TheRPGSite

Considering how important to human interactions favors are, I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be games that include Favors as a mechanic.
Are there games that do and I have just overlooked them?

"Favor Economy" being a system that keeps track of who owes who favors and how big each favor is.
Maybe even includes an aspect of the favor having different values to each side of the relationship.
Also things like family or "Blood Brother" having permanent favors that can't normally be "used up".

Altered Carbon (which I think is Cortex?) has something sort of like that.  However, it is tracked by dice not by specific favors.

Shadowrun 3rd edition had a pretty complex system expansion for their Contacts rules in the Shadowrun Primer I believe.  Favor tracking and Friend of Friend rules in addition to tracking mechanisms for word to get back to the wrong people when using contacts on a run.

Games with a merit/flaw or advantage/disadvantage type system almost always have a way to represent favors and debts. Savage Worlds has Connections as an Edge and Obligation as a Hindrance, both of which model the favor economy. d6 Fantasy has Contacts as an Advantage and Debt as a Disadvantage. GURPS has Favor as an Advantage and Debt as a Disadvantage. Is that the sort of thing you mean? Or something more like a trackable stat like Hit Points?

Eclipse Phase, with its reputation system, could be construed as similar.

It's a notable part of the Legends of the Five Rings setting. Since 1e, there's discussion of how a gift (or favor) is received and what obligations it causes. How PCs deal with the repercussions is reflected within the Honor system.

However, I don't think you need it codified into any rules. "You owe me one" has been the boon/bane of many of my Traveller adventures over the decades.

Quote from: Greentongue on December 25, 2021, 11:39:06 AM
Considering how important to human interactions favors are, I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be games that include Favors as a mechanic.
Are there games that do and I have just overlooked them?

"Favor Economy" being a system that keeps track of who owes who favors and how big each favor is.
Maybe even includes an aspect of the favor having different values to each side of the relationship.
Also things like family or "Blood Brother" having permanent favors that can't normally be "used up".

AD&D 1E, if you use the loyalty system. There are some enumerated favors which have associated loyalty modifiers. The game has fairly detailed social mechanics in general that go entirely overlooked.

An interesting question. I remember thinking about this in regard to the old Anglo-Saxon "tything."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithing

We've certainly roleplayed it in some campaigns over the years. I'm not sure if it needs game mechanics when it's between PCs. NPCs of course we've got things like the D&D loyalty rules, as mentioned above.

FFG's Star Wars: Edge of the Empire uses Obligation as a measure for favors and more.

First thing that sprung to mind was Technoir. 

This is mostly about your contacts and such owing you or possibly you owing them. I can't remember the exact details, but there is a section specifically on your sheet for this sort of thing. I'll have to dig out the book when I am back at home.

Not sure if most Apocalypse World games have "strings" but Monsterhearts (https://composedreamgames.com/marketplace/index.php?route=product/search&search=monsterhearts) does. You can gain and lose strings on people through play - it's been a while, and I am mostly thinking of 1e, but strings can be lots of things - childhood friend, mentor, and yes favours. You can use strings to better manipulate others and get them to do what you want.

I would think that as important as they are in Real Life, more games would include it.

Quote from: Greentongue on December 28, 2021, 06:58:45 AM
I would think that as important as they are in Real Life, more games would include it.

Not a game designer myself but I'd assume that since it is so important in real life most designers would just assume this is something players can handle without needing codified rules.  Honestly actual rules do seem rather burdensome.

En Garde, published in 1975, had explicit mechanics for Favors which were often crucial in gaining offices and positions. So mechanics for favors have been around almost as long as published RPGs have existed. Flashing Blades, published in 1984, had a lot of inspiration from En Garde. And so not too surprisingly, Flashing Blades had rules for favors and influence. These were connected to the Social Rank system, which had mechanics. Though the use of favors and influence had some mechanics, it was mostly based on GM guidelines and rulings. I adapted the rules for Favors and Influence from Flashing Blades when I ran an Honor & Intrigue campaign. Since all three systems had similar rules for Social Rank, adaptation was not difficult.

Quote from: KingCheops on December 28, 2021, 09:22:20 PM
Not a game designer myself but I'd assume that since it is so important in real life most designers would just assume this is something players can handle without needing codified rules.  Honestly actual rules do seem rather burdensome.

I have noticed players go with what rewards them in game terms. If you give EXP for looting, players will loot. If you give EXP for establishing a NPC network, players will establish a NPC network.

Quote from: Bren on December 29, 2021, 02:36:01 AM
I adapted the rules for Favors and Influence from Flashing Blades when I ran an Honor & Intrigue campaign. Since all three systems had similar rules for Social Rank, adaptation was not difficult.

That sounds interesting.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic - but "favors" are just... roleplaying right?

I mean Contacts is ubiquitous to all my games (whether there is a mechanic attached to the system or not) I keep huge lists of Contacts and acquaintances for my player's PC's in my campaigns which are more often than not HUGE springboards to a lot of drama and conflict since all my NPC's worthy of being an actual "Contact" has their own agenda(s).

So I just notate, notate, notate and update things between sessions.

Quote from: Greentongue on December 29, 2021, 06:43:59 AM

Quote from: KingCheops on December 28, 2021, 09:22:20 PM
Not a game designer myself but I'd assume that since it is so important in real life most designers would just assume this is something players can handle without needing codified rules.  Honestly actual rules do seem rather burdensome.

I have noticed players go with what rewards them in game terms. If you give EXP for looting, players will loot. If you give EXP for establishing a NPC network, players will establish a NPC network.

You play some very different games than I do.  Usually a player that wants to build a network is doing so because it is a reward for the player in and of itself.  They don't do it for the stats on their character sheet but do it for the feeling of being a power broker.

The reason I enjoyed a system for it as presented in Shadowrun was because I wanted a way to track loose lips.  The pool of terrorists in Seattle, while big, is not infinite so if one group is planning something word will get around.  It was a way for me to rein in the power of the social monkeys without just always saying "No your contact can't do that."  Now it became "Sure your contact can do that but he'll have to ask around and the wrong people might find out."

Quote from: Greentongue on December 29, 2021, 06:45:10 AMThat sounds interesting.

I enjoyed having some mechanical weight to favors.

Quote from: tenbones on December 29, 2021, 11:34:24 AM
I'm not trying to be sarcastic - but "favors" are just... roleplaying right?

Sure. As is combat.

No - mean "favors" is just the byproduct of normal roleplaying. Sure combat is - but that's usually binary (but not always).

The question I have is - "what is a favor"?? Seems to be something that one just does as a matter of roleplaying. My NPC's have agendas, "favors" are pretty much negotiated normally with PC's based on that position and circumstances happening in the game.

What necessitates "mechanics" for something that seems kinda obvious to me? What am I missing?

Example: PC 1 has a 2 "Favor" points and he has a list of what he can demand as "Favor" off a "Favor Table"? What if the NPC can't grant it? Or are we assuming some other metacurrency Favors can be representative of? Like a Favor can be "Crashspace - Crashspace heals the PC 3d10 HP"  or something like that?

Quote from: tenbones on January 04, 2022, 09:11:58 AM
No - mean "favors" is just the byproduct of normal roleplaying. Sure combat is - but that's usually binary (but not always).

The question I have is - "what is a favor"?? Seems to be something that one just does as a matter of roleplaying. My NPC's have agendas, "favors" are pretty much negotiated normally with PC's based on that position and circumstances happening in the game.

What necessitates "mechanics" for something that seems kinda obvious to me? What am I missing?

Example: PC 1 has a 2 "Favor" points and he has a list of what he can demand as "Favor" off a "Favor Table"? What if the NPC can't grant it? Or are we assuming some other metacurrency Favors can be representative of? Like a Favor can be "Crashspace - Crashspace heals the PC 3d10 HP"  or something like that?

I know you've seen Edge of the Empire. Start with how Obligation works and adjust to taste.

I see it as something that ties the PC to the setting. Having a mechanic seems to help players engage. Certainly GM tend to track that sort of thing but I've noticed not all players do. What do "MuderHobos" care about owing or being owed two towns back?

Quote from: tenbones on January 04, 2022, 09:11:58 AM
No - mean "favors" is just the byproduct of normal roleplaying. Sure combat is - but that's usually binary (but not always).

The question I have is - "what is a favor"?? Seems to be something that one just does as a matter of roleplaying. My NPC's have agendas, "favors" are pretty much negotiated normally with PC's based on that position and circumstances happening in the game.

What necessitates "mechanics" for something that seems kinda obvious to me? What am I missing?

Example: PC 1 has a 2 "Favor" points and he has a list of what he can demand as "Favor" off a "Favor Table"? What if the NPC can't grant it? Or are we assuming some other metacurrency Favors can be representative of? Like a Favor can be "Crashspace - Crashspace heals the PC 3d10 HP"  or something like that?

Yep.  The great roleplaying dichotomy:  Those who want combat to be more like social interactions (fluid and amorphous), and those who want social interaction to be more like combat (rigidly defined by rules and numbers).  Both sides are wrong...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 04, 2022, 02:34:59 PM
Yep.  The great roleplaying dichotomy:  Those who want combat to be more like social interactions (fluid and amorphous), and those who want social interaction to be more like combat (rigidly defined by rules and numbers).  Both sides are wrong...

Yet you are not.
People need rules because their virtual lives are at stake and they want to feel that they can control what happens to them.
Back In The Day, there was a "Judge" and their word was the deciding factor. Didn't need no stinking rules!
Now there is strong attachment to the little figurine/avatar and nobody better screw with it without showing me a RULE.
;)

Quote from: tenbones on January 04, 2022, 09:11:58 AMWhat necessitates "mechanics" for something that seems kinda obvious to me? What am I missing?

Example: PC 1 has a 2 "Favor" points and he has a list of what he can demand as "Favor" off a "Favor Table"? What if the NPC can't grant it? Or are we assuming some other metacurrency Favors can be representative of? Like a Favor can be "Crashspace - Crashspace heals the PC 3d10 HP"  or something like that?

2 Favor Points isn't how Favors work in the systems I mentioned.

It is a type of currency. Not really meta, since the people in the setting also track who owes whom and how much. You have a Favor from a specific person (so that works like your GM writes down details method), but the Favor is based on that persons Social Rank (SR). So you might have a SR-9 favor from Sir Chris who, in setting, is a knight. You might have a SR-16 Favor from Archduke Frederick. Or if you were extremely fortunate, you might have two SR-16 favors from the Archduke. The Social Rank part of the favor provides guidelines on what the Favor might accomplish or who else it might influence. You can have a dozen SR-9 Favors, but using them isn't going to influence the Archduke.

The currency helps everyone at the table keep track of who owes whom and makes it more transparent to the player what they are owed - which is something the characters in the setting will understand well, while the player may not.

Is all that necessary? No. But neither are combat rules longer than a paragraph or two of text using a single six-sided die for resolution.

Quote from: BrenIs all that necessary? No. But neither are combat rules longer than a paragraph or two of text using a single six-sided die for resolution.

I agree. Social favor mechanics are no more or less important to RPGs than combat. In the end it's just a matter of taste and preferred playstyle.

Quote from: Thondor on December 27, 2021, 04:28:56 PM
Not sure if most Apocalypse World games have "strings" but Monsterhearts (https://composedreamgames.com/marketplace/index.php?route=product/search&search=monsterhearts) does. You can gain and lose strings on people through play - it's been a while, and I am mostly thinking of 1e, but strings can be lots of things - childhood friend, mentor, and yes favours. You can use strings to better manipulate others and get them to do what you want.

Yep, lots of PbtA games have this, as social altercation is usually a thing with this "family" of games. Besides Monsterhearts, Sagas of the Icelanders has "Bonds" that represent Norse society social debt, for example. There's also a Vampire-inspired one called Undying that has it (this one is interesting in that it's diceless, and social debt is an important factor in most conflicts).


Edit: here is an example of a relationship web from Undying, created by players and GM at the start of the game:  https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/500ad221e4b016a023c12965/1478789661403-15235BT96TTNKC28MGD6/image-asset.jpeg?format=1000w

It uses an hierarchy of (in decreasing order of power/prestige) Princeps > Patrician > Plebeian > Pariah, and every "arrow" represents a favor owed (major or minor). During conflicts, these factor into the tests. I don't remember the details of the rules, but it worked nicely for us in the short campaign (~4 sessions) we had.  :)

QuoteI'm not trying to be sarcastic - but "favors" are just... roleplaying right?

Depends what's the focus of game, and what sort of gameplay is rewarded.

QuoteYep.  The great roleplaying dichotomy:  Those who want combat to be more like social interactions (fluid and amorphous), and those who want social interaction to be more like combat (rigidly defined by rules and numbers).  Both sides are wrong...

Quite opposite. All sides are right.
Even better fluid and amorphous combat, and rigid wargame social interactions <3

Quote from: Bren on January 04, 2022, 10:05:16 PM
The currency helps everyone at the table keep track of who owes whom and makes it more transparent to the player what they are owed - which is something the characters in the setting will understand well, while the player may not.

Is all that necessary? No. But neither are combat rules longer than a paragraph or two of text using a single six-sided die for resolution.

No, see, I **LIKE** it when my PC's forget who they owe what. That's grist for the mill. I like it even better when they think the NPC's believe they're not owed "somehthing" for favors solicited(or not).

