designers prefer to ignore it. But it’s so rational and reasonable that GMs often feel they don’t have that option, or deliberately choose to do so for playability reasons, no matter how unrealistic that choice might be.
With that foundation, it’s time to look at my hopelessly inadequate and totally vague and incomplete solutions to the problem.
It starts with this: A reputation can do nothing more than guide NPC choices, actions, and plans unless the owner of the reputation seeks to actively exploit their reputation through roleplaying. The manner of any impact on NPC choices, actions, and plans is a matter of roleplaying the NPCs in question and stems from the GM’s perceptions of the totality of the game world including the past actions of the owners of the reputation. Attempts to utilize a reputation that is not known by the target produces a response that is generally the opposite of that desired.
Let’s unpack that a little.
- The impact that a reputation has on prep and planning by an NPC is a roleplaying question for the GM.
- Whether or not the NPCs have even heard of the PCs is also a roleplaying decision for the GM.
- To get any game mechanical impact from a reputation, the character(s) with the reputation have to actively attempt to trigger their reputation through roleplay and in-character dialogue. Simply saying “have they ever heard of me” won’t cut it.
That sidesteps a number of the difficult questions and potential game mechanics. It means that the PCs have to actively attempt to leverage their reputation before it has any impact.
The Consequence
If reputation triggers a change of some sort, that consequence is also principally handled as a roleplaying question. It might cause the target to attack more violently, or be more defensive, or seek to pull back from a confrontation; or any of half-a-dozen other choices; which ones apply are dependent on the nature of the reputation and how the individual reacts to such situations. There are too many possibilities for hard-and-fast rules.
This means that I am not directly interpreting the reputation into game mechanics; instead, I am interpreting their reaction into game mechanics if necessary.
That might seem a very subtle difference, but it trades a blanket rule that has to be ‘one size fits all’ with something more specific.
I feel the need for a non-combat example at this point: Character#1 (C1) has a reputation for rewarding artists whose work they like. Character #2 (C2) is an artist in an art class that C1 is inspecting. C2 knows C1’s reputation, and decides to make an extra effort, to be more attentive to detail than usual. The GM assesses quality of success in a creative art by “Margin of success” because that yields a simple number that he can then apply to other related die rolls such as an inclination to purchase. The GM doesn’t try and interpret the impact of C1’s reputation directly; he determines how C2 will react to that reputation (assuming he knows it) and then only has to worry about translating that response. How much of a difference does taking more care and attention to detail make to the quality of C2’s creative efforts? Taking more care is a common act, one that will confront the GM regularly. That makes it far easier to come up with an answer. Since C2’s art is usually very slapdash (a character trait that the GM decides is appropriate given C2’s personality), he decides that the extra effort makes a big difference, and gives C2 a +3 on his painting roll instead of the usual -2 that he would apply to a ‘slapdash’ artwork. As a result, C2 succeeds in his roll by 2 instead of failing by 3. C1 stops and encourages C2 in a complimentary manner but (quick roll of the dice) does not offer to buy. How C2 reacts to this is the next question – he might be discouraged by the lack of a sale, or he might make a personal breakthrough as a result of the positive feedback.
The process works the same way in Combat, or in any other situation. If, in D&D, you are confronted with a creature known to be able to breathe fire, you’re going to be on the lookout for any hint that this is about to happen – does that give a bonus to your saving throw? Or does NOT knowing that reputation mean that you have a penalty? (I would personally think the latter, but a passionate player might be able to convince me to go the other way – but he would have to bear in mind that the same standards would then be enforced for all characters at all times).
Do You Know Who I Am?
Quite often, a reputation isn’t deployed for any specific purpose. “Do You Know Who You’re Dealing With?” could be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate, or to use a reputation for fair dealing to grease the wheels in a negotiation, or as a warning to play fair “or else”. It’s this very variety that makes blanket rules for reputation so difficult, and why determining the impact something that is better done through roleplaying.
To a large extent, the intentions of the character deploying his reputation are irrelevant. That’s why I rule that the reputation has to be ‘channeled’ through roleplay if the character has some specific intent in mind – in which case, any reputation is a secondary influence on what happens, the roleplay ‘vehicle’ is the primary driver of the reaction. If you are trying to intimidate, a threatening posture and some forceful dialogue are the primary triggers of a reaction, and the reputation, if it’s known, is an add-on that might amplify, or diminish, the reaction.
A character with a reputation for being friendly and caring will have a harder time intimidating someone than a character with a reputation for being rough and violent – but not as hard a time as a character with a reputation for being meek and mild. Clark Kent intimidates no-one, and everyone should stand up to him.
Do You Know Who I Am?
Dueling reputations can be fun to roleplay, and in many ways, this is a natural come-back. But this nettle has a sting that can no longer be avoided.
It’s all well and good for the GM to decide whether or not an NPC has heard of a PC through sheer roleplaying and character knowledge – but that won’t generally work when the shoe is on the other foot, and the player asks the GM, “Do I know him?”
You need some basis on which to answer, and most world-knowledge is simply too vague to give the definitive answer that the player is looking for. “Well, he’s the CEO of a successful corporation in Brunei of medium size that is well-known in some circles, with a reputation for smothering rivals financially even if it results in short-term losses; he always has an eye on the long-term, and that sometimes makes his business moves surprising to others.” — that doesn’t answer the question, it evades it, while leaving the window open for the player to tell the GM what the GM already knows – that the PC has no connections to Brunei and it’s business culture, and may or may not be part of the ‘some circles’.
In D&D it’s fairly easy – roll a d20 and if it’s less than or equal to the NPC’s level, then the answer is ‘yes’ to at least some extent; then the GM just has to work out (as above) what the PC knows or has heard.
