Quote from: Wrath of God on January 06, 2022, 05:28:35 PM
Explicitly linking to individuals. Though of course if you own a favour this person can sell it to someone else. So in case of this specific mechanics works both on narrative and simulation level.
Avoiding to pay debts is bad both for PC and NPC afaik.

Actually it doesn't work on a "simulation" level. As someone that has lived on the other side of the tracks, one doesn't simply "hand a favor" over to others without some face-to-face, interpersonal interaction and expect to be taken *remotely* seriously, unless you're carrying a lot of weight, in which case there sure as hell isn't some assumption of a "favor chip" being in play.

In a narrative gaming sense - sure, who cares. Narrative gaming anything can be abstracted to for the purposes of avoiding actual interplay.

At the "simulation" level you're describing, this sounds like you're reducing an actual simulation down to a "narrative" mechanic. In a roleplaying example (uhh, it's just roleplaying, I don't like using the term "simulation" because of stupid connotaions), if you don't know who/why you're roleplaying with an NPC, then I would say we have some serious unspoken claims as to what kind of game is being run.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 06, 2022, 05:28:35 PMIs it gamey? Dunno for me D&D is gamey game, with 4E being distilled gamey-ness. Narrative abstracts of new school... are well their own thing. Though in many cases especially in FiTD when moved are basically short skill list, I'd say it's not that different from rule-light trad games.

I'm the last person to speak up for 4e. It was always way too gamey for me. But as a skirmish game, I think it's fine. I think it's a bad as an RPG.

Again, I'm just wondering how/why you would need to have a mechanic to govern "favors" in a roleplaying game where curry/pulling in favors simply screams "roleplaying" to me.

The idea being engagement.
Some players need those rules and don't take well to "I say so cause I'm running the game."
Sad but that's were we have gotten to. A rule for everything. Now with a new edition!

Quote from: tenbones on January 07, 2022, 02:47:34 PMActually it doesn't work on a "simulation" level.

I must disagree here. I find it works nicely on a simulation level.

QuoteAs someone that has lived on the other side of the tracks

What does that mean? Personal favor/debt can happen in every social interaction. My pal paid me a beer the other day, now I'm indebted to retribute.

Quoteone doesn't simply "hand a favor" over to others without some face-to-face, interpersonal interaction and expect to be taken *remotely* seriously

Sure, and that's how the games in question do it - some sort of social interaction is always needed for favors to be exchanged/produced.

QuoteActually it doesn't work on a "simulation" level. As someone that has lived on the other side of the tracks, one doesn't simply "hand a favor" over to others without some face-to-face, interpersonal interaction and expect to be taken *remotely* seriously, unless you're carrying a lot of weight, in which case there sure as hell isn't some assumption of a "favor chip" being in play.

But this was urban fantasy game in lieu of World of Darkness / Dresden Files.
Debts/favours were both gaming device to estabilish bonds AND actual real-life setting wise metaphysical currency. Very tangible thing.
When fey queen came into your lair, claiming she bought your debt from ghost of your greatgrandfather that helped you once, well better believe her, and hide your fangs, or the curse fallen upon you will be terrible.

QuoteAt the "simulation" level you're describing, this sounds like you're reducing an actual simulation down to a "narrative" mechanic. In a roleplaying example (uhh, it's just roleplaying, I don't like using the term "simulation" because of stupid connotaions), if you don't know who/why you're roleplaying with an NPC, then I would say we have some serious unspoken claims as to what kind of game is being run.

Sometimes obviously yes. Like Monsterhearts have strings drama mechanics to give some flesh to whole genre-concept beyond Monsterhearts, otherwise it would hinge utterly on good will of players to keep convention. Which is a favour, you can never be sure, without clear rules in place. (Not to mention whole concept of emotional manipulation between PCs themselves and sort of forcing specific behaviour from them). In a way it is simulationist not just abstract narrative game. There is lot of emotional manipulation shit, and other things depending on fragility of our minds and egos, that are easy to ommit in classic adventuring game due to PC-agenda. So game that straightforward is telling you - there are rules for wrenching agenda between PC's not just based on wishy-washy-roleplay but deadly dice... seems proper to enforce genre.

QuoteI'm the last person to speak up for 4e. It was always way too gamey for me. But as a skirmish game, I think it's fine. I think it's a bad as an RPG.

Again, I'm just wondering how/why you would need to have a mechanic to govern "favors" in a roleplaying game where curry/pulling in favors simply screams "roleplaying" to me.

Because you want game that is about exchange of favours, the same way D&D4E is about tactical skirmishes.
And usually aspect that is centre of game should be somehow mechanicised to enforce genre. Otherwise as I say, it can be easily derailed.
And of course in 3 years long sandbox of every gonzo shit possible, derailing is most of fun, but well PBTA/FITD games serve more narrow focus, and they enforce it.

Nevertheless that aside - in urban fantasy game you can have debts as actual tangible thing, metaphysical reality that supernatural can detect, use, and that brings very tangible results.

QuoteThe idea being engagement.
Some players need those rules and don't take well to "I say so cause I'm running the game."
Sad but that's were we have gotten to. A rule for everything. Now with a new edition!