That pushes RP which pushes potential conflict/conspiracy which keeps the wheels moving. The non-stop negotiation of who owes who based on whatever codes of authority - Temporal or the Street - is the juice. I mean sure a PC could keep a Book of Grudges and notate all that (which would be a fun schtick), but to have it some kind of absolute currency seems silly.

"But the game is out there, and it's either play or be played." - Omar Little

For me the sauce is in players enforcing their will (or not) of their PC's on whatever the situation is. These are defining things that signal to the world they inhabit, who/what they're about. This is one of the most defining elements of self-agency in my game. Reducing it to a currency loses some of the flavor.

But I guess it depends where you like to play your games. I like mine up close where you smell the stink of fear.

I want to add - *I* most certainly play my NPC's with that same level of ignorance. My players can do things out of the kindness of their own heart without saying shit, but if my NPC's are of a certain mindset, they might look at those "favors" as exactly that - and act accordingly. They might even double-think it as if the PC's are trying to subtly threaten them - like "here I hooked you up. With the implication that "I can hook you down too, little bitch." and because they don't impress their actual motives on my NPC's - this leaves me to react accordingly, which all becomes notations for my NPC writeups. Which creates potential "good" or "bad" situations to emerge from those interactions.

And maybe it's because I grew up with Machiavellian motherfuckers among my family and friends. Heh.

QuoteThat pushes RP which pushes potential conflict/conspiracy which keeps the wheels moving. The non-stop negotiation of who owes who based on whatever codes of authority - Temporal or the Street - is the juice. I mean sure a PC could keep a Book of Grudges and notate all that (which would be a fun schtick), but to have it some kind of absolute currency seems silly.

Depends of setting. One I remember when Favours are ultimate currency is I think Urban Fantasy setting to either PBTA or FITD where like favours are absolute measurement and every supernatural being kept them very well notated as they bears metaphysical weight crucial for their existence. Of course while favour achieved is set in stone, there is still field of maneuvres to get what you want without being in dept, or to take someone from indepted without them paying it off,

Typical Faerie Court games.

But are they explicit? Or just "markers" the denote "something" happened and I have a literal bag full of "favors" that I can use to force someone to do something without negotiation?

I get that PbtA is a very heavy on the abstract. It's a lot more gamey than I like for my RPG's.

QuoteBut are they explicit? Or just "markers" the denote "something" happened and I have a literal bag full of "favors" that I can use to force someone to do something without negotiation?

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.

QuoteI get that PbtA is a very heavy on the abstract. It's a lot more gamey than I like for my RPG's.

Is 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.

Quote from: tenbones on January 06, 2022, 04:29:40 PM
But are they explicit? Or just "markers" the denote "something" happened and I have a literal bag full of "favors" that I can use to force someone to do something without negotiation?

It depends on the game. It's usually a currency one gains under specific circumstances and can use to gain leverage against the recipient during social interactions. The Wikipedia article on Monsterhearts has a paragraph about its "Strings":

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsterhearts

"Strings against specific characters are gained through moves, and through turning people on - and may be spent either for a bonus to a dice roll after rolling, to inflict a condition on the target, or to offer them an XP to do something the offering player suggests."

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. :P

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.

It would provide a level of abstraction while acknowledging its importance. Do you feel all the nuances are needed for every character in a game? NPC and PC Or, does a "marker" of a relationship fulfill the most common needs?

Quote from: Greentongue on January 10, 2022, 01:56:43 PM
It would provide a level of abstraction while acknowledging its importance. Do you feel all the nuances are needed for every character in a game? NPC and PC Or, does a "marker" of a relationship fulfill the most common needs?

That's a good question.

For me - GM experience definitely helps. Plus I'm an extrovert and very social, and I used to live on the wrong side of the tracks. So I have a lot of personal experience to draw upon. This might be the big divide. But I don't think any of my anecdotal experience is *necessary*.

Nuance in content is a tool for the GM to tune up/down any elements worthy of creating tension to keep the game moving along at the desired pace. When it comes to roleplaying the closer you get to the PC/NPC interaction the better. Here, mechanics get in the way of the intent. NOW when you're dealing with introverts or socially awkward players, you have to earn trust in them as a GM to let you take them along - and be willing to let them "explain" what they're trying to convey, if they themselves cannot RP it. But letting an interaction hang on some assumed "abstraction" of a favor, loses a whole lot of potential ground that is ripe for gaming.

It depends on the how dymanic you want your characters to be. If I'm running a Star Wars game having Han play a "favor" card instead of inteacting with his "ol' pal Lando" would lose a lot of the drama that ensued. The assumption being a "Favor Token" doesn't have strings attached. If they did - then why trust in the use of any favor-token? This brings us back to the meat-and-potatoes of good ol' fashioned roleplaying with the camera up close to the PC's and NPC's and you can let them roll Notice/Empathy or whatever checks to size each other up and the GM can give the PC's nuanced details their PC's pick up and let them decide their path accordingly.

Or you know, you can spend a Favor point and whatever you need just happens, and off the to the next encounter. The key here is making the nuance actually matter (and obviously make it fun and intriguing). That is a GM skill which needs to be exercised and mechanics might actually impede upon.

Edit: I should add, there ARE players that only want to throw dice and not actually engage in RPG's at that level. As I don't run games like that, people with anxiety issues are probably more prone to like heavy mechanics where interpersonal interactions are as abstract as possible. That's nearly impossible in my games.

Maybe HOW a favor point/token is spent is the key?
If, to use one, you have to explain how you are doing it, does that move it closer to Role Playing?
With the assumption that because of the point/token, it will work (unless GM overrides).

@Tenbones, I think you may be describing a dichotomy that does not necessarily exist. See, this...

QuoteOr you know, you can spend a Favor point and whatever you need just happens, and off the to the next encounter.

...is not the case, in my experience, with the games that use Favor economy we're talking about here.

In Monsterhearts, for example, the player can't simply say: "Ok, it's my turn: So it's 9 PM and I want to spend the String I have with Marco, so he gives me his sister's gmail password.... Ok, I scratched the String off my sheet. GM, what's the password?" Nope. The use of Strings is regulated under certain conditions that mimic real life exchange of favors/debt/etc. So, for that to happen, the player would have to first meet Marco in person, then engage in a conversation and try to convince him to give the player the password. And that requires roleplaying out their characters in zoomed-in fashion just as you said above, with any relevant rolls adjudicated by the GM. The String just points to some kind of leverage the player has over Marco - just as those work in real life - and that can give the owner advantage, not some token that automatically edit reality like magic.

So, notice that everything you describe here...

Quote from: TenbonesThis brings us back to the meat-and-potatoes of good ol' fashioned roleplaying with the camera up close to the PC's and NPC's and you can let them roll Notice/Empathy or whatever checks to size each other up and the GM can give the PC's nuanced details their PC's pick up and let them decide their path accordingly.

...would still happen in that scene. The Strings in no way exclude that interaction from happenning. On the contrary, it requires it. I would agree with you if we were talking about mechanics like, say, those Hillfolk "drama points" that are negotiated between players and don't really exist in the fictional universe/in-character. But the Favor mechanics we're talking about (Vampire's Boons, Monsterhearts' Strings, etc) actually do exist from the character standpoint.

Edit: Ninjad by Greentongue, I guess.

Quote from: Itachi on January 10, 2022, 06:44:04 PM
@Tenbones, I think you may be describing a dichotomy that does not necessarily exist. See, this...

QuoteOr you know, you can spend a Favor point and whatever you need just happens, and off the to the next encounter.

...is not the case, in my experience, with the games that use Favor economy we're talking about here.

In Monsterhearts, for example, the player can't simply say: "Ok, it's my turn: So it's 9 PM and I want to spend the String I have with Marco, so he gives me his sister's gmail password.... Ok, I scratched the String off my sheet. GM, what's the password?" Nope. The use of Strings is regulated under certain conditions that mimic real life exchange of favors/debt/etc. So, for that to happen, the player would have to first meet Marco in person, then engage in a conversation and try to convince him to give the player the password. And that requires roleplaying out their characters in zoomed-in fashion just as you said above, with any relevant rolls adjudicated by the GM. The String just points to some kind of leverage the player has over Marco - just as those work in real life - and that can give the owner advantage, not some token that automatically edit reality like magic.

So, notice that everything you describe here...

Quote from: TenbonesThis brings us back to the meat-and-potatoes of good ol' fashioned roleplaying with the camera up close to the PC's and NPC's and you can let them roll Notice/Empathy or whatever checks to size each other up and the GM can give the PC's nuanced details their PC's pick up and let them decide their path accordingly.

...would still happen in that scene. The Strings in no way exclude that interaction from happenning. On the contrary, it requires it. I would agree with you if we were talking about mechanics like, say, those Hillfolk "drama points" that are negotiated between players and don't really exist in the fictional universe/in-character. But the Favor mechanics we're talking about (Vampire's Boons, Monsterhearts' Strings, etc) actually do exist from the character standpoint.

Edit: Ninjad by Greentongue, I guess.

Then "Strings" aren't necessary, since the characters have to navigate all of the minutia to make the "favor" happen, anyway.  So they are superfluous, then?

Strings are not superfluous in Monsterhearts, as they have important effects they can enact. Eg: +1 on a roll to manipulate the recipient. Notice though they do not replace social interactions, only affecting/adding to it instead.

QuoteUsing 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.

QuoteThis 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.

But the whole point with moves, and all extra mechanics enforcing genre in post-PBTA games is not free you from RP.
Quite opposite. How you roleplay scenes determines whether move will happen at all, it determines whether you will be able to use any extra mechanics be it Social one or otherwise, it determines your position and effect.

Mechanics there are genre enforcing. You use mechanics when something genre-related happens. You wanna plumb a kitchen sink - like whatever, it's not what game is about, roll luck or something, or you just did it. Favours, Strings and so for - either prompts you to use them - therefore doing genre-related stuff, and pushing whole genre shit forward - because they are worthy XP if used, or give you some quantifiable mechanically bonus when you use them in specific situation. Which seems relatively natural thing to me.

So no - in all those games quite explictly you cannot do jackshit without describing/roleplaying it.
If anything I'd say old skill based game were more lenient with social skills, and there were no good incentive to just not use them.

QuoteThen "Strings" aren't necessary, since the characters have to navigate all of the minutia to make the "favor" happen, anyway.  So they are superfluous, then?

No not really, they are quantifiable high ground you have over another PC or NPC.
Just like you know - high ground in combat. So they gives you better chances to succeed.
And in PC relations when they can be sort of PVP they allow to you know RP being based purely on players bias, which means any power struggle starts to be more struggle between players than characters. Here well if you fail - game forces you to RP it accordingly.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 10, 2022, 08:22:32 PM
No not really, they are quantifiable high ground you have over another PC or NPC.
Just like you know - high ground in combat. So they gives you better chances to succeed.
And in PC relations when they can be sort of PVP they allow to you know RP being based purely on players bias, which means any power struggle starts to be more struggle between players than characters. Here well if you fail - game forces you to RP it accordingly.

That's a great example.

Quote from: Itachi on January 10, 2022, 08:26:29 PM

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 10, 2022, 08:22:32 PM
No not really, they are quantifiable high ground you have over another PC or NPC.
Just like you know - high ground in combat. So they gives you better chances to succeed.
And in PC relations when they can be sort of PVP they allow to you know RP being based purely on players bias, which means any power struggle starts to be more struggle between players than characters. Here well if you fail - game forces you to RP it accordingly.

That's a great example.

So, instead of a mechanic, I can just give the characters a bonus on rolls because they have met/interacted/done a favor for the NPC before?  Basically, like I said, they are superfluous?

And instead of any mechanics you can just give characters bonuses/difficulty levels based on how they describe their movements, actions, words, and so on.
No mechanics needed :P

You are warrior fighting goblin, ok you need to roll at least 6 at d20 and you hit him. Seems fair.

Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2022, 10:13:57 AMIn the case of Prestation it's the implied unknowable qualities of the relationship and power-dynamics that makes Prestation scary.

[/quote]Prestation sounds like a procedure that I'd rather not undergo.

Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2022, 10:13:57 AM
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.

Some of the time that's true.

For me, some method of tracking interactions is necessary once the number of participants (PCs and NPCs) gets large enough. Not using any mechanics to track who owes who what works undoubtedly works better in simpler settings where the number of relationships and possible interactions is smaller and can be dealt with on an ad hoc, in the moment basis. Or, alternatively, in a game where lack of setting consistency isn't a big deal – so if the GM ignores or forgets some details of previous interactions (like a debt) it's no big deal.

Some people prefer not to track wealth beyond some vague description like poor or wealthy. Some people don't track encumbrance. And some don't count arrows or torches. Because they want to focus on roleplaying...or maybe they just suck at arithmetic. I don't know. Keeping track of things, wealth, weight, arrows, favor sometime makes for a more interesting game for me. Roleplaying out in real time and in detail every purchase made in the market place just doesn't.

Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2022, 04:06:02 PMIt depends on the how dymanic you want your characters to be. If I'm running a Star Wars game having Han play a "favor" card instead of inteacting with his "ol' pal Lando" would lose a lot of the drama that ensued. The assumption being a "Favor Token" doesn't have strings attached. If they did - then why trust in the use of any favor-token?

Well that explains part of the disconnect. That's opposite of how I use favors.

QuoteOr you know, you can spend a Favor point and whatever you need just happens, and off the to the next encounter.

