Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

[Catullus64]

I remember back in 2014, when I first picked up the Basic Rules for D&D 5th Edition, one of the things that excited me the most was Personal Characteristics. So much of an RPG rulebook is going to be busy teaching you the game's mechanics; so having what is essentially a basic roleplay tutorial is, to me, brilliant. It's simple, takes very little time, the examples provided are generally well-written and fertile, and the text surrounding it emphasizes how it's a starting framework rather than a set of confines.

And seven years later, I've slowly come to realize that practically nobody else seems to share my enthusiasm for this element of character creation. Many players simply write one or two words, or just leave the section blank entirely. In a game I just started, my players were actually disgruntled when I insisted that they write in complete sentences for their Personality Traits, Flaws, Bonds, and Ideals.

One of my players said that he doesn't like to write it down because his character changes in the course of play. Granted, but so do your ability scores and equipment; that's why we do this stuff in pencil. It's a starting point, a set of guiding principles for you to direct your roleplaying. I think that committing to a set of those, at least when starting out, is a good idea.

So, since it seems like enthusiasm for this feature is dim, I thought I'd try to kindle the flame with a few reasons I think this part of the game is great:

Reason #1: Ritual. For me, the group character-creation ritual is one of the most hallowed parts of D&D. I'm going to naturally be fond of any substantive addition to that ritual, which the writing of personal characteristics definitely is.

Reason#2: Helping the DM. As a DM, I usually give my players' character sheets a good and thorough reading, to help make sure I'm designing adventures that challenge them, and play in equal measure to their strengths and weaknesses. It's really helpful to have concise phrases which tell me about a character's motives, so that I can present choices which really bring those motives to the fore. It's also one of the few things that helps remind me that the inspiration mechanic exists.

Reason #3: Fleshing out Backgrounds. Backgrounds are great. (How come there aren't more splat backgrounds? Seems like most of the non-PHB official backgrounds are hyper-specific to an adventure or setting.) Having a whole half-page of potential ideas about the sort of outlook and persona which could follow from a certain background is therefore also great. I like to try to pick from pre-written traits often, or at least use them as inspiration for my own, because so many of them are well-written, though I do typically mix-and-match across backgrounds. I honestly feel that if more people actually rolled or picked traits from the lists, we'd see more unique and original characters.

Reason #4: Alignment. People love to kvetch about how the alignment system is staid, simplistic, and generic. I was of that opinion before 5e, but the alignment-labeled Ideals in the book actually turned me around on that, and breathed new life into the system. If you take a cross-section of the "Good" or "Chaotic" Ideals across the many backgrounds, you'll actually get a beautifully complex look at how moral outlooks of a similar nature can emerge from different lives and attitudes.

[Unoriginal]

I like them as well.

It pains me that it really seems most people only care about the alignment part of those Personal Characteristics. As in, care about arguing about it/saying how much they dislike it, because most people don't care about what 5e says about alignments.

[da newt]

I too like a PC to start out as a fairly whole person with a goal, ideals, a personality, and some character. There are many different ways to accomplish this, but I think a well considered back story and ethos makes a character who they are.

[Jerrykhor]

I don't think forcing players to write detailed characteristics is good. At the end of the day, this is a game, people should not be forced to do things they don't enjoy, and that includes backstory, personality, bonds etc. Some people just want a simple character, or wing it as they play. Some people just want to roll dice. That's fine. We are not writing characters for a story book or novel here.

I have plan out some ridiculous backstory and personality for one character. I have also left the backstory section blank for another. It depends. But in my mind, there is always some idea of what i want the character to be.

You call it enthusiasm, but when you force it on others, its called being pushy.

[MaxWilson]

I remember back in 2014, when I first picked up the Basic Rules for D&D 5th Edition, one of the things that excited me the most was Personal Characteristics. So much of an RPG rulebook is going to be busy teaching you the game's mechanics; so having what is essentially a basic roleplay tutorial is, to me, brilliant. It's simple, takes very little time, the examples provided are generally well-written and fertile, and the text surrounding it emphasizes how it's a starting framework rather than a set of confines.

And seven years later, I've slowly come to realize that practically nobody else seems to share my enthusiasm for this element of character creation. Many players simply write one or two words, or just leave the section blank entirely. In a game I just started, my players were actually disgruntled when I insisted that they write in complete sentences for their Personality Traits, Flaws, Bonds, and Ideals.

I dislike the Flaws/Bonds/Ideals framework because it's shallow and IMHO leads to static characters who take a fixed position during character creation and simply occupy it, posturing but not actually moving anywhere. It doesn't set up internal tensions very well (Flaws potentially sets up a little internal tension, but I get more dynamic results from knife theory or defining fraught relationships or even just asking for DESIRES, which are inherently about motion, latent or actual).

You may say the text emphasizes that it's merely a starting framework, but then why the pushback against people who have outgrown it?

It's not a terrible framework but it's not a good one either.

[Catullus64]

I dislike the Flaws/Bonds/Ideals framework because it's shallow and IMHO leads to static characters who take a fixed position during character creation and simply occupy it, posturing but not actually moving anywhere. It doesn't set up internal tensions very well (Flaws potentially sets up a little internal tension, but I get more dynamic results from knife theory or defining fraught relationships or even just asking for DESIRES, which are inherently about motion, latent or actual).

You may say the text emphasizes that it's merely a starting framework, but then why the pushback against people who have outgrown it?

It's not a terrible framework but it's not a good one either.

To clarify, when I say a starting framework, I don't mean roleplay training wheels, to be abandoned as soon as you know how to do it on your own. I mean a set of practices for the start of each new campaign and character, the foundation on which more organic characterization can be built. It's not a full characterization, it's where your character starts, which is what matters at the beginning of a story.

Dynamic vs. Static is not Good vs. Bad. Dynamism and change come in naturally as these characters respond to events and act, which is not part of character creation. But having a formal step in which you lay out the basics of what this person values and how they respond to the world around them helps set you up for that. Notably, the example traits are all formatted as "I" statements, and have more to do with a character's self-image than anything essentially true about them.

And again, it's not all about you. The statements on the character sheet provide a shorthand for other people to get the overall gist of your character, and understand what motivates their decisions. They help the DM with planning out story beats that resonate with your character.

[MaxWilson]

To clarify, when I say a starting framework, I don't mean roleplay training wheels, to be abandoned as soon as you know how to do it on your own. I mean a set of practices for the start of each new campaign and character, the foundation on which more organic characterization can be built. It's not a full characterization, it's where your character starts, which is what matters at the beginning of a story.

Dynamic vs. Static is not Good vs. Bad. Dynamism and change come in naturally as these characters respond to events and act, which is not part of character creation. But having a formal step in which you lay out the basics of what this person values and how they respond to the world around them helps set you up for that. Notably, the example traits are all formatted as "I" statements, and have more to do with a character's self-image than anything essentially true about them.

And again, it's not all about you. The statements on the character sheet provide a shorthand for other people to get the overall gist of your character, and understand what motivates their decisions. They help the DM with planning out story beats that resonate with your character.

They are one framework but they create two dimensional characters at best; they don't set up interesting relationships between player characters (compare e.g. Fiasco chargen, or DramaSystem); they don't add internal tensions to those relationships.

Knives in knife theory are designed as hooks: you tell the DM you have a younger sister specifically so he can torture you with her, by having her kidnapped or having her turn evil or having her turn out to be a false memory implanted by the BBEG. A PHB Bond in contrast seems to be intended as static, partly because you have only that one Bond--if the DM kills the sister off, are you left with no Bonds?

I'm all for frameworks that help characters define feelings and relationships, but I don't think the PHB Bond/Flaw/Ideal system is worth using once you know some alternatives.

[Cicciograna]

I like them too, and generally try to do my best to blend them into my background and my Background - with the former, lowercase, indicating the short story I write about my character; and the latter, capitalized, referring to the crunchy one taken from the rules, with mechanical implications.

Sometimes I drift away from the Flaws, Bonds and Ideals, because my personality asserts itself over my character's one, but at least I try. I don't really want to lose a character because of a reckless action that "he would do".

[Unoriginal]

Knives in knife theory are designed as hooks: you tell the DM you have a younger sister specifically so he can torture you with her, by having her kidnapped or having her turn evil or having her turn out to be a false memory implanted by the BBEG.

A DM who only see my PC's backstory as a way to torture them is not a DM I will play with.

I like backstory as context for who, how and why my character is, and as a way to anchor my character in the world as well as making the world bigger and more lived-in. Not as ammunition.


The elements from it can be important for the campaign and endangered when relevant, of course, but after the fifth time you make a character and the DM decides their first love mentioned twice is actually evil and working for the BBEG my experience is that you don't want to write backstory anymore.


A PHB Bond in contrast seems to be intended as static, partly because you have only that one Bond--if the DM kills the sister off, are you left with no Bonds?

It's not because someone important for the character dies that they stop being important for the character.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm all for frameworks that help characters define feelings and relationships, but I don't think the PHB Bond/Flaw/Ideal system is worth using once you know some alternatives. They are a good start, but they are not an end in and of themselves.

I like backstory as context for who, how and why my character is, and as a way to anchor my character in the world as well as making the world bigger and more lived-in. Not as ammunition. Plot hooks grown organically from a characters back story (if the DM and Player work together on the background in the first place, which is a best practice IME) can really add spice to the game.

[Catullus64]

They are one framework but they create two dimensional characters at best; they don't set up interesting relationships between player characters (compare e.g. Fiasco chargen, or DramaSystem); they don't add internal tensions to those relationships.

Knives in knife theory are designed as hooks: you tell the DM you have a younger sister specifically so he can torture you with her, by having her kidnapped or having her turn evil or having her turn out to be a false memory implanted by the BBEG. A PHB Bond in contrast seems to be intended as static, partly because you have only that one Bond--if the DM kills the sister off, are you left with no Bonds?

I'm all for frameworks that help characters define feelings and relationships, but I don't think the PHB Bond/Flaw/Ideal system is worth using once you know some alternatives.

It seems true that the Personality Characteristics as written don't accord with your stated values about how characterization in an RPG should work, but I hope I can encourage you to broaden your values and have some regard for a different way of doing things.

Here goes: Flat, static characters can be a good thing.

Take a universally recognized example, Superman. He's generally a very flat character, because everything important about Superman as a character could fit in the relevant section of a 5e character sheet. He's also usually a static character; he's pretty much the same guy at the beginning and end of any given adventure. Does this mean Superman is a bad character? No, he's an excellent character, but only because Superman stories are generally not about who Superman is as a person; they're about incredible powers, strange worlds, and colorful supporting characters. A more deeply dynamic and nuanced main character would eat up valuable time and writing resources, and get in the way of what the story's really about. He's the perfect main character for non-character-driven stories.

This seems likely to be an inflammatory statement, but I don't think D&D is really all that suitable for telling character-driven stories. That's generally a result of the fact that the person who provides most of the story's events and characters (DM) is necessarily separate from the people controlling the thoughts, actions, and feelings of the main characters. What D&D is really good at are stories about strange worlds full of danger and magic, stories of thrilling battles and narrow escapes. Complex characterization of the sort which your knife theory is intended to promote may just get in the way of that. The adventures, the cool stuff you do, the creatures and characters you encounter, the perils you face and the stories you make along the way should be the focus. And when you come at it from that angle, the simple (but, in my opinion, still richly varied) structure provided by the Personality & Background section really comes into its own.

[Unoriginal]

Plot hooks grown organically from a characters back story (if the DM and Player work together on the background in the first place, which is a best practice IME) can really add spice to the game.

I agree, and I talk about that below what you quoted.

My point is there's a big difference between "your cousin Borbert, who was your companion on your first adventure but who decided to retire, visits you after hearing a rumor about a dungeon that could interest you" or "as it turn out, the map indicates the ruins of the castle your grandfather served as a knight, before it was destroyed" and your DM looking at your backstory and thinking about how to kill off, torture or turn evil any character you mention in a positive light.

I've seen it happens. Whenever one player at my old gaming club made a backstory that included a lover, the DM couldn't resist making them either evil or a prisoner of the BBEG.

[OldTrees1]

Many players simply write one or two words, or just leave the section blank entirely. In a game I just started, my players were actually disgruntled when I insisted that they write in complete sentences for their Personality Traits, Flaws, Bonds, and Ideals.

So, since it seems like enthusiasm for this feature is dim, I thought I'd try to kindle the flame with a few reasons I think this part of the game is great:

I like personal characterization. I think it is a better way to understand a character than to list off their backstory (different people see different people differently so your milelage may vary).

However I dislike the 5E Personality Traits, Flaws, Bonds, and Ideals system. The main reason I dislike it is that it is a "one size fits all" approach to characterization (even if we ignore the implication that all get equal weight).

I agree with your 4 points about why writing down some personal characterization is good. But I take a more free form approach than the TFBIs and that approach encourages sentences, prioritization, and causality. Some characters might be more defined by their relationships while others might be driven by a philosophy.

[KorvinStarmast]

...and your DM looking at your backstory and thinking about how to kill off, torture or turn evil any character you mention in a positive light.

I've seen it happens. Whenever one player at my old gaming club made a backstory that included a lover, the DM couldn't resist making them either evil or a prisoner of the BBEG. Yeah, OK, but that's kinda DM specific rather than the general benefit of the hooks that can be accrued.
And I suspect that more than one DM ever has pulled that (the kind of situation that you described). :smallcool:

[Unoriginal]

Yeah, OK, but that's kinda DM specific rather than the general benefit of the hooks that can be accrued.
And I suspect that more than one DM ever has pulled that (the kind of situation that you described). :smallcool:

Well I was specifically addressing MaxWilson's "you tell the DM you have a younger sister specifically so he can torture you with her, by having her kidnapped or having her turn evil or having her turn out to be a false memory implanted by the BBEG" point.

I like PCs who are parts of a living world, and backstory-based hooks help that. The DM only using a PC's backstory to see of what suffering they're the victim this week doesn't give me the impression the PC is part of a living world.

[MaxWilson]

A DM who only see my PC's backstory as a way to torture them is not a DM I will play with.

