The Forge Archives

First, this is a little fragmented so please bear with me.  This is not intended to be a discussion of what balance means, please hash that out elsewhere. The discussion can go off and discuss how different sorts of balance are impacted by equipment, but primarily it intends to dwell on the general relationship.

I bring it up because there is a dilemma that's had my attention for, oh, about fifteen years now. And it occurs because of Champions. Essentially, in Champions they introduced the idea that the equipment that a character carried was a part of the characters effectiveness, and therefor affected balance. Then they went right on to say that this only makes sense in superheroic genres and that for a heroic game you should have a system that allows for the player to accumulate equipment ad nauseum.

This seems odd at first, and after a while it starts to sink in why. What is happening is first that there is a distinction that is being drawn between the character's internal abilities and things that are somehow external. This happens on both the in-game and meta-game level. That is, there are rules in Champions (focus, for instance) that deal with the idea of externality. The logic goes that the more likely that a character is to lose an ability the less valuable it is balance-wise. This is very in-game. But there is also a concurrent discussion about whether or not the ability can be lost at all (despite appearances). Which is very metagame.

Let me give an example. A sword in Champions is usually bought with the focus limitation indicating that it is something that can be taken away from the character (he could be disarmed, for instance). But note that just because the sword can be removed temporarily, does not mean that the character loses it permanently. Oh, no, for that you need the limitation Independent, which reduces cost by far more. No, focus means that the item can be lost, but it can almost always be regained. In fact, a player is allowed to take another limitation, Only in Hero ID, to simulate a power that comes from an item that can never really be removed.

IOW, the player decides as he creates an ability just how "internal" a power is, game-wise. Very meta-game.

In the "Heroic" version, players are allowed to accumulate as much equipment as they come across. This is still worth points, theoretically, however, so it becomes the GM responsibility as in other games to ensure that the players don't come across equipment that is too powerful.

At this point let me stop and say that this discussion really goes beyond equipment. It addresses everything in the game simply asking if the thing is somehow part of the character's effectiveness, or will continue to be.

Now, in Champions you can lose any power. Despite the rules that say that you can't lose a power, you can. In fact there are a slew of powers that exist soley to reduce other characters powers. Usually these are temporary, but bought correctly they can be permenant. In any case, they are obviously at least temporarily capable of removing powers. So what are the focus rules about? Well, the focus rules just say that there are easier ways to remove powers. Take flight for example. If I have a set of mechanical wings, then taking that away will prevent me from flying. Similarly, if I have natural wings, then cutting them off will prevent me from flying. The difference? One is simply more difficult than the other.

What does this all mean? Well, all powers are temporary. In D&D you can lose levels. In other games you lose combat effectiveness as opponents attack you. And in the vast majority of games when your character dies he loses just about every ability. This means that the temporary nature of abilities is an important facet of RPGs (which we already knew).

So what does that imply for design? Well, it seems to me that if you can have rules for the temporary nature of certain abilities, then why not apply them universally? If a thing makes your character more powerful, shouldn't you only get it as a reward? Most games handle this by having the GM act as a reward giver, handing out equipment as he sees fit.

But rarely is this equitable, and fraught with all sorts of potential problems. For example, if I place a ring of mad spellflinging out there for he characters to find, the mage is gonna get more powerful. So I have to give the fighter something. Well, that's just going to get silly after a while. I should feel free to include whatever elements I want at wahtever rate I want. If I want a baddy to have a nasty magic thingie, I have to consider that potentially it'll fall into the hands of the characters if they defeat said baddy. What if I don't want that? Well, there are all sorts of ways that games have to enable it, like saying that it only works for the baddy. But there's a simpler way.

Simply consider equipment to be just like any other character ability. Make players pay for it with the rewards that they would otherwise spend on powering up in another manner. This is not to say that a character in such a game cannot piuck up a sword where he finds it. Just that if it makes him more powerful, he cannot keep it for long. Not without paying for it.

This strikes people as odd all the time. I know, it struck me as odd, and I was only able to buy it inthe form of the superhero genre limitation. But think about it. What makes these things any different in game terms from anything else? From a metagame standpoint they are identical. Yes, there must be an in game explanation for the convention, just as there are explanations for every other convention. Not at all unique there. I can't keep the sword? Then I lose it, or I give it away, or it breaks, or whatever. The neat thing is that the player can have a hand in deciding why the character doesn't keep it instead of he old GM trick of stealing it. Which seems high handed. If the balance mechanic is in the rules nobody objects.

This works just fine in Hero Wars, for example, the primary example of a game that does this today. And it still works in Champions. Why did they have the Heroic version? Because they were harkening back to D&D in Fantasy Hero. It just seemed that it would be too expensive to force players to take into account the cost of every scroll (despite always calculating the cost, interestingly). So they backtraked, a mistake, IMO. In every genre objects are either important to the plot or they are not, and so such mechancs make sense.

And incase you're wondering if all the accounting is worthwhile, having to have rules that figure out how much an object is worth to a character, consider that there are other advantages. It makes converting things easier, for example. How much is a 3 point sword worth? About 3 points of coins give or take. Thanks for showing us that, Clinton.

I can see very few places where it cannot work in a system. IOW, I can only recommend this sort of mechanic and viewpoint.

Mike

I'd also look at The Dying Earth. You assign Equipment points to stuff you want to keep, otherwise it's GOING to go away, guaranteed. Good stuff.

This isn't really criticism, I'm just confused as to what your saying.
Not sure how this helps things. Instead of having to make up reasons the charachters can't get a piece of equipment, they have to make up reasons about why they can't use the Sword of MegaSlaying untill they go on a few more adventures and they already know how to use a sword.  

Having the charachters decide is a good idea though.

I have little to add other than "well said," and to note that I think this way of tracking equipment is the natural and obvious outgrowth of having a good currency.

--JB

Actually this "buy a thing" system works in just about any genre you can think of.

Take the action flick of your choice...where do all those guns go anyway...why does Arnold carry 57 different varieties of hand cannon in Commando and one by one they all disappear.  Why in The Mummy does Brandon Frasier not get pissed off when the comedic sidekick throws his empty revolver at the bad guys.   In game terms...they didn't pay for it with resource points, so it ain't part of their character.

Conversely Indiana Jones is so tied to his hat that in The Last Crusade (poking a little fun at itself) the hat mysteriously blows back into Indy's hands after he'd lost it in a manner that even he can't believe...why...because he paid lots of resource points for it.

How many treasures did Conan find only to have even mention of them entirely absent in the next book.

Why is it that some cowboys go through horses like kleenex but Gene Autry always has Champ?

Why is it that James Bond always has new gadgets...why when a gadget works don't they ever reissue it?

Why on Star Trek doesn't the super incredible means of getting the deflector dish to make pizza ever get used again?  Why do all of Giordi's great jury rigs never get incorporated into the design for good?

Where does all that great stuff Wyle E. orders from ACME go...?

Take your pick.  Its almost impossible to think of a movie or novel or TV show where characters accumulate stuff on the "Dungeon Haul and Equipment List model."

If its important to the story at that point and time, but isn't important to the character, then the item is almost certainly going to disappear without explaination or warning.  Only if its important to the character do we see it again and for those items, paying for it with character resources makes perfect sense.

I fully agree with Mike.  This is the best way to handle this in just about any type of game.

Even in "realistic" games.  Unless you are going truely over the top and rolling every morning to see if the character forgot his watch at home, the "list everything" on your character sheet just doesn't really make sense.

This is a great topic.  It really gets at the heart of a lot of meta-design issues of gaming (my compliments to the author).

I can see two issues arising from the discussion.  Neither is specifically stated, but I feel both of them overshadow the whole thing.  They are ability and equality.

I have given ability a lot of thought.  I too recognized the implications in the old Champions rules.  (That was before they coined the limitation "Independent.")  Just by picking up a sword (or a gun or a power ring), a player's character's 'point level' jumped up.  But, as Mike says, it goes much farther than that.  When I first got my hands on Fantasy Hero, I was confronted 'in the face' by this effect.  I had really anticipated getting the 'fantasy supplement' for my favorite game for some time (I'd even flirted with designing it myself as a homebrew).  What I got really upset me; in fact I swore off Champions play to this day, I was so disappointed.

