The Gaming Den

Ok so I have this idea spawned by the discussions involving FATE points, power to players/DM, etc. I'm thinking about creating a system where players are given "Points" to "buy" plot control and setting pieces and otherwise limit what players have access to. That is to say players have to "buy" permanent and/or leveled help, permanent titles that do anything, convenient plot twists, setting set pieces that "do" anything etc. Essentially PCs can buy a "stake" in the plot.

Now there are some things I should mention.

First, that this is explicitly NOT about 3.5 or any utterance of it. This is going to be a part of my own system (Soul Fantasy or SF). So exclude questions that depend on how 3rd or any other edition functions.

Second, I should mention that while hirelings do exist they are explicitly 1st level and [Common] Tier characters. If you haven't read my Soul Fantasy Thread in IMOI then you probably don't know the significance of that tag. In simplest terms [Common] Tier characters are the "mooks" for my system. Not only are hirelings explicitly low level mooks but they are easily screwed over by the GM (more on the significance of this later).

Third, any extra bonuses (Read bonuses that don't come from class or leveling), or aid PCs otherwise accrue are explicitly temporary and will be, by the rules, stripped from the PCs at the earliest opportunity.

Fourth is that these points can only be used after the PCs have some successful interaction with the "thing".

Fifth is that by expending these points the PCs "buy" a certain amount of "plot immunity" for the things in question. (more on this later)

For example: PCs ambush a bunch of privateers at the docks. They beat each and every one of them and take their ship to escape the authorities hot on their heels. Now the PCs can keep the ship only if they "buy" it with their plot points. If they don't then the ship is destroyed, reclaimed, or stolen at the nearest feasible opportunity (most reasonably after they get through with the adventure).

Another Example: The PCs reach the fortress of doom and for whatever reason one of the last guards intrigues one of the PCs. That PC may spend their plot points and do a "dramatic reveal" to find that the guard is somehow either positively related to one of the PCs or is secretly (for whatever reason) against the Dark Emperor. That NPC must of course be a mook but can, from there on, aid the PCs through what he/she knows of the fortress and be a permanent contact for the PC that bought him/her.

Last Example: Having successfully sailed to the Fortress of Doom and, with the aid of their new found compatriot Todd, have defeated the Dark Lord Crisis and cleared their name after it was dragged through the dirt by King Benedict. The PCs then decide to use the bulk of their plot points to take over the kingdom. After conferring with the GM the group settles on some method of usurping power. If they decide to go a nonviolent route they can try exposing the King to the people as the traitorous scoundrel he is (passing an extended skill test of some sort) or if they prefer violence they may start a coup leading to a raid on the castle. Either way once the raid or the skill test is passed the points are spent and maybe there is a climatic battle with the King (maybe not). Afterward the PCs become the defacto rulers of the kingdom.

In all three examples the PCs interacted positively with whatever "thing" they were interacting with (defeated the pirates commanding the ship, defeated the group of guards, and saved the kingdom with a challenge to boot), then the points were spent to keep their effects permanent, and all supported by the rules. I figure, in this fashion, plot twists can be decided on by the players and the GM together. Beyond that some kind of resource is spent on them along with time and effort so no one is left with an uneasy feeling about "how" their rewards were gained.

At this point right now I don't have the exact numbers and costs for any of the things mentioned nor do I "yet" have a comprehensive list of what can/can't be done with these points. Depending on the reception here I'll get to work on that or drop the idea entirely. Suffice it to say that the individual NPC will cost less then the Ship which will cost less than the Kingdom. How the points are gained is also something that's up in the air. Most likely its going to be some function of level + deeds where Deeds represent significant actions players to stay "in character".

On the other side of the screen I'm thinking about giving the GM plot points. The reason being is that I want to by the rules leash the GM by creating a frame work of what the GM can do to things that players have bought with their plot points. The numbers for this are still in the air but I am giving license to the GM to be able to "challenge" the PC's accomplishments but limiting the amount that they can do so by tying it to a resource. However, whatever the GM decides to do to the PC's possessions they are given the GM must provide a chance for the PCs to get it back or have it replaced.