Yeah, unless the PCs are supposed to be in a world that works like a 1930s movie serial, I don't do that either.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 10, 2022, 08:50:45 PM
And instead of any mechanics you can just give characters bonuses/difficulty levels based on how they describe their movements, actions, words, and so on.
No mechanics needed :P

You don't know the definition of mechanics, do you?

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 10, 2022, 08:50:45 PM
You are warrior fighting goblin, ok you need to roll at least 6 at d20 and you hit him. Seems fair.

And?  Why is that process not suitable for favors (we're not talking about combat, remember)?

Mechanics is there to focus on whatever game is about.
If game is about social conflict then social conflict will be heavier mechanised while combat will be handwaved more or less.

D&D is generally about combat at least last 3 iterations. Monsterhearts is about teenagers messing with their minds.

Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2022, 10:13:57 AM
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.

I would use the word 'guanxi' myself. I find it a useful term, and I'm not above stealing words from other languages to describe a concept.

Yeah I'm not speaking to any particular game that has these mechanics, I'm just questioning the overall value in lieu of roleplaying.

I can see things, like in Vampire where you might have a Reputation or Clan Prestige score which *denotes* something specific about any interactions within roleplaying with a faction (regardless of size) which might give mechanical benefits if using a skill like Persuasion, Intimidate etc.

The idea of "favors" is very specific to me. What someone assumes, what someone thinks they can get away with, what someone *really* means when an action occurs (That guy bought me a drink of very high-quality whiskey... why? What does he want? Or why did that woman just give me the this magical sword?) is grist for Roleplaying. The moment you put it to a currency without the assumption of enforcement - socially or physically, implied or otherwise, it removes possibilities off the table and turns it into a contract that only exists on that "currency" that doesn't exist anywhere but in the mechanics.

It reduces the potential relationship between NPC and PC to a transactional mechanic that has less nuance. And the more it's used the more reinforced this artificial distance becomes.

*Yes* you can play this way. I question "Why", when you can get more from just straight-up roleplaying. Of course you have to want to roleplay. I believe it actually makes for a disincentive to roleplaying itself on a personal player-to-GM level.

It's not about having to RP more or less, it's about certain elements that influence mechanics being given to Players instead of existing only in GM's fiat.
Of course that works only for games where such element is important part of play. Like I said - for instance whole urban fantasy where favors have metaphysical weight. (Which also means there are specific notions what constitutes favour and what not).

In a way it's thing similar to let's say Honor score in samurai games, which also is something not exactly tangible, and yet important enough for genre to give players some notion of it.
And as was explained few times - it is no free card out of jail, you can still fail when trying to use it, just like you can fail trying to cut someone down from high ground.

And just like you use honor as something more tangible in setting with clear notions of it, and simmilarily reputation the same with favours. It works where there are clear notions of what constitutes one.

It seems to me Tenbones has formed an idea about these games that doesn't really represent how they work. Perhaps it's a baggage he created upon contact with Favor mechanics implemented in a form that diverges from the games we're talking about here.

I mean sure in skill-heavy trad games there was situations where social moves were abridged by social skills. Which I'm fine with, because I do not believe roleplaying = acting, and if someone cannot act for shit I prefer him making more abstract declarations of actions, rather than cringe. I leave RPG as acting to Critical Role :P

But in PBTA games and other simmilar (one significant distinction I thing i Agon when you are obliged to narrate your action after roll, either failure of victory) the overall rule is - move is triggered by fiction. You do not decide to test anything - it's your GM who decide whether your actions triggered move and then you check by move mechanics what sort of results those actions brought.
You cannot declare you're using favour or simmilar thing, you have to roleplay to the moment when GM decided you triggered using favour.

It would be useful if Tenbones could remember the specific game where he saw the concept implemented the way he describes.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 11, 2022, 05:16:08 PM
I mean sure in skill-heavy trad games there was situations where social moves were abridged by social skills. Which I'm fine with, because I do not believe roleplaying = acting, and if someone cannot act for shit I prefer him making more abstract declarations of actions, rather than cringe. I leave RPG as acting to Critical Role :P

I agree 100%.  :)

Quote from: Itachi on January 11, 2022, 02:03:34 PM
It seems to me Tenbones has formed an idea about these games that doesn't really represent how they work. Perhaps it's a baggage he created upon contact with Favor mechanics implemented in a form that diverges from the games we're talking about here.

Nope. I'm literally asking. I don't know - as I don't run any games (apparently) that use "Favor mechanics".

I do run a lot of FFG Star Wars, but I don't even run Obligations like this - or they don't work as described that way. If they do - then we're talking about two different things. An Obligation is a numerical assumption of something that is mechanically designed for something else (extra points). The actual outcome of those engagements are not treated any differently than what we agree upon. They just happen to possibly show up in the game based on random die-rolls (which is fine).

But again - the RP value of those Obligations come before the mechanical realities of them. So in what way are your mechanics you're talking about different? I don't *know* you'd have to cite me examples since they don't exist in my games.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 11, 2022, 05:16:08 PM
I mean sure in skill-heavy trad games there was situations where social moves were abridged by social skills. Which I'm fine with, because I do not believe roleplaying = acting, and if someone cannot act for shit I prefer him making more abstract declarations of actions, rather than cringe. I leave RPG as acting to Critical Role :P

You don't have to "act" - you can simply tell me how you go about doing something. The abstraction of a mechanic is only as valuable as what we agree the abstraction is meant for. I find that people that only rely on such mechanics *in lieu* of such descriptions removes one further from gameplay.

If a player says "I stealth up to the guard and cut his throat" is different than a player that says "I'm dressed all in black, and I use the shadows as I move down the hall. I toss out a black ballbearing ahead of him to distract him, and slide my dagger under his ribcage." Or it could be "Backstab Manuever- roll to hit."

As a GM I can adjudicate up/down whatever based on those mechanics. And that's for combat. For RP purposes - if the point of dealing with "favors" is simply to do a direct effect then what is the point of RPing?

I don't know what PbtA says - since I don't run it. I'm merely speaking to the OP's largely question about Favor Economies. I have no idea what mechanical expressions of a "Favor Economy" is in RPG's that *aren't* handled by roleplaying. Or at the very least I don't see their value unless the point is to not roleplay.

I can certainly see where "role play" by someone that is socially inept will be much different than by someone that isn't.
Having a mechanic to fall back on when you really have no concept of how a social interaction is supposed to work "in the Real world" could be quite handy.

Personally I hate Chinese dinner parties because of the implied obligation to host one yourself of the same or more value.
Being as what the value is, is unclear. It quickly spirals out of control or someone gets insulted. 

Quote
You don't have to "act" - you can simply tell me how you go about doing something. The abstraction of a mechanic is only as valuable as what we agree the abstraction is meant for. I find that people that only rely on such mechanics *in lieu* of such descriptions removes one further from gameplay.

I really start loosing even vague understanding of what you mean.
I mean if we abstract social play to the point of generic declaration of "how", then what even there is to remove more?
I mean favor if exist as some mechanical boon, means you get some bonus to interraction generally. I can see some favour of less important things being more abstracted - like you use favour on gunseller who is 5th grade NPC to get cheaper gun, and it just happens as it's not that important, but generally favours in favour heavy game are to influence social rolls between PCs and important NPCs in tangible, not GM-biased way. You hold favour, then if you call upon it you get better chance to get something. There is no guarantee and you can still botch it.
Like with honor in bushido game - it matters only if it's heavy theme of game.

I'd not put it in Star Wars, because SW universe does not seem to universaly run on favour exchange. But kingdom of Unseelie Faerie may.

QuoteIf a player says "I stealth up to the guard and cut his throat" is different than a player that says "I'm dressed all in black, and I use the shadows as I move down the hall. I toss out a black ballbearing ahead of him to distract him, and slide my dagger under his ribcage." Or it could be "Backstab Manuever- roll to hit."

As a GM I can adjudicate up/down whatever based on those mechanics. And that's for combat. For RP purposes - if the point of dealing with "favors" is simply to do a direct effect then what is the point of RPing?

Well because favour is just one of elements. For instance if you gonna be rude and polite depending on who you talk to it can dimnish/enhance results of calling upon favour. It may decide whether given PC/NPC would pay debt in spirit, or merely in letter and so on.

QuoteI have no idea what mechanical expressions of a "Favor Economy" is in RPG's that *aren't* handled by roleplaying. Or at the very least I don't see their value unless the point is to not roleplay.

The point is - in specific settings to give players specific notion they are owned favour, or they own to someone favour. That's obviously not for every setting.
You still need RP to call those favours.

Just like +3 to Diplomacy is not to replace roleplaying but to give notion to Player - "am I good in it". And may influence players approach to social interaction.

For those who play with these mechanics, do you think it's something "new" in the hobby?

I think it is. Well, at least this particular implementation we see these days with new school games like Cortex, Fate, PbtA, etc. where they work well together with roleplay rather than substituting it or diminishing it in some way. That may be the reason why many traditional or old school inclined players dislike them, because in those old days there wasn't a "technology" like this around and so the available solutions were indeed unsatisfying.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 12, 2022, 01:05:03 PM
I really start loosing even vague understanding of what you mean.
I mean if we abstract social play to the point of generic declaration of "how", then what even there is to remove more?

What gives you more possible depth of play -

1) An assassination mechanic where you play an Assassin and you roll under your percentage to succeed and pass/fail? Then move on?
2) A system where you use your PC's existing skills to bypass security, sneak up on a motherfucker, take out his guards. And in the moment of truth, your target makes you a proposition you *never* considered... and the choice to assassinate that target hinges on your agency and the potential huge ramifications of his proposition SHOULD you act upon your own agency and take it?

I'm going to go with #2. And that's with an example of an abstraction that has all kinds of mechanics sub-abstractions cooked into it. Stealth, Persuasion/Intimidation, combat etc. But it could also be boiled down to #1 which is entirely abstract and binary. When it comes down to campaigning - I'm always going to choose for mechanics that get as close to #2 as possible.

For "Favors" this is even more important to me. I'm not saying that a person can't play legalistic with their favors, I'm saying the interplay of Favors - or Prestation - is implicit with a whole lot of other assumptions a simple "currency mechanic" gets in the way of. What is the point of having a Favor Mechanic where I owe a favor to someone, and that person calls it in - and I simply don't want to do it and kill that sonvabitch dead as yesterday's headlines? What now? That's kinda my point. Han Solo had "Obligation" to Jabba not out of some sense of loyality - it was business, with the threat of death. In my games where we're dealing on that kind of level, there are no points to be tallied, there is the implicit understanding at minimum, we're in The Game and you either respect my capacity to enforce it - or not. Or we better be damn good friends.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 12, 2022, 01:05:03 PMI mean favor if exist as some mechanical boon, means you get some bonus to interraction generally. I can see some favour of less important things being more abstracted - like you use favour on gunseller who is 5th grade NPC to get cheaper gun, and it just happens as it's not that important, but generally favours in favour heavy game are to influence social rolls between PCs and important NPCs in tangible, not GM-biased way. You hold favour, then if you call upon it you get better chance to get something. There is no guarantee and you can still botch it.
Like with honor in bushido game - it matters only if it's heavy theme of game.

You're getting close. In my games "everything matters". Everything that hits the table is a theme to be pushed to the degree that NPC's and PC's engage in them. My "Pirates" campaign suddenly pulls into port where there is a huge gladiatorial arena, you'll find Gladiator campaign elements seeping in - where my Pirates were smuggling the fantasy-equivalent of cocaine and painkillers in where gladiators use them for an edge, then shenannigans happen and a PC ends up having to fight in there, or because of some fuckup they owe a local crimelord a few fights to throw/win  - *everything* matters. And I also make it go both ways - NPC's will actively do things for the PC's that do good for them - often even unsolicited. This is how the campaign grows in context and scope. When the Pirates leave - they now have another world they can retreat to, filled with contacts, and stories including assumed favors and debts to be used and collected when possible*.

* - this means things change as the PC's move on. Yes the players leave Gladiator Tortuga for a few months - and maybe the status-quo shifts? Maybe it's better or worse for the PC's when they return. The point is the moment you put something like Favors on a currency scoreboard the assumption of most mechanics are they are STATIC until spent. This means it gets in the way of any organic realities that the campaign may shift to.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 12, 2022, 01:05:03 PMI'd not put it in Star Wars, because SW universe does not seem to universaly run on favour exchange. But kingdom of Unseelie Faerie may.

Favors in among the Sidhe would be closer to contractual obligations with unique qualifiers. The point I made above still stands - YOU know when you enter into a bargain with the Unseelie, a Demon or a Hutt, what that bargain means if you fuck up. You better damn well know, LOL. Do you *need* an actual scoreboard to understand that? Because I sure as hell wouldn't use a standardized mechanic for the Unseelie or a Demon - because I don't standardize them as enemies. They have their own unique needs and I treat them as such.

Again - I see this need for "Favor Mechanics" as a crutch for people that don't want to get deeper into their games. But that's just me.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 12, 2022, 01:05:03 PM
Well because favour is just one of elements. For instance if you gonna be rude and polite depending on who you talk to it can dimnish/enhance results of calling upon favour. It may decide whether given PC/NPC would pay debt in spirit, or merely in letter and so on.