The funny thing is, after years of feeling sore about it, I realized they had little choice for exactly the reasons Mike describes.  Even though I haven't played Champions in all that time, I still think about it.  Long before I conceived of the split between in-game effectiveness (the points spent having an ability) and meta-game 'connectedness' (having to spend those points to gain the ability), it occurred to me that everything was like that.  It was truly one of my first 'game theory' thoughts.

To make a long story short, I settled on this model (about character abilities):

Attributes (abilities possessed by all, mediated by effectiveness ratings) => Skills (voluntary abilities, 'defaults' are a restriction on effectiveness for usability) => Powers (includes really anything, superpowers, spells, psychic abilities; almost never allow 'defaults') => Tools (sometimes related to 'activating' skills, but many 'tools' can be used without) => Influences (what about getting other people to do it?)[/list:u]  Years later I see Ron referring to the inherent problem with the 'figured characteristics' in

Champions as "currency" issues and I laughed out loud.  Hard 'currency' is what allows you to purchase 'tools' and sometimes even 'influence.'

The application of this model came as I began simplifying Scattershot.  Since everything uses exactly the same die mechanic, I had to differentiate all the various abilities.  What makes a skill different from a power?  Or from an influence?  If you have the skill of Automobile Repair, you can fix a car right?  What if you used something like Technomorphic Recreation (or whatever you want to call it)?  What if you just paid someone else to do it?  Things like time, parts, availability and the like come up, but ultimately in the game, the car gets fixed, right?  (That's where the Universal Equivalency chart came from; it interprets the ability and the materials to fit all these into one die mechanic.)

But abstractly, what are we talking about here?  The ability of an in-game entity to affect its environment.  Be it attribute, skill, or otherwise, these are the things that make stuff happen.  Whether limited by character points, wealth, or accessibility, these stand between in-game entities and their goals.  And in choosing to partake of the game you are accepting these limitations.  (And before you get too far, this all works just as much on the meta-game level as well; those are abilities for direct player-action upon the game.)  So I think this is a highly interesting concept.

However, most of what Mike talks about all exists under one important unspoken caveat, equality.  Champions is notorious for going to incredible lengths to try an force some kind of efficacy equality on the players.  Any time there's a 'currency' resource 'managed' during character creation, it is strictly for some kind of equalization.

Why?  If you play in just one session and one player earns more experience than another, the equality it instantly lost.  If another character 'picks up' a tool not 'paid for,' however they are limited in terms of meta-game, the equality goes right out the window.  Further more, even when the points are exactly the same, the situations presented change the literal efficacy of the characters.  I'm sure anyone reading this can imagine situations where one character's skills and abilities are useless and another's shine; where's the equality there?  Certainly all games employing the 'resource-limited' equality principle talk about how to 'keep things even.'  It's mostly wasted text because it doesn't give much practical advice.  (Well, I may be off there, I haven't been able to afford any systems in the last ten years, but I hear the 'how to play' stuff is rare if usable.)  That's because they don't give the reason for this equality.  (And I have to as what is that reason?)

None of this ever addresses a central question I frequently ask.  Why go to so much trouble for something that can only be briefly equal and then add instructions on how to invalidate all those mechanics anyway?  Is 'balance' or equality really the best use of limiting systems like points?  Scattershot is designed to superficially look just like all those 'balanced systems,' yet is a formal attempt to explore other uses for such limiters.  So let me add to Mike's question, given the use of 'limiters,' is equality the best use for them?

Fang Langford

Quote from: damionNot sure how this helps things. Instead of having to make up reasons the charachters can't get a piece of equipment, they have to make up reasons about why they can't use the Sword of MegaSlaying untill they go on a few more adventures and they already know how to use a sword.

Yes. "How this helps" is that the player is no more powerful now than when he started the last adventure. At least no more powerful than he earned with points. And more information is created.

Yes this requires author stance. The character may want the item, but you as the player must put the character's motivations aside for a while and figure out why he isn't using it. Then, if you wish and it makes sense, you can retroactively assign a reason why the character did it. If it's stolen, or just dissappears between episodes, that's fine, and doesn't need a reason for the character. But creating a reason can be the source of inspiration.

For example, Bob has too few points to assign the Sword of MegaSlaying to his character Krognar. So he leaves it behind with the Priests of Gotor for safe keeping. Why? Bob says dramatically, "The Sword is too powerful for any one man to own, it must remain in the hands of the priests for when it's needed." Which will be two or three more sessions down the road (at when he'll have the points to pay for it), when it will totally make sense for Krognar to return to the temple of Gotor to retrieve the Sword of MegaSlaying to use against the dread demon Slastifuys who threatens to destroy the Tree of Light.

Afterwards, Krognar can go on a quest to destroy the Sword (realizing, after it caused him to take out three of his own friends, that it must be destroyed). When he finally manages to be rid of it, pitching it into the bottomless pit of Olenoch, he'll get the points back, and can spend them on something else, like a higher wisdom score for having realized the truth about such terrible weapons. Later, when he's in a dark period, and has the points to spend, perhaps he'll journey to the bottom of the pit to retieve the Sword yet again.

Isn't that a lot better than Krognar just keeping it and killing a bunch of stuff? All that story from just one object. All enabled by the currency system. In other words the effects of the system are causing events to occur, which is cool. Oh, and it remains balanced throughout.

Does that help, or did I misread you?

Mike

Quote from: Le JoueurNone of this ever addresses a central question I frequently ask.  Why go to so much trouble for something that can only be briefly equal and then add instructions on how to invalidate all those mechanics anyway?  Is 'balance' or equality really the best use of limiting systems like points?  Scattershot is designed to superficially look just like all those 'balanced systems,' yet is a formal attempt to explore other uses for such limiters.  So let me add to Mike's question, given the use of 'limiters,' is equality the best use for them?

Well, that's outside the topic of this discussion. I said at the start that this is not about balance or types of balance. It only addresses how to balance a currency system with regards to equipment. The reward systems and other mechanics are not discussed here.

I will say that the assumption about equality is not relevant. You can have point based systems and not start equally, and everyone understands that better play gets higher rewards if that's in the system. All anyone is looking for is a level playing field, which you point out is provided by Scattershot, and I would contend by currency systems as well. You'd not allow one player to roll more dice than another just because he is that player. Neither would I want a player to gain more advantqage in-game than another player simply by GM fiat or worse, mistake. I've merely shown how that can be handled for all cases.

Mike

Hey Mike,

Quote from: Mike Holmes

Quote from: Le JoueurNone of this ever addresses a central question I frequently ask.  Why go to so much trouble for something that can only be briefly equal and then add instructions on how to invalidate all those mechanics anyway?  Is 'balance' or equality really the best use of limiting systems like points?  Scattershot is designed to superficially look just like all those 'balanced systems,' yet is a formal attempt to explore other uses for such limiters.  So let me add to Mike's question, given the use of 'limiters,' is equality the best use for them?

Well, that's outside the topic of this discussion. I said at the start that this is not about balance or types of balance. It only addresses how to balance a currency system with regards to equipment. The reward systems and other mechanics are not discussed here.

I will say that the assumption about equality is not relevant. You can have point based systems and not start equally, and everyone understands that better play gets higher rewards if that's in the system. All anyone is looking for is a level playing field, which you point out is provided by Scattershot, and I would contend by currency systems as well. You'd not allow one player to roll more dice than another just because he is that player. Neither would I want a player to gain more advantqage in-game than another player simply by GM fiat or worse, mistake. I've merely shown how that can be handled for all cases.

I agree that the equality issue alone is quite outside the subject (and I'll try to spark a new thread if I get the time), but I don't see how you can talk about "how to balance a currency system," if you don't talk about why it needs balance.

Let me be clear, I'm not bringing up 'what is balance' or 'types of balance,' but 'why balance?'  I certainly agree that it is a very intriguing idea that you can create a larger meta-system that uses currency to direct the increase and decrease of character efficacy, but how would it be different if all values equaled 1?

