The annoying player that always asks if he can have a certain item is not caused by the influence mechanic. He would/will ask as many questions while playing first edition in regards to money. And if the GM just handwaves it and says: "Just subtract xxx thrones and have it" it will most certainly not be positive in the long run. So you still need to have GM controll over availability.

The influence system just substitutes the roll with keeping book and adding/subtracting thrones.

Prefer what you want, but it is not more or less work than before.

It puts a finite cap on money though and I like that. I like money to be like ammunition. Any case where there isn't a finite cap you just have a request for test. I very rarely have broke players asking me if there are stores around.

In the end, it remains a hotly contested aspect that is very much down to personal preferences. Either way comes with its own advantages and disadvantages. So myself, I'm open for both systems, but it depends on how well they support the setting of the game. And for Dark Heresy, I find it difficult to argue with the idea of Inquisitorial operatives not being supposed to count every penny and worry about paying for their next meal.

As to the criticisms of the money-less system, though -- I think it's safe to say that this only nigh-nonexistent in PC games because computers are able to track these things way better than humans (P&P RPGs tend to become a mess if you jam as many rules into them as are used in PC games, see Shadowrun), and even then the majority of PC games also don't really place the player in a role where abstracted money would make sense.

And as has already been pointed out, the "can I get X" questions have already existed in DH1 thanks to Availability.

There are plenty of RPGs that don't have this problem

Names, concretely.

Off the top of my head, pretty much any FATE game, Faisco, Microscope, FFG's SW system (arguable), Pendragon, Grimm (not the d20 one)... D&D 4e does have looting but it's more of the boss dropping sweet loot for the PCs to use than it is collecting 20 sets of leather armor and short swords to sell in town for pennies.

Beancounting is far from a necessary evil.

Yeah, I'd say looting is simply a cause of the PCs feeling they need more gear, which is something that can occur regardless of whether you're tracking cash in a detailed or abstracted manner. For example, if DH2 would scale down the impact of Influence and make things harder to acquire, the issue would pop up there as well. Similarly, a DH1 game where people would start with several thousand Thrones would likely not feel a need to loot, either. The latter just delves into an area where one might ask "why track money at all".

In the last DH1 game I've played, the group used a sort of hybrid system where everone had their own personal stash of Thrones, but could also requisition gear from Inquisitorial sources. The latter could easily be interpreted as a use for DH2-style Influence.

Still, there is the question of "why bother". Beancounting only makes sense if you actually want the PCs to turn every coin twice before committing to a purchase. And aside from potentially not fitting to the setting, this automatically comes with the side-effect of an increased risk of looting that can only be averted by player discipline/immersion or by game mechanics such as carry weight limitations, time allocation, and/or a potential loss of subtlety.

In Shadowrun, it makes fun to track your nuyen account early on because you really do have to watch out what to do with your cash, and here, acquiring money is a goal all unto itself. Yet later on, once you've reached a level of play where PCs start investing into private airplanes and experimental cyberware ... why bother?

The same applies to a game of Dark Heresy, all depending on whether you want your players to feel like worthless Hive scum, or Inquisitorial operatives working for the Imperium's most influential organisation.

In the last DH1 game I've played, the group used a sort of hybrid system where everone had their own personal stash of Thrones, but could also requisition gear from Inquisitorial sources. The latter could easily be interpreted as a use for DH2-style Influence.

That's almost exactly the system I eventually moved towards. Influence for big ticket purchases like meltaguns. Favors from the inquisitor. Thrones for small purchases. Ammunition and some very basic weaponry provided as long as an equivalent item is exchanged. Shotgun <---> Hunting Rifle <---> Lasgun. The only real problem with this system so far is that weapon mods and some ammunition is a bit too expensive. Also, that bloody Book of Judgement. What twit priced the items in that ?

There are plenty of RPGs that don't have this problem

Names, concretely.

Off the top of my head, pretty much any FATE game, Faisco, Microscope, FFG's SW system (arguable), Pendragon, Grimm (not the d20 one)... D&D 4e does have looting but it's more of the boss dropping sweet loot for the PCs to use than it is collecting 20 sets of leather armor and short swords to sell in town for pennies.

Beancounting is far from a necessary evil.

Thank you. I haven't heard of Fiasco or Microscope. I'll give them a whirl.

As far as FATE, Pendragon, etc. goes, I believe you still have the 'looting' problem, which is rooted more in player mindsets than rules. Personally, I don't think having exact monetary values detracts from a game. It's a small thing that helps make the game more immersive. It only gets problematic when you have a videogame approach of "more gear, better gear, asap" in the worst way possible. But that same approach will screw with a FATE game as much as with Shadowrun (arguably, if you're running SR right, it should get you killed, but, that's another matter entirely...). The only times I do not see it happen are either with mature players or when gear is more or less unimportant. In systems like the 40k line, where there are worlds between an autogun and a multimelta, you're going to get that kind of behaviour eventually.

