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

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

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

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

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
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

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

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.