PDA

View Full Version : Reputation system



Greywander
2022-10-12, 06:39 PM
I had this on my mind recently, and although the idea was originally in the context of a video game, I'll bet it could be adapted to tabletop. Some aspects might actually be easier to do in a tabletop game than a video game.

Some time ago, I was playing with the idea of a video game in which you play as an evil overlord. So sort of a simulation strategy game where you run your evil empire, keep your people from overthrowing you, dispose of meddling heroes, subjugate nearby kingdoms, and so on. Nothing concrete, just some vague ideas of how the gameplay might look. One aspect was, of course, a reputation system that influenced how you were perceived.

More recently, I picked up One Piece: World Seeker while it was on sale, and it's... okay. It got me thinking about how I might design on open world pirate game in a setting similar to that of One Piece. As above, one aspect of that would be a reputation system, and it was feeling pretty similar to what I'd had in mind for the evil overlord game.

One interesting coincidence is that both of these game concepts have you playing as a nominal bad guy. Not that you can't play a good character, but that's not what people usually think of when they think about pirates or dictators. This would definitely have an impact on how a reputation system would work, with attitudes toward you defaulting to hostile (though not necessarily aggressive) until you've proven you can be trusted. Oddly, I think this can still work in the context of adventurers, as many adventurers are little better than bandits. Especially given how rampant murderhoboism is. Even if your players aren't themselves murderhobos, many of the NPC adventurers probably are.

Anyway, the system I was thinking about would have four "stats": Fame, Fear, Respect, and Love. I'm not sure I'm totally happy with this system, though, as it has some oddities I'll get into later.

Fame is the measure of how well known you are. The more famous you are, the farther your reputation will proceed you, and the more social influence you'll have.

All aspects of reputation are a bit of a double-edged sword. Keeping fame low helps preserve anonymity. In the pirate game, you could walk around in front of marines in broad daylight without them reacting at all, because they have no idea who you are or that you're a pirate. On the other hand, your word carries no weight because you're just some random nobody. Low fame tends towards neutral attitudes because no one has an established opinion of you yet, allowing you to make your own first impression.

By contrast, high fame tends to polarize attitudes toward you. People you've never met before will welcome you with smiles, or shoot you on sight. They know who you are and have had ample time to decide whether you're a threat to be crushed or a potential ally to be wooed. High fame makes it more likely that factions or individuals have heard of you, and influences how much they may know about you. If they've only heard rumors then they may know your name but not your face.

Fame can be difficult to keep low, as it tends to rise naturally as you accomplish great deeds. Telling people who you are and what you've done can make fame rise more quickly, while withholding your identity or even doing deeds in secret can slow your rising fame.

Fear is a measure of how dangerous people think you are. Even your allies fear you, an acknowledgement of your strength and confidence that you have their back in tough situations, as well as the certainty of retribution should they cross you.

High fear makes it easier to intimidate people, and makes others less likely to provoke you. By contrast, low fear can result in being bullied and having your empty threats ignored.

As with fame, there are pros and cons to high and low fear. High fear can bend people to your will without having to fight. Those who might have considered you a rival will instead cower before you and refrain from challenging you, already convinced it would end poorly for themselves. However, it also makes you more visibly a threat, and those who might have overlooked you for more important things will make it a priority to crush you before you become an even greater threat.

Low fear has the opposite effect, making you look weak and subservient. If people don't see you as a threat, they won't bother keeping you in check, and may even see you as a useful tool who will fall in line. This is really useful if you're the scheming sort who wants your enemies to underestimate you, and to infiltrate and destroy a rival from within, or even take control of a faction for yourself. No one would expect a cowardly servant to attack the king, so no one would think twice about the servant going in and out of the throne room during the course of their duties.

Fear generally rises as you defeat enemies and cause destruction. Defeating a few strong enemies generally has a greater effect than defeating many weak enemies. More metaphorical destruction also applies, like destabilizing a rival faction until it falls apart.

Respect is a measure of how honorable and trustworthy people think you are. Keeping your word, only attacking acceptable targets, sparing those who surrender, and so on make people respect you, while breaking your word, attacking civilians, and executing prisoners makes you look dishonorable.