Maybe its just me, but I much prefer the bean counting and hard currency. As a device it allowed me to pace the campaign exactly at the gear levels I wanted. Secondly, I never had issue with players looting things because I encouraged it. I gave their enemies gear which could be taken, acquired or sold. Players and the group would save up cash, buy themselves almost explicitly roleplaying items or tools such as: vehicles, crafting materials, clothes and familiars. Also, having a hard currency gave me lots of creative freedom to make items, loot and precious gems. My player regularly found chests with gems, cash and generic or rare items (many custom made and had back stories). Which then would be as before kept, sold or used and tossed. I liked the money system, it fit my playstyle and management perfectly, all my players loved it because they could still loot, trade amongst themselves and still enjoy he 40k setting.

I do not hate the influence system, but I feel it is lazy, unpolished and a huge pain in the ass for me personally. Because my players after reading the rules, no longer seek out reputable or trustworthy (or at least trustworthy enough) merchants or black market deals, and they do all the roleplaying and test to find, purchase, haggle, bribe and steal is now just: I go to my (insert peer), roll commerce, add modifier and told yes or no for item. Someone above mentioned it is not instantaneous, narratively you are correct, for all practically it is. Because it is just handwaved. They passed the test, they get the item. Simple as that. If it is a problem for me, am to just tell them tough ****, like a sh*tty GM and ruin their fun? No thank you. Like a good GM it is my job to tell a story and make sure they have fun.

I use the influence system. I don't hate it, nor do my players, but I asked them which they prefer and not a single one said the influence system.

Maybe its just me, [...]

Absolutely not. This just seems to be a matter of preferences across systems, and a question that is as polarising (and ultimately as meaningless) as asking whether one prefers rules based on d6 or d10 or d100.

Because my players after reading the rules, no longer seek out reputable or trustworthy (or at least trustworthy enough) merchants or black market deals, and they do all the roleplaying and test to find, purchase, haggle, bribe and steal is now just: I go to my (insert peer), roll commerce, add modifier and told yes or no for item. Someone above mentioned it is not instantaneous, narratively you are correct, for all practically it is. Because it is just handwaved. They passed the test, they get the item. Simple as that.

Well, I'd say this is a result of how you implemented the system. Purchasing, haggling, bribing, stealing is what the Influence test is supposed to represent, and as GM you could give your players bonuses or penalties to the roll depending on how they describe what they intend to do, or whether they have special Skills and Talents that could come in useful.

I mean, how exactly did you do it when cash was still tracked by the coin? Because as per RAW, it was just "subtract X from your charsheet, presto" as well. If you found ways to make it more interesting in DH1, and your players appreciated this additional work you put on top the "pay up chummer" part of the rules, you should be able to apply the same train of thought to DH2.

How much handwaving happens at your table is entirely in your .. well, hands.

GM the game without currency, then come here and tell me how much fun you are having. Why not remove ammunition ? Some rules lite systems have players roll a dice every turn to see if they have expended all their ammunition. This is an infuriating mechanic, but it speeds up the game at the expense of realism.

Currency is the same to me. If you are going to track bullets why not track currency ?

In second edition you will keep running into 'can I get this or not ?' 'We've moved locations can I get this or not' ? 'I want this. Can I get it or not ?' For a certain population of the player base these requests are constant and infuriating. This is also why no PC RPG that I know of use a similar system. This is what you get playing with real people as opposed to just reading the rulebook. Money closes that gap. It's a finite resource like ammunition. It's a little annoying, but it keeps the requests at bay.

With Deathwatch people are on mission normally. Stores wouldn't cater to space marines, so the mechanic makes perfect sense. I do abstract things like food and lodging because I feel those slow down the game, but weapons, armor, and items are far different.

My GM has been doing just fine with it thus far and we've been playing since release. Some sessions we have no requisitions some we have a couple and some we have a bunch, depending on what we feel we need for what we are planning and how badly we feel the need to upgrade something. We recently jumped him with a bunch of purchases that made me feel kinda bad but it would have been no different than if we had been saving up money for awhile in 1st ed and all decided to spend it all at once. We decided to go more militant as our enemies have been scrying us anyway so decided to upgrade to less subtle weapons and armor.

One reason to keep ammo but not currency is that, as already discussed, currency leads to all sorts of other micromanagement nonsense and can send the party way off track dicking around to scrounge up funds while ammo is just one lone number to track, no harder than wounds. Also a major part of the game is shooting heretics in the face and ammo ties into that, the acquisition of wealth is not thematically meant to be a goal in and of itself in Dark Heresy so it can be more abstract.

The big purchases and acquiring cells aren't something I ever see players doing as mere Acolytes - it was more a question of something that could happen down the line. I see the arguments on both sides for the Influence system. I agree that money bogs down the game with a reliance on looting and counting change, but the Influence system leaves a lot of gaps the way it is written. I am curious to see how it plays out in our game, knowing how my fellow players deal with the Requisition system from Only War.

Depends on the type of game. If they are a fairly independent acolyte cell, with little contact with their inquisitor, they may want to setup safe houses of their own and build contact networks that report to them. Another example would be If the party doesn't like or trust their inquisitor they might want these things so they have a system in place when they overthrow him.

If they regularly report to their inquisitor then I agree with you its something he or his throne agents are more likely to be responsible for. However it still never hurts for his acolytes to keep an eye out for opportunities to add to his network.

