TheRPGSite

Once upon a time there was only barter:  I will give you a chicken, but only if you give me three cows.  Or ... something.  I will allow you to slay the dragon but only if you posture heroically while doing so.

Currency is ... it's better in a lot of ways.  You pick one (or more) thing and say "This has a fixed value, agreed upon by everyone, and if you are willing to pay enough of these symbolic units then you can get these specific things."  I will sell you a chicken for $20.  Later I can then rent video-games.  But you, personally, do not need to have video-games in order to get my chicken.  You just need money.

Likewise:  I will allow you to slay the dragon, but only if you pay 5 Heroism points.  I can then pay Eddie to your left a heroism point to reward him for posturing heroically in the next scene.  In RPGs currencies are often called "points" ... Experience points, Fate points, Drama points, Miracle points, etc.  There are many different currencies in many different games, and they cover different types of value that are on offer in that game.

Currency facilitates exchange, which encourages exchange.  Literally, I am more likely to sell my chicken if currency exists.  I don't have to find something that I want to trade for right now.  I know that when my future wants emerge, the money will be as good as a chicken.

Likewise:  You are more likely to do heroic posturey stuff, even if you don't need to slay a dragon right now, because you know the hero points will be as good as heroic posturing when you do come upon a dragon you need to slay.

Is this sufficiently "Well DUH!" obvious to everyone for us to move on to discussing how currency is implemented on a practical level?  Or are there questions about the general sense of what a currency is or should be?

One could argue that they could well be the same, but are you talking about character advancement or wealth?

Ummmm ... no? :(

I'm talking about currency in general.  Character advancement is one type of currency that a lot of games have, and wealth is another.  But neither of them is the general idea of currency, right?

Like, if I were teaching a real-world currency section in an economics course, would I be talking about dollars or yen?  Well, sort of about both of them, and sort of about neither.

Sorry if I explained myself poorly the first time out.  Does that make more sense?

So, Tony, are you advocating some kind of medium of exchange in an RPG, like pints and stuff?

MADNESS and FOREGITE INSANITY, I say.  

Okay, not really, you're just stating the blatantly obvious, do you have a point?

Well, I actually have multiple points.  I'll assume that the lack of confused posts means a lack of confusion, and move on.

Currency encourages exchanges in the dimensions that the currency measures.  If you design a game where players get currency every time they kill things and take their stuff then you get a different game from one where players get currency every time their characters get screwed by their own internal faults ... even if the kill-things game encourages the GM to reward people who play to their internal faults, and the faults game encourages the GM to reward people who kill things.  One system has a currency, and one system can only happen through barter, and the system with currency is encouraged.

So if you want to analyze a game, you can take a look at its currencies in order to figure out the focus that will appear in play.  Likewise, if you want to make a game with a certain focus you can apply currency to it.

It's not that there's only one possible path through a game.  Far from it.  It's just that the path that goes by way of currency is a greased slide down a steep slope.  You can take a different path, but the one that's got currency helping is faster and easier.

At the same time, if you have a bunch of rules focussing on something, but they don't form any currency system ... do they really focus attention on that thing, in-game?  I'm skeptical.

For example, oWoD Vampire:  Vampire has a fair number of rules about Humanity.  It's got an explicit measure of it, and lots of things that you can do that effect it.  But can you spend humanity for anything?  Not that I recall.  And my experience is that, despite the many rules, humanity doesn't actually play that crucial a part in the game.  My experience is that blood pool and willpower (both which you can both earn and spend) get a lot more attention.

You know what happened when money was first introduced?

Lots of farmers ended up in debt.

Tony is trying to introduce a Forgie term.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html

"The exchange rate within and among Character Components. Currency may or may not be explicit (e.g. "character points"), but it is a universal feature of System, specifically as it relates to Character. "

Basicly just more evangelizing, attempts to universalize their language. Thats why he's here.

Abyssal, does it really matter to you where an idea existed beforehand? I'm sure the forge talks about plenty of things; hell, I'm sure [old game you hated] came up with a mechanic that is bounced about nowadays. Who  cares? Pure ad hominem. Examine the idea - if there's a problem with it, say so. Count me out of your quest for ideological hygiene.

End pointless derail.

Tony, I think I get what you're saying. Some people say that a game rules determines what the game is about, other people say the rules are just there to deal with the boring stuff so you can do what the game is about. You're saying that some parts of the game system do encourage some types of play - but that only when it involves some exchange (or possibility of) of currency.

Hmm. Mind ticking over for counterexamples....

Ticking.

Okay, so are you sayin' that if a game says it does something then the rules should reflect/encourage/reward players who do that something ? They can use currency earned from doing that something to improve their characters.

Regards,
David R

The reason it matters is that

1) forgie terms should not be adopted here or universalized in any way. There's no outright banning, but since we're all free to recognize and rebuff the evangelizers, I'm having some of that. Personally, I see it as a form of spam aimed at encouraging an acceptance of dogma.