Example: Todd, for helping the PCs, is targeted by a group of loyalists. They enlist the help of a few other privateers, bitter at the PCs for other reasons, to not only kidnap Todd but to steal their old pirate ship. The PCs are alerted to this happening in someway (this is something that must happen when bought things are threatened) and the PCs can opt to solve these two issues or not. They decide to go off to rescue Todd and let the ship go as they can just replace it with another. The reasoning is that they already bought a space for "a ship" so they can just get one from their kingdom though it'll cost them actual gold. On the other hand NPC contacts (barring certain abilities) cannot be replaced unless they are revived which would be impossible without the body. So off the PCs go to foil the kidnappers and unravel a bigger plot against them.

Example 2: Now, while the PCs are busy the GM can then use a larger pile of plot points to threaten the very kingdom the PCs earned by attempting a hostile military take over. Key friends of the PCs are lost during the raid (as they are unpaid for and free for the GM to off at will) while the PCs are busy. So after unraveling the plot and recovering their lost contact the PCs very quickly uncover the truth of the plot and must return to the kingdom and foil the would be usurpers.

Ideally this would go off as planned and much drama and action would ensue. This still gives the GM liberty to take the plot in any direction but limits what a GM can do to rewards PCs evidence they want to keep. Now, by the rules the GM cannot take away a PC's class abilities but I am not closing the door or barring the idea of the GM being able to use plot points to "block" individual PC abilities temporarily. The idea with the plot points being on both ends is to keep bitterness over GM plot twists controlled because I find that players get very bitter (I know I have) when things they earned are arbitrarily taken from them with no chance of return.

This is an idea I pretty much have been tinkering around with in my head for a while so nothing is to precious to give up but this is the basic idea.

Can or can not players also purchase things with traditional funds, trade, or sexual favors.

That approach reminds me of how Hero was supposed to work, where you had to buy something you captured etc with XP or it would go away in some fashion after that adventure. And no, you couldn't "just purchase" anything of much significance with money, which is why money was of limited utility to PCs.

deanruel87 wrote:Can or can not players also purchase things with traditional funds, trade, or sexual favors.

They can purchase, trade, or sex their way to temporary (low level) or minor and essential things, such as a courier's service or weapons and ammo. They cannot however purchase, diplomatize, or sex their way to getting the princess or her castle unless they use the plot points, possibly after they make the appropriate checks.

MGuy wrote:For example: PCs ambush a bunch of privateers at the docks. They beat each and every one of them and take their ship to escape the authorities hot on their heels. Now the PCs can keep the ship only if they "buy" it with their plot points. If they don't then the ship is destroyed, reclaimed, or stolen at the nearest feasible opportunity (most reasonably after they get through with the adventure).

Another Example: The PCs reach the fortress of doom and for whatever reason one of the last guards intrigues one of the PCs. That PC may spend their plot points and do a "dramatic reveal" to find that the guard is somehow either positively related to one of the PCs or is secretly (for whatever reason) against the Dark Emperor. That NPC must of course be a mook but can, from there on, aid the PCs through what he/she knows of the fortress and be a permanent contact for the PC that bought him/her.

Last Example: Having successfully sailed to the Fortress of Doom and, with the aid of their new found compatriot Todd, have defeated the Dark Lord Crisis and cleared their name after it was dragged through the dirt by King Benedict. The PCs then decide to use the bulk of their plot points to take over the kingdom. After conferring with the GM the group settles on some method of usurping power. If they decide to go a nonviolent route they can try exposing the King to the people as the traitorous scoundrel he is (passing an extended skill test of some sort) or if they prefer violence they may start a coup leading to a raid on the castle. Either way once the raid or the skill test is passed the points are spent and maybe there is a climatic battle with the King (maybe not). Afterward the PCs become the defacto rulers of the kingdom.

Your first and third examples make sense. As noted, that's basically how Champions/HERO works (if you want to keep something permanently, you buy it).