It's sad because a lot of the gaps in it I feel like were at least partially addressed in some of the other games lines. Ascension covered many of them itself. For example the acquisition of big ticket items like safe houses and troops, borrowing items temporarily and having artisans craft really nice stuff for you (even put a cap on it to keep players in line). Pretty much all the other systems covered requisitioning multiples of items which this doesn't. If they had pretty much just copied Ascensions influence system there would be far fewer gaps. It could also have probably used a page or two more for other services and big things like requisitioning squads of backup and such.

I have to disagree with Vorzak. If you have a decent, mature group, it can work, but if you have one person who even thinks along the lines of how fog mentioned (Can I have this? Why can't I have this? ARE WE THERE YET, DADDY?), influence/profit factor etc. is an annoyance enabler that is very hard to get under control beyond a resolute "GET OUT!".

Seems to me this could be a problem in 1st ed too, it just involved more begging to be allowed to use trade skills and sleight of hand to earn or steal more money to get the item further dragging the game off track or nagging to use social skills to get the price lower and more nagging for their next paycheck.

Probably the best way to handle this is to limit most acquisitions to between-mission downtime. Allow for the acquisition of expendables like ammo, drugs, explosives, bionics specifically to replace lost body parts and services. Make clear that when hunting cults and such every second can count and in the bureaucratic nightmare that is the imperium there often just isn't time to track down items, fill out the requisition paperwork, call in the favors, negotiate with the current owner etc to get new fancy stuff. A ground rule like this established up front should help avoid the constant badgering.

Also don't forget that acquiring a bunch or rare gear is meant to have downsides like subtlety decreases and lost influence on bad failures. Enforcing these could make the players more cautious. Even if you don't use the subtlety system directly you could abstractly still do the same, with them being obviously recognized everywhere they go based on their fancy gear or getting regularly ambushed.

words

Nothing I've said contradicts itself, and I haven't even really made an argument. The problem the OP (and many others) is having is that the game clearly wants there to be a group resource but doesn't actually have one (and let's be honest, the boss NPC's stat thing is kind of a cop out).

Contrast the Influence system to Edge of the Empire's Obligation. Obligation is a personal resource that can be taken on (having more is a bad thing) to get something and the group's total Obligation affects how sessions play out. Having a high group Obligation makes all of the players want to reduce it and the game gives them the tools to manage it. Influence feels more like the idea of a system than a complete one.

I haven't played 1st edition but would it be worth you adopting the currency system from 1st edition to replace the influence system and keeping everything else (assuming you are happy with most of the other stuff) 2nd edition?

It might cause some problems with pricing but I'm sure you could use prices given for similar items from 1st edition for indicative prices.

As for the OP questions I think others have answered it very well.

Influence isn't perfect but the beancounting in DH1 is a nightmare. On top of reinforcing the urge to get money and loot everything, the way salaries work is laughably unequal - nobles get several hundred thrones per week while scum are lucky to get a few dozen.

Then again, DH1 is much more a game about poor dirt-farmers trying to survive in a world where there's a very real decision to be made when a fight breaks out and your ammo costs more than you make in a year. So if you're going for that it's not bad.

Except you are arguing that a characteristic, that is the same for the whole group, can be used by the whole group and is impacted by the actions of the group, isn't a group characteristic and the only reasoning you gave for why its not contradicts part of your statement as to why you think there should be a group influence in the first place.

The Inquisitor's Influence really is no different than profit factor in Rogue Trader, the only difference is that now each character has their own value in addition that is more subtle and safer to use. Technically the Profit Factor is really just the Rogue Traders characteristic that the other players get to use when you think about it since he is the one who actually owns everything within the Dynasty.

If it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck...

You could argue that the way influence and subtlety interact is somewhat similar to the obligation system you are describing. If a party is buying a bunch of rare things lowering their subtlety then the session should play out much differently (with many more ambushes, more heavily defended cult hideouts or deserted cult hideouts as they knew they were coming etc.) than a party holding back on equipment and staying under the radar better.

I actually kind of agree though that the influence system feels incomplete. 1st ed Ascension's influence system covered far more situations than the current version and I wonder if they didn't pass more of that along due to page count or because they were trying to simplify too much. I also agree that even in its current state it is far better than the beancounting of DH1.

It puts a finite cap on money though and I like that. I like money to be like ammunition. Any case where there isn't a finite cap you just have a request for test. I very rarely have broke players asking me if there are stores around.

The money system encouraged this type of thinking about stores and shopping. As Imperial officials and adeptus personnel with the influence system I thinka more fitting representation is convincing imperial officials to give you stuff out of their armories, filling out paperwork for equipment transfers, calling in favors, etc. rather than going into the local pawn shop and browsing.

Maybe its just me, but I much prefer the bean counting and hard currency. As a device it allowed me to pace the campaign exactly at the gear levels I wanted. Secondly, I never had issue with players looting things because I encouraged it. I gave their enemies gear which could be taken, acquired or sold. Players and the group would save up cash, buy themselves almost explicitly roleplaying items or tools such as: vehicles, crafting materials, clothes and familiars. Also, having a hard currency gave me lots of creative freedom to make items, loot and precious gems. My player regularly found chests with gems, cash and generic or rare items (many custom made and had back stories). Which then would be as before kept, sold or used and tossed. I liked the money system, it fit my playstyle and management perfectly, all my players loved it because they could still loot, trade amongst themselves and still enjoy he 40k setting.