I may not be explaining it well. Here's the seminal post: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/775caq/my_friends_and_i_have_something_called_knife/


When writing a character's backstory, it's important to include a certain number of "knives". Knives are essentially anything that the DM can use to raise the stakes of a situation for your character. Anything that can make a conflict personal, like a threatened loved one or the appearance of a sudden enemy. They're called "knives" because the players lovingly forge them and present them to the DM so that the DM can use them to stab the player over and over again.

The more knives a player has, the easier it is for the DM to involve them in the story. So it's important to have them! When breaking down a backstory, it kind of goes like this:


Every named person your character cares about, living or dead (i.e. sibling, spouse, childhood friend) +1 knife [EDIT: a large family can be bundled into one big knife]

Every phobia or trauma your character experiences/has experienced +1 knife

Every mystery in your character's life (i.e. unknown parents, unexplained powers) +1 knife

Every enemy your character has +1 knife

Every ongoing obligation or loyalty your character has +1 knife

Additionally, every obligation your character has failed +1 knife

Every serious crime your character has committed (i.e. murder, arson) +1 knife

Every crime your character is falsely accused of +1 knife

Alternatively if your character is a serial killer or the leader of a thieves guild, those crimes can be bundled under a +1 BIG knife

Any discrimination experienced (i.e. fantasy racism) +1 knife

Every favored item/heirloom +1 knife

Every secret your character is keeping +1 knife

You kind of get the point. Any part of your backstory that could be used against you is considered a knife. A skilled DM will use these knives to get at your character and get you invested in the story. A really good DM can break your knives into smaller, sharper knives with which to stab you. They can bundle different characters' knives together into one GIANT knife. Because we're all secretly masochists when it comes to D&D, the more knives you hand out often means the more rewarding the story will be.

For clarity's sake I have found it best to explicitly list the knives for the DM rather than interweaving them into a long blob of backstory text. If you don't want something used to raise the stakes for you, just leave it off your list of knives.

If you have a dad who's supposed to be a wise old mentor figure for dramatic scenes, but not someone who ever gets kidnapped by space Nazis, just tell the DM your dad is purely a dramatic character.

Or maybe he never appears onscreen at all, he (you-the-player) just writes letters to you (you-the-PC) as a narrative device, and you don't want him threatened and don't actually even want the DM ever running your dad at all. Don't list him as a knife.


I agree, and I talk about that below what you quoted.

My point is there's a big difference between "your cousin Borbert, who was your companion on your first adventure but who decided to retire, visits you after hearing a rumor about a dungeon that could interest you" or "as it turn out, the map indicates the ruins of the castle your grandfather served as a knight, before it was destroyed" and your DM looking at your backstory and thinking about how to kill off, torture or turn evil any character you mention in a positive light.

I've seen it happens. Whenever one player at my old gaming club made a backstory that included a lover, the DM couldn't resist making them either evil or a prisoner of the BBEG.

I agree with what you're saying here, as far as it goes. That's not what Knife Theory is about.

===============================


It seems true that the Personality Characteristics as written don't accord with your stated values about how characterization in an RPG should work, but I hope I can encourage you to broaden your values and have some regard for a different way of doing things.

Here goes: Flat, static characters can be a good thing.

Sure, I agree. Not all characters have to be dramatic. But being forced by the DM to use a framework which produces flat, static characters is not a good thing.

I have nothing against individuals choosing to use Bonds/Flaws/Ideals when they feel like it. But I don't like it myself (even for flat, static characters) and I fully understand why your players have previously objected to you insisting that they write down complete sentence Bonds/Flaws/Ideals for their characters. That system does not work for everyone.

[Mastikator]

I don't think forcing players to write detailed characteristics is good. At the end of the day, this is a game, people should not be forced to do things they don't enjoy, and that includes backstory, personality, bonds etc. Some people just want a simple character, or wing it as they play. Some people just want to roll dice. That's fine. We are not writing characters for a story book or novel here.

I have plan out some ridiculous backstory and personality for one character. I have also left the backstory section blank for another. It depends. But in my mind, there is always some idea of what i want the character to be.

You call it enthusiasm, but when you force it on others, its called being pushy.

In my experience both as a DM and as a player Personal Characteristics (in whatever invocation) are the only way a tell that a player is roleplaying at all.

Though I agree. If a player doesn't like roleplaying then they shouldn't be roleplaying. But that can be said about every aspect of the game, if they don't like combat maybe they shouldn't be fighting. If they don't like exploration then they shouldn't be exploring. If they don't like adventure they shouldn't adventure. Generally players should find games that suit them.

Edit-
The first part is not true. Doing a "funny voice", or acting, is also a strong signal that someone is roleplaying. But even fewer players are comfortable doing that. Some players are even derisive of other players doing that :smallfrown:

[Unoriginal]

I may not be explaining it well. Here's the seminal post: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/775caq/my_friends_and_i_have_something_called_knife/


When writing a character's backstory, it's important to include a certain number of "knives". Knives are essentially anything that the DM can use to raise the stakes of a situation for your character. Anything that can make a conflict personal, like a threatened loved one or the appearance of a sudden enemy. They're called "knives" because the players lovingly forge them and present them to the DM so that the DM can use them to stab the player over and over again.

The more knives a player has, the easier it is for the DM to involve them in the story. So it's important to have them! When breaking down a backstory, it kind of goes like this:


Every named person your character cares about, living or dead (i.e. sibling, spouse, childhood friend) +1 knife [EDIT: a large family can be bundled into one big knife]

Every phobia or trauma your character experiences/has experienced +1 knife

Every mystery in your character's life (i.e. unknown parents, unexplained powers) +1 knife

Every enemy your character has +1 knife

Every ongoing obligation or loyalty your character has +1 knife

Additionally, every obligation your character has failed +1 knife

Every serious crime your character has committed (i.e. murder, arson) +1 knife

Every crime your character is falsely accused of +1 knife

Alternatively if your character is a serial killer or the leader of a thieves guild, those crimes can be bundled under a +1 BIG knife

Any discrimination experienced (i.e. fantasy racism) +1 knife

Every favored item/heirloom +1 knife

Every secret your character is keeping +1 knife

You kind of get the point. Any part of your backstory that could be used against you is considered a knife. A skilled DM will use these knives to get at your character and get you invested in the story. A really good DM can break your knives into smaller, sharper knives with which to stab you. They can bundle different characters' knives together into one GIANT knife. Because we're all secretly masochists when it comes to D&D, the more knives you hand out often means the more rewarding the story will be.

Well I disagree with this conception. Sometime a backstory element will be a knife, sure. But sometime it'll be a fork, a spoon, or a bowl.

I can understand that some people consider only bad things happening to the character can raise the stakes/make the character involved in the story/ progress the story/make entertaining or interesting moments, but it's not my case.



For clarity's sake I have found it best to explicitly list the knives for the DM rather than interweaving them into a long blob of backstory text. If you don't want something used to raise the stakes for you, just leave it off your list of knives.

If you have a dad who's supposed to be a wise old mentor figure for dramatic scenes, but not someone who ever gets kidnapped by space Nazis, just tell the DM your dad is purely a dramatic character.

Or maybe he never appears onscreen at all, he (you-the-player) just writes letters to you (you-the-PC) as a narrative device, and you don't want him threatened and don't actually even want the DM ever running your dad at all. Don't list him as a knife.


Fair. I can get why some people prefer that kind of setup.

[Yakmala]

I'm a big fan of back story and working out a character's personality and voice. No matter how good the mechanics of a character, I can't enjoy playing them unless I feel like I know who they are.

One supplement I used to use (and have my players use) was called "Central Casting: Heroes of Legend" by Task Force Games. I probably still have it somewhere in a box in the garage. It was one of the most comprehensive ways to flesh out a character idea and you could use as much or as little of it as needed.

[Pex]

If I tell the DM my character's backstory has a father back on the farm, that's precisely what I want. I don't want him kidnapped, murdered, or be the BBEG we're looking for. I just have a dad who lives on the farm whom I can write letters telling of my adventures. When I'm Knighted by the King there he is with a big smile so proud of me. When I have downtime I can visit home and brag to my childhood friends. That's all I need.

[Ettina]

They are one framework but they create two dimensional characters at best; they don't set up interesting relationships between player characters (compare e.g. Fiasco chargen, or DramaSystem); they don't add internal tensions to those relationships.

Knives in knife theory are designed as hooks: you tell the DM you have a younger sister specifically so he can torture you with her, by having her kidnapped or having her turn evil or having her turn out to be a false memory implanted by the BBEG. A PHB Bond in contrast seems to be intended as static, partly because you have only that one Bond--if the DM kills the sister off, are you left with no Bonds?

I'm all for frameworks that help characters define feelings and relationships, but I don't think the PHB Bond/Flaw/Ideal system is worth using once you know some alternatives.

As others have mentioned, firstly, there's ways to leverage a bond/knife without just severing or risking severing the relationship. Instead of killing off or endangering the younger sister, what if the younger sister finds an interesting McGuffin and knows you can cast identify, so she hands you the plot hook item to find out what it is? Or she introduces you to a friend of hers who wants to start a mining operation but has heard their planned mine site is infested with undead?

Secondly, dead bond character =|= no bonds. "Avenge my dead X" is a valid bond, as is "honor the memory of my lost X by doing Y" or "make sure no one else loses their loved ones the way I lost X".

Thirdly, a good D&D group will most likely create more bonds during the course of the campaign. For example, if you started with Lost Mines of Phandelver, you can easily end up with the surviving Rockseekers and Sildar Hallwinter forming bonds with the PCs that can motivate them in a similar way to knife theory. In my LMOP run, the player raised money to pay a cleric for resurrection of the Rockseeker brother they found dead in Wave Echo Cave, reuniting the two surviving brothers with their third brother. That's a bond that could easily be used if I wanted to have the Rockseekers turn up again. And that's just the named NPCs. That PC also adopted two goblins and a doppelganger during her run, who became part of a growing entourage of NPCs running a traveling tavern in a demiplane for her. Only one of them (Droop) had a canonical name. DMs should be constantly looking for ways to build on the relationships that PCs have formed in-game, and PCs should be open to forming such relationships.

[verbatim]

I used to be pretty down on the system until I saw a homebrew'd Underdark Background (http://falsemachine.blogspot.com/2014/07/5e-underdark-background.html) from a prominent OSR author that made me think that the system would be a lot more popular if more work was put into making the examples stand out and be inspiring rather than rote.

Examples Include:



Physiology: Your eyes are larger than usual for your race, they also have no whites, people cannot tell where you are looking.


Bond: I must find all evidence above ground of the existence of my people, and destroy it.


Flaw: Failing to eat at least part of someone you respect when they die is a terrible insult. You would never do that to a friend.



I think a really fleshed out collections of backgrounds that encompass many popular DND character archetypes would find success in the homebrew community.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I see the IBF system as providing two things of value:
1. A summary for the player of what they decided was important to their character. This is a dynamic thing, and I have no issue with people adding, removing, and changing these as play goes on.
2. A statement to the DM of plot eye-bolts.

What's a plot eye-bolt? Well, it's basically where a plot hook can attach. It's a statement of "here are things I'll bite at."

For instance, 75% of my current party has either an ideal or a bond relating to slavery--they hate it at a deep personal level. So I know that if I throw in a plot element involving the chance of rescuing slaves, they'll jump at it unless there's something much larger that it will necessarily conflict with. And even then, they'll try to pull both off.

Another character had a flaw of "Can't pass up the shiny". Which meant that I knew that to get that character involved, I could offer the prospect of phat loots.

Without good plot-eyebolts, plot hooks don't have anywhere to attach. IBF is a way for the player, up front, to make an API contract--If you poke me here, I'll respond positively. Not just as a way to get the characters in trouble or in tension, but both positively and negatively. I know that a NPC with the tag "servile and whiny" and a character with an ideal of "Everyone should stand on their own feet" are going to clash, while if I want to have a character they'll react well to, I need to touch their other other IBF parts. Other things may work, but as with an undocumented API, there's no guarantee that they'll react at all, let alone how you expect. And you can break things and have no one to blame.

I make a pact with the players that if you have named characters in your backstory, I won't kill them off/kidnap them/plot twist them/etc without involving the player OOC first for approval. One character has a son; he's not randomly going to get offed/turn out to be the villain. And even though they've made enemies that are aware of that son, I've ensured that the characters will have warning and will be able to intervene (possibly at a cost, but it will be a free choice) if those enemies move against the relatives. However, that same character has an ex-wife and a twin brother who ware painted by mutual agreement as villain materials. And another character has a fellow crewman on their ship (Sailor background) who had a flag attached; they've mostly reconciled, but it was a bit touch and go. For the crewman.

But honestly, one of the things that I've enjoyed most about my current group is that several of them have worked with me on their backstories to a high level, including some who have intentionally put large chunks of their history in my hands.


One character has amnesia. Basically his entire backstory was left in my hands. We set some basic guidelines together, but that's made recovering his memory and (now that he's done much of that) choosing his path in full light of this knowledge his major plot element. I've drip-dropped bits and pieces as we've gone along, and it's been wonderful.

Another gave a basic framework, including some names, with the core motivation of "I'm trying to find my father (who disappeared years ago) and find out who my grandfather was (ie where I got these powers as a divine soul sorcerer)". He didn't specify who his grandfather was or the details of the family relationship, which is something we've been discovering as we go along.


This "voyage of self-discovery" has allowed me to custom tune the campaign to weave the characters into the world and the ongoing events much more than a more "pre-set" backstory would do. But it does take trust between the players and the DM--the players have to trust the DM and their world to not screw them over, while the DM has to trust the players to respond to the developments.


Another such plot eye-bolt I've found has been abuse of women. This goes for every party I've had--none would tolerate it. Even the crustier characters wouldn't put up with that, and their reactions tended to be...extreme. Had one group of, well, self-interested characters decide that the appropriate response to seeing a lord allowing his men to abuse women was to storm his castle and execute him. To the point that I had to fade to black on some of their plans for exactly how he was going to die.