The second example is less useful, because in my experience the average gamer is very stingy about spending wealth on a temporary advantage (like a free pass to Lord Evil's castle) when it could also be spent on a permanent advantage. I know you're calling him a "permanent contact", but once you defeat Lord Evil, a permanent contact in his entourage is fairly useless.

This is true, but trivially solved. Todd is some kind of NCO in the organization, and will have no difficulty finding a new job as a low-ranking officer in some other fortress. If you don't mind giving your game a bit of a comedic bent, you could have Todd just so happen to show up working in whatever fortress the PCs are storming today.

If you still have a storyteller who writes the plot, I can see a long story being screwed up quite easily if the PCs have big plot power.

Very devoted storytellers could write out an entirely new long story every time the players change the plot in a big way. That's a ton of writing if the plot changes in a big way every session. People have jobs and only very devoted story tellers will write that much every week if there's a big chance 5 hours of writing will be nullified every week. So the stories will get less intricate, more modular (shorter arcs), less cross-referential or self-referential, and have less time spent writing on them. This is also supposedly entertainment and if the storyteller needs to work for 5 hours before every session and think up entirely new plots... that defeats the purpose.

No one is that devoted, so the stories in your game will suck. Or the plot powers won't be that big. Or you will have limitations on those plot powers. I'll get back to that later.

Outside of a spontaneous retroactive purchase, I see this as a limitation and perhaps unnecessary formalization of how resource purchases currently work in collective storytelling games. I don't see any advantage this has over any existing currency for making purchases ahead of time. Why not just let the players buy their castle, pay off the informant, buy silence from the traitor, bribe the official, et cetera? Storytellers give this stuff away all that time. Price tags in the rule book for "loyal informant", "average bribe cost to get out of jail", or "large castle" accomplish a more formal approach and there is no reason for a whole new plot point system. That's reinventing the wheel. I don't think that's what you were really driving at, but you mentioned "buying castles" so I thought I would mention it.

There are big problems for long stories with your spontaneous retroactive idea. I don't see a brilliant fix happening which preserves the awesomeness. So this is my suggestion: Don't put a lot of work into this. Do something simple. It fits on less than 5 pages in its entirety (including all the charts...). It can be explained in less than 5 sentences. It took you a week to make. You might think about it every now and then and tweak it.... but I really don't see you getting a lot of benefit spending a lot of work on this. So do something short and sweet with a high payoff, then forget about it.

Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I assume you also need to work and your time is limited. Think about other stuff in your SF system which has a higher payoff to work ratio because I think this mechanic doesn't have a high one.

I'm not all that worried about people deciding to buy Todd or not. If they don't then its fine, the option is there whether its used or not. I plan to make "buying" an NPC like Todd trivially cheap in comparison to larger purchases so that it isn't crippling to buy Todd but if most players just don't care about buying NPC contacts I am not trying to force them.

The thing about buying a contact like Todd is that it is A: Dramatic, and B: gets them an on the spot contact they can use for the rest of the adventure and beyond. As I've pondered about this little set up I'd figure ideally, later on, the PCs will be able to "upgrade" Todd as they go along. Though he'll always be a mook he'll be useful for more "off screen" action. Perhaps I'll necessitate the purchase of mooks in key positions in order to make "offs creen" actions occur. Like buying a business would generate some cash, having an NPC head that business will generate more cash/make it more costly for the GM to sabotage it/allow the business to expand or have "just what you need". That way purchasing them will help in the downtime mini game.

Saxony wrote:If you still have a storyteller who writes the plot, I can see a long story being screwed up quite easily if the PCs have big plot power.

Very devoted storytellers could write out an entirely new long story every time the players change the plot in a big way. That's a ton of writing if the plot changes in a big way every session. People have jobs and only very devoted story tellers will write that much every week if there's a big chance 5 hours of writing will be nullified every week. So the stories will get less intricate, more modular (shorter arcs), less cross-referential or self-referential, and have less time spent writing on them. This is also supposedly entertainment and if the storyteller needs to work for 5 hours before every session and think up entirely new plots... that defeats the purpose.

No one is that devoted, so the stories in your game will suck. Or the plot powers won't be that big. Or you will have limitations on those plot powers. I'll get back to that later.