Favors mean different things to different people. Having a CONTACT is different from having an ALLY - so speaketh Vampire rules. It's very different to call upon someone without context with some assumption of who owes who, what, and how much without defining that relationship. This is another mark against "Favor Mechanics" because it's two-dimensional at best. And it gets more into mechanic's-whoring over doing what should be organically more advantageous to what we call "roleplaying" - which is to engage in "roleplaying" as much as possible.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 12, 2022, 01:05:03 PMThe point is - in specific settings to give players specific notion they are owned favour, or they own to someone favour. That's obviously not for every setting.
You still need RP to call those favours.

Just like +3 to Diplomacy is not to replace roleplaying but to give notion to Player - "am I good in it". And may influence players approach to social interaction.

So why do you need a Favor score? If you can can make a Diplomacy check to do <X> and you've factored in the other intangibles, I'm not sure what the "Favor" score is for? If Han goes to Jorga Tang, the local head of The Exchange, and they know each other only from reputation - but asks Jorga Tang for a favor in storing some contraband while crossing through their territory - as a Diplomacy check he offers to give him a percentage of the delivery once the deal goes down, what is the "Favor Currency" that is demanded of this roll?

Again, this is roleplaying in action - with assumptions based on Skills, and intangibles. I'm not seeing the point of a Favor mechanic. They could keep this up for years (in game) and mutual gain might put them on friendly status - but the Game is still the Game and if the Exchange Leadership gets word from the Hutts that Han has to go down isn't going to change the RP requirements of what has to occur.

NOW if you're talking Contacts and Allies ratings - THAT is different.

Edit: I don't want to sound like I'm shitting on someone's favorite system (we're just talking shop in general). I could see "Favors" as a category for trivial things among a certain set of a campaign setting. Like "Favors" among homeless people in the Wharf or something. But I have to admit, my GM-blood always calls me to make that more interesting than a toss-off of the dice.

Quote from: Greentongue on January 12, 2022, 01:01:20 PM
I can certainly see where "role play" by someone that is socially inept will be much different than by someone that isn't.
Having a mechanic to fall back on when you really have no concept of how a social interaction is supposed to work "in the Real world" could be quite handy.

Personally I hate Chinese dinner parties because of the implied obligation to host one yourself of the same or more value.
Being as what the value is, is unclear. It quickly spirals out of control or someone gets insulted.

That's why you have the "Social Guy" in the group do the talking. Or you cultivate the Professional Murder Hobo image, and then people will know not to fuck with you. Intrigue is a civilized man's game. But everyone respects the sword.

QuoteWhat is the point of having a Favor Mechanic where I owe a favor to someone, and that person calls it in - and I simply don't want to do it and kill that sonvabitch dead as yesterday's headlines? What now?

Well in urban fantasy you are cursed, loosing your supernatural gits, and being treated as pariah by under-community because mystical aura of favor-breaker surrounds you like smell of old socks and cheese. That's what :P

Quote* - this means things change as the PC's move on. Yes the players leave Gladiator Tortuga for a few months - and maybe the status-quo shifts? Maybe it's better or worse for the PC's when they return. The point is the moment you put something like Favors on a currency scoreboard the assumption of most mechanics are they are STATIC until spent. This means it gets in the way of any organic realities that the campaign may shift to.

That's only if favours works automatically. But as we give you examples they do not - I see no reason why you keep strawmaning back to this option.

QuoteFavors in among the Sidhe would be closer to contractual obligations with unique qualifiers. The point I made above still stands - YOU know when you enter into a bargain with the Unseelie, a Demon or a Hutt, what that bargain means if you fuck up. You better damn well know, LOL. Do you *need* an actual scoreboard to understand that? Because I sure as hell wouldn't use a standardized mechanic for the Unseelie or a Demon - because I don't standardize them as enemies. They have their own unique needs and I treat them as such.

Again - I see this need for "Favor Mechanics" as a crutch for people that don't want to get deeper into their games. But that's just me.

I see no need for "Favor Mechanics" as any universal rule, just like I do not see need... well for almost any mechanics as universal rule. There are settings where Favor will be explicit not implicit, and then PC's should explictly knows who owes what to who, that's all. All relative that what we are playing. Just like I won't use Honor Score in Pirate-Gladiator-Space-Velociraptors game :P
If such pacts are rarity of mundane men dealing with devils then sure keep it as unique event. If it's constant reality of NYC supernatural society, where dozens favours are exchanged daily, then keep tabs. That simple.

QuoteFavors mean different things to different people. Having a CONTACT is different from having an ALLY - so speaketh Vampire rules. It's very different to call upon someone without context with some assumption of who owes who, what, and how much without defining that relationship. This is another mark against "Favor Mechanics" because it's two-dimensional at best. And it gets more into mechanic's-whoring over doing what should be organically more advantageous to what we call "roleplaying" - which is to engage in "roleplaying" as much as possible.

Favor can mean only one thing for Unseelie Laws of supernatural commity - that you owe someone, and if you refuse to pay, you're fucked. Simple law for simple vampires :P

QuoteSo why do you need a Favor score? If you can can make a Diplomacy check to do <X> and you've factored in the other intangibles, I'm not sure what the "Favor" score is for? If Han goes to Jorga Tang, the local head of The Exchange, and they know each other only from reputation - but asks Jorga Tang for a favor in storing some contraband while crossing through their territory - as a Diplomacy check he offers to give him a percentage of the delivery once the deal goes down, what is the "Favor Currency" that is demanded of this roll?

Almost all discussion I kept specific view of pool of settings where favor score has sense.
Dunno why you keep returning with your examples to pirates and Star Wars, which has nothing to do with discussion.

QuoteI don't want to sound like I'm shitting on someone's favorite system (we're just talking shop in general). I could see "Favors" as a category for trivial things among a certain set of a campaign setting. Like "Favors" among homeless people in the Wharf or something. But I have to admit, my GM-blood always calls me to make that more interesting than a toss-off of the dice.

Point is as we told you it's not like you can just toss-off dice to use Favour so this accussation repeating over and over is just worthless. You're talking not to us, but next to us, I have no idea to whom :P

Yeah, at this point Tenbones just keep repeating something not related at all to the games in question. I don't know what to say. This is the definition of a Strawman right?

Anyway, see my previous post about "technologies". I would lime to hear your opinion on that, @God of Wrath. Edit: sorry, @Wrath of God. Hehe

I'm not being specific because, as I said several times, Favors is just RPing for me regardless of setting/system.

I'm all over the place because I'm literally making it up as I go for the purposes of discussion. I'm not strawmanning anything - I'm asking the question what is the value of Favor Mechanics over Roleplaying - and I'm giving you examples. My contention is that Favor Mechanics get in the way of roleplaying because it abstracts away deeper possibilities that basic roleplaying would give you, if you're so inclined to have actual roleplaying in your roleplaying games - which you may not. If so - not problem!

Tenbones, the problem is that you say "I don't like Favor mechanics", which is fine, but then you go ahead to elaborate on that, and from this point on everything you describe has no relation whatsoever to how Favor mechanics work in these games - they don't substitute roleplaying, nor resume it to a "toss-off of the dice", as you keep saying. And when we point that to you, you act as if you're not listening/reading to us.

I can't express myself better than that. If you still don't understanding this, I suggest we drop this line as it became unproductive. Let's agree to disagree and move on.

Quote from: tenbones on January 12, 2022, 04:11:51 PM
That's why you have the "Social Guy" in the group do the talking. Or you cultivate the Professional Murder Hobo image, and then people will know not to fuck with you. Intrigue is a civilized man's game. But everyone respects the sword.

So, basically, a player can only play an avatar of themselves and not just a character that interests them.
For example, to play a Wizard the player would need to be able to actually memorize their spells names and what they do. The time they take looking things up in real life is accounted for in game?

You can't play Bard unless you have real life social skills?

Quote from: Greentongue on January 13, 2022, 01:41:56 PM

Quote from: tenbones on January 12, 2022, 04:11:51 PM
That's why you have the "Social Guy" in the group do the talking. Or you cultivate the Professional Murder Hobo image, and then people will know not to fuck with you. Intrigue is a civilized man's game. But everyone respects the sword.

So, basically, a player can only play an avatar of themselves and not just a character that interests them.
For example, to play a Wizard the player would need to be able to actually memorize their spells names and what they do. The time they take looking things up in real life is accounted for in game?

You can't play Rogue unless you have real life social skills?

Pretty certain he means 'let the PC with 20 Charisma and max ranks in Diplomacy do the talking'.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 13, 2022, 03:48:54 PM
Pretty certain he means 'let the PC with 20 Charisma and max ranks in Diplomacy do the talking'.

Isn't that back to deciding by a mechanic when he is arguing against that? Though, could be just specific mechanics?

QuoteI'm not being specific because, as I said several times, Favors is just RPing for me regardless of setting/system.

Yeah, but that's not the point, because no one here is proposing using Favor as universal mechanics. So giving examples we're not advocating for is... pointless.
No one here is proposing direct favor mechanic for SW.

QuoteI'm all over the place because I'm literally making it up as I go for the purposes of discussion. I'm not strawmanning anything - I'm asking the question what is the value of Favor Mechanics over Roleplaying - and I'm giving you examples. My contention is that Favor Mechanics get in the way of roleplaying because it abstracts away deeper possibilities that basic roleplaying would give you, if you're so inclined to have actual roleplaying in your roleplaying games - which you may not. If so - not problem!

This is some weird manichean alternative... that's not real. You use various social markers and so on, as overt element of mechanics, if they are universal and somehow rigid for a setting. Favor among elven nobles, honor among samurai and so on. Precisely because it has objective or close to it value in given genre/setting, and as such players can have clear notion of it - just like they have clear notion sword in their hands strike for 3d6 damage, because it's in given situation as objective as sword, or at least as objective as characters Fortitude Defense Roll :P

It does not give you automatic victory or anything, and you can still botch whatever favor Favor is giving you.
Having more clearly defined social aspects in mechanics does not detter or diminish roleplay. Unless you allow it to because you're lady. But it gives players clear notion of their arsenal.

QuotePretty certain he means 'let the PC with 20 Charisma and max ranks in Diplomacy do the talking'.

And allow ranks in Diplomacy to abstract from deeper possiblities of roleplaying?

Quote from: Greentongue on January 13, 2022, 01:41:56 PM

Quote from: tenbones on January 12, 2022, 04:11:51 PM
That's why you have the "Social Guy" in the group do the talking. Or you cultivate the Professional Murder Hobo image, and then people will know not to fuck with you. Intrigue is a civilized man's game. But everyone respects the sword.

So, basically, a player can only play an avatar of themselves and not just a character that interests them.
For example, to play a Wizard the player would need to be able to actually memorize their spells names and what they do. The time they take looking things up in real life is accounted for in game?

You can't play Bard unless you have real life social skills?

If you have a bunch of players that do *not* like doing social-stuff - and one that does - and they're playing characters that *want* to do social stuff. Why wouldn't you let them?

It's only an example. If you have socially awkward players playing social characters in-game it's *assumed* that you as a GM understand the challenges of dancing around that. I do it all the time. At no point have I needed to use "Favor Mechanics" (whatever those are) in lieu of just roleplaying adjusted for PC Skills/circumstances etc.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 13, 2022, 08:10:26 PM
Yeah, but that's not the point, because no one here is proposing using Favor as universal mechanics. So giving examples we're not advocating for is... pointless.
No one here is proposing direct favor mechanic for SW.

Since you're not offering up what "Favor" mechanics are - I'm literally left with making up scenarios with what I think you're talking about? I'm being pretty clear in that I'm LITERALLY asking you what are Favor Mechanics? And how are they more useful than roleplaying? I'm not trying to be argumentative - but I can't see this being a discussion without examples.

I use SW examples simply by whipping up something out of my ass that everyone would be familiar with. That should be pretty obvious since Han owes a debt to Jabba (spoiler alert?). If you prefer some other example I'd be happy to toss one out there. I'm on the record that the very game that exemplifies the only Favor Mechanic I'm aware of - FFG's Star Wars Obligation system is the *exact* example of Favor Mechanics that gets in the way of roleplaying. Most Players worth their salt can juke that system with *ease*. It exists primarily to justify something other than it's stated intent: it's there to justify players getting more starting points for Chargen. So do you have any other examples of Favor Mechanics? Toss them out there.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 13, 2022, 08:10:26 PMThis is some weird manichean alternative... that's not real. You use various social markers and so on, as overt element of mechanics, if they are universal and somehow rigid for a setting. Favor among elven nobles, honor among samurai and so on. Precisely because it has objective or close to it value in given genre/setting, and as such players can have clear notion of it - just like they have clear notion sword in their hands strike for 3d6 damage, because it's in given situation as objective as sword, or at least as objective as characters Fortitude Defense Roll :P

Really? Not real? Do you hand out Markers to people in real life that owe you favors? What social markers do you receive from people you know that tell you that you own them? Seriously, this is silly. Roleplaying is just that. Now nothing prevents you from doing these things, my entire question is WHY? That's all I'm asking. What is the value of it? I'm not judging you or anyone as people for liking it - I'm only asking why?

If you say: Because we like it, and it has nothing to do with anything - cool! No problem. If there is something deeper of value - I want to know what it is (you know, I might be missing something here? Maybe. Maybe not.)

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 13, 2022, 08:10:26 PM
It does not give you automatic victory or anything, and you can still botch whatever favor Favor is giving you.
Having more clearly defined social aspects in mechanics does not detter or diminish roleplay. Unless you allow it to because you're lady. But it gives players clear notion of their arsenal.