In any other game system, I simply come up with some equivalent. In the Hero System, I would look at a simple fraction (1/2 or 1/3) of the character points (XP) earned – and if the character has bought a ‘famous’ disadvantage (or some other equivalent), double it to get a target to roll against. If the NPC has an ‘anonymous’ disadvantage, I would halve it. The result is a target number that can be rolled against quickly and simply.
This quick-and-dirty approach solves a lot of the problems that otherwise clog up resolving the question, equating overall character success with recognizability.
Undeserved Reputations
For all practical purposes, there is no difference between a deserved reputation and one that has been conferred by a headline-hungry media. But an undeserved reputation can be very useful to the GM.
Consider the following sequence:
The PC has just spotted someone running from a grocery store from which a siren is blaring. Apprehending the person, they discover that the sales clerk is dead, but there is no sign of the gun used to kill him, and a search of the person apprehended yields nothing incriminating. The Police arrive and take the runner into custody, run his name through their database, and find that he was found guilty of murder ten years earlier and released a couple of months ago on a technicality. So far as they are concerned, he’s probably as guilty as sin, and this time they’ll nail him for it.
So the runner’s reputation has just scored a bullseye so far as the police are concerned – he’s now guilty until proven innocent, and the PC can put the whole thing behind him if he wants to without a second thought.
But the GM wants to engage the PC as a gateway to the plotline.
So: The runner says “I ran because I knew how it looked, but I didn’t do it – he was dead when he arrived. I knew I’d get no fair deal from the cops, but with your rep, [PC], I hoped for better from you. Guess I should’a known better.”
This uses the PCs hard-won reputation for fairness and championing justice against them, lumping them in with the most prejudiced parts of the criminal justice system. Whether they like it or not, they have to become an advocate for the Runner, protecting him from being stitched up for a crime there is no proof that he committed.
So the PC engages with the investigation, in the course of which they discover that the ‘technicalities’ that released the runner from jail added up to a wrongful incarceration – the release on a technicality was simply the most expedient way to get him out of the system. What was originally a duty (ensuring a fair investigation) is now likely to turn the PC into a passionate advocate for the runner; the reputation with which he was saddled has been expunged in the PCs mind.
But all the other evidence keeps stacking up against the Runner. He claims that the police or someone else are stitching him up, they are so convinced that he’s guilty, or maybe it’s the real guilty party trying to deflect attention to him. If so, they are doing a very good job.
Engaging plotline sinks its’ hooks into Player, news at eleven!
The GM lets the investigation unfold for a while, but in an improbably short time, or maybe in a flash-forward, its’ time for the Runner to face trial. That signals to the player (if they know their stuff) that the GM has presented everything that the PC needs to do in order to overturn the verdict, or that the GM is playing a bigger and longer game.
The PC is called as a witness by the prosecution and questioned as to the events of the night (it is so that these will be fresh in the players’ mind that the GM has brought the trial forward). The prosecution shuts down any attempt to testify beyond the scope of the facts, doing their best to treat the PC as a hostile witness. The Prosecution is even able to sneak the admission out of the PC that the accused killer has a prior criminal record. They become more convinced than ever that the Runner is headed for another wrongful conviction, and that the GM has some 11th hour plot twist laid out for the trial which lets the PC discover the real killer and save the day.
The PC then gets called as a witness by the Defense and asked the more open questions that the prosecution wouldn’t let them answer, while the player is desperately looking for the hole that the GM must have planted in the case for them to find, without success.
Despite a glowing character testimonial by the PC, which largely counters the defendants’ past record, the Jury finds enough circumstantial evidence to convict the Runner. As he is being led from the court, the PC tells him something like “Don’t give up”. The Runner shrugs, and replies “I had to try. I hoped having you on my side would be enough to get me off. Didn’t work, huh? But at least you tried. Thanks,”
He then turns to the DA. “Is it too late to do a deal on sentencing? I’ll tell you where I hid the gun and where I got it from. You’ll want that.” The DA replies, “We’ll talk about it.”
Moral of the story: sometimes an undeserved reputation cloaks innocence – and sometimes the perception that a reputation is undeserved cloaks guilt – and in this case, the Runner was using the PC’s reputation for their own ends.
Submerged Reputations
Some people submerge a reputation that they deserve. The ruthless businessman who secretly donates to charitable causes because he uses that reputation for ruthlessness to increase the money available for such gifts, for example.
Characters with richly complex reputations – such traits can only remain submerged for so long – make for interesting characters for PCs to interact with. You can even re-read the example above from the perspective that the Runner was attempting to submerge his true criminal behavior and the reputation that goes with it.
The common trope, in fact, is that of the generous and kind-hearted businessman who is really ruthless, corrupt, and even criminal – but keeps that part of their activities a secret.
A reputation for fun
Reputations can be a lot of fun to play with. The players in my superhero campaign will never forget the dumpy, middle-aged woman who showed up at Boston Police Central wearing a polka-dotted shower curtain as a cape (and nothing else) claiming to be a member of their team. The poor, delusional, woman thought that if she was a member of the team, she would finally stop being disrespected.
And the players in Fumanor will never forget the people who were impersonating them to gain access to Noble Houses and their valuables, who made the mistake of asking the real members of the group to join them – the NPCs had heard the PCs reputations but did not recognize the owners.
Or Edmond Confessor (not his real surname), who confessed to everything – again, and again, and again – but who was actually a witness with vital information that he used to make himself look more guilty because he deserved to be punished.
Reputations are fun to play with – but you need to know how they are going to work, first.
995… 996…I’m still looking for ideas on how to commemorate my 1000th post at Campaign Mastery. Time is getting really really short, now!
Discover more from Campaign Mastery
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Comments Off on (So You Think You’ve Got A) Reputation