Tag: #socialsystem

Many systems have rendered the idea of character reputation in mechanics, for better or worse…well, most of them for worse, IMO. I was leery of even considering whether I wanted to work reputation rules into my projects because of that. Consider it, I did, however, and I think I’m going to go ahead and put such a subsystem in the projects and see if it survives playtesting.

To place it in context within the projects, I’m approaching social interactions with PCs beginning interactions with NPCs possessed of a neutral or slightly worse reputation out the gate. Their reputation then improves or degrades based on interactions. PCs can have a general reputation based on hearsay and then reputations with individual NPCs based on substantial interactions.

The core of the interaction subsystem is based on the Reaction Table of D&D, though extended in each direction to move hostile reactions and enthusiastically friendly reactions outside the range the dice roll. The reputation table that results from using this base has movement in either direction possible in steps, and it would be rare indeed for any such movement to be more than but a step or two in either direction. PCs will have to do serious work to increase the regard in which they’re held (and behave egregiously bad to tank their reputations).

As the title of this post indicates, I’m also breaking renown and reputation apart in play. I figure the PCs can gain reknown far easier than a better reputation, meaning more people have heard of the PCs for their activities than have had significant interactions to judge them.

That split means that the PCs are likely to be contacted by new potential patrons based solely on their renown, without any reference to reputation. The PCs will thus be held in neutral regard again and again when recruited for some task — getting in the good graces of their new supporters will take much more effort.

Having some measure of renown will increase the PCs’ visibility and lead to more networking opportunities. Developing a positive reputation with influential NPCs will also increase network effects, with positive reputations leading to personal recommendations.

That networking increases access to authorities, nobility (if the setting includes such), mayors, wealthy people … well, pretty much anybody. Now, being well known doesn’t mean all interested parties hold the PCs in any great regard, so just being known isn’t going to result in better treatment, necessarily. It also means the PCs will be noticed by bad guys, for better or worse.

It will prove easier to find sources of information, which I think should be an important part of campaign play. The PCs will need buyers for ancient treasures and sellers of specialized goods, which reknown and reputation can assist with. As I already plan for the liquidation of treasures to involve finding specialized buys and intermediary agents and such, having access to more of each can be seen as essential.

The Base Reaction Table

<= 0 Attack

1 Extremely hostile (will escalate quickly)

2 – 3 hostile

4 – 5 suspicious

6 – 8 guarded

9 -10 calm

11-12 interested

13 pleasant

14+ amicable

PCs will be held in regard in the 6 – 8 range from the outset, with NPCs defaulting to being guarded when interacting. This applies to both immediate interactions and the reputations that result from continued interactions. It is only through play that their reknown grows and reputations improve.

Social interaction is one of the facets of play that has long been somewhat contentious. There are those who maintain that all social interaction should be left up to the people at the table and completely free of any mechanical consideration. There are those who recognize that player capabilities vary greatly and without mechanics, it would be impossible for a socially inept player to pull off a charismatic character. And there are all of the people who wish for something that doesn’t mechanize the whole interaction yet want the rules to provide *something* to help sort it out.

I’m in that last group. I want there to be rules providing structure and resolution while allowing the interaction at the table to guide it to that resolution. I recognize that the players and the characters are *not* identical in capabilities of any sort, so the way in which we don’t make players pick up weapons and physically act out fights should also be reflected in not expecting players to physically play out social interactions. Let the players be players and the characters be separate entities that the players aren’t expected to imitate perfectly.

The best of the systems I’ve seen that address social interactions in play involve using the venerable Reaction Table from early D&D. That makes a good deal of sense, as the Reaction Table is all about PCs interacting with others and what type of reaction they receive while doing so. I can see using that table as the basis of a social interaction system while understanding that it needs a lot of tweaking to offer greater nuance in adjudicating situations in play. The possibility of a hostile reaction resulting in a physical attack when a PC hails a merchant group along the road should be much slighter than the basic Table results would indicate, for example, prima facie.

I expect a base line level of regard the NPC has for the PC. Then PC actions can adjust the reactions of the NPC for better or worse, leading to success — the NPC acquiescing to the PC’s wishes — or failure — usually, the NPC simply walking away from the discussion. That general approach, I think, allows for a lot of nuance in execution and lots of ways to hand additional processes on it to add to the flavor.

This approach also supports all manner of player expression of PC action equally, that is, there’s no inherent preference for third person statements of action, first person statements, or improv theater expressions. This rests on the assumption that interactions are structured by procedure that inputs discrete information for a time unit and generates output for that, with limited time units available during the interaction. A player acting out a PC soliloquy can stretch on as long as the GM allows and it still involves one discrete turn in play, the same as the next player stating their PC statement in a couple of short sentences.

As with many activities, I’m also a fan of the uncertainly regarding the time required or time available to the PCs. That uncertainty drives a basic sense of urgency, as players understand they don’t necessarily have as much time as they want to sweet talk the mayor into helping them and they can’t be sure how much time they actually have to do so. Poor reactions can shorten an interaction session. The length of the session can be subject to randomization from the outset, too, which can be limiting.

I just recently spent some time chasing the rabbits of Reknown and Reputation down their respective holes, and those certainly have bearing on resolving social interactions. They also have bearing on what interactions happen in the first place, too, so should probably get their own post or posts.