Outside of a spontaneous retroactive purchase, I see this as a limitation and perhaps unnecessary formalization of how resource purchases currently work in collective storytelling games. I don't see any advantage this has over any existing currency for making purchases ahead of time. Why not just let the players buy their castle, pay off the informant, buy silence from the traitor, bribe the official, et cetera? Storytellers give this stuff away all that time. Price tags in the rule book for "loyal informant", "average bribe cost to get out of jail", or "large castle" accomplish a more formal approach and there is no reason for a whole new plot point system. That's reinventing the wheel. I don't think that's what you were really driving at, but you mentioned "buying castles" so I thought I would mention it.

There are big problems for long stories with your spontaneous retroactive idea. I don't see a brilliant fix happening which preserves the awesomeness. So this is my suggestion: Don't put a lot of work into this. Do something simple. It fits on less than 5 pages in its entirety (including all the charts...). It can be explained in less than 5 sentences. It took you a week to make. You might think about it every now and then and tweak it.... but I really don't see you getting a lot of benefit spending a lot of work on this. So do something short and sweet with a high payoff, then forget about it.

Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I assume you also need to work and your time is limited. Think about other stuff in your SF system which has a higher payoff to work ratio because I think this mechanic doesn't have a high one.

I'm not a fan of being railroaded. "Dedicated Story Tellers" sounds like a title to GMs that don't allow you to effect the plot. I, as a GM and as a player, do not like being put on the rails. Players making big plot swings in a formalized way is the intent of this idea in the first place. Not only do I expect it to happen, I want it to happen. Beyond that I want to formalize the way it rolls out. If there are "Storytellers" who care more about personal plot control than cooperative storytelling then I am not looking to please them with this.

Beyond that I fully intend to let the players be able to purchase all the things you listed. I in fact already have started making various prices for these things. What I want is to formalize how PCs make big plot swings and to formalize how GMs can "take" from the PCs in a way that can be both expected and give the semblance of "fairness".

Now a days I don't believe all players want to be babysat during an adventure. They want to feel like they can take the plot in a direction that they want. What's more if the GM is going to be stingy about what players' can do to the plot the GM can opt out of using the rule and the rest of the system can hold up on its own. I as a GM, would prefer to tie my players' plot control to a resource and have it framed in a system such that I can reasonably keep PCs from getting a kingdom before they're supposed to, be able to reason when they might be able to afford such a thing, and be able to estimate (based on their prior purchases) exactly how and how often the players' want plot control. As a player it cements certain expectations such as "can I get this guy to my side?", "Can I have family in key positions?", "Can I steal this ship and expect to keep it?". This allows players to not have to play as much "mother May I?" with the GM, and that's important to me as a player.

As for how much time I plan on spending with it, that's up in the air. Its not, even ideally, all that important. It is something I think would be well worth the time if it works out as I envision but I don't see it taking me more than a week to hammer it all out. As for complexity, I can explain it easily enough in 2 sentences:

You have to buy permanent upgrades, NPCs, and plot twists. Otherwise you don't get to create plot twists and lose unpaid for upgrades and NPCs at the end of a "scene" or "adventure".

Sure there's a bit more to it but to noobs that'll sum it up nicely.

It isn't about a personal story versus not being railroaded, it's about having a coherent story in the first place. Forcing players to buy interesting plot twists is a shitty idea in the first place because you're forcing them to only be allowed to change the plot when the system says they can. If it's like FATE points, then world shaping goes to the attention whore or the guy who games his negative traits the hardest. If the other players don't have a way to veto (like Munchausen, for example), then you're just going to breed resentment.

This is a really stupid idea, and I usually love attention whore plot shaping abilities like FATE points.

Mask you don't provide an explanation that backs up your words. What, based on the examples I've given so far, would hinder a coherent plot from forming?

FantasyCraft has a similar system. It works fairly well, but it's also fairly granular and integrated into the game.
It does make it fairly hard to have a game about being pirates, because a ship is a moderately expensive prize, and then you also need to buy a crew.

