D&D 5E Reputation System 5e

[Fenris-77]

I'm suggesting the example is flawed.

 

[miggyG777]

I think a one-size-fits-all reputation system oversimplifies the concept and reduces immersion in the game world. Your example focuses on the shopkeeper's hate, but omits fear. What if the shopkeeper hates the party, but is too terrified to overcharge them because he knows they will murder him at the slightest perceived affront?

That depends on how the party approaches the shopkeeper. In that case you would use intimidation rather than persuasion.

Personally I prefer to keep it as an abstract concept and apply it on an NPC by NPC basis. A party of cutthroats will get a better reaction from people that admire a 'might is right' approach, for example - possibly a better reaction than would be given to a party of righteous paladins. So even the -5 Reputation party in your example might get a discount in the shop of retired bully "Bob the B*stard's Fiendish Flails"...

Since you apply your judgement on NPC to NPC basis anyways, there is nothing stopping you of using the system separately for every NPC. The parties reputation with Bob would just be 0 instead of -5 for instance.

 

[miggyG777]

I'm suggesting the example is flawed.

How so?

 

[Fenris-77]

The Goblin would normally surrender on a 5 because Goblins are cowardly etc etc. It doesn't pass the laugh test that the DC would change by 10 because of reputation. It's not like the DC of 5 was based on friendly and trusting in the first place anyway, so the fact that you're unfriendly and hostile doesn't, or shouldn't matter.

It's possible we need a more granular example and that I'm misunderstanding you.

 

[dave2008]

Sure, but it would mean no one but a rogue or maybe a bard would even have a hope of talking a hostile person around, unless they rolled a natural 20. Which is harsh enough that it might discourage players from even trying, and I think that's probably counterproductive to what the OP wants to achieve with this system.

If the typical difficulty for the task is 10 and the person is hostile, that would make it a 20. Anyone with proficiency has a respectable chance of getting a success. An extremely difficult task, DC 20, with a hostile person should be nearly impossible except for the best of the best. I think it works well enough for how I would use it.

 

[miggyG777]

The Goblin would normally surrender on a 5 because Goblins are cowardly etc etc. It doesn't pass the laugh test that the DC would change by 10 because of reputation. It's not like the DC of 5 was based on friendly and trusting in the first place anyway, so the fact that you're unfriendly and hostile doesn't, or shouldn't matter.

It's possible we need a more granular example and that I'm misunderstanding you.

Perhaps you can see the reputation modifier as a trust mechanism.

The goblins innate will to surrender is at DC 5. However, it is influenced by whomever is requesting him to do so via persuasion. If the request is made by hostile forces, the goblins will to surrender decreases based on his evaluation of the situation. He might surrender and still be killed (he cannot trust hostile forces). That changes the DC to convince him to 15.

Note that this does not affect intimidation, as it is not based on trust. You might tap into his fear with intimidation and roll it vs the DC 5 but if you try to reason with him, he will evaluate the proposal differently.

Does that make sense?

(I can see where this gets a bit wonky, but I believe that is due to the nature of the separation of intimidation and persuasion, as in: will you not be more easily persuaded to do something if you are afraid of that person)

 

[jayoungr]

An extremely difficult task, DC 20, with a hostile person should be nearly impossible except for the best of the best.

I guess that's where I disagree. I don't think talking a hostile person down to the level of "won't attack you on sight" is something that only the best of the best should be able to do.

But the OP can decide which version fits his/her table best (if the OP wants to adopt this system).

ETA: To expand, I think we may be envisioning slightly different uses of this scale. As mentioned, my mental picture is based on Star Wars Saga Edition. A negotiation with a hostile person in that system would typically go something like this:

GM: As soon as the Imperial soldier sees your Rebel uniform, he points his blaster at you. "Come one step closer, and I fire!"
Player: I put my hands up and say, "Easy! I have a proposition for you."
GM: He's hostile to you, so roll Persuasion at -10.
Player: I rolled a 15, and my Persuasion bonus is +8, so that's a 23, or 13 with the penalty. (Bonuses in this system go a lot higher than in 5E--you get +5 for skill training and an extra point every 2 levels.)
GM: The soldier's Will defense is 12. He is now Unfriendly, which means he wishes you ill but won't attack on sight. He lowers his weapon and glares coldly at you as he says, "What kind of proposition, rebel scum? This had better be good."

 

[NotAYakk]

I'd be more tempted by things than a scale. Scales are great if you want to spend a bunch of time tracking where you are on it, or a computer.

Things are great if you want to only track stuff with high impact.

Keep track of positive and negative reputation tokens as actual things. Invoke those tokens to impose disadvantage or a complication or a problem. Consume them if it is a big invoke compared to the thing; otherwise, sleep the thing when you invoke it.

 

[dave2008]

I guess that's where I disagree. I don't think talking a hostile person down to the level of "won't attack you on sight" is something that only the best of the best should be able to do.

But the OP can decide which version fits his/her table best (if the OP wants to adopt this system).

ETA: To expand, I think we may be envisioning slightly different uses of this scale. As mentioned, my mental picture is based on Star Wars Saga Edition. A negotiation with a hostile person in that system would typically go something like this:

GM: As soon as the Imperial soldier sees your Rebel uniform, he points his gun at you. "Come one step closer, and I fire!"
Player: I put my hands up and say, "Easy! I have a proposition for you."
GM: He's hostile to you, so roll Persuasion at -10.
Player: I rolled a 15, and my Persuasion bonus is +8, so that's a 23, or 13 with the penalty. (Bonuses in this system go a lot higher than in 5E--you get +5 for skill training and an extra point every 2 levels.)
GM: The soldier's Will defense is 12. He is now Unfriendly, which means he wishes you ill but won't attack on sight. He lowers his weapon and glares coldly at you as he says, "What kind of proposition, rebel scum? This had better be good."

Yes, that seems to be working as intended. In your example you needed to roll a 14 to convince a natural enemy to not kill you on sight. That seems reasonable, possibly even generous. A maxed character would only need a 5 (+5 ability +12 expertise). It seems like we generally agree, unless I am missing something.

EDIT: It also depends on the definition of "hostile"

 

[jayoungr]

In your example you needed to roll a 14 to convince a natural enemy to not kill you on sight. That seems reasonable, possibly even generous. A maxed character would only need a 5 (+5 ability +12 expertise).

Okay, but in the case of SWSE, you'd get +5 from being trained in Persuasion, and the other +3 would be had by any level 6 character out of the box, even with a 10 charisma--or lower level if you have any charisma bonus at all. That's hardly a task that only "the best of the best" would even think of attempting.

A level 6 character in 5E with a 10 charisma and training in Persuasion, who's not a Bard or Rogue, would only get a +3 bonus to the roll, meaning they'd need to roll a 19 to equal a 12 with the same penalty.