I very much like the mechanics of Reputation - not that they're perfect, but as good as an abstract system needs to be. However, the Notoriety rules seem to be trying to represent two non-complimentary things at once. On the one hand Notoriety represents the social effect of being reprehensible and untrustworthy, but on ther other the social effect of being incompetent and unreliable. In terms of people wanting to do things for you or work alongside you (whereby Notoriety negatively augments Street Cred) this is not a concern, but when using your reputation for intimidation purposes (whereby the effect is positive) it doesn't scan right. Gaining an Intimidation bonus through a reputation for being a clutz does not work for me.

The quick solution is to remove the Intimidation bonus, but I would rather keep it - I like that Reputation has this mechanical effect and without it Street Cred and Notoriety are more or less two numbers where one would do.

I am considering the following changes to the Quality effects on Reputation in my games and would like to see DS' thoughts and contentions.

First, some qualities will affect Street Cred instead of Notoriety, thus distinguishing between those that are always a bonus/penalty and those that are flipped when using Intimidation.

Second, here is what I want to do with the current list of (dis)Reputable Qualities:

Blandness - leave as -ve to N(otoriety)
First Impression - leave as -ve to N
Lucky - shouldn't impair Intimidation, so make it +ve to S(treet Cred)
Addiction - should always be bad, so -ve to S
Bad Luck - should always be bad, so -ve to S
Combat Paralysis - should always be bad, so -ve to S
Elf Poser - should always be bad, but not really serious enough so remove
Gremlins - should always be bad, so -ve to S
Incompetent - An inability in one singular skill (usually unrelated to your speciality) is too minor so remove
Infirm - should always be bad, so -ve to S
Ork Poser - See Elf Poser
Scorched - who's going to care that much? Remove
Sinner (Criminal) - apt so leave as +ve to N
Spirit Bane - too minor to concern Rep so remove
Uncouth - not relevant enough, remove
Uneducated - barely relevant at all, remove
Enemy - apt so leave as +ve to N
Bad Rep - perfectly apt so leave as +3 to N
Liar - should always be bad, so -ve to S (using the same special condition)

Third, here are the additional Qualities I would like to affect Reputation:

+ve to S
Guts
Trustworthy

-ve to S
Cursed
Dementia
Mania/Phobia
Mental Handicap
Poor Self Control - Braggart, Thrillseeker, Compulsive

+ve to N
Delusion
Multiple Personality Disorder
Evil Twin
Made Man
Poor Self Control - Vindictive, Combat Monster

-ve to N
Obscure
Erased
Mistaken Identity

I also looked at lifestyle qualities being included, but couldn't justify enough of them to bother with it.

It should be noted that this would enable a negative Street Cred. I would be fine with this except that, as per RAW, a negative Reputation modifier after Notoriety is factored in counts as 0. I.e. a negative Street Cred simply means a lot more work is required to get a bonus some day.

There are quite a lot of Street Cred modifying Qualities, but I don't consider sheer volume an issue since Qualities are capped at chargen and Street Cred is capped by Charisma. However, if one took a generous view nearly all the Qualities could be put in one or another of these lists but I think that would cheapen the Reputation stats and possibly overshadow the other ways of gaining Street Cred and Notoriety. I therefore took a more stringent approach, but possibly too much or not enough.

So, thoughts and suggestions warmly welcomed.

How about adding an "Incompetence" score, which only includes the downsides of Notoriety but no intimidation bonus.

I was thinking you should have a few scores regarding your reputation (the two score street cred and noteriety don't seem sufficient):

Street Cred: Your credibility amongst the criminal element (being dependable, trustworthy, hooding can help this score).
Corp Cred: Your credibility amongst the corporate types (being professional, competent--getting the job done, and loyal).
Noteriety: How infamous you are, typically earned for shooting the people in the face for money.
Fame: How well known you are.

For corp cred and street cred they could be as specific (more stuff to keep track of) or just 1 number (easier).

Also, noteriety and street/corp cred sometimes add and sometimes subtract from each other depending on the situation.

The typical encounter between a runner and a corpman (Johnson) usually goes through the fixer to arrange the meeting. In that sense, corp cred is an unnecessary value since you don't directly setup your jobs with the Johnson. Additionally, that value would necessitate that it be broken up with each corp having its own value. For the value to build, your actions must be known. That would mean that for a generic corp cred value, the success of your actions would had to be known which would mean that a corp must know that you've been behind actions against them.

I like the idea... but I have to ask, what's ve stand for?

Victory Eggs.

-ve = Negative
+ve = Positive

I think...

Is correct.

Well, I can see the idea, but I have a different view of such things of "incompetence." Shadowrunners who are truly inept do not survive.