Again, I don't keep bringing up FantasyCraft because it's a superior game, but because it more or less functions and it has actual implementations of things.

MGuy wrote:I'm not all that worried about people deciding to buy Todd or not. If they don't then its fine, the option is there whether its used or not. I plan to make "buying" an NPC like Todd trivially cheap in comparison to larger purchases so that it isn't crippling to buy Todd but if most players just don't care about buying NPC contacts I am not trying to force them.

Making the buy-an-NPC option trivially cheap is functionally equivalent to making the buy-other-more-permanent-stuff expensive.

I'd use an example of another popular game where players almost invariably choose saving up for expensive permanent items over trivially cheap expendable items, but apparently that's a no-no.

Saxony wrote:If you still have a storyteller who writes the plot, I can see a long story being screwed up quite easily if the PCs have big plot power.

Very devoted storytellers could write out an entirely new long story every time the players change the plot in a big way. That's a ton of writing if the plot changes in a big way every session. People have jobs and only very devoted story tellers will write that much every week if there's a big chance 5 hours of writing will be nullified every week. So the stories will get less intricate, more modular (shorter arcs), less cross-referential or self-referential, and have less time spent writing on them. This is also supposedly entertainment and if the storyteller needs to work for 5 hours before every session and think up entirely new plots... that defeats the purpose.

No one is that devoted, so the stories in your game will suck. Or the plot powers won't be that big. Or you will have limitations on those plot powers. I'll get back to that later.

...
I always thought that if a MC is willing to put that many hours writing PLOT, they'd be best served writing fiction.

Seriously, I used to spend hours preparing campaigns back when I DMed. The work was spend on:
1) geography (drawing maps, giving names to things)
2) creating the high level people who move things (monarchs, liches, etc) and giving each one sketchy personality / motivations write-ups.
3) doing more detailed character creation for the area the PCs were in.

Then from 2 and 3, I came to the first game with some very sketchy ideas of troubles that could arise. By the players' response, I took one of those ideas and developed it on the spot. Of course, once "a plot" was created I ran with it, but because it was generated in response to what the players wanted to do anyway, I don't think I ever had to scrape "hours of plot-writing".

The "work for nothing" moments I had were mostly like: Prepare a combat encounter, and have the PCs surprise me and not fight it (diplomacy, took another route, whatever). Even then, nobody actually cared if, say, the dwarf clerics that they didn't fight in game #N appeared in another context in game #N+1.

In the light of how I used to play, a system like the one proposed in this thread could be AWESOME, with an important caveat:

I don't like the expectation that players have to pay "plot points" to have nice things because the DM's job is also to give nice things to the players. Like, seriously, that stolen spaceship example, that's awesome. The players should have it "for free", the quotes being because now they're also hunted by the ship's owners, etc. But "hunted by ship's owners" itself comes in quotes, because it's actually means there's more adventures to be had. Everybody wins.

That being said, the "but that guard there is actually my old classmate" is how I'd use such a system. Namely, giving the players something they could use to get out of dead ends or boring situations. Like I said above, I never cared much for a long time plot besides thinking for what the NPCs wanted to do, so I'm not "losing" anything if the players do something like that.

So if for example the PCs were storming generic mordor, I'd prepare beforehand a grinding series of monsters and traps and place them around the map. If you'd ask me at that point "but can you bypass that?" I'd answer "fuck if I know", because most of my campaigns existed in that kind of quantum state anyway.

So if a PC got bored with the prospect of grinding ogre after ogre and decided to burn a plot point to say: "hey, since the evil overlord employs lots of umber hulks, there must be tunnels around, and I may just have stumbled on one." I could roll with it and change that game from a series of small encounters to a couple of big fights in the tunnels below and then the PCs are over the "cross generic mordor" part. Everybody wins.

hogarth wrote:

MGuy wrote:I'm not all that worried about people deciding to buy Todd or not. If they don't then its fine, the option is there whether its used or not. I plan to make "buying" an NPC like Todd trivially cheap in comparison to larger purchases so that it isn't crippling to buy Todd but if most players just don't care about buying NPC contacts I am not trying to force them.