[Chronos]

I'm with the OP: I've always loved alignment as part of the game, and I think that traits/ideals/bonds/flaws are the best part of 5th edition. Neither alignment, nor the bits that 5e added, is a complete description of a character: You can and should go beyond them. But they're a starting point. And no, not every player needs help coming up with a personality: If you can freeform a character without explicitly-labeled bonds, flaws, etc., then good for you. But for most of us, it really does help.

They're also not limited in number. My first 5e character, for instance, started off with a fairly bland bond about digging up ancient secrets. But he later ended up connecting with a couple of street urchins, and sponsoring their educations, and while I didn't actually write it on his sheet, they're now bonds, too, and stronger than his original one.

(I will add that they don't necessarily need to be complete sentences. My current character (when I'm not DMing) has as his ideal FREEEEDOOOM!, for example. But then, he's not a subtle sort of guy.)

(I will also confess that I am about to use someone from a character's backstory as a villain, but only because the player set up her background with a clear villain in it. Someone disgraced her father, but she doesn't know who. Well, she's going to find out.)

[Kane0]

I employ my own character sheet used in excel and have made sure to keep the traits/bonds/flaws section prominent, I too think its a great tool and often overlooked especially by players who come from a 3e/4e background.
Im actually tinkering with a doublesided version where everything involved with combat is on one side which stays face down until initiative is rolled, so players arent tempted to think with their numbers just because they can see them on their sheet. Kind of like 'Side A: Who you are' vs 'Side B: What you are'

[Telok]

Funny. Traits, bonds, flaws, backstory, character hooks, knives, none of it has ever mattered since AD&D stopped. I don't know what it is, but the WotC editions effectively ended all character personality, quirks, and story in my neck of the woods. People will do it in other systems, but not D&D.

I still do backstories character hooks, all that. But it doesn't make any difference. Making a urinal of the holy symbols of rival faiths in a dwarf gutter bar? No effect. Specifically making a character as the ex-lover of the BBEG? Nothing. The character getting a class perk that's literally "Dean of <type of magic> at the Mage Academy"? Meaningless. So, what's the point?

[Chronos]

That's a statement about the folks you play with, not about the game.

[Dienekes]

Funny. Traits, bonds, flaws, backstory, character hooks, knives, none of it has ever mattered since AD&D stopped. I don't know what it is, but the WotC editions effectively ended all character personality, quirks, and story in my neck of the woods. People will do it in other systems, but not D&D.

I still do backstories character hooks, all that. But it doesn't make any difference. Making a urinal of the holy symbols of rival faiths in a dwarf gutter bar? No effect. Specifically making a character as the ex-lover of the BBEG? Nothing. The character getting a class perk that's literally "Dean of <type of magic> at the Mage Academy"? Meaningless. So, what's the point?

Huh, weird. I mean D&D doesn’t do nearly as much with it as they could. It’s no Burning Wheel, but it’s functional.

This really sounds more like a group issue to me though. Most the good DMs I’ve played with would jump at chances to add drama with their player’s backstories.

[Vegan Squirrel]

I find the personality characteristics to usually be a useful tool to help round out a new character, or to inspire a backstory. They're not perfect, but they're a fine framework. As DM, I also want players to specify what motivates them to adventure (helping people, making coin, solving mysteries, etc.), for plot hook reasons.

More importantly, though, personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws are an explicit part of building a 5th edition character! A character without its personality characteristics is as incomplete as a wizard who hasn't picked their cantrips or a rogue who hasn't selected their skills. I can't fathom the idea of resenting a DM for asking players to finish building their characters before playing (though I'd be fine with house-ruling those details away). Feats are an optional rule; personality traits aren't.

[TyGuy]

I came for the tactical combat. And stayed for the role-playing.

Within the first year of 5e I made a custom character sheet that omitted characteristics in favor of more real-estate for features. Now they're back in my sheets and one of the most guiding notes in the first sessions of a new campaign.

I'm particularly miffed by my players that get bored with their characterswhen they play without any unique characteristics or RP elements. It's like "Of course you're bored with your sack of abilities you dolt! Try playing this roleplaying game with some roleplay instead of treating it like a video game with your one dimensional avatar"

[MaxWilson]

Funny. Traits, bonds, flaws, backstory, character hooks, knives, none of it has ever mattered since AD&D stopped. I don't know what it is, but the WotC editions effectively ended all character personality, quirks, and story in my neck of the woods. People will do it in other systems, but not D&D.

Is that the only difference? I find that it's a lot more work to make 5E work for anything outside of combat, so if the 5E DMs are not putting in that work (possibly because they're just putting that work into a different system) maybe people are just defaulting to the activity that 5E does support, and therefore adopting pawn stance (PC as a gamepiece for the player, like in Monopoly) as sufficient for the game they're playing.


I'm particularly miffed by my players that get bored with their characterswhen they play without any unique characteristics or RP elements. It's like "Of course you're bored with your sack of abilities you dolt! Try playing this roleplaying game with some roleplay instead of treating it like a video game with your one dimensional avatar"

You can attempt roleplay in Monopoly too, but the roleplay doesn't feed back into the game itself. 5E isn't quite that bad about closing the loop but it's not that much better either if the DM insists on "balanced" combats and linear adventures (railroads) that must be solved through combat. I'm not saying you do insist on those things but maybe they've been burned in the past.

[Ettina]

You can attempt roleplay in Monopoly too, but the roleplay doesn't feed back into the game itself. 5E isn't quite that bad about closing the loop but it's not that much better either if the DM insists on "balanced" combats and linear adventures (railroads) that must be solved through combat. I'm not saying you do insist on those things but maybe they've been burned in the past.

If a DM doesn't allow for roleplay, roleplay will be bad. But that's a fault of the DM, not 5e. 5e is meant to be played with roleplay being impactful.

Even in published modules, which tend to be more linear by the requirements of the format, there's situations built-in where you're expected to roleplay.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If a DM doesn't allow for roleplay, roleplay will be bad. But that's a fault of the DM, not 5e. 5e is meant to be played with roleplay being impactful.

Even in published modules, which tend to be more linear by the requirements of the format, there's situations built-in where you're expected to roleplay.

And personally, I have way more trouble with running effective combat than running effective non combat (1) roleplay scenarios and this was true both in 5e and in 4e. So YMMV and the system isn't the determining factor here IMO.

(1) roleplay exists in combat as much as it does everywhere else. If you're playing your character as a pure numbers engine, that's on you. Combat or not.

[TyGuy]

If you're playing your character as a pure numbers engine, that's on you. Combat or not.
This is the crux of it with a couple of my players. They zero in on features and mechanics. And then get bored because they put little to no work into PC motives or personality.
Basically they have the mindset that would be fine for one-shots, but isn't conducive to long running campaigns.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is the crux of it with a couple of my players. They zero in on features and mechanics. And then get bored because they put little to no work into PC motives or personality.
Basically they have the mindset that would be done for one-shots, but isn't conducive to long running campaigns.

Yeah. That mentality would really conflict with my campaigns. They'd be bored because I'm not all that focused on mechanical challenge. I'd get bored because my main enjoyment comes from characters getting strongly tied into the world and events. Campaigns are shaped by characters with personality and desires. Without that I don't have inspiration to build content.

[MaxWilson]

(1) roleplay exists in combat as much as it does everywhere else. If you're playing your character as a pure numbers engine, that's on you. Combat or not.

This comment is 100% applicable to Monopoly too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This comment is 100% applicable to Monopoly too.

Uh.....wat? That's either so reductionist it makes no sense or else you're missing the entire point of what roleplaying games are and how they're fundamentally not the same as board games.

Roleplay is way more than just making silly voices. It's fundamentally about choosing what you do. Take two characters with identical mechanical bits. Call them "Bob the Coward" and "Jane the Reckless". Both are champion fighters, exact same stats, exact same equipment. Different personalities--Bob, as his name suggests, hates getting hit and hates scary things, and Jane is the reverse, seeking out facing such things head on. I suggest that if you play them the same way, you're violating just as much of a "rule" as if you decide you're going to roll a d40 to see if you hit.

[Tanarii]

Personality Teaits are one of the best parts of 5e.

Many players, both new and experienced, and incapable of thinking of 5 distinct one sentence motivations across different motivational categories for a character without some though and prompting. New players don't put that much thought into characterization, and many experienced players have fallen into the trap of backstories.

It was a requirement for my campaign. And that was for a pretty straight-forward adventuring site exploring campaign with a relatively heavy combat focus. Some players grumbled about it, but once I explained why it was a good habit to be in, most either stopped.

Either because they agreed enough or because they realized I was clearly a huge proponent and they weren't going to win this fight. :smallamused:

[rlc]

Knives in knife theory are designed as hooks: you tell the DM you have a younger sister specifically so he can torture you with her, by having her kidnapped or having her turn evil or having her turn out to be a false memory implanted by the BBEG. A PHB Bond in contrast seems to be intended as static, partly because you have only that one Bond--if the DM kills the sister off, are you left with no Bonds?


…no?
If the dm kills your sister, you now have a reason to do something, whether that’s try to get revenge or try to find a way to revive her. The personal characteristics are literally what OP said in his first post: a descriptor of your character’s personality at the beginning of their current journey.
There’s nothing stated or implied about lack of character growth.

[Dienekes]

…no?
If the dm kills your sister, you now have a reason to do something, whether that’s try to get revenge or try to find a way to revive her. The personal characteristics are literally what OP said in his first post: a descriptor of your character’s personality at the beginning of their current journey.
There’s nothing stated or implied about lack of character growth.

The difference, I think, is the bond can be a great means of roleplaying if the players are so inclined. But if they are not it does… nothing. “Oh no my sisters dead, whatever shall I do. She drop any loot?” Is a thing in roleplaying games. Not all, and you may scoff at them, but the overriding focus of growing loot and exp is the predominant growth mechanic of the D&D system. And if a player only focuses on those aspects of the game they are not wrong.

I personally wouldn’t want to play with them. But it’s as legitimate am interpretation of the game as any other. Some people just want to kick doors down and slay some trolls.

Now I haven’t played this knives game. But I have player games like Burning Wheel and to a lesser extent Riddle of Steel where personal character arcs and roleplaying decisions are the game. They are how you progress, or at least one important aspect of that progression. Which more or less forces the player to roleplay.

Now there are some negative aspects to this too. In theory if someone is bad or uncomfortable with deep character roleplaying these systems penalize them. Though I’ve never seen that come out in actual play it is a theoretical issue.

[Ettina]

This comment is 100% applicable to Monopoly too.

Whether you roleplay or not is irrelevant to how well you're playing Monopoly.

Whereas if you play D&D and don't roleplay, you're playing badly.

The objective of Monopoly is to get the biggest stack of money and drive everyone else bankrupt. The objective of D&D is to create a story about adventurers doing heroic things.

[Lokishade]

My friends don't play much with RP characteristics and when they do, they roll for them.

I seem to be the only one having trouble with this. When I roll for RP characteristics, I feel like I'm stuck with a stranger instead of a character of my own creation.

Am I weird?

[Ettina]

My friends don't play much with RP characteristics and when they do, they roll for them.

I seem to be the only one having trouble with this. When I roll for RP characteristics, I feel like I'm stuck with a stranger instead of a character of my own creation.

Am I weird?

Nothing wrong with either option, or with preferring one over the other.

[Catullus64]

My friends don't play much with RP characteristics and when they do, they roll for them.

I seem to be the only one having trouble with this. When I roll for RP characteristics, I feel like I'm stuck with a stranger instead of a character of my own creation.

Am I weird?

You're not weird for feeling that way, I would never roll up a character's traits myself, at least not for a game of 5e D&D. But for some people (and for me, in other systems) there's as much joy to be found in discovering a character who seems to pre-exist, and playing them to the best of your ability. You can often get weirder, more idiosyncratic characters that way; sometimes the dice sketch out a person stranger than you would have imagined yourself. It may not be the primary purpose of the tables, but it's cool that they can also be used for that.

[Tanarii]

My friends don't play much with RP characteristics and when they do, they roll for them.

I seem to be the only one having trouble with this. When I roll for RP characteristics, I feel like I'm stuck with a stranger instead of a character of my own creation.

Am I weird?Clearly yes!

Seriously though, it's a lot of fun to figure out how to play a randomly made character, including random personality. I've played characters that had random race, class, background, personality traits, and alignment.

But me finding it fun and being willing to invest real world time on the results of a random generated character doesn't mean that it's for everyone.

So if you're weird, it's not necessarily because of this. :smallamused:

[MaxWilson]

Uh.....wat? That's either so reductionist it makes no sense or else you're missing the entire point of what roleplaying games are and how they're fundamentally not the same as board games.

Roleplay is way more than just making silly voices. It's fundamentally about choosing what you do.

Again, 100% applicable to Monopoly. If you choose to focus purely on accumulating money instead of roleplaying a shoe or a car ("cars like gas and hate trains so I'd like to trade you the railway in exchange for the gas station"), that's purely on you.

What makes good TTRPGs more interesting than Monopoly is more than just making decisions in character; it's things like freedom to go off script and define your own play agenda and apply lateral thinking to find unexpected solutions. 5E's metagame is not especially good at supporting any of these things, compared to other games, so it's not surprising to hear of people treating 5E as a pawn-stance combat simulator, even if they clearly know how to get into character and adopt actor stance in other games. Gameplay gravitates to structure, and 5E's structure is mostly combat. (Xanathar's tools made a halfhearted stab at broadening the noncombat niche but the fact that a few pages of notes on ways to use tool proficiencies in unusual ways is a large fraction of 5E's noncombat support--that's indicative in and of itself of where 5E's design attention was spent.)

No, the ability to freeform roleplay and call for ability checks while doing so doesn't count as structure. It doesn't attract gameplay the way actual structure does.

[Telok]

Is that the only difference? I find that it's a lot more work to make 5E work for anything outside of combat, so if the 5E DMs are not putting in that work (possibly because they're just putting that work into a different system) maybe people are just defaulting to the activity that 5E does support, and therefore adopting pawn stance (PC as a gamepiece for the player, like in Monopoly) as sufficient for the game they're playing.