But PBTA/FITD does not have rules for everything.
If anything it was post D&D old school systems that brought more and more and more and more subsystems for everything to genre, until games become behemoths of multiple rules, that sure you could cut and trim, because it was modular, but God have mercy upon you if you try to use ALL THE MECHANICS.

PBTA/FITD games have rules for... basically only things necessary for enforcing genre. Rest is handwavium.
If you play Blades you've got rules for heists, and building lair, but if you want to leave Duskvol and hunt ghouls on southern deserts with barbarian tribes... there is little you can do. Because it's not game about it.

QuoteSure, and that's how the games in question do it - some sort of social interaction is always needed for favors to be exchanged/produced.

I mean I gave extreme example it was I think Urban Shadows where whole magical underground works on debts, in much more metaphysical than social level.
But generally yes - various moves is not something you can just declare in most of those games. Unlike skill tests... moves works when triggered and it's usually up to GM to decide whether your actions triggered one.

@Wrath of God, I think Greentongue was being ironic on his rules for everything post.

And I understand Tenbones position, because I used to have difficulty groking abstract mechanics a long time ago (in my case it was classes & levels). Everything that wasn't a simple skill roll used to irk me. Nowadays I'm the opposite as I came to love abstract gaming constructs of all kinds (I grok D&D 5E, for eg  ).

Oh no, I understand abstract mechanics. I'm merely pointing out that I see no reason for a lot of them.

Much like people want to debate about "AC" and its abstractions.

I find the idea of "Favor" economies, in general, less useful for roleplaying than actually roleplaying. The more abstract a mechanic gets that inserts itself into an RPG (in general) the further you remove yourself from the RP aspect of the RPG.

That your friend hands you a beer isnt' a favor point. It's the tacit implication TO WHOM that a favor is owed? For him? Maybe it was just a nice gesture? To you? It might be due to some weird RP background thing you take it as a cultural blood-debt. The interaction (and odd complication that emerges) would be lost on a token system where such implications aren't known or understood.

These kinds of opportunities give nuance to RP that abstraction mechanics steamroll over. Hyperbolically this is level of abstraction could be pushed out to the obtuse who might insist Monopoly is actually a highly abstracted real-estate RPG...

Yep, that's what I meant, sorry I didn't express better. You understand these kind of mechanics, you just don't like them. Luckily the hobby has been doing great for some time now, with enough games coming out catering to all styles.

I must admit, for me it's generally opposite of abstract compared to let's call it widely traditional games.
Now of course not in every situation - but let's say whole Strings from Monsterhearts and simmilar systems - are simulating something that most mechanics utterly gloss over and leave to pure player's fiat - specifically fact human beings in general are not masters of own emotional life. Teenagers especially. In classic game whether PC will fall in love, get depressed and so on is usually just choice of player to go that way - that's for me way more abstract that mechanics forcing PC to be depressed or infatuated.

And also let's remember by rules it's not like you can arbitraly roll for moves to get those Strings, Favours or whatever, you need to roleplay situations to the moment GM decide move was truly triggered and he wants to change consequences. If you handwave RP, then you can do nothing basically. There are some exceptions in "new games" I think Agon - mythical heroic game assume you decide your general purpose in scene, roll and then roleplay results. Alas for most of PBTA games and their kin, as far as I read such situation is Anathema.

Now of course those games are also terribly abstract about anything beyond their narrow focus, that's different pair of shoes.

Quote from: Itachi on January 08, 2022, 10:51:36 AM
Yep, that's what I meant, sorry I didn't express better. You understand these kind of mechanics, you just don't like them. Luckily the hobby has been doing great for some time now, with enough games coming out catering to all styles.

Do you think it makes for better or less better roleplaying?

Edit: This may not be a thing since the title of the thread doesn't explicitly say "roleplaying game".

QuoteDo you think it makes for better or less better roleplaying?

I had two experiences with "new wave" RPGs. One short-lived for Blades in the Dark, that frustrated me, but that mostly because GM - for his defence actual autistic - tried very much to dig into Harper's premise - one session/one or two heists. Which annoyed hell out of me, really, because I was more hooked on premise "it's like Peaky Blinders or Firefly" and this push to use whole circle of gamplay each session (not that long a session) was just... tiresome.

From mechanical standpoint I'd say game that pay XP for playing up to own values and purposes, should have place to write them down, and not invent via handwavium each session. That's sort of anti-narrative plothole for cheap XP, because you can say whatever. I'd say without push to have scores each time, and time for crew to play of each other - like in those TV series Harper mentioned, I could dig it.

I have better experience as playtester for Warhammer clone Old World World (or was it Old Old World) where narrative/theme bits were in form of beliefs, plans and bonds between team, and especially bonds between team for like 90% allowed for really good RP (10% was probably players trying to hard for XP point) and I think in traditional RPG at least part of it could be casually omitted (as we would not sit down and think to ascribe very specific relationships between people). To the point where I actually think I'm gonna add simmilar module to next campaign I invent (and I generally play rather sims or D&D, but I think it'd fit with those as well)

Quote from: tenbones on January 09, 2022, 04:09:30 AMDo you think it makes for better or less better roleplaying?

