Quote from: James J SkachI'm not saying Currency is or is not the right term.  I guess I'm saying Eric is right.  Just because a game encourages a certain action X to gain Y, doesn't mean you're are necessarily going to have people play it that way.

"Don't you think it's awfully dictatorial to say that my character should be sucking blood just because he's a vampire?"

Quote from: GrimGent"Don't you think it's awfully dictatorial to say that my character should be sucking blood just because he's a vampire?"

Well, I think the trick is to provide enough direction to spark peoples imagination (you are a vampire - so you must drink blood), but leave enough freedom that people can take it the way they want (getting bags of blood from donors*, drinking Life Force rather than blood, sensual Goth Fantasy feeding, brutal assaults in back alleys etc.).

*Speaking of which, I've spent a fair amount of time in Moscow, and I was watching Night Watch, and the guy keeps a jar of blood in his fridge, and his flat and in particular his fridge were just So russian I found it entertaining.

Russian fridges are mank. And my sister has moved back to the UK, and Her fridge, in London is mank in exactly the same way! Its so weird!

Quote from: GrimGent"Don't you think it's awfully dictatorial to say that my character should be sucking blood just because he's a vampire?"

I honestly am at a loss as to how to respond...I don't know what you're getting at.

Quote from: James J SkachI honestly am at a loss as to how to respond...I don't know what you're getting at.

Blood Points in Vampire are a prime example of "Currency": not only are they used to heal wounds and to fuel the various supernatural abilities, but they also burn away at the rate of one per night, so that the character of a player who wants to have nothing to do with gaining and spending the points simply wouldn't survive.

Quote from: GrimGentBlood Points in Vampire are a prime example of "Currency": not only are they used to heal wounds and to fuel the various supernatural abilities, but they also burn away at the rate of one per night, so that the character of a player who wants to have nothing to do with gaining and spending the points simply wouldn't survive.

You'll note though that its incredibly easy to ignore the mechanics of gaining more blood (because, well, I have, being far more interesed in the posing and ass kicking end of vampirehood) and as such, not a method of controlling wayward players or imposing vision on a campaign.

('I shall refresh my blood pool', being a handy euphamism oft uttered by a certain kind of player, while others revel in leaving lily white corpses all over town, and others keep herds, etc.)

Quote from: Erik Boielle('I shall refresh my blood pool', being a handy euphamism oft uttered by a certain kind of player, while otherers revel in leaving lily white corpses all over town, and others keep herds, etc.)

Yup, in a pinch you can always just do the Hunt Roll, but the BP mechanics still remain fairly pivotal to the game.

Quote from: TonyLB"Should"?  I dunno.  I think that what I'm saying is that currency is a prime way that games do encourage one sort of behavior over another.  It's a recognizable tool that crops up in all manner of games, and seems to have a fairly reliable impact.

Makes sense.

Just to be clear though, IMO if a game says it's about something specific, I'd really like rules that encourages behaviour that supports that something .

Now, players are free to do whatever they want to of course , but I'd just like to see rules that reflects the nature of the game.

Regards,
David R

I think the root of the issue here is recognizing the essential elements of the game to manipulate the system to best advantage - which can mean different things to different players and game masters.

In a game with a build-point system (like GURPS), it's fairly easy to see how every attribute and item equates to everything else because of a common unit of value: the build point.

By comparison, game systems like d20 have a much more complicated 'economy' because a great many attributes are derived values. You cannot simply say that X number of experience points equals one feat, for example. This means that within the context of that system there are multiple 'currencies,' in as much as there are different measures of value. By this definition, money in games (gold pieces, etc.) is also a valid currency.

The failure of this model is demonstrated in the fact that many of these currencies can only be used in a limited number of one-way transactions. You cannot 'cash in' a feat for X number of experience points in d20, nor can you trade in a point of Humanity for X number of experience points in Vampire. To borrow an example from above, you can trade a chicken for three cows, but you cannot trade three cows for a chicken.

Likewise, most such currencies are self-contained within the economic system of the character archetype. Two characters in d20 cannot normally trade attribute points with each other, and the most common way to do so is through an unfair trade (read: theft). An example of a semi-open system in this context is Vampire (and other WoD games), where players can "trade" blood points (or Pathos, Tass, Quintessence, Gnosis, etc.) by various means - but the most common means is theft. The characters are also limited to certain exchanges, they cannot directly trade experience points for blood points, for instance.

Which is all fun to point out, but what's the point? You gonna home-rule it? Turn Vampire into blood-bank monopoly?

Quote from: GrimGentYup, in a pinch you can always just do the Hunt Roll, but the BP mechanics still remain fairly pivotal to the game.

I dunno - I've played in to many good vampire games where it just hasn't been an issue to think it's really critical. Politics and posing arn't really blood driven, and if your players keep themselves topped up and never get in to a fight that isn't more an ambush and gang beating it isn't really an issue.

Quote from: David RNow, players are free to do whatever they want to of course , but I'd just like to see rules that reflects the nature of the game

But the nature of the game, with all the really good games, only becomes apparent in play. How are you supposed to decide it before the game starts?

You CAN say I want the rules to force players to play the way I WANT but thats neither fair or optimal, is it.

Quote from: David RJust to be clear though, IMO if a game says it's about something specific, I'd really like rules that encourages behaviour that supports that something .

FWIW, I personally share your preference for such games.  But hey, different strokes for different folks, right?

Quote from: Erik BoielleYou CAN say I want the rules to force players to play the way I WANT but thats neither fair or optimal, is it.

Basketball forces people to dribble the ball, rather than tucking it under their arm and barrelling through defensive linemen.  I don't think that's "unfair."

I think it's perfectly fair to say, as the designer of a game, "This is a game that will encourage and/or force you to play in a certain way, so if you don't want to play in that way then you should probably look for a different game."  It's not like you're forcing anyone to play.

Quote from: TonyLBI think it's perfectly fair to say, as the designer of a game, "This is a game that will encourage and/or force you to play in a certain way, so if you don't want to play in that way then you should probably look for a different game."  It's not like you're forcing anyone to play.

Sure, but the REALLY GOOD games like Dogs don't do that. They revel in accepting player input and interpretation, making the most of the imagination of the players instead of stifling it in an attempt to impose vision.

Like I say though, its a line between sparking imagination and stifling interpretation. You want to kickstart the process so people can run with it. I think the most sucessful games are those which take a loose hand and rely alot on player direction.

Quote from: TonyLBBasketball forces people to dribble the ball, rather than tucking it under their arm and barrelling through defensive linemen.  I don't think that's "unfair."

Apples and oranges.

Quote from: Erik BoielleBut the nature of the game, with all the really good games, only becomes apparent in play. How are you supposed to decide it before the game starts?

What do I mean when I say the nature of the game? I think an example is in order.

Let's say the designers create a game about vigilantes. And than they go and say the game's main theme is about redemption. Great. Then I would like it if the rules, advice, setting whatever reflected this so -called nature.

I wouldn't really want the game to be a shoot em' up, even though it could by all means be used as such. Hell, even if the game's rules did not reflect the redemption theme, but I liked the game, I would buy it. I'd just through the course of play introduce that theme or what I thought reflected said theme.

I don't really see it as forcing the players to play in a certain way. Why should I ? Most of the games I own, assumes a certain style of play. If said style doe not suit my needs I just change it.

It's more of a vision thing with me. Having rules that reflect the nature of the game as I have defined it above, tells me that the designers really have something to offer me, in terms of an experience....sounds a bit wanky, but there you go

Regards,
David R