# Steal This Rule: Trust



## RangerWickett (May 2, 2013)

I dig this. I'm just about to start a sandbox NEXT campaign, so I think I'll grab this idea. Thanks.


----------



## Shayuri (May 2, 2013)

One thing I like about this from a player-side is that NPCs who recur, and have a relationship with the party gain the party's trust too, and become important hooks into the game setting.


----------



## delericho (May 2, 2013)

Good article. Very good article, in fact.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Give the party a new stat: Trust. Trust is a statistic shared by the entire party, not contingent on any one member of it, and something that each member has.




Semi-serious question: what happens if most members of the party are working to gain the Great Baron's trust, but the party Druid is to tact what bulls are to china shops? That is, what if one PC seems determined to work at odds to the rest of the party?



> Trust can function as a goal-tracking mechanic as well. Perhaps becoming rich requires an effective Trust of 10...




And another... If Trust is being used to track goals, why not track the goals instead? Have the party define their long-term goals (become rich, track down and kill the six-fingered man, etc) and track progress towards those directly. Amongst other things, this has the advantage of working whether the PCs are tied to a specific location or if they're more mobile (where the Trust mechanism relies on either them remaining in the same location or on the NPCs travelling alongside the PCs).


----------



## Shayuri (May 2, 2013)

Yes, I see trust as being something more attached to NPCs than the party. And I can see how there could be individual levels of trust, and another level of trust that encompasses the group as a whole (an average perhaps of the individual scores?).

That could give rise to some interesting situations, where the Duke pulls the paladin aside to offer him some special request or reward that the other, less trusted, members are not privy to. Conflicted loyalties?

Seeing as how it's a mechanic, it might be useful to discuss how Trust can be earned or lost by more than just succeeding or failing at tasks too. Do social skills like Diplomacy help? What effect does bad behavior have if it's not quest related?


----------



## Rune (May 2, 2013)

Looks great!  Although, I think I would give the Trust stat to each NPC.  That way, there could be different levels of trust for the party at the same time.

...And ninja'd!


----------



## Random Axe (May 2, 2013)

This sounds like it is meant to be an integral part of the campaign, the driving force behind the series of adventures the PCs are being sent on.  How might it be used (or is it _meant_ to be used) in a campaign that is already underway, for instance, or where you as GM might already have an idea of the progression of missions or adventures to involve the PCs in?


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 2, 2013)

delericho said:
			
		

> Semi-serious question: what happens if most members of the party are working to gain the Great Baron's trust, but the party Druid is to tact what bulls are to china shops? That is, what if one PC seems determined to work at odds to the rest of the party?




Because the Trust stat is associated with the party in general rather than any particular member of it, a sort of democracy takes place. The Baron trusts the party in general, because the party in general has done things for the baron that the baron values. The baron might personally think the druid is a jerk, but if the druid has been fighting orcs all along anyway, then the baron can at least trust the druid to be a competent adventurer with the tasks they are given as a member of the party. It's sort of how you might trust a certain company, even if one of their representatives is a jerk to you. They do good work, and they get the job done, but man that one guy is a hassle. 



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> If Trust is being used to track goals, why not track the goals instead?




You could, but that loses some of the strength of the mechanic to tie the PC's interaction into the game world itself, and the groups and people in it. A more mobile group might not really cement that trust, though. There may be a specific quest to get rich, but there's no link between that quest, that reward, and the greater world, necessarily. Goal tracking is kind of more a neat little trick you can do with it. But if the group is a bunch of antisocial vagabonds with only their own mercenary interests at heart, Trust might be best used just to track goals.  

I think organizations can help with some mobility. If there's an international Church of Bahamut, or a cross-planar group like a Planescape faction, or even just a group of knights and town guards under the King, then wherever you go, you can find representatives of that organization. 



			
				Shayuri said:
			
		

> Yes, I see trust as being something more attached to NPCs than the party. And I can see how there could be individual levels of trust, and another level of trust that encompasses the group as a whole (an average perhaps of the individual scores?).
> 
> That could give rise to some interesting situations, where the Duke pulls the paladin aside to offer him some special request or reward that the other, less trusted, members are not privy to. Conflicted loyalties?
> 
> Seeing as how it's a mechanic, it might be useful to discuss how Trust can be earned or lost by more than just succeeding or failing at tasks too. Do social skills like Diplomacy help? What effect does bad behavior have if it's not quest related?