I do not hate the influence system, but I feel it is lazy, unpolished and a huge pain in the ass for me personally. Because my players after reading the rules, no longer seek out reputable or trustworthy (or at least trustworthy enough) merchants or black market deals, and they do all the roleplaying and test to find, purchase, haggle, bribe and steal is now just: I go to my (insert peer), roll commerce, add modifier and told yes or no for item. Someone above mentioned it is not instantaneous, narratively you are correct, for all practically it is. Because it is just handwaved. They passed the test, they get the item. Simple as that. If it is a problem for me, am to just tell them tough ****, like a sh*tty GM and ruin their fun? No thank you. Like a good GM it is my job to tell a story and make sure they have fun.

I use the influence system. I don't hate it, nor do my players, but I asked them which they prefer and not a single one said the influence system.

I don't see this as being in theme with Dark Heresy. The acolytes shouldn't be treasure hunting for gems and stripping the jewelry off their kills. What you describe sounds more like a D&D or Edge of the Empire campaign to me. Money making should not be the acolytes' goal. Finding and killing heretics should be.

If you aren't continuing to roleplay the influence tests that's your own fault. You can handwave all the social interaction tests to the exact same degree as influence. With Inquiry for example you have the choice of asking your player specifically what he does and roleplay out a few of the conversations or you can just have them make the roll, hand wave the specifics and tell them what they learned from the successful test. With deceive you can have your player come up with an actual detailed lie and play out the conversation or you can just say the test passed, they believe you and generically do what you wanted them to or you get out of the situation you were in. No different with influence and commerce. You and your group are the ones who have arbitrarily decided to hand wave one type of test and not another.

If the group isn't seeking out reputable sources make the influence test and/or commerce tests harder as the person tries to scam them or have it cause a hit to subtlety or have the item they get be of lower quality than they asked for or break in some other way.

Stealing shouldn't even be represented by influence, that should be a combo of stealth, sleight of hand, deceive and security tests, depending on their plan, all roleplayed out.

Lynata is right about the original influence chart from DH1. In fact, I'm surprised they didn't include it in DH2. It was suggested during the beta.

I much prefer the influence system to "hard" cash values but that's just me. If you want to import DH1 monetary system there's nothing stopping you!

I'll say this to clarify my intent. I do not hate nor even disdain the influence system. I understand why it was implemented and I begrudgingly accept it. I just don't like it. It is not intuitive to me or my playstyle.

To say that looting and treasure hunting is not a theme of Dark Heresy is like saying the Ecclesiarchy has no interest in Relics and that Tech Priest don't care about gear or technology, or scribes have no personal research projects. Perhaps you meant, wealth acquisition? Which in character creation is citing as being an example of what one of your acolyte goals can be. Or maybe you have never read the novels or background or played the tabletop? The whole meaning behind 40k is customization, gear and weapons of super and outlandish proportions placed in a dark, foreboding and hostile grim future. Yes, Dark Heresy used to be about investigation and roleplaying but 2.0 is much more combat oriented: in example, the warband. Nearly a third of all the missions (in my games) the Inquisitor gives the group are retrieval, investigative or acquisition missions for particular items; be heretical, tombs of knowledge, people or weapons. I disagree with your opinion, not that you are wrong per say, but your reasoning is.

To each their own on how they wish to do it. I personally find the influence system to be too abstract for my liking. Though I hear the same complaint about the lack of a structure for investigations. I never cared that they didn't have a rules set or dedicated tables for investigations because I personally believe that is the whole point of the GM to craft that story and those interactions.The same can be said about the influence system, simply the GMs job to make something up, which is true. The influence system makes sense to me, especially for Inquisitors if not Acolytes or the game expansions; Rouge Trader, Chaos et certa. To use money in those games would not be wrong but the sums needed would be impractical so they abstracted them. But for Acolytes, the influence system is testy and not wholly justified. The reason I said I hand waved many of the interactions is because the rules simply say to do so. You want a Laz gun or a charge pack on a Hive world? Look at modifiers and fine they are plentiful meaning it is auto acquisition. Want to bribe some bouncer to let you into a club? Roll an influence test to see if you have petty change? Or just give a huge bonus modifier so they are guaranteed to pass, but then why bother with the test? Why bother to establish several characters, a chain of resources and do the nuacning or roleplaying for when the system tells you not to pay any attention to said interaction. If it does not add anything to the game, it does not have any fun factor or useful logistics in any noticeable regard, it should be removed, which the influence system does so. More importantly the influence system you can tell when looking at the rarity modifiers is poorly implemented. At this point it is silly and I feel pointless to bother with traditional gear acquisition with the system. I have my own system which works well with influence, but it is forced and not fun for me or the players which is why we all agreed to downplay it so we can focus more on the things they do enjoy about the new edition. The influence system makes crude sense and works well enough. It is great for players and GMs who don't like details and wish to quickly get through any logistics, in which case it actually excels. But to leave wealth, gear, equipment and resources as a chance die, simply seems lazy to me.

To say that looting and treasure hunting is not a theme of Dark Heresy is like saying the Ecclesiarchy has no interest in Relics and that Tech Priest don't care about gear or technology, or scribes have no personal research projects.