Of course, there's some flexibility. Not every code of honor is the same, the important thing is that you have one and stick to it. For example, pirates might consider a merchant vessel an acceptable target, while sparing the civilians on board. This is probably one thing that's easier in a tabletop system where you can ad lib the specific tenets of your code on the spot, instead of having to pre-program all possible tenets and what does or doesn't count as following or breaking them.

The advantages of high respect are many. People will be more willing to enter into agreements with you, or even take you at your word without some kind of guarantee or collateral or threat of punishment if you go back on your word. Your enemies will be more likely to spare you if you are defeated. Non-combatants will feel more at ease around you, trusting you won't attack them so long as they don't give you a reason to. Enemies may also challenge you to one-on-one duels instead of ganging up on you.

There aren't really any benefits to having low respect, per se, but there can be benefits to conducting yourself in a disreputable manner. High respect characters can be taken advantage of, knowing they're unlikely to break their word while the disreputable character can break their word any time it is convenient. It's also generally much easier and more lucrative to go after civilians.

Love is the measure of how likeable people find you. High love shifts the attitudes of people more towards friendly, and causes even your enemies to treat you more favorably. It can illicit a negative reaction against those who commit heinous deeds against you, making it more difficult to oppose you. But with affection comes entitlement. Those who perceive you as kind and heroic will expect you to perform kind and heroic deeds on their behalf, and failure to live up to those expectations can damage your reputation.

And that's about it. Beyond that, I was thinking this could be supplemented with reputation traits that add a bit of fine tuning. For example, if you betray an ally, you might get a Betrayer trait that causes no one to fully trust you. Or, if you never bend to intimidation even against a superior enemy, you might get a Fearless trait that tells others intimidating you is a waste of time.

One thing I'm not sure about is if these four stats should be able to go negative. Can you be so un-famous that even people who should know who you are don't? Can you become so much of a doormat that even civilians bully you? Respect and love make more sense to go negative if you get a reputation as being actively dishonorable or become so unlikeable that people just hate you without knowing why. And this is where playing as a nominal bad guy might simplify this: it's assumed by default that a pirate will be dishonorable and unlikeable, so raising your love and respect is just you fighting against that stereotype. If you adhere to the stereotype then it's just business as usual, no need for negative reputation.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this? How can it be improved? How would you implement it into whatever system you're currently playing?

Lemmy
2022-10-13, 02:33 PM
It's a good system. I've actually been working on something similar.

First off, I'd change the name of "Respect" to "Trust", since it's meant to reflect how trustworthy you appear to be.

You don't need to have negative numbers... Just have the baseline (whatever a "neutral" value would be for some of these stats to be different than zero.

They could go from 0 to 10, in a scale where 5 is a completely "Neutral".

Fear:

0: You're incapable or unwilling to hurt others.
1: You'll only risk hurting or offending someone in response to the most egregious of insults.
3~4
5: Neutral. People assume you're about as nice (or vicious) as your average true neutral common folk.
6~8
9: You seriously hurt people at the slightest provocation, real or imagined.
10: You often hurt others for no reason other than your own whim.

-

Fame is a little difficult, though... Since the vast majority of people essentially have 0 Fame, it could be something like:

0: No one has any idea you even exist.
1: Nearby people know you exist, but little more than that. Even your name's a mystery to others. (e.g.: like a neighbor who doesn't talk to anyone and seemingly has no friends or family. You know he's there, but that's about it).
2: The average for most people. You're known to a relatively small number of people. Your family, maybe a few friends and business associates. Anyone outside that circle might recognize your name as "the friend of a friend", "that lady from the another department" or "that one customer who drinks at the tavern every Friday").
3: You're relatively well known. People in your field of work or close to someone you know personally might recognize your name and know a thing or two about you even if you've never seen or talked to them.

And keep scaling up all the way to:

10: You're famous around the world (and maybe more). Other similarly famous creatures have not only heard of you, but actually know a fair bit about your personal history. Your name, personality and achievements are about as well-known as those of a major deity.

Now, Fame could technically be an infinity scale, but of course, it's basically impossible to get beyond "as famous as a major deity".