Think about it this way. Ever seen a TV show or movie that talks about the benefits of dealing with professionals? Burn Notice, for example, loves making this distinction. Professional kidnappers will release hostages if demands are met. Pros don't tend to hurt people on a thieving job. Professional killers tend to be discrete, and will not involve by-standers unless it's part of the contract. They don't make a mess of things, by and large.

Largely, this talk of "professional" means more than a paid worker: it's a modicum of pride and skill in a trade, no matter how heinous.

Now, apply "incompetence" in this respect: they become a lot more dangerous, because they are no longer predictable. They may KILL a hostage, or person they are negotiating with, or ally, because they become frustrated, scared, or because they THINK it will help their situation, even if it won't (incompetence). They may kill or harm even when it's not the good play; when it would get them in more trouble, or lose them a viable option. So, yes, if a shadowrunner who stays alive has a reputation for a lack of professionalism (notoriety here), then I am going to be plenty scared of him, BECAUSE he may do something stupid. That something stupid could harm me and mine.


Like-wise, someone with Notoriety, were I a Johnson, is not one I would trust to BE discrete, or to not make a mess. Which is why you have to burn Street Cred to reduce Notoriety.


As far as Poser qualities, I've only counted them in Notoriety if they get found out, or if the player makes it obvious. I give the benefit of the doubt they are trying to blend in, and make them WORK for it: when you fail (and you eventually have to) then the Negative bites you in the ass.

Incompetence is not just the lack of skill in an area; it's the lack of any experience whatsoever. In my game, someone incompetent in Heavy Weapons has never SEEN or READ about a rocket launcher or machine gun, in keeping with the inability to default. It should look like an alien space weapon to the Incompetent. So I actually think this should stay.

Infirm, likewise, is something I'd apply only if someone finds out. I don't see a lot of non-hackers take this.

Liar I would have as a Notoriety bonus for the above reasons. This to me is the guy nobody trusts. Since the deals we make could reasonably wind up with dead people, not trusting someone is a Big Deal in underground business. This to me is rarely something an NPC would brush off as "well he just has a psychological issue. No big deal." Same with the mental problems: this I would keep with Notoriety too.



All in all, it seems like this would work, depending on how you treat things in game. If they are something that is little an issue, then fine. Since our group took the above reasons for RAW justification, mental disorders, liar, and even incompetence, is something that can land you in a firefight. Either because my NPCs are afraid of you, don't trust you, or think I can get one over on you. In any of these cases, you, trying to intimidate me in a position you could do something bad gets a bonus. The incompetent, dumb, liar of a thug is far scarier than the professional face in a suit and tie at our table. This doesn't mean the suit isn't dangerous, but it's easier to think he would need at least a reason to torture or kill you. The thug might, just because.

True for that set up. But what if you're dealing with a corp contact outside of a runner/johnson realtionship. Also, sometimes (in my campaigns at least) runs don't always involve fixers---a corp might approach the runners directly with a job if they are known to them.

Aerospider, I like your thinking and agree with most of it. I would be more likely to leave in several qualities that are positive modifiers to Notoriety for the purposes of Intimidation. Basically, anything that indicates that the intimidator is not thinking rationally, or is generally not quite right in the head, could provide a fair bonus to frightening more reasonable member of society. For example:

Addiction - Dementia - Elf/Ork Poser - Mental Handicap - Scorched - Uncouth - Uneducated

Not to complicated things unnecessarily, but maybe some of these only function on a case-by-case basis, given the target and the nature of the intimidation. Perhaps an foul-mouthed addict is frightening to some but a joke to others.

I would say that if your reputation is wide enough that regular corp employees are aware of what you do, then you're doing something very wrong.

If a corp is contacting runners directly, then I believe they are doing something very wrong. The usage of fixers is a protective measure for all sides concerned. Corps are mostly legal in their actions (except where Johnsons are concerned but even that is still quasi-legal as far as accounting practices go). Runners perform mostly illegal activity. Fixers, on the other hand, do tend to have a legal front. As far as the books are concerned, the corp is dealing with the fixer's legal entity to get the activities that they want performed by the runners. This allows the corp to deny using runners much more readily so it remains that corps know they use runners against each other without actually knowing it.

Using a fixer keeps the runners from being readily identified to the corp. Johnsons can only acquire information about the runners that the runners provide to the Johnson. The more any single Johnson acquires (and by extension the corp he works for) the more risk to the runners as the corp is more able to track them. That makes the corp far more dangerous to the runners than it should be. Likewise, by directly working with a corp without the fixer buffer, other corps may be more likely to find out that the runners are working for the corp and take actions against the runners if a corp finds itself often targeted by running actions.

Depends, you can run your world that way. But someones street level cred does not always come into play, like hooding for a commune in the barrens might give you some street cred, that doesn't mean you contact at ACME inc really cares or is that significant.