I guess everyone in this thread simply assumed (correctly), that "looting" in this context refers to excessive salvage with a focus on gaining wealth. No-one (I hope) would say that a PC should never pick up anything .

The reason I said I hand waved many of the interactions is because the rules simply say to do so. You want a Laz gun or a charge pack on a Hive world? Look at modifiers and fine they are plentiful meaning it is auto acquisition. Want to bribe some bouncer to let you into a club? Roll an influence test to see if you have petty change

And by the rules in DH1 you only check Availability and then reduce the amount of monies on your character sheet. What's the difference?

Why bother to establish several characters, a chain of resources and do the nuacning or roleplaying for when the system tells you not to pay any attention to said interaction. If it does not add anything to the game, it does not have any fun factor or useful logistics in any noticeable regard, it should be removed, which the influence system does so.

Now it sounds like you are complaining about something you've previously complained about the lack thereof.

Yes, I suppose you don't have to put in that much work. But the same goes for paying with Throne Gelt in DH1. Why did you expand on this principle in one game, but can't see it work in another? Should not the players' reaction to it be the same, if they'd have to jump through the same hoops? Whether they are paying with abstract or detailed wealth should not matter much if they still have access to the same actions to determine the outcome.

Literally the only thing you are missing out is the beancounting - which can absolutely be fun in its own right, in that your character can have a clear overview about what they can afford when, and plan their purchases in advance. Yet I maintain that this is an aspect of gameplay more suited to games where the acquisition of personal wealth should play a bigger role in context with the characters' lives, and personally , I just don't see Inquisitorial agents thinking like that.

Next thing you know people are going to ask their Inquisitor for a raise or paid overtime ...

To say that looting and treasure hunting is not a theme of Dark Heresy is like saying the Ecclesiarchy has no interest in Relics and that Tech Priest don't care about gear or technology, or scribes have no personal research projects. Perhaps you meant, wealth acquisition? Which in character creation is citing as being an example of what one of your acolyte goals can be.

Perhaps I should clarify, I was referring to this line from your previous post "My players regularly found chests with gems, cash and generic or rare items". That is the bit that feels more like D&D to me than Dark Heresy. This sort of small scale cash grab, treasure hunting is not in theme with Dark Heresy 2nd ed, in my mind. It is perfectly fitting to the 40k setting as a whole of course. It works great for Black Crusade! It was even far more fitting in 1st ed when the players were dirty, poor, downtrodden nobodies but it seems to me 2nd ed is a bit more heroic in the scale of the starting PCs. For example why would an arbitrator who also works for the inquisition need to buy his own ammo. Why can't he just go ask for more at the arbites armory.

Influence represents wealth very well, the treasure hunting you described does not represent wealth but simply collecting money. Totally different scale. In character creation it talks about a possible character motivation being the gathering of wealth and power. Looting chests for gems and taking the cash out the enemies wallets is not building wealth and power. Most 2nd ed Dark Heresy characters are above the need for this sort of piddly pocket change as evidenced by most characters having an influence value high enough to get basic weapons, cloths, food, a roof over their heads etc without much trouble.

The examples you give there aren't even remotely the same thing that I was talking about. Of course characters would and should collect religious relics and archeotech that they find as well as any weapons, tools and equipment that could be helpful and any heretical objects that need to be secured or destroyed. However even in first ed they shouldn't be selling most of that stuff for cash. Holding a relic hostage demanding the specific organization pay before you give it to them sounds potentially heretical and is a good way to get a flamer or plasma pistol to the face when dealing with the ad mech or ministorum and selling to anyone else is definitely heresy. Getting peer talents and influence representing good will and favors makes far more sense than them writing you a check for the STC or the jaw bone of Saint Such and Such.

I will also point out there is nothing stopping you from still doing this sort of treasure creation. When the party goes to sell their box of treasures rather than saying they get x amount of throne gelt you say they get x amount of influence instead (one arbitrary number instead of another, whats the difference) or let them trade it for items of a particular rarity or let them build the gems into an item they are crafting to improve the items quality etc. You can even have them take charm, deceive or commerce tests to get a better deal or if they fail maybe a worse deal as they get ripped off.

Or maybe you have never read the novels or background or played the tabletop? The whole meaning behind 40k is customization, gear and weapons of super and outlandish proportions placed in a dark, foreboding and hostile grim future. Yes, Dark Heresy used to be about investigation and roleplaying but 2.0 is much more combat oriented: in example, the warband. Nearly a third of all the missions (in my games) the Inquisitor gives the group are retrieval, investigative or acquisition missions for particular items; be heretical, tombs of knowledge, people or weapons. I disagree with your opinion, not that you are wrong per say, but your reasoning is.

I am very familiar with the setting. I have played all the roleplaying lines at one point or another starting with DH1 when it first released and have played the tabletop wargame for years. I can't recall a single time when Eisenhorn's or Ravenor's agents searched corpses for cash/jewelry or went hunting for chests filled with treasure or sold an artifact or heretical book for the money to buy a new gun.

