Equipment and Balance

[Valamir]

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.

[Victor Gijsbers]

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.

[Valamir]

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.

[Paganini]

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.

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.

[Mike Holmes]

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

[Le Joueur]

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Paganini]

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?

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?

[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.")

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 ;-)

[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.

[contracycle]

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.

[Le Joueur]

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:

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 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.

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.

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

[Mike Holmes]

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

[Paganini]

I'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.

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.

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.

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

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

[Zak Arntson]

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.

[damion]

(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.