Perhaps. The people I've met who are 99% D&D & non-rp usually came into D&D through mmos and video games. The pawn stance thing may be influenced by that.

[Tanarii]

No, the ability to freeform roleplay and call for ability checks while doing so doesn't count as structure. It doesn't attract gameplay the way actual structure does.
Having play tested games with narrative and roleplaying structures, this is more or less the case until they become too complicated and dominate table time in place of doing the thing. More or less like combat rules.

5e's inspiration is an okay RP structure, they just designed it so it doesn't actually encourage doing it. Compare and contrast to Forbidden Lands or Torchbearer, which have sufficient game impact they do encourage RP affecting game play.

The trick is making a personality traits system that encourages players to think up motivations for decision making, then use them while interacting with the fantasy environment, and then tie them into mechanics while not making them abusable.

OTOH social interaction systems are almost always not good structure. They're either too rigid to cover a broad variety of situations, or so loose while still getting in the way that you might as well just fall back on a central resolution mechanic.

Edit: it occurs to me we might be talking about different things, considering you think 5e lacks structures. What's some examples of game(s) that you think have okay or good structure(s), and what is/are the structure(s) is within the game(s)?

[Luccan]

I like the personal characteristics and I encourage anyone in my group, especially those I help build a character for, to use them. I'm capable of building out who a character is without them, but they can be very useful for providing inspiration and I find them especially useful to steer me away from playing my standard character traits I'm comfortable with. And they're one of the easiest ways to award Inspiration, which I often feel is otherwise ignored.

[MaxWilson]

Edit: it occurs to me we might be talking about different things, considering you think 5e lacks structures. What's some examples of game(s) that you think have okay or good structure(s), and what is/are the structure(s) is within the game(s)?

I see this, but you're asking for a long answer and I haven't had time to write one.

Short answer is: off the top of my head, and only looking at stuff that's built into the game vs. DM-created, DramaSystem has game structures that are very good at making players talk about their feelings, TSR-era D&D games like Basic and AD&D have game structures that are good at encouraging players to parley with or trick monsters (to play Odysseus sometimes instead of just Heracles) and other game structures that encourage spell research and 4X activities like army recruitment, Shadowrun has game structures that are good at setting up heist scenarios without a lot of extraneous activity (i.e. while maintaining good pacing), Paranoia has game structures which encourage both cooperation and infighting. 5E has good game structures for creating combat-oriented PCs as a minigame, which inevitably leads to wanting to exercise those capabilities in combat.

[Tanarii]

I see this, but you're asking for a long answer and I haven't had time to write one.

Short answer is: off the top of my head, and only looking at stuff that's built into the game vs. DM-created, DramaSystem has game structures that are very good at making players talk about their feelings, TSR-era D&D games like Basic and AD&D have game structures that are good at encouraging players to parley with or trick monsters (to play Odysseus sometimes instead of just Heracles) and other game structures that encourage spell research and 4X activities like army recruitment, Shadowrun has game structures that are good at setting up heist scenarios without a lot of extraneous activity (i.e. while maintaining good pacing), Paranoia has game structures which encourage both cooperation and infighting. 5E has good game structures for creating combat-oriented PCs as a minigame, which inevitably leads to wanting to exercise those capabilities in combat.
Oh okay, I get what you mean. I'd definitely like more exploration related structures for example, which would encompass a large amount of decision making and ability score checks as a result.

[KorvinStarmast]

One character has amnesia. Basically his entire backstory was left in my hands. We set some basic guidelines together, but that's made recovering his memory and (now that he's done much of that) choosing his path in full light of this knowledge his major plot element. I've drip-dropped bits and pieces as we've gone along, and it's been wonderful.

This "voyage of self-discovery" has allowed me to custom tune the campaign to weave the characters into the world and the ongoing events much more than a more "pre-set" backstory would do. But it does take trust between the players and the DM--the players have to trust the DM and their world to not screw them over, while the DM has to trust the players to respond to the developments. If I may elaborate on this. The player, first off, invested in this "who am I? I am not sure" well enough that all of the players responded to it; the way this 'voyage of discovery' was woven into our adventures, and our interactions, and the choices we had to make "do we go here or do we go there?" was very well done. It evoked a semi powerful role playing scene between my character and his as we discovered the 'why' of the amnesia. As it worked out, she rendered a heartfelt apology for how she'd presumed that he was, to put it simply, aloof and 'stuck up' ... this interaction grew organically from some dozens of sessions of role play and the PCs learning about each other a bit at a time. And I think that's kind of important: the incremental nature of "character generation through play and doing things together" as a method.

Eye bolts - nice term. All four of us became invested in finding out who our comrade was, and where he came from. Good stuff. :smallsmile: As noted, when you trust your DM and the DM trusts you back, all kinds of things open up as possibilities. :smallcool:

Funny. Traits, bonds, flaws, backstory, character hooks, knives, none of it has ever mattered since AD&D stopped. I don't know what it is, but the WotC editions effectively ended all character personality, quirks, and story in my neck of the woods. People will do it in other systems, but not D&D.

I still do backstories character hooks, all that. But it doesn't make any difference. Making a urinal of the holy symbols of rival faiths in a dwarf gutter bar? No effect. Specifically making a character as the ex-lover of the BBEG? Nothing. The character getting a class perk that's literally "Dean of <type of magic> at the Mage Academy"? Meaningless. So, what's the point? You may be victim of a lot of overlap between CRPGs/VideoGameRPGs and other mechanized variants of RPG informing the player base that you play with. I've seen the same thing here and there.

... therefore adopting pawn stance (PC as a gamepiece for the player, like in Monopoly) as sufficient for the game they're playing. I still have fellow players who do that in my weekly old fart's game. And some of the group is more invested.

[MaxWilson]

Oh okay, I get what you mean. I'd definitely like more exploration related structures for example, which would encompass a large amount of decision making and ability score checks as a result.

One of my favorite social game structures is Reputation. Reputation has only two rules:

1.) Reputation is public knowledge. Within a given reputational context, such as "international assassins" or "popular girls at Hogwarts", everyone has their own reputation and knows or can quickly determine the approximate Reputation of any other individual within that context.

2.) Rules for gaining or losing Reputation in a context can be changed by those holding a plurality of reputation within that context. For example, if enough popular girls decide that wearing Gucci now degrades your status by 20 points instead of enhancing it, it is now so.

Implication: Reputation does nothing at all except let you manipulate other people who want to acquire it. This is enough to elegantly model quite a lot of NPC behavior though, while still allowing good old D&D violence as an alternate solution with its own consequences.

[KorvinStarmast]

Implication: Reputation does nothing at all except let you manipulate other people who want to acquire it. This is enough to elegantly model quite a lot of NPC behavior though, while still allowing good old D&D violence as an alternate solution with its own consequences. One could consider reputation as an element of charisma, but that takes extra work for some folks. I will ponder doing that formally as DM, will chew on this.
You have given me the seed of an idea ...

[MaxWilson]

One could consider reputation as an element of charisma, but that takes extra work for some folks. I will ponder doing that formally as DM, will chew on this.
You have given me the seed of an idea ...

I see reputation and charisma as two very different things. Reputation is about how certain people respond to things because of what they want to do to increase their own status ("My friend set me up on a date with [person who is famous for being famous]! Wait till [person] hears about this!"). Charisma is about how someone makes you feel, whether that is soldier with a battlefield promotion asserting control and making you feel like obeying him increases your chances of survival ("You there! Hold this flank!") or someone in a social situation who makes you want to spend time with them or gain their approval.

You don't need to be likable at all to have a desirable reputation. To some extent you can be an unlikable jerk that nobody likes being around, and yet still they all want to appease you if you control access to a reputation that they want (e.g. big-time fighters worth taking seriously).

[Arkhios]

As somewhat tangent to another thread, if there's one thing I would like to see (mostly) unchanged in any future editions, it's personal characteristics.

In fact, I'm thinking of using the backgrounds presented to better portray a personality for my next character, even though we're using 3.5 D&D as the rules for that game.

I've always had problems with actually roleplaying my characters, and this feature of 5th edition helped me a LOT. So much so, that I would definitely bring it every other games with me, even if it wasn't mandatory or didn't have any mechanical benefits (such as Inspiration in 5th).

[Tanarii]

You don't need to be likable at all to have a desirable reputation. To some extent you can be an unlikable jerk that nobody likes being around, and yet still they all want to appease you if you control access to a reputation that they want (e.g. big-time fighters worth taking seriously).
You don't necessarily need to be likable to have a high Charisma stat either. You just need to be good at getting other people to do what you want.

[MaxWilson]

You don't necessarily need to be likable to have a high Charisma stat either. You just need to be good at getting other people to do what you want.

On the one hand, this is true.

On the other hand, charismatic people could be likable if they wanted to. People who just have enormous reputations may not have that option.

[Unoriginal]

Charisma and reputation are very different things.

Reputation is mostly a question of circumstances and how others perceive them. Charisma can help with how people perceive X event (ex: going "I meant to do that" and have people buy it), make others believe X event happened when it didn't, or have X event be perceived in the first place, but that doesn't mean you need CHA to have a reputation or that you can't have a notable reputation without notable CHA.


That being said I don't think reputation should be something tracked down mechanically, in TTRPGs. Aside from things like "doing Quest A gets you a number of points with Faction B" (but in this case it's more a faction mechanic than a reputation one).

[MaxWilson]

That being said I don't think reputation should be something tracked down mechanically, in TTRPGs. Aside from things like (A) "doing Quest A gets you a number of points with Faction B" (but in this case it's more a faction mechanic than a reputation one).

What's the distinction you are trying to draw between faction mechanics and reputations within a given faction/context?

[Tanarii]

What's the distinction you are trying to draw between faction mechanics and reputations within a given faction/context?
I think that Reputation generally needs to either be with someone, or in a given area. Possibly with degradation based on distance.

And 5e has an optional rule for tracking faction renown. DMG p22

[MaxWilson]

I think that Reputation generally needs to either be with someone, or in a given area. Possibly with degradation based on distance.

I agree, but Unoriginal is drawing a distinction between that kind of context-based Reputation and... something else. I'm not sure what.


And 5e has an optional rule for tracking faction renown. DMG p22

AFB but I don't remember that optional rule as having enough structure to it to attract gameplay.

For example, if terrorists have Reputation with each other, and the consensus among them is that they gain Reputation from making hits in public, especially against heads of state, players who need to draw out a terrorist might plan to fake a public appearance by an important head of state using disinformation and illusions. (They might not too, but they might--it might be one of the plans they consider when the players are talking to each other.) It becomes something that attracts gameplay. I don't remember the DMG system as being able to support that kind of gameplay though, IIRC it was just an extra way to give rewards to PCs, not to model and influence social behavior.

[Unoriginal]

What's the distinction you are trying to draw between faction mechanics and reputations within a given faction/context?

I would say the distinction is that reputation has two components, how much X person is known, and for what they're known, while a faction mechanics is more how much pull you have within that faction.

To give an example: if one of the PCs kills the corrupt local baron while rescuing one of the group's allies from a public execution, they will likely get fairly known (the "how much" part) and the various factions which hear of this will form their own opinions on the events, and that can lead to the local rebel faction to respect said character if they meet later. On the other hand, if the PCs are tasked by said rebel faction to kill the baron and succeed, then it becomes a "this faction is willing to do X for you and trust you with Y".

Not sure if I'm being very clear. Basically to me it's the difference between a NPC going "I recognize you, you're Paterdis, the one who found the Sky-Sword in the ruins of Levis" and a NPC going "you've proven we can trust you time and again, I'll put you in contact with the person who knows what you want to know."

[Ettina]

On the one hand, this is true.

On the other hand, charismatic people could be likable if they wanted to. People who just have enormous reputations may not have that option.

That's an artifact of the six ability system, imo. In theory, you could have someone who knows how to lie and intimidate really well, but really struggles to make people actually enjoy being with them (I've certainly met people like that IRL). But in D&D, if you want someone who is truly great at lying and intimidating, you need them to be at least half-decent at persuading people, too. Even if you have expertise in one vs no proficiency in the other, it doesn't create as much of a gulf as is realistic for some people.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would say the distinction is that reputation has two components, how much X person is known, and for what they're known, while a faction mechanics is more how much pull you have within that faction.

To give an example: if one of the PCs kills the corrupt local baron while rescuing one of the group's allies from a public execution, they will likely get fairly known (the "how much" part) and the various factions which hear of this will form their own opinions on the events, and that can lead to the local rebel faction to respect said character if they meet later. On the other hand, if the PCs are tasked by said rebel faction to kill the baron and succeed, then it becomes a "this faction is willing to do X for you and trust you with Y".

Not sure if I'm being very clear. Basically to me it's the difference between a NPC going "I recognize you, you're Paterdis, the one who found the Sky-Sword in the ruins of Levis" and a NPC going "you've proven we can trust you time and again, I'll put you in contact with the person who knows what you want to know."

I agree. A faction reward mechanic (which exists already) is one thing, but that's nothing like reputation. Reputation is not something that you can really reduce to a scalar "score" without it ending up being super gamey. Faction "standing" can be.

I'm working on fleshing out my faction standing mechanism[1] a bit more. But reputation isn't something I'd mechanize at all, beyond a few simple level bands where you're likely to start having people know who you are (these are generic, specifics can override this):

1-2 : No one outside your backstory knows you. Adventuring companies generally won't take you on--you're unproven.
3-5 : Eligible for adventuring company recruitment. You've made a splash in one small locality.
6-8 : Your own company and possibly those around where you've worked know you. Those who follow adventuring (ie groupies) know you.
9-10 : You're famous across a larger region (a kingdom, possibly more if they're tightly linked), even outside of the adventuring world. This is the pinnacle for most adventurers. These are the rock stars of adventuring.
11+ : You're a legend. People across the Federated Nations have heard of the group (although their impression of what you can do varies wildly and may not be accurate). National-level leaders watch your moves and think twice before messing with you (at least if they don't want war). There is exactly one active adventuring group of this level at the current setting time.