"super and outlandish proportions"- I feel this is better handled by an abstract system representing wealth, favors, blackmail targets, investments, physical assets, reputation etc. than a simple money system ever possibly could on its own. And again I'm not saying there is anything wrong with looting useful stuff to replace current equipment or taking things that acolytes would collect as part of their job with the inquisition or their adeptus. I'm saying gathering random useless valuables to sell is unbecoming of a servant of the Emperor. It should be the rare and looked down upon acolyte cell that walks out of every heretic nobles house with sacks full of all the silverware, best quality cloths and jewelry to sell.(DH1 money). They should be confiscating the whole house and everything in it to turn into a base(DH2 wealth as represented by influence).

In previous threads I've argued about the game's combat orientation. It is no more combat oriented than first edition. If anything there are more mechanics for the noncombat encounters than ever before, with the disposition rules and subtlety and influence. Sure they cut some talents but most of those had no actual mechanical effect or very minor situational effect. Most skills are non-combat oriented as well.

Do your character's then go and sell those objects that they collected specifically for the inquisitor? If not then I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion. These sorts of missions are no different in first edition or second and are not impacted by the mechanical form the in-game economy takes. Again I was specifically referring to your statement about the party finding chests full of money and jewels and random other useless valuables of which the whole purpose was to sell.

My GM generally has us hunting cults or individual heretics, uncovering their destructive plots and stopping them before they come to fruition. We are rarely tasked with actively seeking particular items. Occasionally we find some, especially heretical ones that need to be destroyed but its generally not our set goal. We also obviously find the occasional weapon or tool that we decide to keep.

To each their own on how they wish to do it. I personally find the influence system to be too abstract for my liking. Though I hear the same complaint about the lack of a structure for investigations. I never cared that they didn't have a rules set or dedicated tables for investigations because I personally believe that is the whole point of the GM to craft that story and those interactions.The same can be said about the influence system, simply the GMs job to make something up, which is true. The influence system makes sense to me, especially for Inquisitors if not Acolytes or the game expansions; Rouge Trader, Chaos et certa. To use money in those games would not be wrong but the sums needed would be impractical so they abstracted them. But for Acolytes, the influence system is testy and not wholly justified. The reason I said I hand waved many of the interactions is because the rules simply say to do so. You want a Laz gun or a charge pack on a Hive world? Look at modifiers and fine they are plentiful meaning it is auto acquisition. Want to bribe some bouncer to let you into a club? Roll an influence test to see if you have petty change? Or just give a huge bonus modifier so they are guaranteed to pass, but then why bother with the test? Why bother to establish several characters, a chain of resources and do the nuacning or roleplaying for when the system tells you not to pay any attention to said interaction. If it does not add anything to the game, it does not have any fun factor or useful logistics in any noticeable regard, it should be removed, which the influence system does so. More importantly the influence system you can tell when looking at the rarity modifiers is poorly implemented. At this point it is silly and I feel pointless to bother with traditional gear acquisition with the system. I have my own system which works well with influence, but it is forced and not fun for me or the players which is why we all agreed to downplay it so we can focus more on the things they do enjoy about the new edition. The influence system makes crude sense and works well enough. It is great for players and GMs who don't like details and wish to quickly get through any logistics, in which case it actually excels. But to leave wealth, gear, equipment and resources as a chance die, simply seems lazy to me.

I think 1st ed Ascension did it the best. It blended the influence with cash by leaving in a way to roll influence to get spending money. Ascension's influence system was also just more fleshed out with options for acquiring big scale items, rules for just borrowing stuff and acquiring multiples of things to help either equip an army with lasguns or to ensure the whole party can get the rebreathers that you'll all need without needing to make a roll for every player individually.

I think DH2 has changed what the acolytes are relative to DH1 which is why influence is more appropriate now. The characters start out closer to Eisenhorn level throne agents rather than terrible losers like they started in DH1. Because of this, influence now makes more sense than keeping track of money on a small scale. The acolytes are mostly adeptus personnel as well as inquisition agents. Both positions come with far more pull than the average citizen scrounging and struggling to survive.They get gear by calling in favors, going to their adeptus armory, filling out paper work etc. more often than by going to the local corner pawn shop.

Nowhere does it say to handwave it anymore than it does for any other interaction test as far as I can see. If you need every rule in the book to specifically say to roleplay the tests then I think you are missing the point of playing a roleplaying game. Perhaps a reread of the "What Is A Roleplaying Game" paragraph is due.

I don't really see why this aspect of it would even be different between DH1 and DH2. 1st ed you'd roll inquiry to find the item then maybe commerce to get the price down then you hand over money, roleplaying all or nothing or somewhere in-between. Failures representing not being able to find the item or not being able to come to an agreement. Now, in 2nd ed, you propose to the GM where you might go to find an item, roleplay out the commerce test and influence test a bit as one, all in the process of finding, negotiating and paying for it with the failure representing not being able to come to an agreement or the contact simply not having what you are looking for. Its exactly the same as the player coming up with a bunch of flattering things to say to an NPC then rolling a charm test and then the GM decides the outcome based on the success or failure.

To give an example, when the scum in our group goes to his underworld black market contact he several times has traded obscura to make the requisition easier. They roleplayed this out as him getting the guy high to make him more mailable in negotiations.

Another example was when our arbitrator went to get better carapace armor and our GM had the arbites requisition officer indicate that it was available because the judge who previously owned it died in the line of duty recently. This then came up later when an arbitrator NPC ally of ours recognized and commented on it.