Making the buy-an-NPC option trivially cheap is functionally equivalent to making the buy-other-more-permanent-stuff expensive.

I'd use an example of another popular game where players almost invariably choose saving up for expensive permanent items over trivially cheap expendable items, but apparently that's a no-no.

And again I'd say, if they decide not to buy an NPC it doesn't hurt the game at all. if they "only" want to buy ships that's fine. It doesn't ruin the game or hinder the players in any significant fashion. If they do then the option is there.

As for making a game about pirates then I'd use One Piece as inspiration. While logically none of the crew members start off at level 1 considering what they can do they don't actually get their own ship until after the little arc where Usopp joins (which is a little ways in). In the mean time they get from place to place in a little boat, barely better than a raft. Much later in the series they upgrade from the ship to a bigger ship with all kinds of bells and whistles.

That being said in a scenario where players start off at low enough level where they can't pool their resource and get a ship of their own I would be "ok" with that. However if an arm is twisted it doesn't break the system if a reward is given out for free by the GM if that's what everyone wants to happen. As for the crew the PCs can get hirelings and just "rehire" them for every voyage. Their hirelings will invariably suck and be open to GM dickery without payment or reprise but they can easily exist without being paid for with the points.

There's also the option of making more trivial and temporary plot abilities a roll rather than an expenditure of a permanent resource.

In Burning Wheel characters have a Circles stat that they roll to find npcs and contacts. For example, in the last game I played one of the characters was wounded and my roden (rat man) thief circled up a mob doctor to patch him up. Circling up a generic profession that I would have had contact with wasn't too hard (it would have been even easier if I wanted another thief) whereas getting a specific person would be a tougher roll. If I successfully circle someone up it's easier to do so again and; after several successful attempts they become a permanent contact that my character no longer has to roll to find. Things like reputations and membership in factions give you bonuses on your circles roll when appropriate.

In your game you could have a stat that each character has that's used for these kind of plot manipulations. PCs could roll to generate Todd the Helpful Guard but still have to pay resources to keep him.

The Mistborn Adventure Game also has you roll to affect the plot, even going with a kind of luck skill where the player wants a weapon he can use to be in the room, or an iron railing on the balcony he can use, or whatever, and then rolls their Luck stat or whatever against a TN to see if it comes true. However, there's was both ways; you had to roll to see if you were successful, and you had to spend a point of it to do so, meaning you got less and less effective as you kept doing it without resting.

So, how is the Mistborn Adventure Game, overall?

ETortoise wrote:There's also the option of making more trivial and temporary plot abilities a roll rather than an expenditure of a permanent resource.

In Burning Wheel characters have a Circles stat that they roll to find npcs and contacts. For example, in the last game I played one of the characters was wounded and my roden (rat man) thief circled up a mob doctor to patch him up. Circling up a generic profession that I would have had contact with wasn't too hard (it would have been even easier if I wanted another thief) whereas getting a specific person would be a tougher roll. If I successfully circle someone up it's easier to do so again and; after several successful attempts they become a permanent contact that my character no longer has to roll to find. Things like reputations and membership in factions give you bonuses on your circles roll when appropriate.

In your game you could have a stat that each character has that's used for these kind of plot manipulations. PCs could roll to generate Todd the Helpful Guard but still have to pay resources to keep him.

Between playing 3rd and some other rules lite games I'm used to the default way of picking up NPC contacts in a roll. That's already the default option I'm familiar with. It works out better, considering the entirety of the framework I'm building for both the players and GM, that they take resources to "keep". This is especially true considering that with this system there's nothing keeping you from using regular rolls to get temporary help.Even if you didn't want to spend the points you can still spend time going back to people you already know in the world and convince them to help you all over again. The thing that makes buying them special is that using outside help without doing so will not be unreliable and potentially dangerous.

MGuy, if I'm reading you right you're saying that players will have the option to roll to generate a contact but that doing so opens them up to risk (if they fail the roll) whereas they can simply spend points to create a permanent contact with a 100% chance of success.

It seems like you might have to put some serious play testing hours in to see if people are buying contacts in this way or hoarding their points for bigger things (ships, castles, positions at court).