[1] Each major faction (mostly the adventuring companies for right now) have 5 ranks: -2, -1, 0, 1, 2. 0 is "neutral". Members of the organization can reach rank 2, everyone else has a cap depending on the organization. The secretive ones may cap at -1, the more open ones probably cap at +1. You start at 0, unless that would put you above the cap. Depending on your rank, you can get things from the group or the region they have influence over. Or can end up being hunted by them. But that generally only works in the regions they have influence in--the Bloodmoon Dancers don't have much pull outside the 3 kingdoms of the Jungle of Fangs, and the Holy Hands are pretty tightly cabined to one kingdom (because they've pissed off all their neighbors by being religious zealots).

[Unoriginal]

Also worth noting that some Backgrounds come with implied reputations (ex: Folk Hero, Soldier), and so do some species.

[MaxWilson]

Reputation is not something that you can really reduce to a scalar "score" without it ending up being super gamey.

Don't knock it till you try it.

Characters may not use the term "Reputation" or know exact numbers any more than they know their own HP or spell points, but they know what makes it go up and down and can communicate the rules to each other, just as in real life, which is enough to recreate complex social patterns that give players additional choices for how to approach problems. Having a scalar score (per context) is for clarity and the players' convenience, but the end result makes combat less likely when dealing with complex problems and an indirect approach via roleplay more likely, in my experience.

E.g. instead of fighting the Drow Matron Mother and killing thousands of Drow, you can undermine her Reputation with the Fire Giant King enough to cause him to pull out of her alliance and collapse her coalition.


1-2 : No one outside your backstory knows you. Adventuring companies generally won't take you on--you're unproven.
3-5 : Eligible for adventuring company recruitment. You've made a splash in one small locality.
6-8 : Your own company and possibly those around where you've worked know you. Those who follow adventuring (ie groupies) know you.
9-10 : You're famous across a larger region (a kingdom, possibly more if they're tightly linked), even outside of the adventuring world. This is the pinnacle for most adventurers. These are the rock stars of adventuring.
11+ : You're a legend. People across the Federated Nations have heard of the group (although their impression of what you can do varies wildly and may not be accurate). National-level leaders watch your moves and think twice before messing with you (at least if they don't want war). There is exactly one active adventuring group of this level at the current setting time.

[1] Each major faction (mostly the adventuring companies for right now) have 5 ranks: -2, -1, 0, 1, 2. 0 is "neutral". Members of the organization can reach rank 2, everyone else has a cap depending on the organization. The secretive ones may cap at -1, the more open ones probably cap at +1. You start at 0, unless that would put you above the cap. Depending on your rank, you can get things from the group or the region they have influence over. Or can end up being hunted by them. But that generally only works in the regions they have influence in--the Bloodmoon Dancers don't have much pull outside the 3 kingdoms of the Jungle of Fangs, and the Holy Hands are pretty tightly cabined to one kingdom (because they've pissed off all their neighbors by being religious zealots).

Does this this version of reputation attract much player attention in practice, when you run it? With my player eyes open, I see nothing here interact with except "increase your reputation to earn more benefits." There's nothing here that makes reducing enemy reputation remotely as interesting as reducing enemy HP to zero.

I'd be surprised if it attracted gameplay in the way that more complete game structures do.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Don't knock it till you try it.

Characters may not use the term "Reputation" or know exact numbers any more than they know their own HP or spell points, but they know what makes it go up and down and can communicate the rules to each other, just as in real life, which is enough to recreate complex social patterns that give players additional choices for how to approach problems. Having a scalar score (per context) is for clarity and the players' convenience, but the end result makes combat less likely when dealing with complex problems and an indirect approach via roleplay more likely, in my experience.

E.g. instead of fighting the Drow Matron Mother and killing thousands of Drow, you can undermine her Reputation with the Fire Giant King enough to cause him to pull out of her alliance and collapse her coalition.



Does this this version of reputation attract much player attention in practice, when you run it? With my player eyes open, I see nothing here interact with except "increase your reputation to earn more benefits." There's nothing here that makes reducing enemy reputation remotely as interesting as reducing enemy HP to zero.

I'd be surprised if it attracted gameplay in the way that more complete game structures do.

That's faction standing. Which is just pure rewards structure, based on "do things they like, get rewards. Do things they don't like, they won't help you." Reputation is completely different. And yes, reputation matters. But it's way too complicated to reduce to a number.

The party has a reputation with each and every faction. Each faction has a reputation with each and every other faction. Doing things can change that reputation, but it's not a single axis. For instance, they might change an opposing faction's reputation (with a friendly faction) from "who?" to "a big threat" while changing that same enemy's reputation with a different enemy from "we dislike them, but we dislike the party more, so let's have a limited agreement".

So really, you have three related but not identical characteristics for all pair-wise combinations of factions (treating the party as a faction).

Faction standing -- how much will this faction do for you.
Notoriety -- how much does this faction know/care about your existence. It's possible to have high notoriety with a faction while having exactly zero (ie neutral) standing.
Reaction -- What is this faction's reaction to your actions. A high power faction that another faction strongly dislikes (low standing, high notoriety) may be judged too dangerous to do anything about (reaction == neutral). A low power faction that another faction doesn't really care about (neutral standing, low notoriety) may get squashed (reaction == hostile) if they're simply in the way.

Faction standing and notoriety are relatively easy to model as scalars (on a low-high axis). Reaction is extremely multi-faceted and context dependent. And it's what really matters.

And I strongly dislike having a "notoriety" or "reputation" score--it feels incredibly gamist in a bad way. It's a fiction-layer thing, not a game-layer thing.

[Chronos]

Or in other words, a DM should keep track of reputation between various groups, but they shouldn't necessarily just keep track of it with a number.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or in other words, a DM should keep track of reputation between various groups, but they shouldn't necessarily just keep track of it with a number.

Exactly. Reputation exists, but it's not something you can boil down to a single "score".

[MaxWilson]

Or in other words, a DM should keep track of reputation between various groups, but they shouldn't necessarily just keep track of it with a number.

I think this is missing the point. The key thing about reputation (or you can call it "Prestige" if you like) that makes it drive gameplay isn't "how much do you currently have", it's "what will you do to improve it?" And Reputation/Prestige-seeking NPCs are at least as interesting as PCs' individual reputations. It's the dynamics of reputation that matter, not the static values. When someone offers you 50,000 gp to dive the Sahuagin-infested coastal waters and find King Thalessin's original sapphire crown so they can give it back to the current ruler, none of the characters or players including the DM care that it's going to increase that person's reputation/Prestige among the Gondish nobility from 1247 to 1497. The numbers are a convenience, like HP, designed to add clarity, illuminate tradeoffs, and thereby empower player decision-making. But those decisions are primarily about deltas to the numbers, because what matters are the system dynamics: the behavior they create among those seeking to accumulate more.

Remember that reputation/Prestige has no effect other than the fact that other people in your context know who's got it and how to get more (and that in principle you can influence how it's gotten).

The current rules for gaining / losing reputation in a context are easily ten times as important for gameplay as the current reputation score of any individual character.


That's faction standing. Which is just pure rewards structure, based on "do things they like, get rewards. Do things they don't like, they won't help you." Reputation is completely different. And yes, reputation matters. But it's way too complicated to reduce to a number.

...

And I strongly dislike having a "notoriety" or "reputation" score--it feels incredibly gamist in a bad way. It's a fiction-layer thing, not a game-layer thing.

How often do you find players proactively attempting to influence reputations in game? Do they set out to ruin others' reputations or enhance their own, or our changes to reputation just a side effect of stuff they intended to do anyway?

Does your aversion to quantifying social standing influence how your game plays out?

[PhoenixPhyre]

How often do you find players proactively attempting to influence reputations in game? Do they set out to ruin others' reputations or enhance their own, or our changes to reputation just a side effect of stuff they intended to do anyway?

Does your aversion to quantifying social standing influence how your game plays out?

Commonly in both cases. They're generally less about the devious manipulation attempts, but "will this help (group we like)'s standing or harm (group we dislike)'s standing" is a common concern. This includes repairing damage to a third party's reputations done by previous adventurers despite not really gaining much from it. And despite not really liking the third party, but realizing that it would benefit the regular people as well.

Not really. In part because I'm very open about the descriptive feedback. So no need to quantify--I just give them the feedback directly. Quantifying is, in my mind, misleading precision.

Note: my world is living. So what they do matters, even beyond the campaign. Every other campaign in that world will have to deal with the effects of their actions, so changes in attitudes (among other things) are sticky. This alone makes players care deeply about what goes on at the fiction level, even without mechanization or quantification. They see the effects of their actions being written into the world's narratives almost in real time.

[Unoriginal]

I can understand a DM ascribing a numerical value to the PCs' reputation with X faction, because for some people have an easier time with that than with the more verbal method I favor, but I can't understand putting that info on the players' side as an objective fact.

Like, a player going "my PC has 1342 Prestige points with the King's Hunters, it means they'll agree to the request" sounds both RP-killing and (as far as I'm personally concerner) disheartening.

PCs having an idea of their reputation is normal, but nothing says that this idea has to be accurate, or stay accurate as the campaign change.

For ex: if the PC has accomplished a deed the King's Hunters found worthy of praise at the time, but since their last meeting they hot a new member who was significantly wronged by the PC in the past and said new member has been revealing the PC's dirty laundry and by doing such ruining the PC's name among that group, it's not something I want the player to know by noticing how their Prestige keeps lowering with said faction.

[Chronos]

Indeed, my party is having some difficulties right now in part because they don't realize how strong their reputation is with a certain cult. They're facing challenges that seem custom-made to neutralize their abilities because they are: The cultists know who they are and roughly what their capabilities are, and so they're taking that into account. And the evil plan they're attempting to foil is a personal one, against them.

And just the fact that they have a strong reputation with an enemy faction should be enough to illustrate that reputation can't be one-dimensional. Their strong reputation is very different from the strong reputation of a ranking member of the cult.

[Mastikator]

Exactly. Reputation exists, but it's not something you can boil down to a single "score".

This is basically how I handle it in my game. There's no reputation score, instead it's a free form title that spans a free form region or organization, and it has consequences, both positive and negative. It means something when they get a good reputation, but it's not a game mechanic they can exploit with game mechanics, it's a fluff mechanic they can exploit with RP choices. In my opinion it has helped the players feel more invested in- and connected to the world/NPCs.

I also like that there are more than one dimension of character progress.

[MaxWilson]

I can understand a DM ascribing a numerical value to the PCs' reputation with X faction, because for some people have an easier time with that than with the more verbal method I favor, but I can't understand putting that info on the players' side as an objective fact.

Like, a player going "my PC has 1342 Prestige points with the King's Hunters, it means they'll agree to the request" sounds both RP-killing and (as far as I'm personally concerner) disheartening.

You're either talking to someone else or completely misunderstanding how it works.

It's more like "the Dead Queen has thousands of points of reputation in her circle--she's a majority all by herself--so fashions in Dead City change on a whim. But right now beaver hats are in, so the Queen's Hunters will totally join your dragon-slaying quest if you convince them that there will be a lot of beavers there."

That's a first-order problem where it's already mostly solved. If beaver hats weren't yet in, it's a second-order problem, and PCs might start by sending a really nice beaver hat to the Dead Queen as a gift from a high-Charisma PC.

Or they might do something else entirely. Reputation is one affordance they have, but they still have all the regular PHB games structures and affordances like "I cast Mass Suggestion."

[JonBeowulf]

I like what they added, but I think they missed out on not adding Goals. I mean, why is the character out there doing the stuff they're doing? Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws are great at telling WHO you are, Backgrounds give an idea of where you've come from, but none of that covers the WHAT YOU WANT. As a DM, I find that information much more valuable and can reward players to progressing towards their stated goal.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You're either talking to someone else or completely misunderstanding how it works.

It's more like "the Dead Queen has thousands of points of reputation in her circle--she's a majority all by herself--so fashions in Dead City change on a whim. But right now beaver hats are in, so the Queen's Hunters will totally join your dragon-slaying quest if you convince them that there will be a lot of beavers there."

That's a first-order problem where it's already mostly solved. If beaver hats weren't yet in, it's a second-order problem, and PCs might start by sending a really nice beaver hat to the Dead Queen as a gift from a high-Charisma PC.

Or they might do something else entirely. Reputation is one affordance they have, but they still have all the regular PHB games structures and affordances like "I cast Mass Suggestion."

I think that a large chunk of the disconnect I personally have with what you're saying is the naming. That doesn't sound like the Dead Queen has points of reputation, but points of influence.

When I think of reputation, I think of descriptors that describe how people react to seeing/hearing about them or to that person entering town (etc). To quote the reputations of some of my adventuring companies:
* Dear gods, it's them. Hunker down. (A group known for being involved in wide-spread property damage)
* Mean SOBs who can fight like madmen (A group known for their ferocity in combat).
* Beautiful and deadly (a group of temple dancers turned spies who use beauty as a weapon)
* Prissy, but effective (a group of noble-connected people known for being great diplomats but not the ones to call for dirty work)
* Well, I just started blasting… (a group of experimental weapons designers. Outlawed in most of the more civilized areas for causing "collateral damage" at extreme levels)
* Yay! (commoners)/Those idiots (other adventurers/nobles) (a group of naive goody-goodies, basically the Harpers without the shady side).

I don't think of reputation as being how much pull X person/group has with Y person/group. That's a completely separate matter.