Heh well you can't know this about me... but *no one* gets an automatic *anything* in my social encounters (or any encounters). Any encounter in my games, social or otherwise, are going to matter. If your PC is good at what they do, and the player is competent, then you're probably going to be okay. But nothing is ever guaranteed when it matters. I'm as oldschool as it gets - I'll kill a motherfucker. I'm always chuckling at getting new-school players from 5e, shocked at my games. But they're really nothing different than you'd have found in Basic or 1e.

But if we're gonna talk about what it means to Roleplay - that would be probably better for a different thread. I'm down for that too.

I do think talking about Game Skills used in Social interactions are pertinent about this.

Since I run really open-world fare, anyone that dumped 20-points into Diplomacy over other pertinent skills required for adventuring in my campaigns - would probably be dead, unless they were high-level already. Diplomacy is good for when you're doing just that - Diplomacy. It doesn't lower the intelligence of ones adversary, but it does let you get negotiation advantage over them. That requires a player with *some* understanding of what could be attained beyond the obvious (since the player probably doesn't have a Diplomacy of +20). Nothing prevents me or the other players from offering up possibilities to SHOOT for before the roll is made. Nothing prevents the player from asking. Nothing prevents the player from gaining that understanding for future interactions so they become closer to their PC and their capabilities. That's the job of a good GM to help their players get into their PC's contextually.

If you just let your players buy up skills (of whatever type) and not contextualize it, you're doing sub-optimally as a GM. That becomes a gap between a player and their PC. That's how people come to be confused about how your world actually operates.

I believe Hero Games' Valdorian Age sourcebook has a favor-economy-based magic system.

Any mechanic at all can be gamed and get in the way of pure drama roleplay.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 14, 2022, 10:45:45 AM
Any mechanic at all can be gamed and get in the way of pure drama roleplay.

This is a good point. I would say any mechanic has the potential to hinder gameplay depending on group preferences.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 14, 2022, 10:30:07 AM
I believe Hero Games' Valdorian Age sourcebook has a favor-economy-based magic system.

Interesting. What's the game about and how does it work? EDIT: actually I've just found a review on RPGnet describing it..

https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11199.phtml

QuoteThus, when, not if, a sorcerer fails his Skill Roll, he doesn't actually fail to make his spirit appear; rather the spirit appears but is now in position to make demands of the caster. In game terms this is handled through a system of Favor Points, similar to how the basic system handles Contacts and Favors, with each point a Sorcery Roll is failed by equaling 1 Favor Point. You can buy Favor Points to get more of an edge with spirits, or to cancel negative Favor. Enough negative Favor will lead to the caster owing debts to the spirits he calls upon. Leaving this debt for too long, or refusing to pay a price for sorcery, causes all kinds of bad luck and problems. There are several methods for gaining more Favor Points or working off Favor debt. A sorcerer could summon a spirit and ask it to give him some task, with completion of the task earning a certain number of Favor Points. More deviously, the sorcerer could invest some of his negative Favor Points into a token and have someone accept it; this person then becomes a 'scapegoat' and takes those points. A sorcerer cannot coerce someone into accepting the token but might deceive him into picking it up. This is, of course, a classic Swords & Sorcery plot device. "We've had rotten luck ever since you stole that stupid idol!!"

Nice. 

Quote from: TenbonesI'm on the record that the very game that exemplifies the only Favor Mechanic I'm aware of - FFG's Star Wars Obligation system is the *exact* example of Favor Mechanics that gets in the way of roleplaying.

How Star Wars' Obligation gets in the way of roleplaying exactly? From my reading of it, it's just a hook that players pick to bring elements they're interested into the game like, say, having a bounty on ones's head. It's similar to ye ol' Gurps disadvantages really. I struggle to see how that gets in the way of roleplaying.

Quote from: TenbonesSo do you have any other examples of Favor Mechanics? Toss them out there.

Here goes an example from Sagas of the Icelanders (emphasis on uses of Favor mechanic as specific to that game):


_ _ _

Ari and Sven are neighbours in 1000 AD Iceland.
Ari is a generous person and so has accrued 3 Bonds on Sven (you gain Bonds with someone by being generous to him/her: giving gifts, helping them out, etc).
Ari had it's cows stolen while he was out fishing. Sven saw the culprit, but stayed mounth-shut for fear of retaliation from the thief, a renowned holmganga duelist.
Ari visits Sven's home the next afternoon.

Ari asks Sven if he saw who stole his cows.
Sven answers that he didn't see anything.
Ari reminds Sven that he always treated him with generosity and kindness, and that he would do well to retribute it in case he knows who the thief is.
At the same time Ari's player spends 1 Bond to ask a question that Sven's player must answer truthfully, as per the game rules: "Is Sven telling the truth?"
By the rules, Sven's player can only deny telling the truth if he spends a Bond of his own. But since he has no Bond on Ari, he goes ahead and answers it truthfully:
"Sven is lying, as you can read by his nervous body language. What do you do?"
Ari's player: "Since I know Sven is lying, I'll push - Ari questions his honor in a loud and serious tone, and he's doing it outside in front of Sven's own family and passers by. I'm using my remaning 2 Bonds with Sven to hinder his rebuke - I'll remember the inumerous times I've showed him and his family generosity". By the rules, one can spend bonds on a 1 for 1 basis to give the target -1 on apropriate rolls.

Now Sven is in a tight situation...

_ _ _

So, there it is. Notice it doesn't substitute roleplaying whatsoever. In fact, by that game's rules, the use of any mechanic (eg: Bonds) must be preceded by a coherent in-fiction description, under GM adjudication.

Quote from: tenbones on January 14, 2022, 09:58:24 AM
It's only an example. If you have socially awkward players playing social characters in-game it's *assumed* that you as a GM understand the challenges of dancing around that. I do it all the time. At no point have I needed to use "Favor Mechanics" (whatever those are) in lieu of just roleplaying adjusted for PC Skills/circumstances etc.

Well, we were talking about game mechanics so that people other than you can do that "dancing around" in a consistent way.
As you have just stated, it does take some dancing around. Wouldn't it be helpful to have some codified method to handle this?

In Fate this would be very easy to do: just have the favor be an Aspect that the other person can compel against you (so you get a Fate point if you follow through with his/her demands).

Cortex would follow a similar concept, only with condition/tag dice instead of Aspects. So in apropriate conflicts against you, the other person gain those dice to roll against you, increasing their chances of success.

Quote from: Itachi on January 14, 2022, 01:11:05 PM

Quote from: TenbonesI'm on the record that the very game that exemplifies the only Favor Mechanic I'm aware of - FFG's Star Wars Obligation system is the *exact* example of Favor Mechanics that gets in the way of roleplaying.

How Star Wars' Obligation gets in the way of roleplaying exactly? From my reading of it, it's just a hook that players pick to bring elements they're interested into the game like, say, having a bounty on ones's head. It's similar to ye ol' Gurps disadvantages really. I struggle to see how that gets in the way of roleplaying.

Because if you're a halfway decent GM a "hook" is literally anything you're creative enough to make meaningful. I literally have no need to artificially create a hood or enforce it in play in my games. The problem I see with it, is depending on these kinds of artificial mechanics which denote implied and overt assumptions and proscribed behaviors by the PC's/NPCs directly affects actual player agency via roleplaying.

In other words a HOOK is inert unless the PC decides its meaningful for them. The GM's side of the equation is simply to make meaningful content for the players to consume. The mechanic intercedes in that dynamic since there is no requirement for roleplaying purposes to to *need* the mechanic to induce meaning. Han owed Jabba in Episode IV - at no point after the Greedo incident - which was handled through roleplaying and Han deciding to kill that Rodian bastard (he shot first). At no point does the Obligation mechanics require use that any GM worth his salt couldn't induce via simple game logic.

I can completely see how new GM's might find novelty in them. But they are no replacement for actual good roleplaying in my opinion. They are so unnecessary that even in their Genesys system they don't use them in that manner.

Quote from: Itachi on January 14, 2022, 01:11:05 PM
Here goes an example from Sagas of the Icelanders (emphasis on uses of Favor mechanic as specific to that game):


_ _ _

Ari and Sven are neighbours in 1000 AD Iceland.
Ari is a generous person and so has accrued 3 Bonds on Sven (you gain Bonds with someone by being generous to him/her: giving gifts, helping them out, etc).
Ari had it's cows stolen while he was out fishing. Sven saw the culprit, but stayed mounth-shut for fear of retaliation from the thief, a renowned holmganga duelist.
Ari visits Sven's home the next afternoon.

Ari asks Sven if he saw who stole his cows.
Sven answers that he didn't see anything.
Ari reminds Sven that he always treated him with generosity and kindness, and that he would do well to retribute it in case he knows who the thief is.
At the same time Ari's player spends 1 Bond to ask a question that Sven's player must answer truthfully, as per the game rules: "Is Sven telling the truth?"
By the rules, Sven's player can only deny telling the truth if he spends a Bond of his own. But since he has no Bond on Ari, he goes ahead and answers it truthfully:
"Sven is lying, as you can read by his nervous body language. What do you do?"
Ari's player: "Since I know Sven is lying, I'll push - Ari questions his honor in a loud and serious tone, and he's doing it outside in front of Sven's own family and passers by. I'm using my remaning 2 Bonds with Sven to hinder his rebuke - I'll remember the inumerous times I've showed him and his family generosity". By the rules, one can spend bonds on a 1 for 1 basis to give the target -1 on apropriate rolls.

Now Sven is in a tight situation...

_ _ _

So, there it is. Notice it doesn't substitute roleplaying whatsoever. In fact, by that game's rules, the use of any mechanic (eg: Bonds) must be preceded by a coherent in-fiction description, under GM adjudication.

A global mechanic that overtly tells the player when and how they can interact? That isn't very pro-RP agency to me, that feels more board-gamey abstract. Look, we may have different views on what roleplaying is. I read these rules you've cited as replacements for "skill checks" at minimum (which are not required at all for roleplaying) or something else this game is trying to express. But it's very reductionist from actual roleplaying - where if my character wants to lie - I simply lie, and the GM/Player has to respond as their character would respond. The mechanic you're citing literally prevents agency without the currency. I'm assuming it's denoting numerically what the "value" of ones relationship is as well? If so, that is another abstraction that gets in the way of actual roleplaying for me. People don't walk around in real life with Bond ratings in their phones of their contacts (Although that would be a HILARIOUS and awesome roleplaying schtick for PC that actually did that and roleplayed it to the hilt - "Sorry Itachi, according to my spreadsheet your out of Bond Points with me.")

How could a mobster ever whack someone close to them using this kind of system? Again, to me these are rules for playing a very different kind of game than what I view as roleplaying games. And if it's your jam, cool. It looks very anti-roleplaying conceptually.

/shrug. Not my cuppa. Any other examples?

Quote from: Itachi on January 17, 2022, 03:39:24 PM
In Fate this would be very easy to do: just have the favor be an Aspect that the other person can compel against you (so you get a Fate point if you follow through with his/her demands).

Cortex would follow a similar concept, only with condition/tag dice instead of Aspects. So in apropriate conflicts against you, the other person gain those dice to roll against you, increasing their chances of success.

I'm very familiar with these mechanics. I find them hit-or-miss depending on the players. I have several players that are/were very RP-anxious that liked them conceptually - but never quite hooked them. Obviously this is anecdotal.

I've tried using Aspects in other other systems to promote PC agency. It's been hit or miss, mostly miss and I've largely dropped using them (and Fate as a system) entirely.

Edit: And I'd like to offer an apology to everyone that wants to talk about these kinds of mechanics with me digressing here, I really don't want to derail this thread any further. I was honestly interested whether or not I was missing something. I think I've got my answers. If anyone wants to discuss this track further with me - feel free to make another thread and I'll happily shoot the poop with ya'll on it.

@Tenbones, it seems to me you're shifting the goalposts. You said earlier that favor mechanics bypassed roleplaying or made it moot. I gave you an example showing this isn't the case, where every use of Favor mechanics is accompanied by, and intrinsically linked to, roleplaying. Sure, you may dislike how the system incentivizes certain behaviors. Sagas has a very specific agenda and it's use of Bonds reflects that, so it will displease lots of people (like any mechanics, really). But saying it substitutes roleplaying with some "roll-off of the dice", as you did, just isn't true.


*speaking of incentives, I always found it amusing when people get bothered by rules that give incentives to certain areas but not for others, no matter how subtle or blatant the case.

Quote from: Itachi on January 17, 2022, 06:44:35 PM
@Tenbones, it seems to me you're shifting the goalposts. You said earlier that favor mechanics bypassed roleplaying or made it moot. I gave you an example showing this isn't the case, where every use of Favor mechanics is accompanied by, and intrinsically linked to, roleplaying. Sure, you may dislike how the system incentivizes certain behaviors. Sagas has a very specific agenda and it's use of Bonds reflects that, so it will displease lots of people (like any mechanics, really). But saying it substitutes roleplaying with some "roll-off of the dice", as you did, just isn't true.


*speaking of incentives, I always found it amusing when people get bothered by rules that give incentives to certain areas but not for others, no matter how subtle or blatant the case.

No, *my* goalpost is roleplaying. The simple act of you and I sitting there pretending to be "characters". That requires *no* mechanics. The moment you have to put a mechanic in-between us playing our characters  you begin abstracting and removing us from my primary goal - to roleplay as up-close and personal as we can get and have challenging fun.