Roleplaying out specific named contacts for requisitions adds depth to the world and in the commerce rules it even points out, with the difficulty examples, that it should be harder dealing with unfamiliar merchants. I see no problem handwaving requisitioning something as boring and ever-present as a laspack but you could have a whole played out negotiation for something as rare and valuable as a plasma gun.

Using your bouncer example how is that influence test any different than a deceive test, charm test or intimidate test to get past him. Presumably there had to be some kind of in-character discussion with him to get to the point of needing to bribe him (at which point the other social skills could be appropriate depending on how the PCs go about it). Continue it from there with things like, how does the character offer it to him(palming it to him, waving it in his face etc.) perhaps if he's oath bound he takes it as a huge offense, perhaps he tries to worm more money out of them. No different than any other social encounter involving tests. All this could be based off his disposition if you use that system and off how well the influence test goes. If the characters decided to use a social skill instead of bribery would you have them roleplay it? Why is influence any different?

To say that looting and treasure hunting is not a theme of Dark Heresy is like saying the Ecclesiarchy has no interest in Relics and that Tech Priest don't care about gear or technology, or scribes have no personal research projects.

I guess everyone in this thread simply assumed (correctly), that "looting" in this context refers to excessive salvage with a focus on gaining wealth. No-one (I hope) would say that a PC should never pick up anything .

The reason I said I hand waved many of the interactions is because the rules simply say to do so. You want a Laz gun or a charge pack on a Hive world? Look at modifiers and fine they are plentiful meaning it is auto acquisition. Want to bribe some bouncer to let you into a club? Roll an influence test to see if you have petty change

And by the rules in DH1 you only check Availability and then reduce the amount of monies on your character sheet. What's the difference?

Why bother to establish several characters, a chain of resources and do the nuacning or roleplaying for when the system tells you not to pay any attention to said interaction. If it does not add anything to the game, it does not have any fun factor or useful logistics in any noticeable regard, it should be removed, which the influence system does so.

Now it sounds like you are complaining about something you've previously complained about the lack thereof.

Yes, I suppose you don't have to put in that much work. But the same goes for paying with Throne Gelt in DH1. Why did you expand on this principle in one game, but can't see it work in another? Should not the players' reaction to it be the same, if they'd have to jump through the same hoops? Whether they are paying with abstract or detailed wealth should not matter much if they still have access to the same actions to determine the outcome.

Literally the only thing you are missing out is the beancounting - which can absolutely be fun in its own right, in that your character can have a clear overview about what they can afford when, and plan their purchases in advance. Yet I maintain that this is an aspect of gameplay more suited to games where the acquisition of personal wealth should play a bigger role in context with the characters' lives, and personally , I just don't see Inquisitorial agents thinking like that.

Next thing you know people are going to ask their Inquisitor for a raise or paid overtime ...

Exactly, thank you! We seem to be on the same page.

To say that looting and treasure hunting is not a theme of Dark Heresy is like saying the Ecclesiarchy has no interest in Relics and that Tech Priest don't care about gear or technology, or scribes have no personal research projects. Perhaps you meant, wealth acquisition? Which in character creation is citing as being an example of what one of your acolyte goals can be. Or maybe you have never read the novels or background or played the tabletop?

Uhm, wait- in which 40K novel do Inquisitorial agents strip used armour off of dead cultists to sell 'in town', because the nigh-infinite resources of the Holy Inquisition are insufficient to cover the cost of replacement ammunition...?

That's the kind of immersion-breaking D&D-style looting we are complaining about (and, yes, it absolutely is a side-effect of hard currency and its direct ability to improve combat potential), not just the predictable "Hey, this dead guy has a cool gun- I think I'll take it" kind, which is a common feature of the 40K setting.

I just tell them that the armor is damaged because the guy in it generally got shot. Armor is also fairly heavy. I haven't had many problems with armor looting, but i do agree it is very immersion breaking.

Uhm, wait- in which 40K novel do Inquisitorial agents strip used armour off of dead cultists to sell 'in town', because the nigh-infinite resources of the Holy Inquisition are insufficient to cover the cost of replacement ammunition...?

That's the kind of immersion-breaking D&D-style looting we are complaining about (and, yes, it absolutely is a side-effect of hard currency and its direct ability to improve combat potential), not just the predictable "Hey, this dead guy has a cool gun- I think I'll take it" kind, which is a common feature of the 40K setting.

My players for a while had trouble making the same distinction. After getting them out of the habit of general looting, I found that they had swung too far in the opposite direction and were never picking up anything ; even if I introduced it for the express purpose of getting it into their hands. I eventually managed to explain to them that there's a big difference between picking up one melta-gun to use and picking up 12 autoguns to sell .

(and, yes, it absolutely is a side-effect of hard currency and its direct ability to improve combat potential)

No, it's a side effect of a lack of immersion and immersive consequences. We have a word for the kind of person you describe in German: Leichenfledderer. Looks ugly, doesn't it? Sounds ugly, too. Once you remove the idiotic connotation of "treasure", which has a positive association, and give it the IG treatment it deserves, looting tends to stop, unless your players give absolutely zero **** about how their characters are perceived by their peers (or think it's edgy and cool). In that case, all I can say is...start playing with adults.