You're right on target that 'starting equity' is outside this subject, but I think equality of another kind is important to discuss.  Why is the magic sword three points and the serf only one?  You could easily have all abilities, efficacies, ties, and responsibilities have equal currency value; so why make them different?  (I'm not saying different is bad, that would be speaking out of the other side my face, just 'what is the motivating factor - the design justification?'  'How can you make it support your design goals?')  The original reason historically was 'starting equity;' if we throw that out, what do we use?

And on the topic of the "level playing field," you tread dangerous ground simply equating "balance" with "objectivity" or "fairness."  I for one, didn't read it that way.   And yet fairness is what we're talking about here, isn't it?

And that answers my final question:

"Given the use of limiters," fairness is the best use for them.  I concur.  Can you eloborate?

Fang Langford

p. s. Just to clarify, Scattershot does the opposite of requiring 'starting equity' between the players' personae, it requires that no specific limitation is made other than informal player agreement.  However, I go to great lengths to make Scattershot's Mechanix as objective as possible.  So it's both not 'balanced' and 'balanced.'

That sorta helped Mike.

Well, you can pretty much always come up with rationalizations of
why a characther does a certian thing with Pawn stance.
The thing is you have either all resources in the game be in this
universal currency, or you will have inconsistencies.
Suppose a group does a favor for the Duke and now has his good will, does the entire group now have to spend points on a minor patron/contact?  
Theoretically, PC's go down in points every time they stay at an inn, because they have to pay for it!
Also, you could have PC's rejecting resources becuase they want to spend the 'points' elsewhere.
I think the primary danger is that you could end of using alot of 'story time' explaining and justifying this resource balancing act.
Kronogar may not WANT to spend the time to go back to the temple to get the sword, also Kronogar may end up with items in temples all over the kingdom!

I guess to sum it all up, I think this adds book keeping, due to the caching of resources till they can be bought.  Also, your just changing the GM problem of saying why a particular resource is not immediatly available to a player problem of saying the same thing.
Why not have players just come up with reasons why they can't use the sword?

On the plus side this does allow nice exchanges. After an adventure one person can say 'I'm gonna spend some gold and get a bunch of new equipment'  and another can just level up.


I think Fang is right, balance is just an inherently difficult proposition.

I think what really is important here is the focus of the character, and how the character concept might be reinforced or destroyed by the gain or loss of equipment.  

For example, Iron Man is always about him and his suit.  He wouldn't be Iron Man without his suit.  It would destroy his concept to be without it for longer than a few comic issues.  It would also destroy Conan's concept if he gained possession of Stormbringer, and came to rely on it.

In both cases, the equipment is an important part of the concept.  In game, one can quickly gain or lose equipment, causing a major threat to your character concept.  In one game using Story Engine, our priest of Law began using a magical gun, and ended up becoming more proficient with it, than his own magic.  In other words, the artifact replaced his core concept.

And this isn't even going into deprotagonization(which is really violating character concept)...

Chris

Creations of the imagination are free and can be created in infinite quantity. Therefore, there's no need for an accounting system for them. For a generic game system, why should the characters need to account for an meta-game resource? Why not just simply let in-game reasons directly influence character resources? For example, the usual tradeoffs of:

• spending time practising and studying under a hired teacher to improve a skill or attribute;
  
• Needing magical/miraculous/technological materials and wizard/priest/tech to create items; and
  
• the player's character concept forbidding character change in certain directions.
  [/list:u]
  
  By treating and expecting players to be responsible, you will get responsible behaviour from players, without needing the club of a "points system" or "meta-game accounting system". I know this to be true, because I get this behaviour from players, when I throw away meta-game accounting systems away. It's also confirmed to me by many human relations books, and by statements from philosphers, like Benjamin Franklin and Lao Tsu.

In this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2593) Mike and I were talking about this very same issue of the need to buy in-game-resources with meta-game resources; Mike claimed that this would work in almost every system, and I disagreed. Since it was off-topic in the other thread, let me continue the debate here.

What is the use of letting players pay for in-game-resources with meta-game resources? As far as I can see, the only use is that meta-game resources are easier to limit to a certain amount, and eaiser to distribute amongst players in the way you want, than in-game resources. So the system being discussed here is only useful if the designer of a game wants to limit available resources. If he doens't want to this, the 'buy your equipment with Currency'-rule is useless.

Nog in some games, especially Gamist-games, the designer might indeed want to limit the power of characters in some way. In games where there is an award like 'experience', this too might be the case. But in a game without Gamist-goals and without 'experience', why would the deisgner wish to limit the progression of character-effectivity?

Victor clears it up more than I did: why "buy in-game-resources with meta-game resources"? It's better, I feel, for characters to buy/obtain in-game-resources through in-game methods/assets and so on.

Players (who are inherently meta-game) should have meta-game resources, like tokens to influence desired meta-game outcomes, dice for random rolls, and card hands for building up meta-game resources. Of course this doesn't eliminate other methods.

All in my opinion, of course.

Quote from: Victor Gijsbers
What is the use of letting players pay for in-game-resources with meta-game resources?

IMO, it is that metagame resources are, well, meta and can be interpolated into a wide variety of in game effects.  This means that you don't need to worry about causality in the same way as you might if trying to extrapolate certain effects based exclusively on in-game action.

Reverting to XP it may be deliberate to detach in-game behaviour from XP.  A game might consciously indicate that in-game action is a relatively small part of the characters life and hence it may be overzealous to base (for arguments sake) 10 years worth of learning based on the actions carried out in a single adventure covering those 10 years.

There's a HUGE reason for using metagame resources in this way, and it goes well beyond notions of balance or equity.

Do not think of the metagame resource as a limiting factor.  It certainly isn't required to be a club used by the GM to bring wayward players into line.  Instead, think of it as extraordinary player power.

In a recent thread on Riddle of Steel we discussed how the Spiritual Attributes in that game were basically a record on the character sheet of what sort of challenges the player expected that character to face.  Since RoS only really shines when the GM focuses on those SAs, the players have a remarkable ability to influence the type of story they're going to be involved with by selection of their SAs.

Equipment and the like purchased with a metagame resource can be seen in exactly this light.  It is the player, telling the GM in clear terms exactly what is important to his character and what isn't.  That the resource is limited makes the player actually prioritize and focus on those decisions rather than the default of just sticking yet another magical artifact into his back pack.

Now the obvious first question is "why do you need rules to accomplish that", but that line of questioning I fear would degenerate into one of those "rules light vs anti rules light" discussions.  Suffice it to say that if you buy into the "System does matter" line of reasoning that buying equipment with a metagame resource is a game mechanic that provides support for a wide array of things.  Balance and equity (if the players want to use them like that) but more importantly: niche protection, and player influence.

Valamir, forgive me, but I don't understand why buying an object with a meta-game resource would allow a player to influence the game more than he could without it. If I 'buy' a certain object - well, sure, it's obvious I want it to become 'a part of my character'. But it doesn't become a part of my character just by buying it - I must use it regularly, care for it, love it, become emotionally attached to it, talk about it - whatever. Only through in-game acts does an object really become attached to my character. And I could do those in-game acts equally well without 'buying' the object with meta-game-resources, couldn't I?

I think the system propsed by Mike et al. has the inherent danger that a character buys an object, then feels he doesn't have to get attached to the object through roleplayign any more. Thus, a meta-game action replaces an in-game action, which can't be good for the continuity and impact of the unfolding story.

Why does shelling out money for a diamond ring mean you love your significant other?

It doesn't, its just a gesture.  

In this case its a gesture that says the player would rather have Artos's Cloak of Screening than an increase in Strength.  Its a gesture that signals the GM..."Hey GM, notice that I'm passing up an opportunity to get another level in Ass Kicking in order to keep this item".

But don't evaluate the system in a vacuum.  Evaluate it with regards to the alternative.  Writing lists of equipment found and bought on a charactersheet, where your character's ownership comes just from finding the item or purchasing it with in game currency.

Now realize that if this never has been an issue in your game...its because you are already using a metagame mechanic to control it.  Its just not an explicit one.

Quote from: Victor GijsbersValamir, forgive me, but I don't understand why buying an object with a meta-game resource would allow a player to influence the game more than he could without it.

I think you've missed the point, Victor. When the Fighter acquires a Sword of Mega Slaying (or whatever) he becomes more powerful. If the other characters don't get their equivalent cool stuff (Dagger of Backbiting, wands of Take That, You Fiend!) then the Fighter has more effectiveness than they do.