If this is just going to be your personal game then you only have to worry about the personalities of the people at your gaming table; even still there's probably going to be a lot of cost tweaking.

How many resource points are players going to be getting? How many sessions before a party can afford a ship? How many before an individual PC can afford to be a Duke or whatever? Are players going to gain these at a steady rate or will the rate increase? How personally powerful are players going to be; is a pirate ship the best way to travel long distances or are the players going to tell their NPC first mate to do trade runs while they teleport across the continent to fight the 10,000 demon princes of Goetia?

ETortoise: Players can roll to do anything. However, unless what they get comes in the form of an ability (class, natural, skills, or otherwise) or from "paying" for it in the fashion I've outlined they are subject to losing it soon after or not getting it in the first place via GM fiat or poor rolls/decision making. Now this is not applied to inconsequential things like having a weapon or clothes worn.

And again, I do not really care if most people subsist off of hoarding their points for ships and the like. Since NPCs are fun to have I'd wager that players will pay for them as long as doing so does not overly hamper them from getting a kingdom. Indeed if I make NPC contacts useful "enough" I highly doubt that people will skip over them and even if many do the option will be there.

Currently I'm developing the last of the spells for my system before I move on to Rites and Rituals this will be the second to the last thing I work on for what will amount to be the player's book because I plan to set this up and go through the numbers along with doing the numbers for equipment/supplies, XP gain, etc. So currently I do not have exact numbers. I can say this right now I'm still leaning on making it some function of level + Deeds where there's a specific rate that players will acquire these points as they level up and they can get the rest through GM fiat by acting "in character". I may do something else similar to the FATE system or White Wolf's Vice/Virtue thing where they can grind up points via drama but I'll have to see.

I plan to keep ships relevant by making things like long range teleportation use up the same resource as getting an NPC, ship, or Kingdom. And if people's theories are right, then people may eschew long range teleportation to save up for buying ships and kingdoms. If so then it will have worked out in the fashion I wanted it to.

Since I haven't gotten any real scathing criticisms about it so far I'm probably going to push through with it.

So how about you give them both sidekicks and castles?

Make separate resources perhaps?

Saxony wrote:So how about you give them both sidekicks and castles?

Make separate resources perhaps?

Because they can have sidekicks and castles? The system, as shown here, allows for both. If they don't want to have sidekicks they don't have to and they don't lose anything significant (as in being able to make it through whatever adventure) for choosing not to have them. Some people won't want a kingdom and will just want to be a wandering warrior who has a bunch of people that happen to know him. Some people will want an intelligence network filled with informants and contacts from all over. I don't really care "how" people decide to use the points. There's no "perfect" way to use them that I'm aiming for. The idea is just to make a framework for handling these kind of dramatic instances and rewards.

Does having sidekicks decrease the number of castles you can own? If so, I disagree.

I'm just getting confused that dramatic plot twists and property are bought with the same currency.

In other words, why does being homeless and equipment-less make everyone my secret friend? And why does owning a castle mean I'm a loner?

If property and plot twists are bought with the same resource, that's what your game does. I'm sure I have that all wrong, but that just does not look right to me.

Having "a lot" of sidekicks decreases the amount of castles you own. The reason they are on the same currency is 1: It decreases unnecessary bookkeeping, and 2: Because they are both "background" features.

Equipment has nothing to do with any of this as it is something so minor, and necessary, that its not what you would use "points" on.

Being homeless does not necessarily have everyone being your friend. Nor is the reverse true. Rituals, vehicles, other actual plot twists are all on the table for these points to be used on. That being said you could go an entire campaign and not spend a single point on anything. Property is bought with cash. You don't spend these points to stay in an inn for the night. You use them to own the inn. You "can" buy the inn and not spend the points but you won't get any tangible benefits of owning the inn (IE generating revenue) as you would if you spent the points and it is subject to get taken away (for free) by the GM without any way to get it back.

I don't recon people will need/want a whole bunch of castles. I don't think people will feel bad if, for one less castle, they get a bunch of contacts.