Villain Metacurrency From PC Bravado

[Sparky McDibben]

I had kind of a random funny thought. Has anyone tried giving bosses metacurrency points based on the PCs bravado?

Like, I'm thinking of describing it like so in-game:

DM: The arch-cultist's robes writhe as they chant the invocation of the Ten-Thousand Souled Star. As a cold breeze whips through the cavern, you can see the horrible creature's skin is composed of thousands of wriggling worms, their pallid flesh glistening.

PC: That's disgusting. I'm going to call this guy Lord Douchicus!

DM: You see the arch-cultist's hooded head coil around to stare at you as you insult it. A pressure begins to build on your psyche, like a thousand tons of cold, gelid force. As you struggle to hold it off, a presence connects to your mind. You see yourself from the arch-cultist's point of view, an insignificant and tiny thing, raging against what you cannot understand, trying to hold back the tides of entropy. It pulls at you, drawing power from your will...and you feel a cold and unnatural fate settle into your bones. The arch-cultist gains one point of Doom."

Meta-currency options in combat (5e - cost 1 point of Doom, last for 1 minute):

1) Turn the villain's next attack into an automatic crit.
2) Force a PC to re-roll a saving throw, keeping the new result.
3) Inflict a condition on a PC until the end of the villain's next turn (choose from: blinded, charmed, grappled, poisoned, or stunned).
4) Cause a magic item to become de-powered until the owner takes a long rest.
5) Deplete a PC of 1d6 spell slots.
6) Inflict 1 level of exhaustion.

Meta-currency options out of combat (5e - cost 3 points of Doom, last until villain dies):

1) Curse the PC so they have a harder time recovering from resource loss.
2) Change how the PC sees a relationship.
3) Curse the PC so that when they recover resources, so too does the villain.
4) Curse the PC so that the villain can always scry upon them.
5) Curse the PC to suffer constant equipment breakage.
6) Curse the PC to never benefit from a previously relied upon tool (fire, iron, etc.).

The point here is not to punish the PCs for making fun of the villains. That's why I wanted to make sure I showed the intended implementation, to see if that implementation feels punitive to y'all.

The point here is to give consequences to actions. The PC has decided to taunt a horrendous villain - that's brave. But I think the bad guys should have options than "scowl" or "bluster furiously" or just "attack." Moreover, by giving the villain a boost dependent on the PC's actions, we move bravery from "default" to "choice."

I suspect I'm going to get my @ss kicked for this, but I welcome the feedback

[Lord Raziere]

I'm probably going to get pushback as well, but you could probably just do this as an aspect in Fate on the hero like "Can't Resist Making Snarky Comments" and you award the player for their character making a snarky comments that gets into trouble with a fate point, which is rewarding the behavior you want rather than just looking like a punishment, and you can still keep the doom point system you describe.

[NichG]

I'd say it does feel punitive, and worse it feels a bit OOC punitive. The natural consequence of not taking an enemy seriously is in the lack of caution it engenders in how one interacts with that enemy, and the natural consequence of taunting someone is that you end up being the focus of their attention. This feels more like the universe comes down on the player for being off-tone with the scene.

[Mastikator]

IMO PC bravado is something you should reward, not punish. Bravado is like creativity, it makes the game more fun.

[Batcathat]

I'd say it does feel punitive, and worse it feels a bit OOC punitive. The natural consequence of not taking an enemy seriously is in the lack of caution it engenders in how one interacts with that enemy, and the natural consequence of taunting someone is that you end up being the focus of their attention. This feels more like the universe comes down on the player for being off-tone with the scene.

Yeah, pretty much this. PCs should absolutely risk consequences for being cocky, but adding something like this seems a bit unnecessary. It also seems like it could lead to lot of discussions about whether or not certain behavior count as "bravado".

[Reversefigure4]

What behaviour from players are you hoping to incentivise with this?

1.If it's to encourage them to 'take the game seriously' or 'not make fun of the NPCs' or 'don't talk out of character', it might work. (It's punitive and punishing, but if players are wrecking the game by not taking it seriously, you might be able to retrain them. There are doubtlessly better ways, though.)

2. If it's to encourage them to engage with the game like this, why would the enemies get stronger? If you want to incentivise the behaviour, then it should be rewarding players for witty comments.

3. If it's to add new abilities to any enemy, then you don't need to link it to player behaviour at all - just have a doom pool.