-

You could also add a "Rumors & Trivia" status, which isn't a number, but a list of things people are likely to believe about you, followed by a number showing how ubiquitous that opinion is:

e.g.:

"Hates Elves - 1/5": There are rumors that you hate elves, but most people dismiss it. A value of 2 or higher could grant a circumstance bonus to Fear, Love and Respect in relation to Elves (and other races, depending on what they think about elves or racial prejudices in general).
"Comes From Another World" - 3/5: Around half the people who know about you believe that you come from another world.
"Vegetarian - 4/5:" Around 80% of the people who know you (or know about you) believe you're vegetarian.

Yakk
2022-10-13, 03:23 PM
Instead of a point system, what about Tags and Dice.

Tags are concrete things, and the Dice are mechanically attached to them.

For example,
Defeated the Ogre, Fame: 1d6.

The fact you Defeated the Ogre gives you a 1d6 Fame die.

Saved the Children, Love: 1d4

You rescued some children from monsters, and earned a 1d4 Love die.

...

Now, if you want to know if someone recognizes you, roll your Fame dice; if they pass some threshold, like 4+, (individually) the person recognizes them for that act.

PCs can have a limited number of such tags (growing with the game). They could even decay when used. They could be rolled in various situations; any social situation where the event could apply, and maybe others based on the kind of fame. Like, you can use love dice to keep you from being fully defeated, fame dice to defend against being harmed, fear dice to increase the chance of causing harm, trust dice to increase or decrease the size of harm.

Every time you use the die this way and it gets a max, it explodes ... but also shrinks 1 step.

...

The idea is that the mechanics (why you have this reputation) is tied to concrete events in game, but the tags on it (fear/love/trust/fame) change how you can use the resource in a thematic way. Plus, the dice can be used as part of resolution elsewhere.

MrStabby
2022-10-16, 12:42 PM
It looks a good system. I think it captures what probably needs to be captured. My concern is 'why'?

So codified things in rules and systems is great for communicating expectations to players. Things like knowing a +1 sword with give a 5 percentage point increase in the probability of hitting an enemy for example. What are the specific, measurable effects you want users to understand from this? How do you want this to shape actions and so on? I.e. why not just free-form it? These are good headings, but why codify it? I think a framework of mechanical consequences will be useful here.

Lemmy
2022-10-16, 01:10 PM
It looks a good system. I think it captures what probably needs to be captured. My concern is 'why'?

So codified things in rules and systems is great for communicating expectations to players. Things like knowing a +1 sword with give a 5 percentage point increase in the probability of hitting an enemy for example. What are the specific, measurable effects you want users to understand from this? How do you want this to shape actions and so on? I.e. why not just free-form it? These are good headings, but why codify it? I think a framework of mechanical consequences will be useful here.
Well, for the same reason we codify anything else... Because it makes it easier to understand and visualize.

If you tell the players "You're pretty famous, and people respect and you", that can mean anything from someone with a bunch of friends, to a beloved celebrity... But if you give it numbers, it helps the players and/or the GM keep track of the scale and "quality" of their fame.

Now, TBH. This feels more like a GM tool. It's not necessarily something to influence the players' action, but something similar to GM notes of past events. I personally like to keep track of how the game world (specially notable individuals and organizations) sees the PCs, although I don't really use a scale, just general notes... But like I said, something like this could make things easier to visualize.

I'm actually considering using it on my own GM notes. Maybe with a few adjustments just to make it better fit my personal GMing style.

Amechra
2022-10-16, 02:01 PM
Random suggestion: why not simply tie this to character level? Give each NPC a die based off of how likely they are to have heard of the PC's deeds and have them try to roll under the PC's level.

This works best with Milestone leveling, because you can tie the Milestones to the PCs performing great and impressive deeds.

Greywander
2022-10-17, 10:03 AM
First off, I'd change the name of "Respect" to "Trust", since it's meant to reflect how trustworthy you appear to be.
But would you really say you "trust" the evil overlord who refrains from attacking non-combatants and spares the lives of those who surrender? I feel like "respect" captures the broader idea a little better.