Using meta-game resources instead of in-game resources distributes power more effectively. If your "Get Cool Item" points go down every time you decide to keep a cool item, then you have balance: you have the cool item, but the other characters have more GCI points than you do now. If point costs for items are balanced, then the game is balanced: your character is just as effective as the other characters *but in a different way.* He can kick megabutt now, but the other characters have room for cool stuff that your character doesn't.

However, Mike, that brings us to the part that *I* see as a problem with the idea: assigning point costs to items. I'm down on exhaustive lists... no exhaustive list is going to cover all the situations that arise in the game. So, even if we have a list, what we need is some way for someone (a player or GM) to set point costs for items during the game. Remember, the mechanic is only balanced as long as the costs are balanced. To my eye it looks like you've just moved the problem. Okay, we've got theoretically balanced mechanics now, but we still have the same problem of needing to balance equipment... we just have to do it through point costs now.

Whew, shoulda got back here earlier.

First, Ralph and I obviously agree on the subject of rules/no-rules. Rules obviously restrict, and that is a theoretical downside. But I've found that such restrictions, if put into place effectively, enhance the activity. Certainly, as Victor admits, limitations make sense in a Gamist environment. Do they make sense in other environments? I think they do and for very similar reasons to why they are important in Gamism. The rules give framework, coherency and context to activities be they competitive or no.

It'll have to suffice to say that it's a tradeoff here, and we are assuming that people want such limitations. If not, then, of course, do not use these mechanics. If someone wants to continue that debate, please start up a new thread. I'll be glad to debate whether Franklin was an anarchist or a libertarian.

As to the reason why one might need balance at all, well, I tried to state that previously, but essentially it comes down to what Fang always claims is important. A level playing field, or rather a sense that the player has that his emotional needs are being given the same consideration as everyone else playing. This can be provided by many methods, but currency balance is an especially effective one, I've found. Not to say you can't do it other ways, just that Currency balance is easy, unbiased, and straightforward. Moreso in my opinion than other methods.

The question of the ease of which leads us to Victor's main criticism. Is it too much bookkeeping, or, as Nathan asks, too hard to rate everything? Well, Nathan, is it hard to rate things in Synthesis? Which uses this exact method? Or in Hero Wars? I'd say not really. In fact, given that the system balances itself, you can rate things any way you want and not worry about accuracy as much. If I have a gun rated 3 and you have the same gun rated 4, is that such a big deal? You paid more for yours, so it balances. Consistency is left to the devices of the players participating in the game. Who I find do their best to accomplish this as it increases enjoyment. Such a discrepancy as above can be explained away by quality or anything else.

Does one have to lose character points when they go to an inn? First, there is the question of the importance of the payment. Is this something that you would calculate out in most games? I usually gloss such stuff over. Who cares how much it costs? If you do want to make an issue of it, however, it becomes a contest between the characters wealth and the cost of the night's stay (see Dunjon Krawl for an example of how this can work). And yes, if the player loses the roll, he'll lose a bit of his wealth. That's OK; it was probably temporary anyhow, making the trip to the inn a good way of explaining its disappearance. In fact, the description of how you blew the whole hoard (that you didn't want to pay for) in one-week stay should be a blast.

The complexity of the calculations is totally dependent on the nature of the currency system, and as such does not impact this discussion. I will say that I'd keep it no more complicated than Champions does because that level works (from lots of actual play experience). Many players prefer simpler, however, like Story engine. Season to taste.

As for the potential "Cache phenomenon" this is a straw man. The player does not have to cache an item unless he thinks it particularly cool. He may just as often chuck it entirely. Why? Because he can spend his points on anything. Just because the GM puts an interesting sword in front of the character does not mean that the player will automatically start hoarding points for it worried that he'll never get another cool sword. He can just loose the Sword of Mega Slaying, and then later when he has enough points tell the GM he wants to buy the Sword of SuperKilling instead, and they can arrange for him to find it in a cave nearby, or buy it from a strange old man, or have it fall from the sky on him. Whatever. He has the points, he pays for the item, he gets it. (I would absolutely require cool in-game reasoning, but that's just me). In any case, he's not worried that he'll never get a cool sword again, so he'll only hoard the particular sword if it is one he really likes. In which case the story revolves around that some more, which, as Ralph points out, is cool for the player.

As Ralph also points out, it takes no more bookkeeping to write out what your character is carrying using such a mechanic than in any other game. In fact, given that you will be leaving items occasionally, you can clear things off your sheets regularly, instead of hoarding them until doomsday. Or you can sell them to increase your wealth stat if you want to buy more of that stat for use in converting to other things later.

That convertibility is really useful. And it does become a subject of play. The extent to which it will come to enhance actual role-play or detract from it will depend on how the system addresses these things. Again this is a matter of taste (believe it or not), some people hate to actually role-play, and prefer entirely mechanical play. OTOH, you can easily encourage role-playing by having mechanics like Sorcerer's RP bonus dice, for instance. In other words, this is an opportunity to inject such rules into situations where they were not before, and encourage whatever sort of behavior you'd like.

I personally prefer the to add role-playing incentives, but that's just my preference. But again, this all depends on how you construct the rest of the system and is not a problem with charging for equipment specifically.

As for the "meta-game buying in-game stuff" being a problem, I actually agree to an extent. Or rather this is another preference of mine, though I can see it going the other way for some as well. But I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I prefer such a system to require in-game reasons for the use of such mechanics.

This relates to the rewards, and how they are given out. If the rewards are for things like good role-playing, etc, then that's causes the sort of problems that you describe. If, however, the character is being rewarded for, say, trading well, by rolling well or whatever, then the reward is very much in-game. I totally suggest that all such modifications be done for in-game reasons. Again, this objection applies to all reward systems and says nothing about the link of equipment to the game mechanics and balance. Most reward systems have this Meta-game to in-game conversion problem. Any that offer rewards for role-playing well, for example. Again, season to taste.

I still see no down sides. Personally.

Mike

Quote from: ValamirThere's a HUGE reason for using metagame resources in this way, and it goes well beyond notions of balance or equity.

Do not think of the metagame resource as a limiting factor.  It certainly isn't required to be a club used by the GM to bring wayward players into line.  Instead, think of it as extraordinary player power.

In a recent thread on Riddle of Steel we discussed how the Spiritual Attributes in that game were basically a record on the character sheet of what sort of challenges the player expected that character to face.  Since RoS only really shines when the GM focuses on those SAs, the players have a remarkable ability to influence the type of story they're going to be involved with by selection of their SAs.

Equipment and the like purchased with a metagame resource can be seen in exactly this light.  It is the player, telling the GM in clear terms exactly what is important to his character and what isn't.  That the resource is limited makes the player actually prioritize and focus on those decisions rather than the default of just sticking yet another magical artifact into his backpack.

Now the obvious first question is "why do you need rules to accomplish that", but that line of questioning I fear would degenerate into one of those "rules light vs anti rules light" discussions.  Suffice it to say that if you buy into the "System does matter" line of reasoning that buying equipment with a metagame resource is a game mechanic that provides support for a wide array of things.  Balance and equity (if the players want to use them like that) but more importantly: niche protection, and player influence.

Good points Valamir,

I think the problem is a lot of people reading this are stuck in the 'I only have so many points - it's a limiting factor' mentality.  I have struggled with trying to explain what you're getting at.  I keep saying 'toss out the maximum-totals concept' and people say "Huh?  Then what's it for?"  Make the actual act of spending the resource 'what counts;' if they spend on it, they want it 'in the game.'  It doesn't matter how much something costs; heck you could have the player define the 'value' indicating how much impact they want it to have.  ("Sixteen points for a glass of milk!?!"  "Yeah, I want it to be the most important glass of milk in history.")

Scattershot uses a character's Sine Qua Non exactly as you describe Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel.  If you put it in the Sine Qua Non, you want it used in the game; that's player ownership straight and clear.