2) If it's "just" a concept or topic, explain that, and leave the forgie shit out of it. In other words: if we're going to talk about what game system do or don't encourage- Don't call it "currency". Currency is an established term and it means money. Look at every single other post up to this point and understand that we're not accepting the term. Everyone up to the very last post before mine was still talking about money.

3) If we must come up with our own imaginative new term, lets do that right here.

PART II: WE DON'T ACTUALLY NEED AN IMAGINATIVE NEW TERM

Fine, I'll engage.

What we are talking about doesn't have anything to do with what game systems "say" they encourage. It has to do with this

In any given game system, certain mechanics can be used to influence play. So a character in DC Heroes can "burn" hero points to add to his roll, or a character in Earthdawn can add a Karma dice to influence his roll. That much is obvious. But how do you get more hero or karma points or whatever? It depends on the Game System. You might have a point pool that you have to manage or whatever. It could be tied into the choices you make at Chargen (for example a D&D cleric with the luck domain can reroll once per day), or you could have a pool that just refreshes once per game. (Or maybe you have an entire subculture of fuckers who fetish on failure and want the GM to reward them for intentionally portaying failure with extra points or whatever.) But...whatever thing.  

The mistake is the poisonous belief that if a game involves doing X to gain Y, then people only really like the game because they only care about that exchange of X for Y.

In other words: this is a belief that people only play Super Mario World because they like to press the jump button.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIn other words: this is a belief that people only play Super Mario World because they like to press the jump button.

Yeah - I can help but feel it is related to the nice, if rather naive, view that if only people would put in rules for something other than killing shit young men loaded with testosterone and living in a society that doesn't give them much opertunity to blow off steam would stop dreaming of being lejendary badasses and play Deep Emotional characters.

Yeah right.

Quote from: Abyssal MawDon't call it "currency". Currency is an established term and it means money.

The definition is a bit broader than that, though: "a medium of exchange, especially the money in general use in a country", according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, while Wikipedia describes it as "a unit of exchange, facilitating the transfer of goods and services" and "a form of money, where money is defined as a medium of exchange (rather than a store of value)". In other words, it's a perfectly valid term in its own right when discussing, say, earning and spending XP.

This is, for me, where things get dicey.  I was, at first, going to respond that Currency wasn't a valid term for many of the same reasons as Abyssal Maw did.  And it made me think it through and, for a moment, agree that games do/should have this meaningful concept, etc.

But there's the rub.  If we start talking about whether or not the term fits the concept, in a way we have defacto accepted the concept as valid and useful.

I'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.

For example, in the Living Greyhawk Campaign there is at least one web site I've seen that is all about how not to advance your character.  This is a result of a series of issues with Living Grewyhawk, but here are people playing against stereotype - to the point where they are actively avoiding what for purposes of this discussion would be considered Currency.

Or I could be way off base.

EDIT: My typing sucks this morning.

Quote from: David ROkay, so are you sayin' that if a game says it does something then the rules should reflect/encourage/reward players who do that something ? They can use currency earned from doing that something to improve their characters.

"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.

Does that mean that the currency thing is the only thing that players ever can or will do with the system?  'course not.  It means that it's a thing that is easier than other things.

Like, if you have a hundred different paths down a mountain, you can take any one of those paths.  Nobody's saying that the other paths are impossible to traverse.  But that doesn't mean that it's not valid to point out that one of the paths is a bobsled run with greased rails, that can take you down the mountain in thirty seconds, and the others will require more effort.

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.)

(http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2005/20050527h.jpg)

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 :D

Regards,
David R

Okay, folks, the "nature of the game" and such stuff ... that's just plain beyond the scope of this thread.  We're no longer talking about currency, but about the overarching goals that currency is one tool to address.

I've made a new thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=56515#post56515) for that discussion, and I think we'd all be best served if we migrated that broader discussion there, and left this thread for discussion of currency as a tool (if anyone even still wants to discuss that).

Quote from: David RLet's say the designers create a game about vigilantes. And than they go and say the game's main theme is about redemption.

Thing is, I don't think that is for the author to say. Its playing the game before you play.

The job of the author is to create situations where Themes can emerge.

Quote from: Erik BoielleThing is, I don't think that is for the author to say. Its playing the game before you play.

I so get where you are coming from. I guess it all boils down to a taste thing. I dig it when designers have themes for their games. As a GM, I certainly have them for my games.

QuoteThe job of the author is to create situations where Themes can emerge.

Sure, but if the game has a theme (the designer's), players should be able to explore said theme in a variety of ways. A good game/author takes this into account.

Regards,
David R

I missed this discussion so far because when you see a thread about "Currency"... most normal people would assume you mean currency, like gold pieces vs. silver pieces -- what you had in mind for a currency system in your game.

A more descriptive topic title and/or not trying to introduce Forge terminology would be appreciated.

Now, I'll go read the thread.