This is a weird question for me, because I never saw the presence of different mechanics as having anything to do with the roleplaying aspect. In my view, different mechanics only point (role)play into different directions, never diminish or amplify it.

That being said, I admit we're a pretty eclectic bunch (we play everything from OD&D to Shinobigami). I can see how, if one has a more exclusive personal definition of a what a roleplaying game is, mechanics that deviate from that personal definition could make roleplaying "less better" in this sense.

Quote from: tenbones on January 07, 2022, 02:47:34 PM

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 06, 2022, 05:28:35 PM
Explicitly linking to individuals. Though of course if you own a favour this person can sell it to someone else. So in case of this specific mechanics works both on narrative and simulation level.
Avoiding to pay debts is bad both for PC and NPC afaik.

Actually it doesn't work on a "simulation" level. As someone that has lived on the other side of the tracks, one doesn't simply "hand a favor" over to others without some face-to-face, interpersonal interaction and expect to be taken *remotely* seriously, unless you're carrying a lot of weight, in which case there sure as hell isn't some assumption of a "favor chip" being in play.

In a narrative gaming sense - sure, who cares. Narrative gaming anything can be abstracted to for the purposes of avoiding actual interplay.

At the "simulation" level you're describing, this sounds like you're reducing an actual simulation down to a "narrative" mechanic. In a roleplaying example (uhh, it's just roleplaying, I don't like using the term "simulation" because of stupid connotaions), if you don't know who/why you're roleplaying with an NPC, then I would say we have some serious unspoken claims as to what kind of game is being run.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 06, 2022, 05:28:35 PMIs it gamey? Dunno for me D&D is gamey game, with 4E being distilled gamey-ness. Narrative abstracts of new school... are well their own thing. Though in many cases especially in FiTD when moved are basically short skill list, I'd say it's not that different from rule-light trad games.

I'm the last person to speak up for 4e. It was always way too gamey for me. But as a skirmish game, I think it's fine. I think it's a bad as an RPG.

Again, I'm just wondering how/why you would need to have a mechanic to govern "favors" in a roleplaying game where curry/pulling in favors simply screams "roleplaying" to me.

The only context I thought such a system may have use (although I haven't used one) would be a Japanese system of Face, Duty, and Obligation, or the Roman system of Patronage, both of which would be fairly impenetrable to someone who hasn't done a fair amount of homework.

Quote from: crkrueger on January 09, 2022, 11:12:04 PMThe only context I thought such a system may have use (although I haven't used one) would be a Japanese system of Face, Duty, and Obligation, or the Roman system of Patronage, both of which would be fairly impenetrable to someone who hasn't done a fair amount of homework.

Honor, patrons, and patronage were significant aspects in the Honor & Intrigue game I ran. It was set in the 1620s and mostly in France. I have found that most US players I've met don't really get honor and honor and duty conflict. People now are more likely to see scenes like Indiana Jones pulling a gun and shooting the opposing swordsman than Cyrano de Bergerac spending his eating money on a grand gesture. Mechanics can help some players. And can give me as the GM a handy shorthand for tracking purposes. I had a lot¹ of NPCs to keep track of in that campaign and I'm not as good at remembering gaming trivia as I was when I was younger.


¹ Assuming one thinks six or seven hundred is a lot. It was probably too many, but I was having too much fun creating people and places and weaving in actual historical figures so I ended up going overboard.

Vampire the Masquerade also has a system for favors, called Prestation IIRC. It's described in the v20 book. Don't know if the new 5th edition kept it.

Prestation is something I'm intimately familiar with since it defacto exists in pretty much every single RPG I've ever run, before and after Vampire (which is why I loved Vampire so much when it dropped).

It's one of those things where by saying mechanics doesn't influence RP - then I say "well then what good is it for?" -  I'm not arguing with you @Itachi, I'm being serious (well not serious-serious, but you know).

As I've gotten older and more experienced GMing, I've realize *I* get more from my games with less mechanics. This doesn't mean I don't need or want mechanics, but the mechanics have to serve the point of roleplaying *and* the game. For instance, I don't generally like handwaving different types of magic under one rubric of rules. Mainly because if I do, it waters down what "magic" actually is, and whatever assumed distinctions exist in-setting on those types of magic. It's one of the things I'm *constantly* wrestling with in Savage Worlds.

Conversely, what I want is a mechanic to make those things playable and distinct as close to the PC's as possible. If I rely on a mechanic instead of roleplaying where I can get more nuanced results, then the mechanic has less use.

In the case of Prestation it's the implied unknowable qualities of the relationship and power-dynamics that makes Prestation scary. That IS the intention of the concept. There is no inherent honor among Vampires that can't be solved murdering someone in the dark. The implicit idea is that it can't be made public to the peers that uphold the idea in-setting. Using it as a mechanic free of that context makes it like a card-game/board-game mechanic where you backfill the nuances that otherwise the player couldn't manage through roleplaying.

This is what I suspect is at play here. These kinds of mechanics exist for people that don't like getting that close to the roleplaying fire and just want to throw dice at problems in the game without RP context.