I personally feel that the idea of meta-game currency used in this fashion gets so 'mentally connected' to balance and equity issues that I deliberately outlawed equity in Scattershot's point-based system.  (And people still don't get it.)  I haven't any good ways of describing meta-game currency as a function of player ownership (and niche protection, which is a sphere-of-influence ownership-protection mechanism), but boy, do I wish I could come up with some.

Quote from: Paganini

Quote from: Victor GijsbersValamir, forgive me, but I don't understand why buying an object with a meta-game resource would allow a player to influence the game more than he could without it.

I think you've missed the point, Victor. When the Fighter acquires a Sword of Mega Slaying (or whatever) he becomes more powerful. If the other characters don't get their equivalent cool stuff (Dagger of Backbiting, wands of Take That, You Fiend!) then the Fighter has more effectiveness than they do.

Using meta-game resources instead of in-game resources distributes power more effectively. If your "Get Cool Item" points go down every time you decide to keep a cool item, then you have balance:

First of all, this isn't meant to be a discussion of balance, Mike makes that clear.  Secondly, you're still 'caught up' in the player-versus-player idea of currency.  What Valamir and I are talking about is a explicit mechanism for player ownership of the game.  Like a speaking-pole in storytelling; only the possessor may direct the story.

This is not about 'power distribution' but player empowerment.  Traditional games did little to put the narrative into the players hands specifically.  When the gamemaster focuses his part of the narrative on player Spiritual Attributes (in The Riddle of Steel), Dependant NPCs or Hunteds (in Champions' older editions), or Sine Qua Non issues (in Scattershot), he is supporting and empowering player ownership of the game.  You make it into character efficacy in the game and we're saying it can be player ownership of the game.

Quote from: PaganiniHowever, Mike, that brings us to the part that *I* see as a problem with the idea: assigning point costs to items. I'm down on exhaustive lists... no exhaustive list is going to cover all the situations that arise in the game. So, even if we have a list, what we need is some way for someone (a player or GM) to set point costs for items during the game. Remember, the mechanic is only balanced as long as the costs are balanced. To my eye it looks like you've just moved the problem. Okay, we've got theoretically balanced mechanics now, but we still have the same problem of needing to balance equipment... we just have to do it through point costs now.

See, you make the same mistake again.  Like I described, what if the point cost for an item is not based on what the character can do in the game, but what impact the player wants it to have on the narrative?  Say somebody spends three points on a magical sword; it'll do all kinds of special things in-game, but if the narrative goes onto the floor of the senate, those three points are wasted.  Lets imagine that I spend six points on a closed envelope; suddenly I have the secret will and testament that completely changes who will control the biggest guildhouse in town, pretty much giving away the mayor's power over the valley.  Before I spent the points, the paper meant nothing, after, the sword means less.

It may translate into character efficacy but that's because it affords player empowerment.  (That's secretly what I was getting at when I asked why one couldn't use 'flat rate' pricing; everything costs one point, no matter how 'powerful' in-game.')

Fang Langford

Quote from: Mike HolmesThe question of the ease of which leads us to Victor's main criticism. Is it too much bookkeeping, or, as Nathan asks, too hard to rate everything? Well, Nathan, is it hard to rate things in Synthesis?

Well, Synthesis is a bit unique in this respect, because effectiveness is determined retroactively by how many points you spend on it. The GM never has to say "okay, the megaslayer costs... uh... 9 points." The player can spend 9 points on it, and it's a mega slayer. Or they can spend 3 points on it and make it a kindasortaslayer.

Another example is my Money & Power system... Sources aren't quantified, they merely exist. The Sword of MegaSlaying is just as defining as the Toothpick of Hot Peppers, and both are represented in the same way.

I think that these two examples are the exception rather than the rule. They are not how the mechanic will be applied in the majority of games. The Synthesis "what you pay for is what you get" concept is not found in many systems. Neither is my "presence, not rating" concept. You were talking about using this mechanic in a game like D&D to avoid the GM having to give *everyone* cool equipment any time one character finds something. In most games, D&D being a great example, the effectiveness of items is not determined by how much you pay for them. Their effectiveness is determined by the creator of the current adventure. The problem is that such effectiveness is not usually given in terms that easily translate to resource point costs.

One additional comment... I haven't seen Hero Wars, so I can't say how they handle it. Is it significantly different from Synthesis?

Quote from: Le JoueurI think the problem is a lot of people reading this are stuck in the 'I only have so many points - it's a limiting factor' mentality.  I have struggled with trying to explain what you're getting at.  I keep saying 'toss out the maximum-totals concept' and people say "Huh?  Then what's it for?"  Make the actual act of spending the resource 'what counts;' if they spend on it, they want it 'in the game.'  It doesn't matter how much something costs; heck you could have the player define the 'value' indicating how much impact they want it to have.  ("Sixteen points for a glass of milk!?!"  "Yeah, I want it to be the most important glass of milk in history.")

This is explicitly the driving mechanic behind Universalis.  Everything is done with Coins, and while you only have a limited number of Coins at any given time they are very easy to come by.  It is purely the act of spending the Coin that counts.  Since it easy to get more Coins, they become not so much a limiting factor as a pacing one.

And yes, you could buy a 16 Coin glass of milk if you had the desire ;-)

Quote from: Le Joueur

Quote from: Paganini
Using meta-game resources instead of in-game resources distributes power more effectively. If your "Get Cool Item" points go down every time you decide to keep a cool item, then you have balance:

First of all, this isn't meant to be a discussion of balance, Mike makes that clear.

Er, Fang, I think Mike made it pretty clear that balance is *exactly* what this discussion is all about. If you notice, the name of this thread is "equipment and balance." All Mike said was that "this is not intended to be a discussion of what balance means."

Your idea about having no limit to the number of resource points a character can spend may be cool, but I'm not making a "mistake" when I talk about a limited number of points.

The whole idea of the mechanic is to do just that: give players a limited resource that keeps equipment balanced. The point of Mike's initial post was that this system keeps the field level without needing artificial gimmicks like giving good equipment to the whole group every time one player gets something neato.

My suggestion is that you start a paralell thread dealing with what happens when you *don't* put a cap on resource points.

Note that I don't disagree with you about flat pricing... flat pricing is exactly what I have in the Money & Power game. IMV that's a completely separate issue to what we're talking about here.

Quote
If I 'buy' a certain object - well, sure, it's obvious I want it to become 'a part of my character'. But it doesn't become a part of my character just by buying it - I must use it regularly, care for it, love it, become emotionally attached to it, talk about it - whatever. Only through in-game acts does an object really become attached to my character. And I could do those in-game acts equally well without 'buying' the object with meta-game-resources, couldn't I?  

Only through in-game acts... yes and no.  Not through In Character, but Player acts.  In Character acts are necessarily player acts, but not all player acts are in character acts.  A lot of them, however, are still IN THE GAME, in the metagame.  The XP reward in D&D is essentially metagame, and yet a powerful motivator of both player and character actions.  Games are also reward systems; and if your metagame asset is limited, it will be accorded value relative to its rarity.

Imagine you were only ever gonna get 6 of these points in your characters whole life - whatever you spend it on becomes "valuable" BECAUSE of the expenditure.  That is an in-game act, becuase all of the factors weighed in its making came from the game.

Balance would IMO be self-regulating.  Firstly, I expect that seeing these are ideas for player-created objects and elements, a de facto value system will emerge.  Which is more valuable, a jewel-encrusted dragon-slayer you acquired to suit your look, or a rusty blade retrieved from a goblin midden and which saved your life?  In the middle, I would expect the play group to base its consent on what amounts to precedent; bob got himself a millenium falcon, frex...  But in reality, the "value" of the point will be the value of the point.  Everybody knows how much a point is worth in terms of how hard it is to get - what it gets turned into is less important than its acquisition.

Back to metagame - everybody is working on a shared, understood metagame resource, the Point.  As play progresses, Points get spent on various things - and ALL of those things will be equally valuable (although they may not be equally useful).  What this is when a Point is "materialised" in the game is IMO of no great relevance... down the pub, you probably would not spend you last Point on a ruined blade buried under a pile of goblin shit... but you might if you were bollock-naked in the self same pile.  We are letting the players tell us what the object in the game world is worth to them.