First thing for street cred, noteriety, or corp cred to take affect, would be how well known you are to the NPC in question. Not any easy answer if they do or don't. Sure your fixer may say your the A-team, but that does not mean the J believes him/her. You may very well be the A-team (or not)--the Johnson doesn't know. Being a runner and famous is generally considered bad (except LA)for business. Discretion is necesarry to some degree as it ananimity. The level depends really on the level of pink mohawk or mirrored shades and trenchcoats in the game. You need to be known to get jobs,
but you need anonimity to do them. It's the runners paradox. The fixer solves this to some degree, but the J and the runners will not always take the fixers word at face value.

Oh, believe me, I agree that Reputation is extremely abstracted. I feel that runners should have some "hidden" notoriety values that only get applied to them once it can be traced back. I just don't believe that a street cred value for corps is necessary because I generally adhere to the traditional Runner <-> Fixer <-> Corp relationship chain. I also think the competency of a runner can be recorded without using reputation by appropriately adjusting the loyalty value of the Fixer. As a runner successfully completes more and more runs, that should be rewarded by the Fixer setting it up gaining loyalty. Likewise, if the runner continually screws up a job, the Fixer's loyalty should drop. I think that Loyalty on a Fixer should be indicative of the quality, frequency, or even if the Fixer contacts the runner with a job or requires the runner to come to him.

Is that just for the Quality or for f***-ups in general?
Interesting, but I think Street Cred can encompass this and avoid an extra stat.

I don't like the corp cred notion, not that it isn't thought-provoking. Though 'street' is usually contextually the antithesis of 'corp' in this case I see it as less literal than that. What you have done exactly and how the target views said actions is really by-the-by - it's more the case of showing how notable you are and duly how much more heed they take of you.

I think your fixer loyalty suggestion is good and I'll definitely bear it in mind when adjusting contact loyalties in future, but I think replacing the standard loyalty system with this is a mistake for one must still be able to account for loyalty earned in other ways. A noob of a runner might save his fixer's life and find himself getting all the best jobs all of a sudden.

I see what you're saying and yeah, you might be on to something for some of those. I still can't accept the posers though. I don't even like them being as official as Quality status.

Case-by-case really would complicate things and there's already a lot to consider in interpersonal tests. Plus, SR never (as far as I can remember) runs like that. The Fear power, for instance, is equally powerful against all targets - some have higher resistance stats than others but nobody gets a bonus for being a fight-before-flight type of person.

I think you have a point on everything except Liar. I can't see someone being more intimidated by a guy they've heard should not be believed. It would end in silliness like -

"Let me pass or I'll rip your arms off!"
"Ha! Sure you will tough guy."
"Uh ... ok, let me pass or I'll leave quietly."
"Jesus Christ, ok, ok! No need to get nasty dude!"

For f***-ups in general, especially for things like unlucky, combat paralysis, infirm, incompetent, gremlins, pacifist, and other things that never help in intimidating.

Please look at the optional rule "Factions" on RC, p.133 ^^

I don't think it's a replacement of the loyalty system as much as a natural addon to it. If runners are constantly making a Fixer look bad to a Johnson, that's bad for his business and he shouldn't be as likely to give a mission to them since they're too wildcard. So a noob runner that saves a Fixer's life may not be getting a lot better quality missions (since he is still unproven in skills) the Fixer should be more likely to toss missions the noob's way, or maybe give him some missions with better than average returns in his "skill level".

Forgot about that..will take a look.

StealthSigma:I do like the idea of runners gaining loyalty from their fixer for completeing jobs well. That would definitely be a good way to run it.

Doesn't everyone run it this way?

Apparently not.

I have a slightly more complex system for rep in my game, but I think it's still simple: people have rep that is keyworded, some simple word or phrase that would be used to describe the character. Like, 'damn, that guy is a daredevil' (rep: daredevil +1). That rep is then used as a modifier on social tests... positively or negatively. When trying to convince someone that they're able to do something dangerous, it's a positive. When trying to convince an authority figure that they'll be careful, it's a negative. All reputations can be positive or negative in that way.

I went this way because the game is based around gangs, and this seemed extra-appropriate. To get along in gang culture, you need to be seen as dangerous... but that rep isn't good in other situations. If you try to help people and avoid conflict, that's a rep that might help you among non-gang members, but will be a negative on any intimidation rolls you make among other gang member who know your rep.

Anyway, works for my game! Does require a bit more bookkeeping, but my players love it (especially saying 'hey, I did this awesome thing, can I get rep out of it?') and keep track of it on their own mostly.

No, I didn't. But then again, my players never pleased the Johnson enough to make the fixer happy in the last campaign :/, so the thought never entered my mind. They seriously botched job number 2 and spent the remainder of the campaign slow boating it from Lagos to Seattle via the pacific. The next job they botched terribly and got 2 of the PC's killed (Gangers can be deadly on their home turf). The remaining 3 PC's went underground and we started a new campaign that is an alternativeish do it yourself survival campaign in the water world portion of LA centering around the Hahn market.