You don't need to have negative numbers... Just have the baseline (whatever a "neutral" value would be for some of these stats to be different than zero.
Isn't that just negative values by another name? I think part of the issue is that I want 0 to represent both "we don't know" and "really low". Like, 0 fear is somehow meant to mean both "I've never heard of you doing anything dangerous" but also "I heard you're a pansy." So perhaps I need to separate these ideas out.


0: You're incapable or unwilling to hurt others.
[...]
10: You often hurt others for no reason other than your own whim.
I wasn't thinking so much in terms of "extreme doormat" to "deranged psychopath", but I can't deny that would probably figure in to the calculation. I was thinking more in terms of how strong someone was. A gentle giant would still be feared, as even if they are difficult to provoke, they can still fold your skull into your pelvis if you do somehow piss them off. Maybe it works better to think of your fear rating as relating more to a raw body count, with stronger enemies defeated counting for more. The deranged psychopath then has higher fear just by virtue of a higher body count.

But it does seem like the initial conception may have been too simple. We don't want it too complex, either, it's about striking the right balance between its usefulness as a tool and how difficult it is to use.


You could also add a "Rumors & Trivia" status, which isn't a number, but a list of things people are likely to believe about you, followed by a number showing how ubiquitous that opinion is:

e.g.:

"Hates Elves - 1/5": There are rumors that you hate elves, but most people dismiss it. A value of 2 or higher could grant a circumstance bonus to Fear, Love and Respect in relation to Elves (and other races, depending on what they think about elves or racial prejudices in general).

Instead of a point system, what about Tags and Dice.

Tags are concrete things, and the Dice are mechanically attached to them.

For example,
Defeated the Ogre, Fame: 1d6.

The fact you Defeated the Ogre gives you a 1d6 Fame die.
[...]
Now, if you want to know if someone recognizes you, roll your Fame dice; if they pass some threshold, like 4+, (individually) the person recognizes them for that act.
These are both interesting ideas. I did mention having more specific reputation traits in addition to the reputation stats, but I was thinking they would just be binary. If someone rolled high enough against your fame, then they would just know all of these traits. But it makes a lot more sense to rate each trait based on how likely that specific trait is to be known. For a video game it shouldn't be a problem, but I would be concerned about rolling for each trait individually in a tabletop game. Especially if you're doing so for each NPC and against each PC. If you have five players each with five traits and they run into five NPCs, that's 125 rolls. So it has to be simplified in some way.


It looks a good system. I think it captures what probably needs to be captured. My concern is 'why'?
I think it depends on what kind of game you're playing. In a pirate game based on One Piece, a reputation system makes a lot of sense. Since you're a pirate, the navy is always after you, and will pursue you more vigorously the more notoriety you gain. You're constantly dealing with fellow pirates and neutral third parties, so often there aren't clear cut good guys and bad guys. What others know about you, and what you know about them, will determine how you interact. It's essentially a giant free-for-all, so anyone can be an ally or enemy. Reputation goes both ways.

I think any time a game is dipping its toes into political intrigue it can benefit from a reputation system. But more than a game with just a few big factions, I think reputation becomes important when you have that free-for-all of many tiny factions and individuals. With that in mind, I think it might make more sense to go back to the drawing board and rewrite reputation from the perspective of giving the players information about an NPC, instead of the other way around.


Now, TBH. This feels more like a GM tool. It's not necessarily something to influence the players' action, but something similar to GM notes of past events. I personally like to keep track of how the game world (specially notable individuals and organizations) sees the PCs, although I don't really use a scale, just general notes... But like I said, something like this could make things easier to visualize.
Yes, as far as using PC reputation to inform NPCs, it would mostly be a GM tool, though players can be aware of what their reputation is and try to actively cultivate a specific public image. When it comes to informing players about NPCs, though, that's a whole other ballgame.


Random suggestion: why not simply tie this to character level?
If all you want is for the players to get more famous as they level up, then sure. I'm looking for something with more depth, however, and being more famous isn't always desirable. It really depends on the kind of game you're playing.

That said, this does remind me of another idea I had for the pirate game. In One Piece, bounties are something of a mark of pride. Pirates often talk about how big their bounty is and use it to try to intimidate others. So I thought it might be interesting to tie bounties into the mechanics by converting your bounty into skill points for buying character upgrades. This way, players have a reason to get invested in the size of their bounty. There is some jank to this idea, like you can't have a powerful character with a low bounty or a weak character with a high bounty, and it feels weird for the authority trying to capture you to be the ones to make you stronger (by raising your bounty). But that's a discussion for another thread.