[KorvinStarmast]

I like what they added, but I think they missed out on not adding Goals. I mean, why is the character out there doing the stuff they're doing? Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws are great at telling WHO you are, Backgrounds give an idea of where you've come from, but none of that covers the WHAT YOU WANT. As a DM, I find that information much more valuable and can reward players to progressing towards their stated goal. Some of the bonds are very close to goals. A few examples from the standard backgrounds:
Acolyte
I will someday get revenge on the corrupt temple hierarchy who branded me a heretic.
Criminal
Something important was taken from me, and I aim to steal it back
Sage
I sold my soul for knowledge. I hope to do great deeds and win it back

Goals, as in concrete goals, are campaign dependent and I have found tend to emerge in play as the world takes shape and information comes to the players about what's in front of them. (My Salt Marsh group's (me DM) goals changed when they began to peel back the layers of deceit covering the smuggling and human trafficking rings)
In a current campaign, took my bard two different story arcs to (1) confront the bosun who betrayed us to the slavers and then (some levels later) (2) finally confront and defeat the head of the slavers who took over our ship (before I was a 1st level PC, part of the back story. My goal of revenge took us into late tier 2 ... but the confrontation with the bosus was in late Tier 1 or early Tier 2.
Goals: organic to the campaign, I am thinking.

To illustrate further: what happens if a PC goal is generated during chargen with "I aim to climb Mount Olympus" but the campaign is set in a coastal jungle on another continent?

[MaxWilson]

I think that a large chunk of the disconnect I personally have with what you're saying is the naming. That doesn't sound like the Dead Queen has points of reputation, but points of influence.

When I think of reputation, I think of descriptors that describe how people react to seeing/hearing about them or to that person entering town (etc).

...

I don't think of reputation as being how much pull X person/group has with Y person/group. That's a completely separate matter.

Call it "Prestige" if you like, but "influence" would be misleading because the Dead Queen's actual influence is based off of something else entirely: her political and military power. Remember that having a good reputation among her court doesn't actually do anything except let people know you have it.

It isn't a measure of "how much pull you have" at all, any more than reddit karma is. (And yet some people seek to acquire it anyway.)

[KorvinStarmast]

Call it "Prestige" if you like, but "influence" would be misleading because the Dead Queen's actual influence is based off of something else entirely: her political and military power. Remember that having a good reputation among her court doesn't actually do anything except let people know you have it.

It isn't a measure of "how much pull you have" at all, any more than reddit karma is. (And yet some people seek to acquire it anyway.)
We've gone this long without a reference to bad reputation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6fB8KMUnz0), so I am correcting this massive oversight. :smallcool:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Call it "Prestige" if you like, but "influence" would be misleading because the Dead Queen's actual influence is based off of something else entirely: her political and military power. Remember that having a good reputation among her court doesn't actually do anything except let people know you have it.

It isn't a measure of "how much pull you have" at all, any more than reddit karma is. (And yet some people seek to acquire it anyway.)

Prestige may be a better word.

Then I'm horribly horribly confused. Because I can't think of a single case where knowing how much prestige someone has would matter unless they have influence. Any more than knowing how much reddit karma someone has. It's a datum, sure. But not a datum that means anything in isolation.

And you can have stupid amounts of influence while not having any political or military power. I'll spare the real-world examples (of which there are many), but the idea of a guru who has immense pull with his followers...yet no formal power of any kind at all. Can't order someone to muster an army, can't veto any legislation, no formal power at all. Yet everyone listens to his pronouncements and tries to make him happy. The "power behind the throne" may have exactly no reputation or notoriety or prestige (almost better that way) or formal power, yet is the only one that really matters.

And you can have formal political and military power while actually just being a figurehead that no one pays attention to. A puppet king theoretically has tons of influence. Yet really has none. As does a fop that no one respects. The Sultan in Aladdin (Disney) is an example. He's got tons of prestige, everyone likes him. But he has basically no actual influence on anything. And so getting on his good side (or bad side) or any operation that changes his prestige is pointless, because it won't change the facts on the ground.

[MaxWilson]

Prestige may be a better word.

Then I'm horribly horribly confused. Because I can't think of a single case where knowing how much prestige someone has would matter unless they have influence.

Welcome to the human race. There's not necessarily a logical reason for social behaviors. Why do popular kids in high school want to be popular? Because they do. Is there anything bad that happens if you simply ignore popularity and do your own thing? Nope. But if you want to be popular, then knowing who is popular and how they can help you become more popular is crucial.

Ditto for authoring scientific papers in fact. If the rules for scholarly prestige among Elven Scholars state that you gain prestige from co-authoring a paper with a top scholar (one with high prestige), then you have to know who's a top scholar in order to become a top scholar.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Welcome to the human race. There's not necessarily a logical reason for social behaviors. Why do popular kids in high school want to be popular? Because they do. Is there anything bad that happens if you simply ignore popularity and do your own thing? Nope. But if you want to be popular, then knowing who is popular and how they can help you become more popular is crucial.

Ditto for authoring scientific papers in fact. If the rules for scholarly prestige among Elven Scholars state that you gain prestige from co-authoring a paper with a top scholar (one with high prestige), then you have to know who's a top scholar in order to become a top scholar.

As a former high school teacher, kids in high school want to be popular in large part because, in that society, being popular is one of the few ways you can gain influence, and the two are tightly connected (for some sub-cultures of high school). So in a game about high school kids, having a Prestige stat would be useful as a proxy for how much pull you have and how many people you can gather/how many votes for Homecoming King/Queen you can muster. Same with the elven scholars--prestige grants influence in that particular case.

But that's not the case in, well, the vast majority of things, especially adventuring. So I guess I can't see where having such a stat (which would actually have to be a whole family of stats, since your Prestige among the jocks is very different from your Prestige among the nerds, and you gain it/lose it by completely different mechanisms) would be a meaningful contributor to different ways of playing.

Reputation? Sure. Having a good/bad reputation (or working to polish/sully someone else's reputation) can open/close lots of doors for different gameplay. But you can't boil that down to a single number and have it be anywhere meaningful. Because both good and bad are on multi-dimensional possibility fields, where having a specific kind of good reputation can matter, especially when coupled with a bad reputation of other kinds. Eg: being known as a drop-of-the-hat duelist (bad) while being known as being totally in love with your partner (good) and a skilled duelist can prevent lots of attempts at your partner (because they'll die if they try). But being known as a good guy who forgives everybody means you're more likely to get people thinking they can get away with shenanigans.

Influence? Knowing who has influence (and over what) is important, and your actions can influence the amount of influence someone else has, and that's important. But in adventuring (unless you're adventuring among the teenagers of a high school or the Instagram crowd), influence =/= prestige and in fact they're often inversely related. Plus it's way too complex to boil down to a number.

Faction standing? Also important and variable. This one can be boiled down to a number, but it's kinda boring. Do thing, get reward. Done.

So for D&D, particularly, NPCs/PCs having a Prestige number[1] just doesn't seem to buy all that much in increased game flow. Lots of added complexity, lots of surface for incongruities (where the mechanics can't match what the fiction says), little actual benefit. You'd be encoding a whole set of cultures (which dictate how and why prestige changes) into a single set of numbers...for all possible cultures. It'd make 3e's grappling rules look simple.

[1] which again, would have to be a complex function for each and every possible grouping of people they could ever run in to, and would have to be dynamically updated effectively in real time just to have any meaning at all.

[MaxWilson]

As a former high school teacher, kids in high school want to be popular in large part because, in that society, being popular is one of the few ways you can gain influence, and the two are tightly connected (for some sub-cultures of high school). So in a game about high school kids, having a Prestige stat would be useful as a proxy for how much pull you have and how many people you can gather/how many votes for Homecoming King/Queen you can muster. Same with the elven scholars--prestige grants influence in that particular case.

But that's not the case in, well, the vast majority of things, especially adventuring. So I guess I can't see where having such a stat (which would actually have to be a whole family of stats, since your Prestige among the jocks is very different from your Prestige among the nerds, and you gain it/lose it by completely different mechanisms) would be a meaningful contributor to different ways of playing.

Why does it matter how many votes you can get for Homecoming King or Queen?

It matters only to those who think it matters, which means you only have influence with people who choose to be influenced by your reputation. It's not actual pull.

In the case of the Dead Queen example it doesn't even let you rejigger the rules to make the rules for improving reputation align with your actual, objective goals (because the Dead Queen has the majority of reputation in that context so no one else can change the rules). But it might still get you invited to parties by people who care.

In the scholarly context, if someone can persuade the Elven Parliament to grant research funding only to top scholars, then that's an example of reputation having actual objective effects, but the fundamental "why" of why they chose to allocate research funding that way is still subjective and potentially unfair/arbitrary: a genius scholar with objectively correct ideas (according to the DM) could still have a bad reputation and no funding if he's shunned by the existing crowd of top scholars.

Or he could have a fantastic reputation in a different context ("people who build amazing magical devices") despite his poor standing in the Elven Scholar community.


You'd be encoding a whole set of cultures (which dictate how and why prestige changes) into a single set of numbers...for all possible cultures.

You're critiquing a rule system from your own head, not mine. Mine is different. It's not a single set of numbers or a single set of rules. It's a number and a rule PER CONTEXT. The rules for improving your rep among Elven Scholars are set by consensus among Elven Scholars, and are independent of reputational consensus among Popular Kids at Medford High or The Dead Queen's Court or International Assassins or Criminals In Waterdeep. Things which improve your reputation with International Assassins might very well harm your reputation among Elven Scholars.

Reputation, as previously described, is a low-level, flexible mechanic which can be used to model many types of social hierarchies, which players can then interact with or ignore, as they choose. It supports roleplaying rather than supplanting it, and does so in a way which makes certain social structures legible to PCs and players alike.

I think you're too focused on making it have mechanical effects, but attaching specific mechanical effects to reputation per se is IME a bad idea that tends to make gameplay too rigid.

Anyway, Tanari'i asked about good game structures which influence gameplay in a positive and non-combat-oriented direction, and Reputation is one example of a mechanic that I sometimes use and have found attracts positive player attention/gameplay.

[Unoriginal]

Welcome to the human race. There's not necessarily a logical reason for social behaviors. Why do popular kids in high school want to be popular? Because they do. Is there anything bad that happens if you simply ignore popularity and do your own thing? Nope. But if you want to be popular, then knowing who is popular and how they can help you become more popular is crucial.

Ditto for authoring scientific papers in fact. If the rules for scholarly prestige among Elven Scholars state that you gain prestige from co-authoring a paper with a top scholar (one with high prestige), then you have to know who's a top scholar in order to become a top scholar.

Being popular in high school gives you power. So is being recognized as a scholar.

People don't want prestige just for kicks most of the time, generally having prestige actively gets them an avantage.

Ignoring the popularity game and doing your own thing is fine in theory, but it has resulted in students doing that being bullied, being used as the sole guilty party when a conflict happens, not being believed by peers or authority figures, etc, up go the point their lives were destroyed. It does not matter If you're not influenced personally, as long as others who can affect your life are.


Reputation IS part of influence. And acquiring one that made people willing to keep you in power was generaly crucial Many of history's leaders couldn't do things they wanted done because the damage it would do to their reputation, as one example.

[JonBeowulf]

Some of the bonds are very close to goals. A few examples from the standard backgrounds:
Acolyte
I will someday get revenge on the corrupt temple hierarchy who branded me a heretic.
Criminal
Something important was taken from me, and I aim to steal it back
Sage
I sold my soul for knowledge. I hope to do great deeds and win it back

Fair enough, but that feels like a starting point. Give me some details and I'll give you a better game.


To illustrate further: what happens if a PC goal is generated during chargen with "I aim to climb Mount Olympus" but the campaign is set in a coastal jungle on another continent?
I don't consider something that short-sighted as a goal. Sure, it meets the definition of the word but it does nothing to explain why the character is adventuring. I'd ask for more information: Why do you want to climb Mount Olympus? Is the climb just a major task in a larger goal? What are you willing to sacrifice to get it done? How important is it to you?

[MaxWilson]

Being popular in high school gives you power. So is being recognized as a scholar.

And you'll receive similar kinds of (social) power in the game, via roleplaying. No need to make up game mechanics to give game mechanical advantages straight from the DM.

The game mechanics just track who's got popularity/scholarly reputation and everything else happens organically.


Ignoring the popularity game and doing your own thing is fine in theory, but it has resulted in students doing that being bullied, being used as the sole guilty party when a conflict happens, not being believed by peers or authority figures, etc, up go the point their lives were destroyed. It does not matter If you're not influenced personally, as long as others who can affect your life are.

This is off topic so I won't say anything except register my skepticism. I don't think you're talking about popularity here at all, I think you're talking about credibility with adults, who are a different audience.

From personal experience, nothing bad happens if you completely ignore questions of popularity. It doesn't even mean you won't have friends. It just means you can't bestow popularity upon others.

[Cheesegear]

So much of an RPG rulebook is going to be busy teaching you the game's mechanics; so having what is essentially a basic roleplay tutorial is, to me, brilliant.
[...]
And seven years later, I've slowly come to realize that practically nobody else seems to share my enthusiasm for this element of character creation.

The problem is that IME, people don't want to roleplay. They want to play themselves, in an idealised power fantasy role. And, since their character is themselves - only for the worse, never for the better - they're only ever interested in what benefits them at the time. Rather than get hamstrung by bulls* character traits that aren't even all that binding.

More importantly, some players see that as an impossible standard. They simply can't roleplay what the description says that they "have to."


One of my players said that he doesn't like to write it down because his character changes in the course of play.

Partial agree. There's no point in writing it down.


So, since it seems like enthusiasm for this feature is dim

IME, enthusiasm for proper roleplaying, is dim.


Reason #3: Fleshing out Backgrounds.

Backgrounds are amazing. Unfortunately, most of my players use D&D Beyond to create their characters initially - it's just easier. In that vein, like Hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, etc. On D&DB those things are entirely optional and you do not have to fill them out in order to complete your character, which means that my players just wont do it. Then, all of a sudden, somebody falls out of a boat, and the STR 8 Wizard tries to haul someone back in. 'Cool, how much does [overboard character] weigh, with all their equipment?' ...Uhh... Game grinds to an utter halt, as someone who has not calculated their weight at all, tries to find their weight...Which doesn't exist.

Similarly, how tall your character is actually does affect how high they can jump/reach. 'How tall are you?' ...Uhh...Game grinds to a halt. Again.


I honestly feel that if more people actually rolled or picked traits from the lists, we'd see more unique and original characters.