I have a habit to, personally, using Influence and hard coins both. Second is personal character wallet.

And there is NO such thing as Imperial United Credit.

(and, yes, it absolutely is a side-effect of hard currency and its direct ability to improve combat potential)

No, it's a side effect of a lack of immersion and immersive consequences. We have a word for the kind of person you describe in German: Leichenfledderer. Looks ugly, doesn't it? Sounds ugly, too. Once you remove the idiotic connotation of "treasure", which has a positive association, and give it the IG treatment it deserves, looting tends to stop, unless your players give absolutely zero **** about how their characters are perceived by their peers (or think it's edgy and cool). In that case, all I can say is...start playing with adults.

I have to disagree with you. Constantly improving equipment is, for better or worse, a core focus of DH1 , necessary to offset the game's generally low level of PC competence; the acquisition of that equipment is based primarily on horded coins (Frequency is largely irrelevant, due to the 'population' modifiers making pretty much everything available in any urban setting). And yet, Career-based monthly incomes are set so low that the average PC can't even afford food every day, much less the regularly improving armour, weapons, and equipment that the system assumes will be the standard. Hence the compulsion to engage in coin-chasing looting is, I would argue, built into DH1 at a structural level. Unfortunately.

I would say "expense" is what you make out of it as GM...

Lets say you use PF, like in my RT Campaign you have options - delegate the acquisition to a flunky = normal PF Test (as per the vanilla of the Core RT Book).

Say said Flunkies aka your PF Test fails - well then the big bad Rogue Trader and his uber powerful Peers go out "warband" style and either politically or by violence get what they want direct (i.e. feet on the ground - inperson)...

I can easily see those types justifying their RIGHT to bear and own something that someone else has (fairness is a myth in the Imperium) - heck an RT can press people into the service of the Emperor (aka Shanghai); so to me when they show up in person to claim something that PF failed to produce - thats when you get real adventure and and the foil of risk vs reward (aka the essence of RPGs).

Now for Acolytes - I like your idea of having them be sort of very able (as outlined; guncutter and etc) - as no sweat, that doesn't break the campaign!

Rather it should or can instill a sense of worth or value to your players - thus investing them more into your campaign arc.

DH and RT are not dungeons are dragons where at 1st Level your a wet behind the ears scrub - rather you are a competitant individual with either the means or the balls to do whats needed for the Imperium - I would look at Hunter the Vigil (by Whitewolf) - which introduces the concept of;

Cell, Compact, and Conspiracy

As seen here in brief explanation

On that note - this gives you all the backing to explain away who, what, where, and why of the situation - being the campaign arc / concept

As for currency specifics - with no unified currency - trade should become the method, this would allow you to drop "items" after the foes are dead - but not have the players horde them. Also with trade nothing is exact or precisely defined like that with the pricing given of money.

Just my two Gelt

Stay GAMING

Morbid

I have to disagree with you. Constantly improving equipment is, for better or worse, a core focus of DH1 , necessary to offset the game's generally low level of PC competence; the acquisition of that equipment is based primarily on horded coins (Frequency is largely irrelevant, due to the 'population' modifiers making pretty much everything available in any urban setting). And yet, Career-based monthly incomes are set so low that the average PC can't even afford food every day, much less the regularly improving armour, weapons, and equipment that the system assumes will be the standard. Hence the compulsion to engage in coin-chasing looting is, I would argue, built into DH1 at a structural level. Unfortunately.

Oh my god. The "PCs in DH1 are less competent" bollocks again. Stop. Just stop. The rules haven't changed notably. Your base stats haven't changed. Skills have actually gotten more expensive. And yet: It's the same ******* game. If your PCs are pennychasing because they're too dumb to ask for a gun at a temple when there's cultists about, that's their problem. If you won't allow that? That'S YOUR problem as a GM.

If you're not running what the premise of the core book is, but a different type of campaign, and categorically ignoring the many many pages of standard equipment for Arbites, clerics, sororitas, etc., that's your problem. It's not the system. DH1 allows many different levels of play, even in the oh so "horrific" RAW take, which is a lot more diverse than 2e shills like to pretend.

You heard it here, A-B: system definitely does not reinforce or discourage player actions in any way and you're an incompetant GM for thinking that it does.

Given it's a clear cut case of not actually reading rules which were referenced multiple times in this thread already and BSing around? Yep. Sorry.

Oh my god. The "PCs in DH1 are less competent" bollocks again. Stop. Just stop. The rules haven't changed notably. Your base stats haven't changed. Skills have actually gotten more expensive. And yet: It's the same ******* game. If your PCs are pennychasing because they're too dumb to ask for a gun at a temple when there's cultists about, that's their problem. If you won't allow that? That'S YOUR problem as a GM.

You're misinterpreting my point: all WH40KRP games have a fairly low level of PC competence compared to other RPGs (in this game system, 40% is considered an 'expert', despite failing at tests most of the time), and thus rely on equipment to offset this. My point is that only DH1 requires coins to attain that equipment, and the system itself (via monthly Career income) does not provide sufficient coins to acquire said equipment. Hence the compulsion to loot those coins is built into that system.