What are you trying to accomplish here?

[icefractal]

These are fairly strong effects, so I'd see this as definitely disincentivizing the behavior. And I have to agree with the posts above - it does feel rather punitive, like you're punishing the players for not taking your NPCs seriously enough. Even if that's not the intent.

And incidentally ... does it go in the other direction? :smallamused:
Cultist: "Myopic fools, you cannot see the true glory of the Ten-Thousand Souled Star! When the gate of truth is opened, you will regret your error ... briefly."
Player: Myopic fools? He's underestimating us - sounds like a point of Anti-Doom.

To be more "neutral", I'd make it a trade-off - when the PCs are showing bravado, the GM can give them the option to "raise the stakes". If they do, the foes gain [number TBD] points of Doom, but are worth double the XP if defeated (or another award if you don't use XP).

[Anymage]

If the arch-cultist is just meant to be an exciting encounter for tonight's session, heroes quipping before or during the fight is entirely on brand. "Doom points" that let the NPC inflict a direct malus on the PCs are more like legendary actions that are triggered by the players acting off-theme in the DM's eyes, and come across as very much punitive.

If the NPC is being clearly presented as someone out of the PCs' league and the players still want to trash talk, you then have in-world questions about the NPC's capabilities and real world questions about your being willing to inflict lingering drawbacks on PCs. If a PC insults the high warrior-king, he's unlikely to negate a magic item or gain the ongoing ability to scry on the character. He's very likely to have the PC hauled off to the dungeon or worse. How everybody at the table handles the fact that the character can't partake in future scenes due to being locked in a cell, and how the player responds (up to and including rerolling to be able to have a character able to interact) are going to be followup questions. Similarly, if the arch-cultist is being clearly set up as a long term arc villain and a PC decides to just run up and stab, are you willing to inflict death or an appreciably difficult curse, and how will your table roll with the idea?

[KorvinStarmast]

IMO PC bravado is something you should reward, not punish. Bravado is like creativity, it makes the game more fun. I see it this way.

PCs should absolutely risk consequences for being cocky, but adding something like this seems a bit unnecessary. It also seems like it could lead to lot of discussions about whether or not certain behavior count as "bravado". It becomes another source of argument about style.

If the arch-cultist is just meant to be an exciting encounter for tonight's session, heroes quipping before or during the fight is entirely on brand. "Doom points" that let the NPC inflict a direct malus on the PCs are more like legendary actions that are triggered by the players acting off-theme in the DM's eyes, and come across as very much punitive.
Also this.

Sparky, what are you trying to accomplish here?

[King of Nowhere]

I agree it feels not just punitive, but arbitrarily so. Like "I don't like that you're not taking my villain seriously, so I punish you by dm fiat". If the pc can insult the villain without consequence, then the villain isn't really powerful after all.


If a PC insults the high warrior-king, he's unlikely to negate a magic item or gain the ongoing ability to scry on the character. He's very likely to have the PC hauled off to the dungeon or worse.
Well, this is a bit extreme. Insulting the king is not a killing offence. They may be sentenced to one night in prison (they could escape very easily, but this would worsen their position; just like people put in house arrest could escape any time, but then they'd be treated as actual dangerous criminals). Or perhaps the king may just scowl at them, but then they'd find out that when they need anything from the government - even on perfectly legitimate reasons - they will be denied and swamped in red tape

[Batcathat]

Well, this is a bit extreme. Insulting the king is not a killing offence. They may be sentenced to one night in prison (they could escape very easily, but this would worsen their position; just like people put in house arrest could escape any time, but then they'd be treated as actual dangerous criminals). Or perhaps the king may just scowl at them, but then they'd find out that when they need anything from the government - even on perfectly legitimate reasons - they will be denied and swamped in red tape

To be fair, having draconian punishments for insulting a ruler isn't exactly unheard of whether in fiction or real life.

(Also, considering your username I'm a little tempted to insult you just to see what would happen... :smallamused: )

[Slipjig]

Well, this is a bit extreme. Insulting the king is not a killing offence.

Gotta disagree with you there. Most kings GET to kings by conquering a territory or having an ancestor that did so. And they get to STAY kings because their vassals think that they would much rather pay their taxes and obey the King's Laws rather than face the Royal Wrath. Allowing people to openly mock or defy the crown is a recipe for rebellion.