Does a Trait give me +1 to hit with Fire Bolt? If it doesn't, I don't understand why I need it. Can't I just play as myself and do whatever benefits me - or my character - that has the least amount of negative consequences, at any given point?*


*For reference, across my three tables that I DM, almost all of my players are CN or NE.
...Maybe I should start introducing Rakshasas?

[MaxWilson]

The problem is that IME, people don't want to roleplay. They want to play themselves, in an idealised power fantasy role. And, since their character is themselves - only for the worse, never for the better - they're only ever interested in what benefits them at the time.

Oh, wow. This is not congruent with my experience at all. There's some truth to the idea that people like to play different versions of themselves (I might argue that every NPC I ever run is drawn from somewhere inside of me, and there are some kinds of NPCs I can't run believably because they're not in me), but there's also a huge willingness to roleplay themselves in different circumstances including psychological circumstances: "me as a greedy miser", "me as a paranoid egomaniac", "me obsessed with vengeance after an injustice," etc., and they love doing it even if it's not a power fantasy.

I wonder why our players are so different.


Backgrounds are amazing. Unfortunately, most of my players use D&D Beyond to create their characters initially - it's just easier. In that vein, like Hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, etc. On D&DB those things are entirely optional and you do not have to fill them out in order to complete your character, which means that my players just wont do it. Then, all of a sudden, somebody falls out of a boat, and the STR 8 Wizard tries to haul someone back in. 'Cool, how much does [overboard character] weigh, with all their equipment?' ...Uhh... Game grinds to an utter halt, as someone who has not calculated their weight at all, tries to find their weight...Which doesn't exist.

Oh, come on. Str 8 wizard can lift 120 lb., total, and they've probably got at least 20 lb. or so of gear, so all you need to ask is, "Do you and all of your gear weigh less than 100 lb.?" and unless they're a halfling or goblin, the answer to that is probably "No." The game doesn't need to grind to a halt, and if it did the DM would just make the call for them and continue. There's no reason for question to take more than thirty seconds to resolve.


Similarly, how tall your character is actually does affect how high they can jump/reach. 'How tall are you?' ...Uhh...Game grinds to a halt. Again.

"Right, you're not sure. You're now average height, 5' 7". Talk to me later if you change your mind." Again, no reason for it to take more than a few seconds to resolve.


Does a Trait give me +1 to hit with Fire Bolt? If it doesn't, I don't understand why I need it. Can't I just play as myself and do whatever benefits me - or my character - that has the least amount of negative consequences, at any given point?*

This is why the PHB system is so stupid. By asking players to constrain themselves instead of describing themselves and their relationships, it generates unnecessary pushback.

In contrast, things like Fiasco-style character generation (define relationships with other PCs) and knife theory do not, IME, generate pushback. Instead players, even new players, are like, "Okay, cool, well I am an outlaw wanted for a crime I didn't commit," and then they steal the rest of the backstory from the A-Team or some other story they like. Or "I'm an orphan who didn't even know he was a wizard until a giant rescued him from his mean relatives when he was eleven years old." Whatever. It may or may not be a good character description, but it generates enough for the DM to work with (as long as the DM insists on keeping it short), and more importantly, nobody in my experience says "Why do I need it? Can't I just play as myself and do whatever benefits me?" because that's less fun.

If I were re-designing the PHB Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws system I would rewrite it to more focused on description instead of prescription, clearer (what is "Bonds" really supposed to be about anyway as distinct from Ideals?), and more future-oriented and focused on emotions, relationships, desires and dynamics instead of on static and unchanging traits/ideals/flaws.

If I only got to make one change to the PHB system instead of rewriting it, it would be to have each player select zero or more options from the list of suggested possibilities while making it clear that these traits are more like feelings/shoulder angels than strict constraints, i.e. adding "often" to every applicable trait and eliminating references to "always" and "never".

E.g. if you pick


Charity. I always often try to help those in need, no matter what the personal cost. (Good)
I’ve enjoyed fine food, drink, and high society among my temple’s elite. Rough living often grates on me.
I will someday get revenge on the corrupt temple hierarchy who branded me a heretic.
I often put too much trust in those who wield power within my temple’s hierarchy.
Everything I often do [things] for the common people.
all at the same time, you're going to run into situations where they conflict with each other and that's okay! Maybe you're at a nice party enjoying good food and nice company, when you hear a scream from a block or so away, like a robbery taking place. Your PC has reasons to want to stay at the party and enjoy the good company, and reasons to want to rush off and see who's being mugged, and even though you feel those motivations it's still up to you to decide what to do. Maybe you tell yourself that someone else from your temple is probably already handling it and you stay at the party, and then you kick yourself afterwards for trusting them when you find out someone was beaten and had her house burned down, and that's not a failure of roleplaying for you as a player. Making decisions that you later regret is not unrealistic. Regret in those cases is part of the roleplaying.

[Cheesegear]

but there's also a huge willingness to roleplay themselves in different circumstances including psychological circumstances:
"me as a greedy miser",
"me as a paranoid egomaniac",
"me obsessed with vengeance after an injustice," etc.,

Me, if being a jerk had no consequences,
Me, if being a jerk had no consequences, and finally,
Me, if being a jerk had no consequences.

Right, we're agreed.


I wonder why our players are so different.

Well, two out of my three tables; The players' power fantasies - both the males and the females - seem to be to hurt other people.
...A quick glance on Twitter says that this kind of thing is very real, and that if your power fantasy is to hurt people, you might not be a nice person.

...Also, Skyrim.


The game doesn't need to grind to a halt, and if it did the DM would just make the call for them and continue. There's no reason for question to take more than thirty seconds to resolve.

It shouldn't take more than five seconds, if the player has the answer to the question I asked. The only reason it doesn't take less than a few seconds is because the player doesn't have the answer.

How much do you weigh?
'Uhh...114 lb.'
Plus Medium Armour is a lot. So no, the Wizard can not pull you up in this current, you're drowning.

That was the query-answer-response I was expecting.
That's...Not what I got.


'Right, you're not sure. You're now average height, 5' 7". Talk to me later if you change your mind." Again, no reason for it to take more than a few seconds to resolve.

Again, it's resolved extremely quickly if the player has already done it.
It's not resolved quickly, because the player hasn't actually done it, and believes that if they look for the answer, they'll find it. And they waste time going over their character sheet to find it, only to realise that the reason that they can't find it, is because it was never done in the first place.

[Hytheter]

You're critiquing a rule system from your own head, not mine. Mine is different. It's not a single set of numbers or a single set of rules. It's a number and a rule PER CONTEXT. The rules for improving your rep among Elven Scholars are set by consensus among Elven Scholars, and are independent of reputational consensus among Popular Kids at Medford High or The Dead Queen's Court or International Assassins or Criminals In Waterdeep. Things which improve your reputation with International Assassins might very well harm your reputation among Elven Scholars.

Would you mind explaining your reputation system in detail? I for one am fairly curious, and it would definitely clarify things for the sake of argument as well.

[MaxWilson]

Would you mind explaining your reputation system in detail? I for one am fairly curious, and it would definitely clarify things for the sake of argument as well.

I posted this already in #53 but I don't mind repeating it:


One of my favorite social game structures is Reputation. Reputation has only two rules:

1.) Reputation is public knowledge. Within a given reputational context, such as "international assassins" or "popular girls at Hogwarts", everyone has their own reputation and knows or can quickly determine the approximate Reputation of any other individual within that context.

2.) Rules for gaining or losing Reputation in a context can be changed by those holding a plurality of reputation within that context. For example, if enough popular girls decide that wearing Gucci now degrades your status by 20 points instead of enhancing it, it is now so.

Implication: Reputation does nothing at all except let you manipulate other people who want to acquire it. This is enough to elegantly model quite a lot of NPC behavior though, while still allowing good old D&D violence as an alternate solution with its own consequences.

An example might help further. Let's say the players arrive at a city where gladiatorial combat is a big thing, and where reputation in the Gladiators context is won by winning fights. DM rules that exact numbers aren't important unless/until PCs become gladiators themselves, but mentally eyeballs the gladiators in the city as running from zero reputation aspirants to ~10 rep promising newbies to two 100+ rep legends named Byron Spinnaker and Rotleaf Childrobber who have been at the top of the field for ten years or more, and whose clashes with each other every year are epic bloodfests in which tens of thousands of gp are gambled. There are a lot of fans and groupies and successful gladiators attract sponsorships and even minor noble titles and legal privileges (the Crown Princess is a huge fan of the games and the King enjoys the revenue the bloodsport generates). The DM introduces the PCs to a moderately successful, 10 rep aspirant (4th level Fighter) who befriends them and tells them a little bit about Byron and Rotleaf if they're curious, and offers to induct them as gladiators if they're interested (at which point the DM will infer appropriate rules for how much rep you gain by winning fights).

In this same city there may also be members of the West Coast Criminals context of which one of the PCs, a Criminal, is already a member by background, although his reputation is unimpressive since he hasn't committed any particularly daring crimes since "reforming" and joining the PCs. Nevertheless this PC is able (with the DM's help) to tell the party who the three most impressive criminals in the city are:


The Virtuous Man: true name unknown, appearance unknown, but he runs crime in this city and nothing happens without his say-so. Huge reputation, 5 stars. (In this example, the West Coast Criminals context is a fairly flat and democratic hierarchy running from 0-10 reputation, where most common criminals have 0 reputation and 5 is a big deal, and 9 is a huge gangster like Al Capone. But that's not part of the Reputation rules, that's just part of the rules the West Coast Criminals have chosen for themselves: gaining even 1 point of rep requires being some kind of a mob boss or committing a notorious crime, and you can't gain more than 10 rep.)

Venom: the Virtuous Man's right-hand man and a deadly enforcer. Rumor has it he murdered the last Chief of Police and got away with it because the police were afraid to venture into the Warrens to track him down. Huge reputation, 5 stars.

Golog the Forger: can forge anything for a reasonable price, never gets caught, or so they say. Has been in business for decades but nobody has any interesting stories to tell about people who got caught using his forgeries, which says plenty in and of itself. Reputation: 3 stars.

Do those examples help at all? If you're saying to yourself, "but do those Reputations actually do anything per se?" the answer is "Nope! except give information to the players." But if you read the above paragraphs, hopefully you are starting to feel like you have some idea how to approach social situations in this city, either via the gladiatorial social scene or via the Underworld, and you wouldn't have those feelings if it weren't for the Reputation game structure telling you what the players (not player characters) should do in order to participate in Reputation-related activities. The alternative without a game structure would be for players to declare actions in-character and hope that the DM interprets them in the way the player intends (like "I go to the inn and ask if anybody knows any famous thieves"), which often doesn't turn out well.

For more on game structures, see here: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15126/roleplaying-games/game-structures


One of the most overlooked aspects in the design and play of traditional roleplaying games is the underlying game structure. Or, to put it another way, there are two questions which every game designer and GM must ask themselves:

(1) What do the characters do?

(2) How do the players do it?

These questions might seem deceptively simple, but the answers are complex. And getting the right answers is absolutely critical to having a successful gaming session.

Some of you may already be challenging this. “How difficult can it be? The players tell me what their characters are doing and then we resolve it. What could be easier?”

To demonstrate the oversight taking place here, let me give you a quick example of play:

Player: I want to explore the dungeon.

GM: Okay, make a Dungeoneering check.

Player: I succeed.

GM: Okay, you kill a tribe of goblins and emerge with 546 gp in loot.

Is there anything wrong with that? Not necessarily. But it’s certainly a very different game structure than the traditional D&D dungeoncrawl.

[Hytheter]

I posted this already in #53 but I don't mind repeating it:


Ah, I apologise. I'll confess I came into the thread late and just assumed based on the apparent misunderstandings about your system that it hadn't actually been outlined in full, so that's on me. Having now read it, it seems functional enough to me. The way that the method of gaining reputation within a group is defined by that group case by case makes it pretty flexible.

[Chronos]

That still doesn't have any way of accounting for negative reputation, though. The characters in my game have no standing at all with the cult of Asmodeus, the Xanathar guild, nor the Zhentarim. None of the members of any of those groups is going to view other members any differently, just because the PCs want them to. By your version of "reputation", the party has zero reputation with any of them.

And yet, the party's relationship with those three groups are very different. The party has caused major trouble for the cultists, and as a result, the remaining cultists want them dead, and are willing to go to considerable lengths to make that happen. They've caused some annoyance and inconvenience for Xanathar, and so it'd enjoy seeing them suffer, but if they don't, eh, it has bigger fish to fry (wait, no, bad figure of speech: Let's not fry any fish). And the Zhentarim know something of who they are (because by this point, everyone in the city knows something of who they are), and have had a few interactions with them, but those interactions have been basically neutral, so they don't have any strong feelings about the party at all.

And of course, those groups all have relationships with each other, too. For instance, part of the reason the Zhentarim don't really care about the party is because they've been kept so busy with troubles brought on them by the Xanathar guild, and to a lesser extent by the cultists.

This numerical "reputation" mechanic you've described doesn't apply to any of this, so even if I were using it, I would have to keep track of those relationships in some other way. And if I'm tracking negative relationships in a free-form way, why not track positive relationships free-form, too?

[KorvinStarmast]

Fair enough, but that feels like a starting point. Give me some details and I'll give you a better game. We seem to be in violent agreement. :smallsmile: The goal has to be tied to the world that the DM has in play; in some cases, the player helps world building that way if they make up a goal or objective for a part of the game world that the DM has in the "blank hole over here" phase. (My celestial warlock has developed the outline of some trade relationships based on her family/backstory, and three coastal cities on the east coast of the continent. The DM had not done any world building with that area, we are mostly in the central part of the continent, but now he's got a skeleton to hang some things onto).

I don't consider something that short-sighted as a goal. Sure, it meets the definition of the word but it does nothing to explain why the character is adventuring. I'd ask for more information: Why do you want to climb Mount Olympus? Is the climb just a major task in a larger goal? What are you willing to sacrifice to get it done? How important is it to you? This is part of the collaborative chargen process, and IMO, is part of the on going character growth process that is organic to a given campaign. :smallsmile: "Goal" as a mechanic like traits/bond/ideal/flaw isn't tightly connected enough to the PC/world junction.