I'm not explaining this very well; no surprise there.  Now I think we're confusing the meaning of 'a level playing field.'  You see, Mike specifically said the 'level playing field' is that which fosters "a sense that the player has that his emotional needs are being given the same consideration as everyone else playing."

When you say:

Quote from: PaganiniUsing meta-game resources instead of in-game resources distributes power more effectively. If your "Get Cool Item" points go down every time you decide to keep a cool item, then you have balance:

You are specifically equating fairness with equality (under the word 'balance').  Because there's an implicit rewards system, equality will be at the very least quite brief.  A 'level playing field' as I describe it is not about everyone having equal character efficacy, but everyone having equal opportunity to play.  So what if my apprentice thief character has 2 points while your veteran paladin has 30; should we have equal distribution of power?  I don't think so, however I do believe we should have equal right to spend any 1 of those points.

Quote from: PaganiniThe whole idea of the mechanic is to do just that: give players a limited resource that keeps equipment balanced. The point of Mike's initial post was that this system keeps the field level without needing artificial gimmicks like giving good equipment to the whole group every time one player gets something neato.

The way I read this is you want all characters to have the same efficacy, some for unspent points and others for equipment that points have been spent on.  That is not what I am suggesting.

How about an example?  Let's say your veteran paladins spends only 1 point (out of 30) on his vorpal blade, and let's say that it really does 'lop off heads' consistently every time it's used (which isn't limited).  Now, let's say my apprentice thief, having just gotten rewards for play, spend his whole lot, 6 points, on quasi-magic ring that makes you 'kinda see-through;' and let's say it only works in darkness and barely helps a regular stealth roll.  Efficacy-wise the 'pricing' on these two purchases is backwards right?  Except the meta-game resource is about player ownership of the game, not character efficacy.  This means that throughout the game, no matter how effectively you use the vorpal blade, the narrative is supposed to be six times more likely to be about my ring and how I use it.

Because of the value placed on the items by the players, the game is directed to focus more on situations that bring the ring into use rather than slaughter-fests with the blade.  Remember, now my thief (being an apprentice has low efficacy anyway) has no more points at all!  Your paladin is still striding around with 29, yet the game follows my exploits.  That's a 'level playing field' as I write it.  Despite the fact that your character has lots of potential, I rightly have more ownership because of the expenditure (these characters are in no way equal, nor is the 'field' of efficacy 'level.')  Likewise the instant you spend 5 more points, our shares of the game return to equal.

Now I know this isn't directly about what Mike is talking about.  However, it describes an alternative method of using the same type of meta-game resources.  I don't bring it up as a strong or archetypic example, but rather to highlight areas rarely considered.  Champions relates the meta-game resource directly to character efficacy (suggesting that is the only measure of ownership of the game), this system (while not turning into a Narrativist exercise of 'who controls the plot') suggests a different use for this kind of meta-game resource.

Both describe what Mike seems to be talking about, but together they cover more than just the familiar 'character efficacy equals player empowerment' mechanism.  I'm just trying to broaden the discussion.  I was quite wrong to say you made a mistake; I meant I thought you were looking at things too narrowly.

Fang Langford

Gareth has spotted it. Such a system creates a market (that's why we use "Coins" in Universalis). The "invisible hand" of which drives the mechanics. It's cool to see in action. I think other games have this market, it's just that it isn't allowed to work freely. There is a dictator on one end trying to fix prices usually. Which reduces the feeling of a "level playing field". (Gareth's politics would probably claim that these markets are not balanced in the RW, but I hope he agrees with me that they do on such a small scale with non-real commodities).

Hero Wars handles things much like Syntheis. Or, to be more accurate, I stole a lot of Hero Wars rules for Synthesis, most specifically the rule on Cementing things. It's the main influence that got me going in this direction (along with Clinton's currency handling in Dunjon). This is exactly the sort of mechanic we're discussion. In HW, if I find the Sword of MegaSlaying, I must pay Hero Points to keep it. Equipment is rated in edges or in my relationship to it, whatever. All very simple, all very effective from all accounts (haven't played). No, this is not a new idea. I only just realized with Champions how old the idea was.

OTOH, these rules are not common, no. I am suggesting that they should be more common. And I see this working in systems that are designed differently as well. Would they have to make accomodations for such a system to work right? Yes, but that's no more than saying that a system should work with all it's parts. I see little in the way of incompatibility with other mechanics that cannot easily be fixed.

And this is about writing new games. I never suggested that it be used with D&D, or to create a game like D&D. In fact unless one were to write such a modification to D&D one would have to start with a point system first. At which point you are getting pretty far away from D&D, and "fairness" methods such as random rolling of stats.

Mike

Quote from: Le JoueurI'm not explaining this very well; no surprise there.

Yeah Fang, you're so verbally challenged... ;)

In all seriousness, I think that you're probably explaining youreslf too well for me. I don't know about other folks, but there's something about online reading that makes me sometimes have trouble parsing sentances that I normally wouldn't look twice at. The more complex the sentance, the more likely it is that I'll misread it. It's something to do with the way monitors affect my eyes I guess. So, you probably said exactly what you meant, and I just didn't suss it out. :)

Anyway, I think what you're saying boils down to "As long as all *players* are equally effective, it doesn't matter if the effectiveness of their respective characters is not ballanced." Is that right? If so, I agree. The idea of requiring all characters to be equally effective is a throwback to nelithic games like D&D, where the character was the only resource the player had... if character effectiveness was unballanced, the player effectiveness was quite literrally unbalanceb as well.

Quote from: Fang
The way I read this is you want all characters to have the same efficacy, some for unspent points and others for equipment that points have been spent on.  That is not what I am suggesting.

I think that's what *Mike* was suggesting, though, with his D&D and Champions examples. Those games are representative of the "characters must be balanced because (character effectiveness) == (player power)" mindset.

It's not so much me wanting anything as it is me commenting on Mike's proposed mechanic. I think that any mechanic is going to have to be tailored to fit the rest of the system at hand. Frex, the concern I had with Mike's mechanic does exist if you apply it to D&D. As you say, the problem goes away if we adopt your idea... but your idea doesn't fit so well with D&D, in which character effectiveness and player effectiveness are synonimous.

Quote from: Fang
How about an example?  Let's say your veteran paladins spends only 1 point (out of 30) on his vorpal blade, and let's say that it really does 'lop off heads' consistently every time it's used (which isn't limited).  Now, let's say my apprentice thief, having just gotten rewards for play, spend his whole lot, 6 points, on quasi-magic ring that makes you 'kinda see-through;' and let's say it only works in darkness and barely helps a regular stealth roll.  Efficacy-wise the 'pricing' on these two purchases is backwards right?  Except the meta-game resource is about player ownership of the game, not character efficacy.  This means that throughout the game, no matter how effectively you use the vorpal blade, the narrative is supposed to be six times more likely to be about my ring and how I use it.

And *this* is what *I* was going for over in the Money and Power thread. The Ring and the Blade are Sources. Their mere existence indicates a greater likelihood that you will take over the narrative. The difference: in my game the importance is not centered on how important to the narrative a particular source is, but *how many different* sources a particular character has.

Quote
Now I know this isn't directly about what Mike is talking about.

Ah, good. That's mostly all I was pointing out. :)

I know I'm jumping in here kind of late, but I want to bring up another method of working through effectiveness (something that Chthonian Redux uses right now). That is keeping statistics constant and not modified by equipment or powers.

For example, in Chthonian, you have a Shoot score. You got a pistol? Go ahead and use it. You get a high powered rifle? Great! It's just as effective as the pistol. You're character's effectiveness is never measured by the gear carried. Only by the skill.

In a more heroic setting, say you have a Swordplay skill. It doesn't matter what you picked up. If you get the Sword of Asskicking it doesn't apply to effectiveness. You just look better when you fight (i.e., the narration incorporates the Sword). At the end of the adventure, if you get some points to increase skills, simply pump some into Swordplay. Boom! You kick more ass, wield Asskicker and run with it. You lose your sword? Grab another and whale away.

This isn't a model-the-physics approach, but I felt it should be mentioned.

(Warning: The following may contian incorrect uses of GNS terms)

Well, see several issues here, so I'll try to pull them apart and clairfy them, thus helping, or possibly mudeling things beyond comprehension.