I came into this thread because I do realize mechanics in games are needed and I'm always interested in something novel that I could use. I'm not convinced of that after reading this thread and asking the questions I have asked. I have yet to see "Favor" mechanics that made roleplaying better or enhanced any of the TTRPG's I play. Now that doesn't mean there aren't games out there that by intention are not designed for the kind of roleplaying I place a premium on. But I think that delves into discussions like "Are these roleplaying games?" or are they "Enhanced board games?" or something like that - which is not the topic of the thread.

These are games, I'm not "bothered" AT ALL by people liking something I don't care for. I literally posted that upthread in a couple of places. No harm, no foul. I'm not convinced of your examples that I get any use out what you're proposing. That is all. If you want to debate why - sure. But again, that seems to be a thread-derail. My questions about what these "Favor Mechanics" are have been answered sufficiently.

If you wanna prosecute my opinions, make a thread, I'm down to explore that.

Quote from: tenbones on January 18, 2022, 11:27:37 AMNo, *my* goalpost is roleplaying.

Don't look so. Your goalpost seems more like a very specific style of roleplaying that you happen to like, but that exists between a myriad other styles in the hobby that you, for some reason - probably for lack of familiarity - is being dismissive to. I don't see the reason for us to continue with this conversation as it's got to a point where you're implying we are not even playing RPGs, which I find very delusional and a tad arrogant. I'll just leave this here, so you can get acquainted to what is being played in this hobby called "Roleplaying Games" as of 2021. Maybe you learn something, maybe not (probably not, judging by your posts):

All those people playing Blades in the Dark, Dungeon World, Apocalypse World and FFG Star Wars must be mistaken to think those are RPGs, right?  ::)

Source: https://www.dramadice.com/blog/the-most-played-tabletop-rpgs-in-2021/

(https://www.dramadice.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/roll20-orr-report-tabletop-rpgs-1024x582.jpg)

(https://www.dramadice.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/tabletop-rpg-search-queries-google-2-1024x582.jpg)

Id say blades in the dark and apocalypse world are not really roleplaying games. Its like saying One Night Ultimate Werewolf is a roleplaying game. Its more rpg then boardgame, buts its still not a full rpg.

And im not opposed to some degree of favor mechanics for tracking and character creation reasons. I can be buff from my backstory and favor mechanics allow me to be popular as an option instead.

Quote from: Itachi on January 18, 2022, 04:05:20 PM

Quote from: tenbones on January 18, 2022, 11:27:37 AMNo, *my* goalpost is roleplaying.

Don't look so. Your goalpost seems more like a very specific style of roleplaying that you happen to like, but that exists between a myriad other styles in the hobby that you, for some reason - probably for lack of familiarity - is being dismissive to. I don't see the reason for us to continue with this conversation as it's got to a point where you're implying we are not even playing RPGs, which I find very delusional and a tad arrogant. I'll just leave this here, so you can get acquainted to what is being played in this hobby called "Roleplaying Games" as of 2021. Maybe you learn something, maybe not (probably not, judging by your posts):

All those people playing Blades in the Dark, Dungeon World, Apocalypse World and FFG Star Wars must be mistaken to think those are RPGs, right?  ::)

Source: https://www.dramadice.com/blog/the-most-played-tabletop-rpgs-in-2021/

(https://www.dramadice.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/roll20-orr-report-tabletop-rpgs-1024x582.jpg)

(https://www.dramadice.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/tabletop-rpg-search-queries-google-2-1024x582.jpg)

You don't have to "look" at anything. My goalpost is standing nicely. You'll note I did not mention a single system in my definition of roleplaying - I simply said, yet again, I like my roleplaying up close and as unimpeded by mechanics as possible. There is no mention of any system. So it's not to impugn you or anyone else on whatever kind of games you wanna play. And as I said - if you want to make a separate thread to discuss what is/isn't roleplaying I'm game. Otherwise...

As for being dismissive - am I supposed to like everything everyone else likes?? I came into this thread asking a basic question, it's been answered, I'm not telling you "do it my way" I was looking for examples, got them, thank you, and what? You want to tell me I'm beholden to playing things I don't like?? Or if I don't like them that somehow castigates people that do? No, not really.

I don't get where you're going with this. I also don't get why what *I* think is roleplaying in terms of game-brand is important to you? If it is that important, start another thread. We can explore it together.

LOL as an aside - that list is *hilarious* considering the population of this forum. And don't project too hard on what you think I'm familiar with, I think I own 90% of that list and did design-work for a few of them.

Yes, most of it doesn't get much use for very good reasons.

Quote from: tenbones on December 29, 2021, 11:34:24 AMSo I just notate, notate, notate and update things between sessions.

And yet, you seem to have missed that tracking Favor points is a method of notating.

... but based on the examples given the "Currency" actually demands discrete behaviors and choices.

A "notation" could literally be anything depending on the circumstances of the game and the characters actions within it, which could change at any point. Subjectivity is not lost to the objective demands of the mechanic. I.e. you/I are not forced to conform to a mechanic to decide our actions that otherwise Of course this is based on the examples given.

"Favor" points is not *just* not notating in this case either. It's largely static as presented - you hold currency until it is spent. Unless you have some other mechanic that removes them - which again is another abstraction which further removes my main goal in roleplaying regardless of system.

This is not to say there aren't social mechanics that exist in various games I like - they are more generalized. Karma system in MSH, Honor System in OA1e, etc.

But these inform the player on their roleplaying- they are free to transgress those implied "correct" social mores as they see fit - and pay whatever price for them. The difference is subtle and not without their problems (including with me) but relevant - and unsurprisingly probably the most complained about parts of MSH and OA1e, as an example.

Which examples are these? Since I don't find Favor mechanics confusing or any more problematic than other mechanics in RPGs, I haven't tracked every example in the thread so maybe there is one I missed that matches what you've said. But the ones I've noticed treat Favor as a modifier to the success of an action, not the sole determiner. You keep responding as if the examples make Favor the sole determiner of an interaction, a sort of automatic win button. I haven't noticed anyone say that's how they use Favor.

I'm not familiar with the two games you mentioned, but based on the little you've said, if Honor and Karma are something that is numerically tracked, it seems those mechanics would effect roleplaying in the same way tracking Favor effects roleplaying. Why are Honor and Karma something that needs to be tracked, but tracking Favor is something you believe will decrease or negatively effect roleplaying?

Quote from: Bren on January 19, 2022, 06:48:37 PM
Which examples are these? Since I don't find Favor mechanics confusing or any more problematic than other mechanics in RPGs, I haven't tracked every example in the thread so maybe there is one I missed that matches what you've said. But the ones I've noticed treat Favor as a modifier to the success of an action, not the sole determiner. You keep responding as if the examples make Favor the sole determiner of an interaction, a sort of automatic win button. I haven't noticed anyone say that's how they use Favor.

Without me re-litigating the whole thing - I only came in here asking what is the purpose of Favor Mechanics that isn't resolved by roleplaying. It was for my own edification. It appears people take umbrage to my lack of being convinced. /shrug.

Quote from: Bren on January 19, 2022, 06:48:37 PM
I'm not familiar with the two games you mentioned, but based on the little you've said, if Honor and Karma are something that is numerically tracked, it seems those mechanics would effect roleplaying in the same way tracking Favor effects roleplaying. Why are Honor and Karma something that needs to be tracked, but tracking Favor is something you believe will decrease or negatively effect roleplaying?

You're halfway there. Karma and Honor in their respective systems are designed purely to reward and guide behavior - but they are not implicit. In MSH - you are free to do all the evil shit you want. But you will pay for it if you're a hero. It's not "Favor" mechanics - as they have rules for that using Contacts, it strictly roleplayed and the check is to determine whether or not the Contact is available (Dr. Strange may be off on his own adventure). Honor in OA1e - is D&D1e, it only matters if you're part of Kara-Turan cultures that practice it and you're of sufficient caste to have it. It's both stick-and-carrot to get your PC into the social-mores of those cultures. There is plenty of roleplaying options to mitigate losses and gains. It's not necessarily strictly black-and-white, though people that don't understand it have debated for years over it.

I use Honor and Karma as an example of social mechanics that I personally find acceptable roleplaying incentives despite whatever controversies they have earned over the decades. Both systems have been overhauled to being unnecessary if you want. I've used Fate mechanics to replace MSH Karma, and OA1e Honor too. The devil is in the details - the games being talked about in terms of Favor Mechanics in this thread I can't speak to, but they don't appear to be that flexible, or it's not desirable by those that play with them.

Quote from: tenbones on January 20, 2022, 05:30:18 PMWithout me re-litigating the whole thing - I only came in here asking what is the purpose of Favor Mechanics that isn't resolved by roleplaying. It was for my own edification. It appears people take umbrage to my lack of being convinced. /shrug.

Not so much umbrage, as frustration that you ignored what people said about how Favor worked in specific systems or how they used Favor when they GM to talk about some idea in your head, divorced from any system, about how Favor mechanics work and why they won't work for you. There a crap load of RPGs these days so their probably is a game that matches the idea you have in your head for Favor mechanics. But that idea hasn't seemed to match the mechanics other people in the thread have been using.

QuoteYou're halfway there. Karma and Honor in their respective systems are designed purely to reward and guide behavior - but they are not implicit. In MSH - you are free to do all the evil shit you want. But you will pay for it if you're a hero.

That's similar to how Favor works. Your PC can ignore a Favor someone uses against them and so could the NPC, but there would be some societal cost to this failure to pay your debt and abide by the culturally well understood rules of behavior. Generally the NPCs aren't going to take the hit to their reputation, honor, social rank or whatever that ignoring the debt represented by a Favor will cost. But if they don't like you or don't like what you asked for, one should expect that they will follow the letter of the request, provide the minimum support required, or do something else to you after paying the Favor for causing them trouble, pain, or annoyance. You don't need a Favor to ask (or demand) someone do something for you. The Favor just means they owe you for some prior act and thus are highly unlikely to just laugh in your face at your request before they have their footman toss you out in the street like the presumptuous upstart that your PC has shown themself to be...Because that's how this society works and hardly anyone, even villains, wants to be a total social pariah.

Often the objection a player has to mechanics like Honor, Karma, Favors, Traits, Passions, and Flaws that limit or affect the behavior of their PC is really a desire not to play in the setting or genre that has been pitched. They don't want to play the honorable noble duelist in a Musketeers campaign who tosses the sword back to the bad guy so the duel can continue fairly. They want to play a character like Indiana Jones who shoots the big Arab with the big sword instead of dueling him. So one additional benefit of these sorts of social mechanics is they often quickly reveal which players ought to be playing at somebody else's table.

Quote from: tenbones on January 20, 2022, 05:30:18 PMWithout me re-litigating the whole thing - I only came in here asking what is the purpose of Favor Mechanics that isn't resolved by roleplaying.

From personal experience...Its sort of similar to some trade mechanics. At times as a GM its difficult to assertain how much is 'good enough', and how much should a good argument/good roll lead too. When Im running a game, Im managing many things at once, and so in the moment just saying 'Uh....+70%?' happens and in the end I either have to let the players keep a unrealistically large/small some of money, or have to take-backsies later.

A rule helps codify some things and ground me when Im in the process of simulating a universe. How much help can the PCs call apon? How fast will it respond if they do? Will this strain further relations?

Yes at time this can be inorganic, but so can PCs surviving explosions going off near their face, if that makes sense. Like any mechanic, its important to know when personal judgement should override.

I think there is a big distinction between the two.

Economics in/out of game is literally relating to currency of value. I will concede there is this element today that I do see in many games (some of which I play) that advocate for handwavium when it comes "wealth" by abstracting it to a discrete stat to be rolled. This is not even a new thing - MSH has been doing it for 30+ years (that system was WAAAAAAAYYYY ahead of its time).

But the reality is that economics are not "roleplaying", they're elements that can impact roleplaying - like a guy owes you money, what do you do?

"Favors" are a thing that need to be defined in order for it to be a mechanic to instill value. Since "Favors" implies discrete actions - which does include all kinds of things. For a mechanic to be useful, like currency, it needs to have a value. I contend that the nuances of real PC/NPC interactions in roleplaying are more useful.

The corollary of this that is not spoken - both in "Favors" and "Economics" in game is the skill of the GM behind the scenes.

Of course the devil is in the details. I'm always open to checking out new ways to doing things - but I'm also not required to use something I don't need, which others might find value in.

To your specific point - one "abstract" way of doing trade I always liked was the The Trader Kit in 2e D&D, which allowed a player to own "Cargo" in discrete units. Everytime they pulled into a new place where they can ply their trade they can roll 1d6 per unit of cargo and make <X> amount of money. They can always buy more or sell cargo as units to increase/lower their supply. What I liked about this abstract mechanic is that it allowed me to tweak values based on location (Demand) and rarity (Quality) - which of course allowed me to engage in more dynamic roleplaying anytime I felt it was useful in the game.

I'm not against the idea of "Favor" mechanics as an idea. But again, the devil is in the details of how those mechanics are expressed.

Quote from: Bren on January 20, 2022, 05:54:25 PM
Not so much umbrage, as frustration that you ignored what people said about how Favor worked in specific systems or how they used Favor when they GM to talk about some idea in your head, divorced from any system, about how Favor mechanics work and why they won't work for you. There a crap load of RPGs these days so their probably is a game that matches the idea you have in your head for Favor mechanics. But that idea hasn't seemed to match the mechanics other people in the thread have been using.