And seven years later, I've slowly come to realize that practically nobody else seems to share my enthusiasm for this element of character creation. I like it, but my players have a variable enthusiasm for it. Some like it, some don't. It helps me flesh out a PC concept at chargen.

One of my players said that he doesn't like to write it down because his character changes in the course of play. Granted, but so do your ability scores and equipment; that's why we do this stuff in pencil. It's a starting point, a set of guiding principles for you to direct your roleplaying. I think that committing to a set of those, at least when starting out, is a good idea. Concur. I do, however, agree with the player; in the best cases, the PC will/does change over the course of the campaign.

[Tanarii]

That still doesn't have any way of accounting for negative reputation, though. The characters in my game have no standing at all with the cult of Asmodeus, the Xanathar guild, nor the Zhentarim. None of the members of any of those groups is going to view other members any differently, just because the PCs want them to. By your version of "reputation", the party has zero reputation with any of them.As I understand it based on description so far:

one Zhent has reputation within the zhents, and a cultist within the cult, and one guilder within the guild. And that rep can go up or down based on PC manipulation. And before you say they can't manipulate it, of course they can. All they have to do is figure out what makes that rep go up or down, and then take action on the ones that are actionable. Secretly if needed. They can even change the way the rep works by manipulating what the plurality think makes it goes up or down.

Basically, they can pull an A-team.



And yet, the party's relationship with those three groups are very different. The party has caused major trouble for the cultists, and as a result, the remaining cultists want them dead, and are willing to go to considerable lengths to make that happen. They've caused some annoyance and inconvenience for Xanathar, and so it'd enjoy seeing them suffer, but if they don't, eh, it has bigger fish to fry (wait, no, bad figure of speech: Let's not fry any fish). And the Zhentarim know something of who they are (because by this point, everyone in the city knows something of who they are), and have had a few interactions with them, but those interactions have been basically neutral, so they don't have any strong feelings about the party at all.
Which sounds like the PCs have been affecting the reputation of the cultists and xanathars along the way, accounting for some of their reaction to them.

[Ettina]

Some of the bonds are very close to goals. A few examples from the standard backgrounds:
Acolyte
I will someday get revenge on the corrupt temple hierarchy who branded me a heretic.
Criminal
Something important was taken from me, and I aim to steal it back
Sage
I sold my soul for knowledge. I hope to do great deeds and win it back

Fair enough, but that feels like a starting point. Give me some details and I'll give you a better game.

The details should be worked out with the DM. No way a PC can know which corrupt temple hierarchy would work best as antagonists in their campaign, or what would make sense to make their PC run afoul of that hierarchy, without the DM giving them input on campaign-specific elements.

Ideally, the PC presents a bond like that and the DM goes "hmm, I do have a temple that is supposed to worship Ilead but several of the higher-ups have switched to worshipping Rivy in secret. How can I fit this PC in as a former acolyte of that temple who got the ire of the Rivy worshippers somehow?" And comes up with a story, shares the details the PC would know with them, gets their approval, and makes that part of the campaign.

(Note: example drawn from an actual temple in one of my campaigns. Ilead is a fairly benign deity of knowledge and the day/night cycle, Rivy is a chaotic evil deity of madness and mind alteration.)

[MaxWilson]

This numerical "reputation" mechanic you've described doesn't apply to any of this, so even if I were using it, I would have to keep track of those relationships in some other way. And if I'm tracking negative relationships in a free-form way, why not track positive relationships free-form, too?

Reputation is for social interactions, either players interfering covertly with the internal dynamics of enemies like the Zhentarim (via mind-reading / illusions / disguise / etc., A-team style), or interacting directly with non-enemies (like deciding to become a champion gladiator for fun).

For direct interaction with enemies, there's good old violent D&D combat. "Negative reputation" not needed.


As I understand it based on description so far:

one Zhent has reputation within the zhents, and a cultist within the cult, and one guilder within the guild. And that rep can go up or down based on PC manipulation. And before you say they can't manipulate it, of course they can. All they have to do is figure out what makes that rep go up or down, and then take action on the ones that are actionable. Secretly if needed. They can even change the way the rep works by manipulating what the plurality think makes it goes up or down.

Basically, they can pull an A-team.


Yes, exactly. Don't have to, but can. It depends partly upon whether you'd rather have your enemies dead or humiliated/fired/disempowered.

[Chronos]

No, it's not just a matter of combat. When the party meets a member of the Xanathar Guild or a cultist, they're likely to fight either one. But the cultists are more likely to pick a fight with them, because the cultists dislike them more strongly. And, say, a wandering red dragon is even less likely to get into a fight with them, because the red dragon doesn't give a damn about them at all.

And yes, this does carry over to completely non-combat encounters, too. There's one NPC that the party really wants to question right now, for instance. Question, as in have a talk with her, not as in thumbscrews and waterboarding. But it's probably not going to get them much, because that particular NPC is an ex-cultist, and absolutely despises them. And yes, the ex part of her being an ex-cultist could have been modeled with the reputation rules described here: She's out of the cult (and thus not up on their current plans) because the faction within the cult that she was allied with failed miserably against the PCs, and the cult does not reward failure. But that still doesn't account for her hatred of the PCs.

[MaxWilson]

No, it's not just a matter of combat. When the party meets a member of the Xanathar Guild or a cultist, they're likely to fight either one. But the cultists are more likely to pick a fight with them, because the cultists dislike them more strongly.

Really.

That seems simplistic. In my game I'd just roleplay it as "they both hate you, and how likely they are to pick a fight depends on how likely they think they are to win that fight." It's a combination of how many cultists are on hand, how many neutrals are there to interfere, and how much the cultists respect the PCs' abilities.

That tactical assessment is not something reducible to a reputation statistic, hence "hostile" reputation isn't needed or useful for that scenario or any other scenario I can think of. Knowing that "they hate you" is sufficient.



And yes, this does carry over to completely non-combat encounters, too. There's one NPC that the party really wants to question right now, for instance. Question, as in have a talk with her, not as in thumbscrews and waterboarding. But it's probably not going to get them much, because that particular NPC is an ex-cultist, and absolutely despises them. And yes, the ex part of her being an ex-cultist could have been modeled with the reputation rules described here: She's out of the cult (and thus not up on their current plans) because the faction within the cult that she was allied with failed miserably against the PCs, and the cult does not reward failure. But that still doesn't account for her hatred of the PCs.

You're confusing reputation and dislike.

Uncle Alf may have a bad reputation in your family (left his wife and is a bad, reckless influence on kids), an excellent reputation in the Aviator's Guild (has made huge discoveries), a neutral reputation at Mac's Alehouse (he's a quiet drunk), and be REALLY fun to hang out with because he's got so much cool stuff at his house. Reputation isn't hostility, and Dad doesn't necessarily want to punch out Uncle Alf when he sees him. But because Alf has a bad reputation in the family, if Dad and Uncle Alf meet up at Mac's Alehouse for dinner together, Dad may (or may not) want to avoid being seen by other family members because it could cause (social) trouble.

Your ex-cultist has a bad reputation with the cult, presumably, or she wouldn't have been kicked out. The fact that she still has some of their attitudes including a dislike for the PCs is a separate matter, and not one that is IMO worth inventing a game structure for.

[Tanarii]

Your ex-cultist has a bad reputation with the cult, presumably, or she wouldn't have been kicked out. The fact that she still has some of their attitudes including a dislike for the PCs is a separate matter, and not one that is IMO worth inventing a game structure for.
I think the prime point of confusion about your system is it is being taken as a Reputation score the PCs have with organizations/contexts. Not a score NPCs have within their own organization/context.

I know that's what I thought you were talking about for several pages :smallamused:

I realize now it could be used for PCs. But that's not necessarily the primary purpose.

[MaxWilson]

I think the prime point of confusion about your system is it is being taken as a Reputation score the PCs have with organizations/contexts. Not a score NPCs have within their own organization/context.

I know that's what I thought you were talking about for several pages :smallamused:

I realize now it could be used for PCs. But that's not necessarily the primary purpose.

The fact that Reputation is a meta-rule about how NPCs create rules for cooperative endeavors between them probably didn't help either, in the absence of an example. The meta is what makes it elegant, but concrete examples make meta easier to understand.

Maybe I should have given a couple of in-play examples up front, like

(1) players having fun building their reputations as gladiators, without needing the DM to offer lots of XP or gp as rewards to keep them interested because achieving the highest rep of any gladiator is its own reward. (Not always, but with certain players in this situation it could be and sometimes has been.)

(2) players kidnapping and interrogating a low-level Githyanki operative to learn who the big players in the Githyanki invasion force are and what drives their internal prestige/reputation gains, and then using that knowledge and disguises/illusions/etc. to sow dissension and divide the enemy for physical defeat in detail. E.g. humiliate one sub-leader by making his farms 150% more likely than anyone else's to lose serfs, because PCs are rescuing them, while also taking time to arrange the bodies of dead Githyanki Warriors from those raids in ways that make it appear they were doing unprofessional things like sleeping on the job or going off alone (whatever harms reputation among Githyanki Warriors). If all goes well, that enrages that sub-leader and his org (because their reputation is suffering with each other) while alienating the other sub-leaders ("if I can manage not to lose 300 serfs a month, so could Jogkek, if his men weren't such unprofessional slobs"), so that when you move to attack his troopships or central keep, with luck other Githyanki view you as a nuisance only dangerous to incompetents and send only token support, so that you wind up facing down 150 Githyanki Warriors instead of 450.

[Unoriginal]

The fact that Reputation is a meta-rule about how NPCs create rules for cooperative endeavors between them probably didn't help either, in the absence of an example. The meta is what makes it elegant, but concrete examples make meta easier to understand.

Maybe I should have given a couple of in-play examples up front, like

(1) players having fun building their reputations as gladiators, without needing the DM to offer lots of XP or gp as rewards to keep them interested because achieving the highest rep of any gladiator is its own reward. (Not always, but with certain players in this situation it could be and sometimes has been.)

(2) players kidnapping and interrogating a low-level Githyanki operative to learn who the big players in the Githyanki invasion force are and what drives their internal prestige/reputation gains, and then using that knowledge and disguises/illusions/etc. to sow dissension and divide the enemy for physical defeat in detail. E.g. humiliate one sub-leader by making his farms 150% more likely than anyone else's to lose serfs, because PCs are rescuing them, while also taking time to arrange the bodies of dead Githyanki Warriors from those raids in ways that make it appear they were doing unprofessional things like sleeping on the job or going off alone (whatever harms reputation among Githyanki Warriors). If all goes well, that enrages that sub-leader and his org (because their reputation is suffering with each other) while alienating the other sub-leaders ("if I can manage not to lose 300 serfs a month, so could Jogkek, if his men weren't such unprofessional slobs"), so that when you move to attack his troopships or central keep, with luck other Githyanki view you as a nuisance only dangerous to incompetents and send only token support, so that you wind up facing down 150 Githyanki Warriors instead of 450.

Situations like that are interesting, but I find it easier to run that Kind of things solely narratively. Assigning reputation numbers would feel like an extra step to me, but I know some people prefer handling numbers rather than story notes.

[Chugger]

Let me tell ya, after the year + of lots of online gaming, when new characters are introduced, and the player begins reading a massive amount of backstory ... people are reading emails, clicking over to play Minecraft, or w/e.

A starting character is very much _not_ a whole person. They're a starting person, an incomplete person - a newb.

It's absurd to think that building a character means creating some massive story where - I read some backstories and ask "how is it that this character is still lvl 1??? After all that, they'd be lvl 4 or lvl 5!"

A lot of players think these character details are for writing an algorithm (of sorts) to guide them in how to (robotically) play their character. "My mom and dad were murdered by orcs, so I hate orcs and kill them on sight" <-- or some sad version of that. /facepalm. This is very much _bad_ character creation.

Such a trait is a lot like waving a red flag in front of a bull, w/ most DMs, anyway. They're going to send a lvl 20 orc to visit the party as a helper - a quest giver - and then bait that player about his "kill on sight" directive - until something bad happens. To lock yourself in - to create rules of behavior your character must obey - this is not "good character creation" - it's being a robot. Don't let BF Skinner's ghost haunt you like this! ;)

Leave your character room to grow! The traits and attitudes are developed and explored and expanded _at the table_ - as you play - not before the game! This _is_ the game - it's silly to try to do it all before the game. Where can your character go when you come to the table w/ a character who is already fully fleshed out? You do that, instead, in your first several levels!! Play the character instinctively, let the "character become you" while "you become the character" - let it tell you what it is. Feel your way through it but _in play_ - not before you start!

Time and time and time again I meet players who have no clue how to roleplay, for various reasons - and then I meet players who are quite sure that their wall-of-text backstory and robotic set of guidelines and rules is good character creation! /facepalm Well, good roleplaying is very hard to pull off. I wish I pulled it off more often - frankly I still struggle w/ it and find myself having 'on' and 'off' sessions. But it helps when I'm w/ the "right" players - some of us enable good roleplay. Others of us throw a wet blanket on it - we don't mean to - but it's just how we are, and we can't help ourselves.

[MaxWilson]

Situations like that are interesting, but I find it easier to run that Kind of things solely narratively. Assigning reputation numbers would feel like an extra step to me, but I know some people prefer handling numbers rather than story notes.

It certainly is more convenient for the DM to run them purely narratively, because then the DM keeps control. But I find that game structures attract gameplay, and that if I use something like Reputation rules, the players are more likely to perceive and adopt an indirect approach.

Players don't like being purely at the DM's mercy. They seek structure. (Look at how much people hate the PHB Wild Sorcerer's vagueness about when to Wild Surge!)

P.S. One nice thing is that you don't actually have to assign specific numbers or even make up reputation-gaining rules for a context until the players ask. As in the gladiator example, it may be enough to know that "you earn rep here by winning fights, and rep goes from 0 to 100+, and Byron Spinnaker and Rotleaf Childrobber are both at the top with 100+". The "extra step" beyond that happens only if the players show an interest in learning more details, which means it's not wasted prep.