As for the thread as a whole, I think punishing people for wising off is counterproductive. From my time in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can tell you that there are DEFINITELY people out there who will wisecrack and talk smack even in the middle of a firefight, because that's how they deal with tension.

If you want to have a mechanical impact, if the players land a sharp enough jab, maybe give the villain Inspiration, or possibly have him do a Barb Rage. But I would definitely balance that by also giving the player who made the quip inspiration, too, and enforcing the negative parts of rage on the villain.

Alternately, you might implement something like the "Boasting" system from the original Fable, where players could gain greater rewards by proclaiming that they were going to make things harder for a greater reputation reward. e.g. "No only will I go storm the bandit camp and slay their leader, I'm going to do it BUCK NEKKID/without taking a scratch/blindfolded!"

[Dr.Samurai]

A few thoughts here:

"Bravado" is just another character trait. I don't see a reason to reward it except that players should be rewarded for roleplaying their characters, as per the Personality, Bond, Ideal, Flaw, etc.

I also don't consider "Lord Douchicus" to be bravado. That sort of modern, ironic, discourse pulls me right out of the game. I would definitely not reward it, but I wouldn't punish it either, and the suggestion in the OP does feel a little punitive.

Honestly, it would be more a taunt on me as the DM than my villain, since my villain wouldn't know what it means.

[King of Nowhere]

Gotta disagree with you there. Most kings GET to kings by conquering a territory or having an ancestor that did so. And they get to STAY kings because their vassals think that they would much rather pay their taxes and obey the King's Laws rather than face the Royal Wrath. Allowing people to openly mock or defy the crown is a recipe for rebellion.


the problem with this in a d&d setting is that high level people are extremely dangerous. the king can't just order them to be punished like they are normal paesants and forget about it. depending on the campaign setting and level, the kind may well have no power over the adventurers (in which case he has to take the insults as graciously as he can, and possibly take revenge in indirect ways), or he may have enough force to punish the adventurers, but it would be dangerous and expensive to do so. in which case a light punishment designed to get the adventurers to accept his authority without harboring vengeful feelings is the best.
You don't want to risk your high level assets on those hobos, and you definitely don't want those hobos escaping your cunning ambush and dedicating the rest of the campaign to undermining your reign. you don't want your authority undermined either, but if you can get an apology or something you keep your authority - those guys did back down on their implicit challenge -, you can make a show of being reasonable, and you avoid risks. It's for the best, really.

And this goes to the larger problem of how a powerful npc can react when insulted by a pc. which really, depends on what the npc can do, his risk vs reward, the specific situation.
I once had a villain with good public relations try to turn the barbarian taunts against him. A half offended, half sad "I have done so much for this community and now I have to suffer this madman injustly slandering me" vibe. Casting implosion would have been possible, but diplomatically unadvisable. Much better to use your 20+ charisma to reinforce your public image as a wise, but maligated leader. My only regret is that, lacking a 20+ charisma myself, I could not make a good show of it.

[Batcathat]

the problem with this in a d&d setting is that high level people are extremely dangerous. the king can't just order them to be punished like they are normal paesants and forget about it. depending on the campaign setting and level, the kind may well have no power over the adventurers (in which case he has to take the insults as graciously as he can, and possibly take revenge in indirect ways), or he may have enough force to punish the adventurers, but it would be dangerous and expensive to do so. in which case a light punishment designed to get the adventurers to accept his authority without harboring vengeful feelings is the best.

Yeah, it does bother me occasionally that this sort of power difference (where a single individual could realistically defeat an entire army) is frequently not acknowledged in D&D and similar fantasy settings. It's similar to how functional magic should change very much about a society but rarely does in any meaningful way. It does feel like designers frequently just want to have a medieval-ish society, regardless of the reality of the setting often working very differently than the real world.

That said, I wouldn't expect every ruler to approach the situation rationally. A person who's had great power over almost everyone around them, probably for their entire life, isn't overly likely to accept limitations.