I think this actually comes down to a Gamism vs Narrativism thing.  I'll try to explain.

Unversalis/Snythesis appear to use a Narrativist mechanic, basicly the player decides how much something is worth and that determines what it is. A 6 coin glass of milk would probably be everfull and cure damage and possibly play showtunes or something. To put it another way, the worth of the object also decides what it. This all balances out because it's worth to the player is defined by the player, or you get what you pay for.


In Mike's mechanic, which I see as more gamist/simulationist, the GM litters the world with this universal currency and the players move
through gathering it as they go. Here the worth of something is defined by what it is irrespective of it's value to the player.
Mike's solution to this was to essentially revert to narrativism, where if players don't like something, they just somehow convert it
into something else.  

I don't think this works because as well because the value of the item is intrinsic to the item rather than
it's value to the player/or game.  To go  back to Fang's Paladin and Thief. Well, say the thief gives his six point ring to the paladin. Will
a wimpy magic item impact the paladin's narrative? Probably not much, it's worth maybe 1 point to him.

Or to take another example suppose bob finds a sword of dragonslaying. Now it's slightly better than his old sword vs most stuff and great vs dragons, so Bob pays and keeps it and chucks his old sword.
Now later he finds a sword of general wuppping.  It replaces his dragon slayer for most stuff, but he still wants to keep the dragonslayer in case he meets a bad tempered dragon. Now, theoretically, bob should get back PART of the cost of the dragonslayer, as he doesn't use it much anymore. Another example is an item may be quite usefull in a give situation, but not
usefull otherwise. This either costs the worth of the item to fluctuate, or you have to do some cost*(probabily of use)=actual cost calculation, which is most likely difficult.

Now if you don't do this, what's to prevent players from just swapping equipment out whenever they feel like it for stuff apropriate for the situation. Now a GM can limit this, but your now using in-game situations to limit meta-game mechanics, which causes problems.  Basicly, your taking a gamist mechanic, and then patching it with a narrativist solution, which seems to be a mismatch to me.

Now this isn't a problem with the previous systems, as how improtant a item is to the characther/narrative is defined by how much they pay for it.

Hopefull that made sense.

Quote from: damion
Now if you don't do this, what's to prevent players from just swapping equipment out whenever they feel like it for stuff apropriate for the situation.

See thats exactly the situation that this rule generally avoids.

If you don't use a metagame mechanic, what do you have.

You have 1 of 3 possible situations.

1) The character keeps everything they come across never knowing when it will be handy, and winds up pulling out appropriate items like choosing the right club from a golf bag.  They can do this because it costs them nothing to write everything down, except perhaps a few in game gold pieces which only have value to the extent they let him do this anyway.

2) You try to fight this by going more realistic and making the players list in painstaking detail exactly where on their body each weapon is located complete with wieght and volume limitations for containers and rules for searching through backpacks, etc.  I've never seen anyone actually do this where it lasts more a session or too before beginning to be fudged for brevity.  But even assuming such a hyper realistic group exists, this still doesn't really address the problems, it just attempts to club the worst situations into submission.

3) This sort of thing just doesn't happen.  Even given the opportunity to load up on new stuff and buy every item from the equipment list...players just don't do it.  Guess what, you are using meta-game preferences here to accomplish this already.  Any sort of agreement spoken or tacit between players that the above behavior is not desired, any unilateral decision by a player that he (as a player) isn't going to play that way...is essentially already regulation via meta-game.  So if #3 applies to you...you are already using meta-game in this way.

What Mike is saying, is simply why not take this implicit metagame arrangement and make it an explicit one.  Its really not anymore complicated to understand than that.  

Why?  Why make it explicit.  Again...this comes down to whether you believe that rules should try to support the desired goal, or whether rules should just get out of the way.

That is a discussion for an entirely different thread.

Some people seem to have misunderstood what my objection to the system being discussed was, so I'll try to explain it a bit better. First, let me make it very clear that I think it could work just fine in a lot of games. No problem. However, I can't shake the feeling that it isn't really useful.

You create a meta-game Currency that allows players to tell what things are important to them. This is supposed to increase player influence. Let me look at an example.

Phemonoë has aquired a small ring with an exquisitely cut ruby in it. Since she greatly loves both beauty and the man who gave it to her, I decide that this ring is something she thinks is really important. So, I, as player, say "Phemonoë will spend 3 points of Currency on this ring".

Now, let's try a different way.

Phemonoë has aquired a small ring with an exquisitely cut ruby in it. Since she greatly loves both beauty and the man who gave it to her, I decide that this ring is something she thinks is really important. So, as soon as there is a good occasion for it, Phemonoë tells somebody how much she admires the ring; or I tell this through inner monologue.

In both cases, I accomplished the same thing: it is clear that Phemonoë is very attached to the ring. In the first case, I needed a rule involving Currency, in the second case I... well, I just roleplayed her well. I prefer the second method, because I don't have to lose my focus on the unfolding story, interrupting my session with meta-game issues.

In what ways would the meta-game-Currency-way work better than the in-character-way?

Quote from: ValamirWhy does shelling out money for a diamond ring mean you love your significant other?

It doesn't, its just a gesture.  

Well... it means you're richer than I am. ;) But seriously, money is 'in-game' and not 'meta-game'.

QuoteBut don't evaluate the system in a vacuum.  Evaluate it with regards to the alternative.  Writing lists of equipment found and bought on a charactersheet, where your character's ownership comes just from finding the item or purchasing it with in game currency.

Indeed, let's look at the alternative. I see no problems there. I get something, and if it is important I write it on my character sheet. This is what I do in my current sessions, and I don't see any problems with it. It's just an easy way to remember some basic facts about the game-world.

QuoteNow realize that if this never has been an issue in your game...its because you are already using a metagame mechanic to control it.  Its just not an explicit one.

To control what exactly? The accumulation of objects? I'd say that the in-game mechanic of 'inability to take a whole lot of stuff with you wherever you go' takes care of it pretty well. :)

Quote from: Valamir
But don't evaluate the system in a vacuum.  Evaluate it with regards to the alternative.  Writing lists of equipment found and bought on a charactersheet, where your character's ownership comes just from finding the item or purchasing it with in game currency.

Now realize that if this never has been an issue in your game...its because you are already using a metagame mechanic to control it.  Its just not an explicit one.

There's a third alternative. Keep the meta-game resources unattached to in-game things. Let the players use their meta-game resources to direct action (by acquiring power over the other players) as they see fit, with out the need to "purchase" things. There's immediately a huge reduction in accounting, and in-game things work as all players expect from their real-life experience. This system works extremely well in my Star Odyssey game.

Quote from: Victor GijsbersRing example

I don't think they need be the same at all; it very much depends on your decision as to what the points are for.  They should not just be a falg IMO.

In case 2; all we have is player exposition of their character.  Good, useful, I like to encourage this sort of thing.  But the ring is NOT important except in the characters minds eye.

In case 1, the 3 point expenditure makes the ring Important.  Now, the ring takes on something of a life of its own; its had 3 "power ups".  The GM scratches scalp and decides, say, that unbeknownst to the character the ring was stolen and or inherited and or lost and will be be recognised by the king of land - for good or ill.  Or maybe, in the the right light, by those with Talent, faint script can be seen inside the band... or just maybe, one day the character is pushed off a cliff and would have fallen to their certain doom had not the ring jammed in the crook of a branch and aided the characters precarious grip on a life-saving plant.  Or perhaps, all of the above.

Thus, the ring in question has aquired a significance that goes far beyond the characters opinion - it now has properties in the group dynamic, is influencing and to an extent determining the direction of play.

Everybody seems to think the system being discussed is meant to accomplish something else. Some people think it's about 'balance', some think it is about showing what your character thinks is important, and some think it is about assigning 'special properties' to objects. When I write down an example discussing the second opinion, it is not really useful to claim that what this is all about is the third opinion. My ring example was about Valamir's idea that spending points on it shows your character thinks it's important; not about assigning special powers.

About these special powers: this is an interesting, if rather specialized, mechanic. A way for the player to force the GM to think up special powers for an object. Interesting, but I don't see how this is an alternative for writing down a full inventory-list, since it's about something else entirely.