Anymage
2022-10-17, 10:51 AM
These are both interesting ideas. I did mention having more specific reputation traits in addition to the reputation stats, but I was thinking they would just be binary. If someone rolled high enough against your fame, then they would just know all of these traits. But it makes a lot more sense to rate each trait based on how likely that specific trait is to be known. For a video game it shouldn't be a problem, but I would be concerned about rolling for each trait individually in a tabletop game. Especially if you're doing so for each NPC and against each PC. If you have five players each with five traits and they run into five NPCs, that's 125 rolls. So it has to be simplified in some way.

You're coming close to an important question here. What would the mechanical effects of these traits be? In a video game it would make sense, since NPCs are complex reaction trees and the math can be done quickly out of the player's eye. Since a human GM is more flexible but also much slower to calculate, I have to wonder how this would matter more than just tracking the highest reputation or just freeforming it altogether.

I could possibly see a complex multi-stat reputation system if long term downtime politicking were a big part of the game. But that'd be a major system on its own and not just adding new traits.



I think it depends on what kind of game you're playing. In a pirate game based on One Piece, a reputation system makes a lot of sense. Since you're a pirate, the navy is always after you, and will pursue you more vigorously the more notoriety you gain. You're constantly dealing with fellow pirates and neutral third parties, so often there aren't clear cut good guys and bad guys. What others know about you, and what you know about them, will determine how you interact. It's essentially a giant free-for-all, so anyone can be an ally or enemy. Reputation goes both ways.

Assuming you're trying to tie this to the 5e engine, at most you'd want to have a general reputation score as well as what you're most renowned for. Finer details than that can be left to roleplaying and the DM's notes.


If all you want is for the players to get more famous as they level up, then sure. I'm looking for something with more depth, however, and being more famous isn't always desirable. It really depends on the kind of game you're playing.

That said, this does remind me of another idea I had for the pirate game. In One Piece, bounties are something of a mark of pride. Pirates often talk about how big their bounty is and use it to try to intimidate others. So I thought it might be interesting to tie bounties into the mechanics by converting your bounty into skill points for buying character upgrades. This way, players have a reason to get invested in the size of their bounty. There is some jank to this idea, like you can't have a powerful character with a low bounty or a weak character with a high bounty, and it feels weird for the authority trying to capture you to be the ones to make you stronger (by raising your bounty). But that's a discussion for another thread.

If you want to lean into the conceit of a pirate game, you can say that pirates get better at doing piratey things by doing piratey things and that doing piratey things also makes the authorities madder at you and raises how much they'd pay for your head. The authorities don't directly make you stronger, the two things both spring from a shared cause.

It's unrealistic in that your characters can't go off doing non-piratey adventuring things and get stronger while their notoriety either goes unchanged or even cools down. But it won't be the first time narrative conceit trumped realism and it certainly won't be the last.

Tzardok
2022-10-17, 11:06 AM
But would you really say you "trust" the evil overlord who refrains from attacking non-combatants and spares the lives of those who surrender? I feel like "respect" captures the broader idea a little better.

I think "Honor" would be the best name from the description. It rises by acting honorably and falls when acting dishonorably. "Trust" may be too intimate (except in the "I trust you to act honorably", which is just another way to say Honor), and respect includes different things and depends on point of view (someone who thinks it's stupid to keep your word if you don't gain from it will propably respect you more if you don't fetter yourself to the notion of honor).

Lemmy
2022-10-17, 03:27 PM
But would you really say you "trust" the evil overlord who refrains from attacking non-combatants and spares the lives of those who surrender? I feel like "respect" captures the broader idea a little better.I wouldn't say I respect the evil overlord either... You know... On account of him being an evil overlord.

My reasoning here is that "Respect" is base don the observer, not the evil overlord. Respect implies admiration, which varies based from person to person, based on how they see the evil overlord, while "trust" implies "expectation that they will behave as agreed upon" (a demon would probably respect the evil overlord who breaks his word on a whim, but still wouldn't trust him). Similarly, I would "trust" Dr.Doom to keep his word, but i wouldn't respect him (because he's an evil tyrannical super-villain).