Until I had to ask specifically - I had no idea what they were talking about, so I can't be faulted for what people are thinking without knowing. That's the entire reason why I asked.

Quote from: Bren on January 20, 2022, 05:54:25 PMOften the objection a player has to mechanics like Honor, Karma, Favors, Traits, Passions, and Flaws that limit or affect the behavior of their PC is really a desire not to play in the setting or genre that has been pitched. They don't want to play the honorable noble duelist in a Musketeers campaign who tosses the sword back to the bad guy so the duel can continue fairly. They want to play a character like Indiana Jones who shoots the big Arab with the big sword instead of dueling him. So one additional benefit of these sorts of social mechanics is they often quickly reveal which players ought to be playing at somebody else's table.

The difference is in the systems I cited (one could argue this isn't true of MSH, but nearly 40-years of play has proven most people don't play it this way by having expanded on the obvious corollaries of what the Karma system implies. Even in the base system they explain how Villains work with it, but I digress) they are at the PC-level. The PC is built with the assumption they are going to engage in that kind of play, the rest of the system doesn't depend on it. You *can* play a character in OA1e without using the Honor system. Just like you can be a regular 1e D&D character not even from the culture there, and you don't have to interact with that mechanic.

The implication of a "Favor mechanic" sounds like a global conceit - without having a system I could point at. Again, much like OA1e, and MSH, these things are entirely driven by roleplaying choices, not by mechanics, though mechanics may impact that roleplaying. This adheres to my own personal desires of keeping roleplaying first, mechanics second.

This MAY/MAY NOT be the case in the systems being discussed without my knowledge, but that's precisely why I'm asking.

Quote from: tenbones on January 21, 2022, 11:13:36 AM
I think there is a big distinction between the two.

Id say no.
Well money is also resources. Favors are an abstract measure of resources you can get from somebody, how fast can you get them, and what kind and the consequences for doing so.

QuoteBut the reality is that economics are not "roleplaying", they're elements that can impact roleplaying - like a guy owes you money, what do you do?

Abstract white void money dispenser NPC #76G may be easy to just quickly say if he pays back the money or not. But if its lets say...Restaraunt owner Bobby. Does he actually have the money? How fast can he get it if it doesn't and how much does does it hurt him if he does? Would he be willing to make such risks again? Some background systems can help make me take actions as a GM that I may not out of a desire to default to convenience (Every GM does this subconciously).

Favor mechanics can be like morale mechanics, or like hit points (even wound levels or bennies), or like spell points or anything that doesn't have a 1-1 measurable 'stat' in the world. All can get in the way of roleplaying. Otherwise the truest essense of roleplaying is just collaborative storytelling with no mechanics. Which I don't think is what you believe.

Quote from: tenbones on January 21, 2022, 11:13:36 AMwhich of course allowed me to engage in more dynamic roleplaying anytime I felt it was useful in the game.

Well yeah, favor mechanics can be similar. "You crashed the mercenary companies helicopter, and wether or not it was justified, they are loathe to give you more stuff until its either been repaired or you pay the money back." So from there the PCs can enact their own plans on how to fix this (maybe sleeping with the merc head of accounting).

Quote from: tenbones on January 21, 2022, 11:22:33 AMThe implication of a "Favor mechanic" sounds like a global conceit - without having a system I could point at.

A Favor mechanic won't apply globally - as in all over the globe - so Favor is global only in the sense that if we agree we are going to play Musketeers in sort-of 17th century France, much of play will occur in or around France and in cultures that are similar to that of the PCs and their potential patrons. So everybody has the same cultural expectations of what owing a Favor is supposed to mean just like they have similar expectations of what Honor means. (Whether the players want their PCs to act honorably is a separate question.)

If we put the PCs on a ship that runs aground in Japan, where they then take up rice farming or running a noodle shop, the Favor mechanic isn't something that makes a lot of sense to include in the game. The PCs won't (at least for some time) understand the Japanese culture and so the locals won't act in predictable ways vis a vis the cultural expectations of a PC who is a French Musketeer or noble or a Jesuit priest.

As described in the mechanics on this thread - there may be others out there, I don't know, those values are locked.

I can't, for example, roleplay my way out of whatever the value of a "Favor" currency demands. IF we can - then we're not talking about the same thing necessarily. And I further submit, if we can indeed change that value based on roleplaying, it immediately implies the value of such a currency is lessened. Which is what I'm really asking - why not just stop using it and roleplay it?

If the response is "Because it's fun" - great. I could ask why - but it appears that gets into murky territory of subjective interests and potential vitriol (apparently). I'm not telling anyone to not do what is fun for them, because I see no value *for myself* in what they were doing.

Quote from: tenbones on January 22, 2022, 04:43:44 PMWhy not just stop using it and roleplay it?

This is getting into repitition. That argument can be made for ANY level of abstraction. Why have a defined STR score despite STR fluctuating for the avarage person during the same hour even? The classic 'Gun to head of a bound guy not killing' thing.

Quote from: tenbones on January 22, 2022, 04:43:44 PM
... And I further submit, if we can indeed change that value based on roleplaying, it immediately implies the value of such a currency is lessened. Which is what I'm really asking - why not just stop using it and roleplay it?

Gold in games doesn't seem to devalue even though "adventurers" return from dungeons with loads of it. Nobody talks about "stop using" gold. True silver is almost valueless and platinum was added to the coinage but the fact that value can fluctuate has not stopped people from using coins.
Even in our times, when paper is given an assumed value, it can be seen that having a method of quantifying value is useful.  Yes, the value of a "Favor" can change but, that doesn't make it not worth tracking.

Holy freaking crap, people! Gold and strength are concrete measurable things. Favor is a completely subjective ephemeral quantity that people in real life often just forget about after all the crap you've done for them, while money is MONEY and always gets accepted at the store. Even to the degree that you might argue that monetary value is subjective, it is still based around a scarce, measurable and quantifiable resource, which Favor isn't. How are these things even close enough to 1 on 1 analogous to be comparable?

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 22, 2022, 05:44:12 PM
Holy freaking crap, people! Gold and strength are concrete measurable things.

Not in a way thats comprable to the stats we have in the real world (maybe gold). Or are you saying there is a 100% accurate measure of 'Wisdom' or 'Spirit'.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 22, 2022, 05:47:28 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 22, 2022, 05:44:12 PM
Holy freaking crap, people! Gold and strength are concrete measurable things.

Not in a way thats comprable to the stats we have in the real world (maybe gold).

And?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 22, 2022, 05:47:28 PMOr are you saying there is a 100% accurate measure of 'Wisdom' or 'Spirit'.

It's a good thing that isn't anywhere in my post. Not that it changes anything, cuz attributes not being 100% consistently measurable in RPG terms doesn't mean that they aren't measurable. People's strength in real life doesn't fluctuate wildly. They have an average lifting capacity and upper limit that tends to be fairly consistent, even if it may technically change slightly based on their activity that day or any "status conditions" type of things they might be suffering, which would just be handled as status conditions in a RPG. But some people being better at some things than others is a demonstrable thing. It isn't based on opinion or people's good will.

Just because a concrete quantifiable thing isn't measurable with 100% accuracy that doesn't make it comparable to another thing that is 100% subjective and subject other people's whims and memory.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 22, 2022, 07:27:48 PMAnd?

Health points or wounds or whatever the fuck is a VASTLY abstracted and pared down version of the real deal. Its just as ephemeral as an abstract notation of some peoples general view towards you.

For those who are all roleplay all the time, let's turn this conversation around.  Do you really roleplay out every interaction in real time? Even the dull ones? Or are you abstracting or ignoring interactions that you think may not be interesting enough?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 22, 2022, 08:16:11 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 22, 2022, 07:27:48 PMAnd?

Health points or wounds or whatever the fuck is a VASTLY abstracted and pared down version of the real deal. Its just as ephemeral as an abstract notation of some peoples general view towards you.

I already addressed this to some extend or another in the part of my post that you left out. Just because you can't have perfect 100% accurate 1 on 1 emulation of real life that doesn't mean that the thing you're trying to emulate isn't a quantifiable concrete thing. It just means that we're limited in how accurately we can emulate it.

But no, Wound mechanics aren't as ephemeral as Favor mechanics, because wounds are actually physical things we can observe and see their effects, while the idea of "Favor" is something that's up in the air and hard to quantify in any meaningful way. And Wound mechanics (however you handle them) are also vital to keep track of your character's health state and ability to survive. That's something that you kinda need to have in a game 100% of the time if you want to play any type of action adventure.

But you don't need a Favor mechanic to RP or keep a mental note that the PCs did right by a certain NPC, which means that NPC might treat them favorably next time they see them. So these two things are not by any means 1 on 1 on a comparison scale. One deals with concrete things and is 100% necessary in SOME form or another in an action adventure game, while the other one is subjective and isn't even necessary at all for handling RP. It's just an extra element added on top of the thing that you could already do without game mechanics before you added it.

Quote from: Bren on January 23, 2022, 02:21:42 AM
For those who are all roleplay all the time, let's turn this conversation around.  Do you really roleplay out every interaction in real time? Even the dull ones? Or are you abstracting or ignoring interactions that you think may not be interesting enough?

I actually used to RP the dull ones back in the day. It was a drag so I tend to skip them now. Though, I wouldn't say I'm "all role-play", but I can see the case for how certain mechanics can interfere with RP or force certain outcomes. In the Favor example given earlier in this thread, for example, certain uses of favor can force a player to tell if they're lying, which has a direct effect on the direction the interaction can take.

Even social skills and OD&D CHA-based Reaction Rolls do this for the most part. Though, I've grown accustomed to accepting them because I think that social ability is definitely a factor in interaction in real life, so I'm more inclined to accept the idea that social skills and/or charisma should affect interaction. But even then I've seen them get in the way, or used in lieu of actual RP.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 22, 2022, 05:44:12 PM
Holy freaking crap, people! Gold and strength are concrete measurable things. Favor is a completely subjective ephemeral quantity that people in real life often just forget about after all the crap you've done for them, while money is MONEY and always gets accepted at the store. Even to the degree that you might argue that monetary value is subjective, it is still based around a scarce, measurable and quantifiable resource, which Favor isn't. How are these things even close enough to 1 on 1 analogous to be comparable?

So credit and reputation have no perceived value and only "gold" matters?

You may find this interesting:
https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-100-issue-6/pre-modern-credit-networks-and-the-limits-of-reputation/

I believe "Favor" can be considered a stand in for credit and reputation on a personal level.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 23, 2022, 07:36:48 AM

Quote from: Bren on January 23, 2022, 02:21:42 AM
For those who are all roleplay all the time, let's turn this conversation around.  Do you really roleplay out every interaction in real time? Even the dull ones? Or are you abstracting or ignoring interactions that you think may not be interesting enough?

I actually used to RP the dull ones back in the day. It was a drag so I tend to skip them now. Though, I wouldn't say I'm "all role-play", but I can see the case for how certain mechanics can interfere with RP or force certain outcomes. In the Favor example given earlier in this thread, for example, certain uses of favor can force a player to tell if they're lying, which has a direct effect on the direction the interaction can take.

Even social skills and OD&D CHA-based Reaction Rolls do this for the most part. Though, I've grown accustomed to accepting them because I think that social ability is definitely a factor in interaction in real life, so I'm more inclined to accept the idea that social skills and/or charisma should affect interaction. But even then I've seen them get in the way, or used in lieu of actual RP.

Oh yeah, that. Using a Favor to tell when someone is lying isn't something I would do or could do in the systems I run or play. That use sounded like it was coming from a very different system (though I don't recall which system it was). So I kind of just mentally skimmed on past it.

One thing that's clear from this thread is that there is no universal way that mechanics that get called 'Favor' operate. Different systems have different mechanics for Favor that do different things. There may be some overlap, but there may be great differences.

Quote from: Bren on January 23, 2022, 02:21:42 AM
For those who are all roleplay all the time, let's turn this conversation around.  Do you really roleplay out every interaction in real time? Even the dull ones? Or are you abstracting or ignoring interactions that you think may not be interesting enough?

It's not absolutism. I've said I put my stake down on "maximal" roleplay where/when necessary. I roleplay whatever interaction I think can be made potentially meaningful - which for me, could literally be anything but it is in tension with the interest of the player and their PC. I don't require a "tracking" number to detail the possible reactions/interactions based on that number with any particular NPC.

I *get* having things like Contacts. Contacts immediately assumes something specific about the nature of a PC and specific NPC's in the game. But the nature of that relationship is established and maintained by roleplaying.

Example: Captain America has Nick Fury as a Contact. In my games if a player playing Cap wanted some intelligence on an NPC, they could do something as simple as "I call up Nick and ask him what he's got on 'Stegron'." By the rules - it's a Popularity Check just to see if Nick is available. Or I could just waive that - because I may want to use this interaction to give some exposition from another sub-plot that's going on in the game or whatever. And oh yeah, here's what SHIELD has on Stegron.

But maybe the PC has been doing some shenannigans with Cap - and he's on SHIELD's radar (but was dumb enough to call Nick anyhow) - Nick is still a Contact, he'll pick up the phone, but that interaction might be much more nuanced because Nick suspects the PC Cap of having done something that SHIELD frowns upon - thus what PC Cap requests may have different outcomes for more nuanced or different reasons.