Quote from: Victor Gijsbers
About these special powers: this is an interesting, if rather specialized, mechanic. A way for the player to force the GM to think up special powers for an object. Interesting, but I don't see how this is an alternative for writing down a full inventory-list, since it's about something else entirely.

All I was trying to demonstrate was that the balance may be in the points; what the effectiveness is may not be important as long as all the points are governed by reasonably fair distribution among characters.  So you could reasonably construct a system which had these special poitns for creating special items and then abstract general equipment - hence no necessary inventory.

This is getting a bit out of control. I keep trying to rein it in, but people keep taking it to places that I never intended. I can't stop you, but I'd ask everyone to try to read a bit closer, and understand everyone else's opinions.

To responses:

Damion,

The system in Universalis and Synthesis is exactly what I'm describing. At least I'm talking about that in both those systems and some others as well, that players are required to pay for anything that gives them increased efficacy, whether internal or not. I have not tried to imply anything else regarding how one gets the currency in question (or even what such currency is; it doesn't have to be points), and I have said nothing about how equipment is discovered in a given system. I've given examples of how it can work in different situations, and they all assume that the player has the powers given them in the example, but they are just examples. One can do this in a jillion systems and make it work. There may be some combinations in which it would not work, but I'd just veer away from those anyhow. If you have to make a few adjustments to the game to allow this mechanic, I claim that it's a worthwhile effort. OTOH, I don't see many adjustments being necessary. The one thing that is absolutely necessary is to have a system that allows for the quantification of the value of an item, of course. But this isn't difficult, and lots of systems do it proactively, or retroactively or however.

Victor,

I understand that you are not saying that it can't work in some games; I'm just trying to address your stated concerns, which I find to be unfounded (mostly because they try to attach some imaginary context which does not exist).

The mechanic accomplishes a number of things, IMO. Amongst them, establishing a level playing field. But in addition, it also allows for the player to make indications of importance. You are reading Ralph wrong. If a player has a power to assign a value of an item, then that value usually gives the item some game effect automatically (as Damion says, the milk can now sing show tunes, or whatever more serious effect). There are no unassigned points that just indicate player importance, usually, though I could see a system that did that if one wanted. In other words, usually the girl can't assign a value of 3 points to the ring until she says why it's that valuable in terms of efficacy. So perhaps it's Magic Missile Casting 3. What Ralph was saying is that when you spend the points you say to the other participants, hey, I am keeping this, and assigning it abilities, so please give it the consideration due. Again, this all depends on how you achieve the level playing field in the game, which is only aided by this mechanic, not created by it alone.

Also, as I stated above to Damion, I said nothing about how a player gets these items. Yes, in Universalis, they can just create them. Totally differently, in Synthesis, the GM makes up almost everything. In that case, the player never assigns powers, he just either accepts the item as he finds it or he gets rid of it. Still, despite not creating the value level, he still communicates the value of the item to the group by paying the points for it.

I've addressed your argument about whether this would reduce role-playing. That depends on the rest of the system, and how currency spending works. Again, what I do (though other systems would probably be of more value to others) is to require in the rules that the player role-play the significance of such an item, which they are going to purchase. That's require. Which means that the player cannot carry powerful things around with them indefinitely unless they have absolutely demonstrated how important it is to their character. This is very much a non-issue here.

Gareth,

Right on. One cool thing is that if you use an exchange on the fly mechanic (in addition to the equipment mechanic), you can, instead of writing out an exhaustive equipment list, just have a thing called Equipment Level 5 or something. Then, when you need some specific item, you can just roll against your Equipment to see if you have it (difficulty determined by the GM or off a book list or whatever). If you want to be sure of having something else, then you buy that separately. This is another potential advantage of having a currency to equipment conversion ratio. Having said this I now feel that I must point out that once again, this has nothing to do with the specific mechanic that I am advocating, but is just an example of how, combined with other mechanics, it is advantageous. There are lots more examples like that.

Zak,

Yes, of course that works. And in games where equipment is not part of the "What is this game about?" or, rather, where such would be a distraction, then your method is best. However, I feel that people like to deal with gizmos and magic items, etc. So in games where they are featured, I like to include rules to address them. And if I can do so without making any really major changes to the rules I can see no reason not to include such a thing in most games. People seem to be assuming that this mechnic will be a real hassle, when in fact it's only really visible when it's aiding play in most cases.

To all,

We are talking about a mechanic in a vacuum, which is difficult. If you want to see how these things work in action or discuss how well it works in actual systems, use Champions, Hero Wars, Synthesis, Universalis, Dunjon, or any other game in which the mechanic is actually used (I'll bet there are more that I missed). I think you'll find that in each case the surrounding rules are highly differing, support different modes of play, pervy/non-pervy, and yet in each the mechanic works very well. In any case they make a good place to argue from.

Mike

I'm surprised that this did not occur to me before, but Conspiracy X has something akin to this idea.  This is partly due to its scaling - individual equipment is pretty much irrelevant, these secret conspiratorial agencies are meant to be well resourced.  So nobody "buys" guns - they are liberated from the state by the crate.  The game really does not care whether you have a box of berrettas or a box of glocks - it only realy cares whether or not you have an Apache.  

Hardware is purchased from resource points which are derived from Influence specified at character creation.  Interestingly, Influence is assigned by individual characers but the resource points they generate are used by all collectively.  Influence is a stat, and although this decision has a lot of in-game logic behind it, by making it a shared resource it kinda enters the metagame.  Impriving hardware is effectively character growth and XP expenditure to raise the Influence stat.

Excellent example Gareth, I knew there were more. Having said that this sort of intermediate versions, between paying for everything, and paying for nothing (Zak's version) are pretty common, no? In fact, in lots of games your ability to get stuff is closely linked to social statistics, in some cases entirely. Like in Paranoia, for instance (OTOH, getting equipment in Paranioa can be tantamount to suicide; but still...).

People keep claiming that this is somehow metagame. It's not. There is an in-game explanation to how you are getting stuff. In Conspiracy you get it through your influence with the organization (and the team pooling is brilliant for the game's team orientation). As I said before, these rules do not have to be metagame at all. They are merely abstractions on a different level. I think that people tend to assume that if you abstract enough that a mechanic automatically becomes metagame. Not true. It's only metagame if it exists soley to meter something outside of the game, like protagonism. Thus Hero Points, which have no in-game cognate, are metagame. There is a blurry line on things like Karma. The in-gameness of the Karmic energy seems to be a crock. So to an extent, it depends on the extent to which you buy the in-game explanation. However, in a game like Paranioa, where it's your security clearance, and who you know that get's you stuff, that's a pretty solid in-game mechanic.

As I've tried to point out, the Currency in question can be things other than points. In Paranoia, each player gets one Secret Society, and one Service Group, and a Security Clearance. These are the currencies that get you things. They are not balanced in Paranoia, but that's a feature of that particular game (balance is avoided because the imbalances are part of what creates intra-party conflict, which is the point of play in Paranoia). But you still have currency being used to promote the game's mechanics.

In Synthesis, I have tried to establish a currency that is entirely in-game. Your success at testing your Traits in Conflicts give you currency that can be used to to buy other Traits, which can include equipment (or anything, really). So in that game there is no meta-game to in-game conflict. In Universalis, OTOH, we did the opposite, and the entire game is meta-game, or nearly, which means that if you are playing the game at all you are accepting the meta-game to in-game relationship. So that works as well. In Hero Wars, you have the potential cross problem. Players can only keep an important object if they pay Hero Points for it. The "conflict" is in full view, and there are a few people who I've talked to who seem to find this hard to wrap their heads around. But most do not. Hero Points are meant to enforce the mood of play, and do so admirably from all reports. Champions has this potential "problem" even moreso, as the CP that you buy things with are completely meta-game, but you do have the genre explanation to reinforce. In any case I've never had a problem with a player thinking it was unfair that his character couldn't keep the mooks' submachineguns. So there you have the full spectrum of potential in-game/meta-game methods, and all are seen to work just fine, at least for most people.

Nobody suggests that this will work for absolutely everybody, but then, I can say that about any mechanic. IME, this sort of mechanic really attracts people once they've tried it. In any case, it's certianly not something I worry about when including such rules in a game.

Mike