I like the way you're thinkin'! 

Like I pointed out above, I think Trust works a little better as a group stat than as an individual stat. One of the other effects of this is that it gives the party a reason to stick together despite their conflicting loyalties: that druid might hate the baron, but if the rest of the party wants to help him out, the druid might go along for the ride because then the party might help the druid with his own issues (There's a Dire Bear who keeps getting his head stuck in a beehive). I imagine there'd be variations within a given trust rank as to how particularly _friendly_ the entity is, but in applying to the group, it keeps everyone on the same general plateau, with the same group goals. 

That's not to dissuade you from giving it a try like that, though! Could be interesting to see how some groups negotiate those conflicting loyalties. 



			
				Random Axe said:
			
		

> This sounds like it is meant to be an integral part of the campaign, the driving force behind the series of adventures the PCs are being sent on. How might it be used (or is it meant to be used) in a campaign that is already underway, for instance, or where you as GM might already have an idea of the progression of missions or adventures to involve the PCs in?




Quick process:

 Come up with an adventure idea. There's hooks and random generators aplenty for this, so just roll one up that seems pretty basic. "Go kill X" or "Collect for me 5 bear bottoms" or "Make a delivery for me" kind of quests make good first-rung Trust 0 quests. Tie it to some reward that corresponds to an average treasure roll, or some median number of GP. 
 Introduce the NPC with the adventure idea to the party via their normal haunts. Someone looking to hire some dangerous adventurers might hang around in a tavern or in a weapon shop or at an inn -- anywhere the violent and the menacing are likely to hang out. It's especially good if the NPC is out of place there: some minor noble's daughter slumming it in the dirtiest dive bar in the forge district is going to attract some attention. 
 Have the NPC explicitly approach the party and give them the assignment: "Please, I'll pay money, bring me 5 bear bottoms, I need this." At this point, it's not about the PC's specifically, but about the NPC who needs something done. If not the party, she'll find some other sucker...er...adventurers.
 Think about why the NPC might want to do this. Why would a noble's daughter desperately need 5 bear bottoms? Maybe she wants to revenge herself against the bears who killed her fiance. Maybe she wants to craft the softest bear-fur pillow to win her stepmother's favor. Whatever. The idea is to dig deep into what accomplishing this mission does _for the NPC_. Whatever accomplishing this mission does: treat it only as the first step. After getting 5 bear bottoms, perhaps the noble's daughter also wants the PC's to harvest some rare dire spider silk so that her pillows will be the best. Perhaps after wreaking ursine vengeance, she still wants the SPECIFIC bear who killed her lover slain -- and that bear is a horrible mutant dire bear who has menaced the land for a long time. The idea is to have the PC's help with the next stage of her mission, too. After the PC's complete the first mission, they get Trust Rank 1 with that NPC. 
 The NPC's ultimate goal should be broken down into a few steps (that's the 3-5 ranks of Trust), or given a few complications along the way. You can actually take a queue from story-writing here: each entity effectively has their own plot arc, and you can use the ranks of Trust as the acts along that arc. By Trust 5, your noble's daughter should be praised by her mother, or be personally feared by every bear within a 1,000 mile radius.


----------



## Obormot (May 2, 2013)

So... you've invented the World of Warcraft reputation system.

grats


----------



## Argyle King (May 2, 2013)

I think it's a cool idea.  It's a nice shorthand way of keeping track of social interactions.  GURPS (which is currently my primary game) already has a lot of things I can use similarly, but I might adopt this idea as a quick shorthand method of taking notes.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 3, 2013)

Obormot said:


> So... you've invented the World of Warcraft reputation system.
> 
> grats




I didn't want to come right out and say it, but WoW's rep system, and another game's reputation system (Xenoblade Chronicles) gave me the initial impetus for it. Any resemblance is purely inspirational.


----------



## Connorsrpg (May 3, 2013)

This does sound good. ANything to tie PCs into the world is a great idea. In fact puting positive numbers in front of players often works as motivation too.

