Equipment and Balance

[Valamir]

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.

[Victor Gijsbers]

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?

Why 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'.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

[Andrew Martin]

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.

[contracycle]

Ring 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.

[Victor Gijsbers]

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.

[contracycle]

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.

[Mike Holmes]

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

[contracycle]

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.

[Mike Holmes]

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