Conversely - you have characters like Daredevil, whose Contacts for info on the streets are Turk and Grotto. He *KICKS THE SHIT* out them in order to extract information. It was an ongoing meme for decades - it even made its way into the Netflix show. But the nature of that relationship to get the same equivalence of value (information) has a radically more nuanced interaction. Which in this case is varying levels of violence and roleplay as part of it.

Yes, you could abstract this all with a number and rote mechanics to gloss over these interactions, but it loses the nuance I want and get routinely from my gaming that defines what I and my players generally want. And if you or anyone else likes those mechanics in lieu of this level of roleplaying - okay, that's fine.

Quote from: Greentongue on January 23, 2022, 02:11:54 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 22, 2022, 05:44:12 PM
Holy freaking crap, people! Gold and strength are concrete measurable things. Favor is a completely subjective ephemeral quantity that people in real life often just forget about after all the crap you've done for them, while money is MONEY and always gets accepted at the store. Even to the degree that you might argue that monetary value is subjective, it is still based around a scarce, measurable and quantifiable resource, which Favor isn't. How are these things even close enough to 1 on 1 analogous to be comparable?

So credit and reputation have no perceived value and only "gold" matters?

You may find this interesting:
https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-100-issue-6/pre-modern-credit-networks-and-the-limits-of-reputation/

I believe "Favor" can be considered a stand in for credit and reputation on a personal level.

Yeah. That system SUUUUUCKS for roleplaying. Have you tried that system? They don't even use dice. It's like freeform Amber with calculators and surveys with interviews. Worst gaming mechanics ever.

Greetings!

Fuck "Favours". Roleplay or DIE. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I'm not gonna sift, but I guess we can start compiling systems that have some form of it by now after all these posts.

I got as a start L5R and WW WoD (Storyteller), e.g. Vampire prestation.

What else?

Quote from: Greentongue on January 23, 2022, 02:11:54 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 22, 2022, 05:44:12 PM
Holy freaking crap, people! Gold and strength are concrete measurable things. Favor is a completely subjective ephemeral quantity that people in real life often just forget about after all the crap you've done for them, while money is MONEY and always gets accepted at the store. Even to the degree that you might argue that monetary value is subjective, it is still based around a scarce, measurable and quantifiable resource, which Favor isn't. How are these things even close enough to 1 on 1 analogous to be comparable?

So credit and reputation have no perceived value and only "gold" matters?

You may find this interesting:
https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-100-issue-6/pre-modern-credit-networks-and-the-limits-of-reputation/

I believe "Favor" can be considered a stand in for credit and reputation on a personal level.

1) It doesn't say that anywhere in my post, but OK.

2) I only read about halfway through, but what I read seems to support my point more than yours. The author specifically discards reputation as a major factor early in the article (didn't get to the part where they go into details), explicitly said credits where a precursor to paper money at one point (as in Dollar bills) and mentioned they used to weight owe coins, cuz some people made counterfeit coins that weighted less, which were gold or silver. All of that points to credit being based around quantifiable things, like metal and amount of coins owed, not up in the air "Favor" or someone's reputation.

Quote from: Bren on January 24, 2022, 06:50:15 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 23, 2022, 07:36:48 AM

Quote from: Bren on January 23, 2022, 02:21:42 AM
For those who are all roleplay all the time, let's turn this conversation around.  Do you really roleplay out every interaction in real time? Even the dull ones? Or are you abstracting or ignoring interactions that you think may not be interesting enough?

I actually used to RP the dull ones back in the day. It was a drag so I tend to skip them now. Though, I wouldn't say I'm "all role-play", but I can see the case for how certain mechanics can interfere with RP or force certain outcomes. In the Favor example given earlier in this thread, for example, certain uses of favor can force a player to tell if they're lying, which has a direct effect on the direction the interaction can take.

Even social skills and OD&D CHA-based Reaction Rolls do this for the most part. Though, I've grown accustomed to accepting them because I think that social ability is definitely a factor in interaction in real life, so I'm more inclined to accept the idea that social skills and/or charisma should affect interaction. But even then I've seen them get in the way, or used in lieu of actual RP.

Oh yeah, that. Using a Favor to tell when someone is lying isn't something I would do or could do in the systems I run or play. That use sounded like it was coming from a very different system (though I don't recall which system it was). So I kind of just mentally skimmed on past it.

One thing that's clear from this thread is that there is no universal way that mechanics that get called 'Favor' operate. Different systems have different mechanics for Favor that do different things. There may be some overlap, but there may be great differences.

TBH, I wouldn't be entirely be opposed to a Favor currency you could spend to boost your social rolls. Though, I could just as easily give PCs a one time bonus next time they deal with the NPC, or simply RP the NPC as friendly from the onset and leave it at that.

Quote from: Opaopajr on January 25, 2022, 12:55:30 PM
I'm not gonna sift, but I guess we can start compiling systems that have some form of it by now after all these posts.

I got as a start L5R and WW WoD (Storyteller), e.g. Vampire prestation.

What else?

FFG's Edge of the Empire Star Wars RPG has this as a function of Obligation. PCs can take on Obligation (of various types) to gain favors, and NPCs can reduce your Obligation (of various types) as payment/reward for favors you do for them.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 25, 2022, 01:09:43 PM
1) ...

2) I only read about halfway through, but what I read seems to support my point more than yours. The author specifically discards reputation as a major factor early in the article (didn't get to the part where they go into details), explicitly said credits where a precursor to paper money at one point (as in Dollar bills) and mentioned they used to weight owe coins, cuz some people made counterfeit coins that weighted less, which were gold or silver. All of that points to credit being based around quantifiable things, like metal and amount of coins owed, not up in the air "Favor" or someone's reputation.

To put it another way. You see the people with their "Will work for food" signs. You need work done and so take them up on their offer however, they haven't eaten in a while and want to eat BEFORE doing any work.
How do you decide to give them food ahead or not? What would make them do the work after.

Another,
The US currency is backed by "The full faith in the government." Why is that needed if "Dollars bills" are the same as gold or silver? Would you take Bitcoin? It represents no gold or silver. 

My long winded point is that we give things value. Even insubstantial things and we honor these "transactions".
Why is "doing something for you" not assumed to have an exchangeable value? Is it only because it is named "Favor" and implies the debt can be ignored?

Quote from: Greentongue on January 25, 2022, 02:10:55 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 25, 2022, 01:09:43 PM
1) ...

2) I only read about halfway through, but what I read seems to support my point more than yours. The author specifically discards reputation as a major factor early in the article (didn't get to the part where they go into details), explicitly said credits where a precursor to paper money at one point (as in Dollar bills) and mentioned they used to weight owe coins, cuz some people made counterfeit coins that weighted less, which were gold or silver. All of that points to credit being based around quantifiable things, like metal and amount of coins owed, not up in the air "Favor" or someone's reputation.

To put it another way. You see the people with their "Will work for food" signs. You need work done and so take them up on their offer however, they haven't eaten in a while and want to eat BEFORE doing any work.
How do you decide to give them food ahead or not? What would make them do the work after.

Another,
The US currency is backed by "The full faith in the government." Why is that needed if "Dollars bills" are the same as gold or silver? Would you take Bitcoin? It represents no gold or silver. 

My long winded point is that we give things value. Even insubstantial things and we honor these "transactions".
Why is "doing something for you" not assumed to have an exchangeable value? Is it only because it is named "Favor" and implies the debt can be ignored?

But this reduces ones capacity for actual agency down to a value that exists *outside* the actual game. There is a big difference between my agency as a player not being able to purchase a Healing potion that costs 100gp, and I only have 23gp in my pouch, and Jabba the Hutt having "3" Favor with me.

Depending on the mechanics that can literally mean "On a scale of 1-to-10 his 'general' disposition to you" which I could be fine with. Or it could mean "At a Rating of 3, this mean this PC/NPC WILL do X for you" free of context.

I'm a very confident GM, and I track interactions with my PC's beyond their direct contacts with my NPCs - I'm always considering what my NPC's have heard, the way they heard it, their motivations and interests that might make them predisposed/antagonistic towards the PC's etc. Sure I can accept that there might mechanics that affect that disposition - but that's why I'm here. Favor mechanics have a ton of implication, that I rarely find as useful as just "roleplaying".

Gold is a literal transactional currency where value is generally agreed upon. But even then this isn't always so, try having your PC's trade gold to a bunch of savages that have zero need for it, or go to Krynnspace where they try to pay you in Steelpieces (hee hee).

Favors are a subjective "currency" that are dependent on the perspectives of the participants. Without knowing what the game conceits for "Favor mechanics" are - this becomes a shifting value on another axis. The GAME might demand these mechanics for its own internal reasons. But the function of a transactional currency in-game isn't the same thing.

Do I *need* a Favor denomination to know if Farmer Giles will give me a place to stay in his barn for the night? Or could I just roleplay it? I could just handwave it. I could make it a possible meaningful roleplaying hook (this time).

If the idea that no one wants to say here is that "Favor Mechanics" is simply a "fun" shorthand way of not doing things that are intentionally not meant to be roleplayed with - then that is the answer.

Let's not muddy the waters and pretend it's "literally" the same thing as monetary currency. They could interact (My PC could owe you Money as part of some Favor Mechanic dynamic - but that's literally just some justification for a Favor rating), but they're not the same. And if you want to be reductionist and say - "Well yes, Tenbones, you can just trade in favors instead of gold." Then I would simply say - yeah that's called roleplaying your bartering. Which brings us back to square one - where I'm asking what is the value of a Favor Mechanic over just roleplaying?

And yes, this could be entirely subjective - just like my assertions are subjective, but let's not pretend I believe these things are equal, the difference I'm open to being wrong if presented with something novel, but that's WHY I'm asking the question.

To me, "At a Rating of 3, this mean this PC/NPC WILL do X for you" free of context" goes beyond what I would envision as a "Favor".
I can however see where there could be games that boil down the back and forth negotiations to a roll if that is not the primary focus of the game.

But then I can also see people living near Canada accepting Canadian currency in place of US currency in some cases.
They are both "backed by the full faith" and as such are assumed to have the same value as "gold" for purchases.
We can really go into the weeds discussing why the "special paper" can be exchanged for things they want. 

Quote from: Greentongue on January 26, 2022, 12:35:45 PM
To me, "At a Rating of 3, this mean this PC/NPC WILL do X for you" free of context" goes beyond what I would envision as a "Favor".
I can however see where there could be games that boil down the back and forth negotiations to a roll if that is not the primary focus of the game.

I can too. But since no one is discussing these actual mechanics in play as a direct example to my question (How are these things better than just roleplaying?) it makes for a very weird discussion because people get "defensive" about it. I fully acknowledge there might be a good place for such mechanics - Savage Worlds does stuff like this all time, and most people here know I'm a big Savage Worlds advocate, but they have TONS of mini-systems that operate in lieu of their core mechanics or even roleplaying. Some I use, some I don't - for the exact reasons I'm ostensibly trying to discuss here (with little success apparently).

Quote from: Greentongue on January 26, 2022, 12:35:45 PMBut then I can also see people living near Canada accepting Canadian currency in place of US currency in some cases.
They are both "backed by the full faith" and as such are assumed to have the same value as "gold" for purchases.
We can really go into the weeds discussing why the "special paper" can be exchanged for things they want.

I'll be honest with you - I find this a bit disingenuous. You're not wrong, of course. But IN GAME I have yet to see anyone in many decades of GMing I've been doing, where they questioned the value of a gold-piece.

When I pay for something in game or in real life - regardless if it's based on faith in the value (and I'm more than willing to discuss the history of economics and money, it's a fun topic that again probably has more use in another thread - especially for the purposes of talking about alternate currencies and economic models for gaming!) of gold or magical paper - it's ostensibly taken as a set value. There IS ALWAYS the potential for haggling on an object's value - but that is roleplaying. That COULD be "a Skill check" - but the transaction medium is never haggled about unless its a roleplaying requirement.

Case in point - How many Canadians actually haggle with shop-owners about taking Canadian script over American dollars while in America? Probably not many. Is this the hill you want to die on to prove a point? In either case at best it's a Skill check or it's roleplaying. It's not a Favor, unless you have a discrete relationship with someone that may/may not accept Canadian Funny Money over American Green Gold Magic Paper.

A Favor is a term with a distinct connotation of an interpersonal relationship between individuals. You *could* boil it down to a transactional  state. Yes. But is it better than all the possibilities that could come from simply roleplaying? Call it "Favor Mechanics" call it Blood Money Mechanics - whatever. My insistent question is by doing so you are leaving, potentially, a lot of good gaming content on the floor. And it can be handled more simply by roleplaying if the intention is to make it matter.

If yes-  what do those mechanics look like?

Another game with Favor mechanics I just remembered: Agon. In it each character has various oaths, to gods, other PCs, etc. that they should pay when asked or incur penalties. As the game is competitive in nature - each PC is a Greek hero vying for personal glory - the game becomes a web of potential conflicts as each PC must weight their debts or be caught in a situation where it's used against them. For example, a PC can lend their Shield ability die to help with his colleague roll to defend, and, if the later accepts, he's considered indebted to the former. Which could lead to a situation where the indebted PC can see himself forced to help the other guy to accrue glory, or even risk his life for him.

BTW, I think in PvP scenarios is where the concept shines the most.