I am running Rise of the Runelords at the moment, and that is exactly the sort of 'feel' I think the authors were aiming for reagrding the PC's relationship with Sandpoint.

I totally agree on keeping this as a group mechanic too. Otherwise it could get quite messy. Do you also track individual members of the NPCs too. The people that make up a town are quite varied in outlook too. Someone in town might still have a grudge vs the PCs (or individual PCs), but I don't see the point in tracking every interaction.

I will certainly be adopting this and tracking Trust with each group the PCs interact with.

Furthermore, I can actually see where you could use this in a more tangible manner, where the players directly see the benefits of developing trust. You could simply add the Trust Rank to positive relation rolls with members or the said organisation/community; Diplomacy/Persuasion or whatever your system uses. 

These are certainly the articles I like to read.


----------



## delericho (May 3, 2013)

Obormot said:


> So... you've invented the World of Warcraft reputation system.




A good idea taken from WoW is still a good idea.


----------



## Random Axe (May 3, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Quick process:
> [*] Come up with an adventure idea. There's hooks and random generators aplenty for this, so just roll one up that seems pretty basic. "Go kill X" or "Collect for me 5 bear bottoms" or "Make a delivery for me" kind of quests make good first-rung Trust 0 quests. Tie it to some reward that corresponds to an average treasure roll, or some median number of GP.
> [*] Introduce the NPC with the adventure idea to the party via their normal haunts....




Sorry, but I think you missed the point of my question.  Can this trust system be incorporated (that is to say, _become_ incorporated) into an already running campaign, where the PCs are already mid-level and have a number of other goals and objectives in their PC lives already in mind.  Or is this system primarily meant to be used in a newly-started campaign, where hunting bear-butts might be a legitimate first mission.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 3, 2013)

Random Axe said:


> Sorry, but I think you missed the point of my question.  Can this trust system be incorporated (that is to say, _become_ incorporated) into an already running campaign, where the PCs are already mid-level and have a number of other goals and objectives in their PC lives already in mind.  Or is this system primarily meant to be used in a newly-started campaign, where hunting bear-butts might be a legitimate first mission.




So, if they already have goals and objectives in mind that they've done some work on, figure out what stage they are in accomplishing that (have then not even started? have they done some things but not others?). Peg them at a Trust rank from 1-5 that approximates how many more major steps you'd like them to perform before they reach their goal. If they're almost there, put them at Rank 4; if they haven't started, put them at Rank 0, if they've done or or two things, put them at Rank 1. It'll be a judgement call, but use however many steps you want to put between them and this ultimate goal as your baseline for what rank to put them at with regards to the goals that they already have.

The things they've already done to get toward this goal feed into the next things they'll need to do. If they've already started it, go back to what they did to start it, and introduce some complexity that they need to resolve at this point. If they're nearly done, take whatever they just did, and introduce one final step to cement their progress. 

And if if they're not in deep already, don't be afraid to introduce some NPC that can give them their ultimate goal who needs them to start building trust again. Bears may not be a major challenge, but keep in mind that this is just working to gain trust: do something simple, and you've shown that you're willing to do it. The harder challenges lay farther up the trust scale. Let them go kill some bears off-screen with a skill challenge or something to get to the bigger challenges. The tasks don't all need to be major challenges: sometimes, we do simple things for people to prove that we can take on bigger tasks.


----------



## Herobizkit (May 4, 2013)

If you're a fan of mods, this trust level could also be a flat +(trust) mod to social skils for the party (leader?) when dealing with specific NPC's or affiliates.


----------



## Obormot (May 4, 2013)

delericho said:


> A good idea taken from WoW is still a good idea.




Oh, sure. No argument. (Although I do prefer that ideas be attributed.)

Ok, ok. Actual commentary/critique time:

I worry that a reputation system like this would give rise to exactly the same verisimilitude problems that it spawns in WoW. To take just one example... say you have multiple factions that are allied. A town and another town in the same country. A nation and an ally. The priesthood of Heironeous and the priesthood of St. Cuthbert.