[King of Nowhere]

That said, I wouldn't expect every ruler to approach the situation rationally. A person who's had great power over almost everyone around them, probably for their entire life, isn't overly likely to accept limitations.
true. which is why adventurers have a penchant for insulting people :smallbiggrin:

On the other hand, I expect that the strongest rulers - and adventurers - would not go out of their way to insult and antagonize each other. People rarely achieve power by needlessly making powerful enemies in their immature displays of toxic machismo.
I could have that reaction on a minor opponent who's as much comic relief as an actual obstacle. I could have that reaction if I wanted to characterize the villain as weak-willed, foolish, and probably not as powerful as they think they are. mind you, a petty bully can stll be dangerous, and he can still be a legitimate threat. but the main villain will not lose his cool and do something stupid the moment someone stands up to him. if it was that easy to taunt him into making mistakes, he would not have become the main villain. even if he is the vengeful type, he will at least make sure he's got the upper hand and won't face too many risks before attacking.

[Quertus]

Unless the player rolled a 3 for their character's Charisma, I'm not sure why they would play their PC as needlessly hostile and antagonistic towards potential allies; unless the party was hard up for help, I don't know why they'd let McGarbageMouth stick around. Regardless, I certainly wouldn't address it with the kind of tech given in the OP unless a) altering reality through mental energy was central to the world and campaign; b) the GM was fully prepared for the players to use this tool.

[icefractal]

Unless the player rolled a 3 for their character's Charisma, I'm not sure why they would play their PC as needlessly hostile and antagonistic towards potential allies; unless the party was hard up for help, I don't know why they'd let McGarbageMouth stick around. Regardless, I certainly wouldn't address it with the kind of tech given in the OP unless a) altering reality through mental energy was central to the world and campaign; b) the GM was fully prepared for the players to use this tool.The original case in the OP seems like someone they were never going to be on the same side as regardless. But indeed, with the latter case of a (potentially) friendly king, the consequences are that - even if they take no action against you - they're going to be less favorably inclined when you need something from them, no meta-game factor needed.


Yeah, it does bother me occasionally that this sort of power difference (where a single individual could realistically defeat an entire army) is frequently not acknowledged in D&D and similar fantasy settings.I think if you are acknowledging it, then rulers are often going to either be highish-level themselves, or have high-level friends. "This king would be super-easy to overthrow but somehow nobody has ever realized they could do so" doesn't make a lot of sense unless you're doing an isekei thing.

Of course extrapolating the rules into the setting does hit a point where you need to make a personal call on how far it goes. Like, if you push everything to max-op, then "the major powers" are a number of individuals who have arbitrarily large amounts of power and don't care about people/territory/resources for anything except sentimental or status reasons, because they can generate everything they need by themselves, and everything else exists at their whim. Which is (IMO) not that fun a setting.

[King of Nowhere]

they were never going to be on the same side as regardless

speaking of which, I don't see any bravado in the example brought by the OP. this guy is the villain. the party interrupted his ritual. A fight is going to ensue. They can exchange threats and insults first, or maybe the villain can try to recruit them, or maybe they can skip the talk, but there's going to be fighting. So the pc action is not brave, nor brash; just inconsequential. Why should it have a cost? and what would be the alternative? Maybe if the character runs away screaming the villain will get a penalty instead?
I think he just picked a bad example.

But I think the bad guys should have options than "scowl" or "bluster furiously" or just "attack."
So they get some weird magic that works when they are insulted? I don't see how it makes sense.
And, as was already remarked, bad guys do have other options, depending on what resources and capabilities they have.

[Sparky McDibben]

Hey y'all,

I've got a real bad headache, but I wanted to let y'all know I've been monitoring the conversation. Sounds like the problem is:

a) Inadequate rooting in the narrative
b) Feels adversarial

I think those are the two main counterpoints, and I think they're valid. I'm going to abandon the idea, but feel free to continue bouncing ideas of each other.

Thanks!

[Pauly]

In the home brew I’m working on the method of gaining metacurrency is based on criticals.

Critical hit = +1 metacurrency for the good guys.
Critical fumble = +1 metacurrency for the bad guys.

The metacurrency can be spent for critical effect on the task or saved for later on.

I don’t like tying metacurrency too closely to roleplaying, because that tends to reward the best actors/improvisors over players who make good decisions but lack flamboyancy.

So in my system if the character makes a big boast then rolls a critical fumble then the bad guys get the metacurrency because he failed to deliver on the boast, but if he makes the boast then gets a critical he gains metacurrency because he made good the boast.
NB in the system there are mechanical reasons as to why a character may want to boast/ showboat/ monologue before performing an action.