Or maybe I can respect someone, but not trust them to keep their word (or follow general societal protocols). e.g.: Maybe there's a CG hero that really does make the world a better place... But is too fickle and forgetful for me to trust him to keep his word.

tl;dr: Trust is "How much do people expect you to keep your word and/or follow generally expected societal protocols". Even people with different beliefs might generally have the same "trust" in you, but "respect" will be completely different based on who you ask.

Tzardok is probably right. "Honor" might be a better word.



Isn't that just negative values by another name?Well, yes... It's just that working with positive numbers is usually more intuitive (that's the whole reason we don't have THAC0 anymore).


I think part of the issue is that I want 0 to represent both "we don't know" and "really low". Like, 0 fear is somehow meant to mean both "I've never heard of you doing anything dangerous" but also "I heard you're a pansy." So perhaps I need to separate these ideas out.
Using your example, I'd say 0 fear is exactly what it sounds like... People have essentially ZERO fear of you. They basically believe you will never hurt them, except MAYBE in the most extreme of situations.

The much more common "I have no reason to fear you, specifically, but at the same time, I don't know you enough to assume you're 100% peaceful" (i.e.:a random person I see on the street: I won't run away from them, but I also don't assume they have a 0% chance to harm me) would be Fear 1. At least, IMO.

Yakk
2022-10-19, 09:34 AM
These are both interesting ideas. I did mention having more specific reputation traits in addition to the reputation stats, but I was thinking they would just be binary. If someone rolled high enough against your fame, then they would just know all of these traits. But it makes a lot more sense to rate each trait based on how likely that specific trait is to be known. For a video game it shouldn't be a problem, but I would be concerned about rolling for each trait individually in a tabletop game. Especially if you're doing so for each NPC and against each PC. If you have five players each with five traits and they run into five NPCs, that's 125 rolls. So it has to be simplified in some way.
Limit the number of active traits a PC can have to be roughly the same as the number of flavours you have.

My point is that traits with tags based on your flavours, and those flavours having mechanical impact, can make this more active in play.

Like, being able to use your Honour die to add to a death saving throw, or whatever.

JeenLeen
2022-10-19, 10:16 AM
In the game Crusader Kings III, there's a Dread mechanic which is how much you inspire fear. From what I've heard, it mainly keeps your vassals in line.
Fear could incorporate that, in the sense of how afraid any lower-rank people in your <pirate fleet, nation, organization, whatever> fear reprisal and thus are loyal.
In Exalted 2nd edition, there was a Fame trait. It helped you be liked, but it also made you more well-known and thus more likely to get unwanted attention. No solid mechanics to it, but at least a precedent.

For the purposes of the original post, I can see those four traits. I'd think a 0-100 system to allow some flexibility, but perhaps the differences only really matter at each 10 point difference. The main reason I say do 0-100 instead of 0-10 is to have some leeway. Like, a dishonorable person could spare someone who surrendered and gain a few points of Honor without really gaining a change in reputation's impact.
In a sense, 3 could inspire the same thing. Say, you want your underlings to be loyal. They could Love you for all the good you do for your nation, Fear you too much to disobey, or Trust that you will go what you say and protect them. (I can see swap out Trust and Respect, though as long as it's well-defined, either word works.) Fame is a separate thing, but makes sense for how many know of you.

Low Fame (like 0-10) is essentially unheard of anywhere. I wouldn't go negative, but you could have things that could be done to add negative modifiers: like an assassin might put up misdirects so they don't get Fame. There could still be word-of-mouth and they are known by those they work with. 90-100 is heard of world-wide.
I'm not sure if Fame should incorporate how recognizable as well. Like, at the highest range, would your face be so well-known (either by stories, pictures, or minted on coins) that the average person could recognize you? Or just stories of you are known everywhere?

I like the idea of it impacting actual combat as well as social interactions, but it depends on the intention/scope. If this is an add-on for 5e or other D&D, such makes sense. But if it's to add a layer of mechanics for interaction amongst pirates or running a nation, not so needed.