You build your reputation with the first faction, then go and talk to the second faction. What's your reputation with those second guys? Does it start at the base level? But why? Wouldn't the first faction go "Hey, allies, see these dudes here? They are awesome dudes. Like, wow, so awesome. Treat them like the badass heroes they are immediately."? (In WoW this was the "why doesn't Anachronos walk over to Andormu and tell him how awesome I am?? He's, like, right there!" issue.)

And gods forbid you ever get yourself into a situation where the players know what the "rewards" (be they quests or rewards) for higher Trust levels are, and want those rewards. Hello rep grinding! (And That's Terrible™.)

In general, if you tie quest dispensation to such a reputation system, you make quests and story progression much less organic, and the "questgivers" themselves start to seem much less lifelike, and more like... WoW NPCs. In the bad way.

That said, I think this system CAN work, under two conditions:

1. It's a sandbox game. I think the described Trust system can work to make a sandbox campaign feel somewhat more dynamic, like the world changes with PC action.
2. The mechanics, and even the fact that the DM is using such a system, is kept from the players! You do NOT want your players _thinking in terms of Trust mechanics_!

Given these two things, it's got the potential to improve the feel of a sandbox game, while saving the DM a good bit of work.


----------



## The Mormegil (May 4, 2013)

It's... kinda plain. I understand the importance of rationalizing stuff you (as a DM) do instinctively to make sure you gain all the possible benefits from them, but this IS relatively minor as a system. It is basically DM fiat. Unless you start building the campaign world well in advance or write modules, at which point the Trust "gates" make more sense, but in my experience that kind of preparation always goes to waste since PCs mess everything up. What happens to the Trust-based plotline if the PCs explode the castle with the baron inside it? What if they manage to convince a red dragon to take down the orc fortress, without any way to prove they did? No Trust advancement, big mistake, sucks to be them?
If you put too much forethought and use it too deterministically, it's probably going to backfire. If you don't, it basically amounts to "go with what you feel is correct", only with a bit of rationalization. I don't think it's a bad system, it just... isn't much of a system. It has basically no rules impact and doesn't offer guidelines on how to handle things (unless you count the guidelines you self-impose as instructed by the Trust system).
Meh. Just my 2 coppers.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 4, 2013)

I'm pretty meh on it as it stands now. It has a very... "NPCs are here to game, not as real people" feel, I guess. To me, at least. I'm not against the idea (I have a mechanical enemy to ally mechanic in my RPG), but this isn't resonating with me as it stands. I'd be open to talking about it / building on it / tweaking it, but I'm not sure this is that kind of thread. As always, play what you like


----------



## epicbob (May 11, 2013)

Obormot said:


> [...]I worry that a reputation system like this would give rise to exactly the same verisimilitude problems that it spawns in WoW. To take just one example... say you have multiple factions that are allied. A town and another town in the same country. A nation and an ally. The priesthood of Heironeous and the priesthood of St. Cuthbert.
> aaa
> You build your reputation with the first faction, then go and talk to the second faction. What's your reputation with those second guys? Does it start at the base level? But why? Wouldn't the first faction go "Hey, allies, see these dudes here? They are awesome dudes. Like, wow, so awesome. Treat them like the badass heroes they are immediately."? (In WoW this was the "why doesn't Anachronos walk over to Andormu and tell him how awesome I am?? He's, like, right there!" issue.)



There is a mechanically simple way of implementing this. When you visit the faction's ally, you start at Trust Level * 50% with them. This is basically equivalent to the ally trusting you but still needing proof of your skills before they let you in on their more important matters.


----------



## haakon1 (May 11, 2013)

I'm thinking this is a way to crunchify fluff, and I'd rather continue to deal with my NPC's intuitively.

I do think it's a good idea to have contacts and patrons for the PCs, places and people they return to repeatedly.  And who reward them if they do great things, and put them in contact with allies or provide advice and aid.  But I already do all that without this system.

So why make social interaction a mechanic, rather than the DM just role-playing the NPC's in reaction to the PC's?


----------



## Kingreaper (May 11, 2013)

I think it works for groups, but for individuals I'd rather stick to roleplay.

For groups, a numeric track can be handy; rather than having to mentally add up how all the factors effect each individual guard's chance of having heard of the party.


----------