[MetroAlien]

"what is your intention here?" does seem like the obvious counter-question.
But even thinking of possible intentions, there are much better alternative ways of doing it.

If you want the villains to be taken seriously, make them serious. It's a simple as that.
Increase their challenge level, or homebrew some abilities.
Mechanics isn't the only way to make the villains threatening. You can use role-play also.
The villain can insult the characters (never the players, only the characters). This could tie in to the characters' backstory as well.

Maybe the cultist leader is influencing a powerful noble behind the scenes. The players may find that insulting the cult closes many doors to them in said noble's domain.
As a bonus it provides a story opportunity for uncovering a conspiracy.

Maybe the villain took a hostage.
I know players aren't liable to care about NPCs, but what if it's the quest-giver themselves?
Who will reward the players if the old wise dude from the tavern was mauled by tentacles because he knew too much?

Finally, if the villain is really such a big deal, don't let them be taken out in a single campaign.
Make it clear to the players beforehand (before! not during!) that they have to gain many levels through story progress before they can measure up.
By that point, either the villain will already feel serious enough, or the players will have earned the bravado fair and square.

Basically, it just feels like you're trying to apply a mechanical band-aid to a perceived "problem" caused in role-play.
I don't see any way how that could accomplish your goals.

[DrMartin]

Spellbound kingdom has a novel take on a lot of these issues, maybe can be a source of inspiration.

Each region as a "doom" value, which is how difficult life is in that area. It is a function of a region's ruler (a-la Fisher King), of magic, or of fate.
Doom is something that characters are aware of in-setting, and a lot of abilities interact or modify a region's doom. So maybe the Doom in a kingdom is usually 6, but since you misdirected the evil king's attention by starting a rebellion in the neighbor region, the kingdom in the capital where you are currently performing your deeds of skulduggery is only 3.
Or think the armies of Gondor moving to the black gate to distract the eye of sauron from the hobbits - this would lower the Doom around, well, Mount Doom.

Heroes and Nobles are fundamentally different from the commoners before they have Inspirations. Inspirations are a form of meta currency that you can trigger when relevant. Inspirations have a value, so you could have "Fight for Freedom (3)" and "Loves food (1)" . Inspirations and can be tapped once per scene to get a bonus. If the inspiration you are tapping closely applies to the situation you are in than the bonus becomes bigger, based on the value of the inspiration. So you can tap "Fight for Freedom" anytime for a +1, but if you are trying to topple a tyrant you can tap it for a +3.
NPCs have inspirations too, so in your example the cultist could tap one of his inspirations if the bravado of the PCs would resonate with them.
It's possible to "attack" other characters inspiration in direct or indirect means, to reduce their value and sap their strength.
Oh, and if you have an inspiration above a certain value (3 if it's a Love, 4 otherwise) you cannot die. Destiny conspires so that no matter what you still survive. To get rid of you something needs to bring your passions down - only then can the villain go in for the kill.
This applies to NPC as well, and just as Doom, is something that the characters are aware of. The Nobles in the setting conspire to have the common folk accept a life of lukewarm emotions and general blandness, to prevent them from raising as heroes.

Inspirations acts as actions point and define the heroes to a certain extent - a bit like aspects in Fate. There is another kind of meta currency which fluctuates more during play, like Fate Points, and it's Mood. Mood can be gained and lost only through play and can be spent to gain bonuses. Mocking another character causes a Mood loss for instance.

[Slipjig]

the problem with this in a d&d setting is that high level people are extremely dangerous

...which is why any ruler worth their salt will have made a point of co-opting as many of the powerful people in their domain as possible, either offering them positions in their court or making them vassals by granting them their own holdings.

I mean, really, why would a party even consider working for a lord whose Captain of the Guard, Court Wizard, Court Chaplain, and Spymaster aren't AT LEAST equal to their own level? If he can't afford decent henchmen, what is he going to offer the PCs?

[Jay R]

I understand having the villain react to the insult. This is a great moment for him to lose his temper, level an attack at that PC, or some such. I see no reason he becomes more powerful because of it.

You'll do this once or twice, the players will feel picked on for enjoying play, and then as the only likely permanent result, the players will keep their jokes to themselves. That doesn't improve the game.

You're also trying to stop valid simulation. Soldiers routinely insult the leaders of the enemy.


The point here is not to punish the PCs for making fun of the villains.

Then don't punish the PCs for making fun of the villains.