So of course, Black Crusade does not have the same acquisition rules as Rogue Trader or Dark Heresy, which makes perfect sense, as the Screaming Vortex and the shadowy underworld of Chaos of course would not have the thriving market economy that the Imperium does. However, it does occur to me that the Infamy system as written seems to overlook a few important factors that would come into play.

As written, Infamy centers on the idea of a character relying on his terrifying reputation, political clout and perhaps influence to demand both equipment and services from others. However, it seems to overlook, or perhaps just gloss over, the regular granting of tribute which has always been a big part of warlord-vassal economies; ie, a Chaos Lord dominates a region of space and lets everyone live as long as they continue to send in their tribute, whatever form that takes.

Then there is the question of loot: if a group of PCs go on a raid and manage to capture large amounts of throne gelt, or perhaps other valuable treasure like quantities of raw silver or gold or gems, then shouldn't there be some kind of a rule to recognize its value? Obviously some things taken in raids, like valuable cargo or slaves, would be handled under the rule of trade, but things like hacksilver and throne gelt don't seem to fit in.

Am I right in thinking so on the question of both tribute and loot? Would it be a good idea to write up a set of notes or side rulings to figure out how these things play into Infamy, or do the rules as written already cover these ideas? After all, one could suppose that passing an Acquisition roll on Infamy also counts as simply buying an item with wealth received through tribute, and letting the fine details sit in the background.

Yes, infamy represents countless kinds of currency and monetary wealth, as well as pure reputation. So, if characters did go on a raid, it would most likely translate to another point or two of infamy to represent both the increased reputation and/or the increased purchasing power of ill-gotten riches.

Infamy tests aren't pure "I am important, gimme gimme" representations. Quite often they are, indeed, trades of either fortune or favors, be that through pilfered thrones, stolen relics, slaves, warp-infused gems or any of the other countless valuables that might pass for currency in the Vortex. The system is simply abstract enough so as to not deal with the exacts of how a heretic goes about acquiring what he desires. That's to be handled through a little bit of RP on the part of player, usually just them explaining how their character intends to go about it, so that the GM can know the potential consequences of their behavior beyond the mere "fail/succeed" of the roll itself.

I've struggled wit the "economics" side of infamy myself.

I'm thinking of introducing a more traditional currency system myself, but I want to like the infamy system.

I've found that it is more believable to make the players make the infamy roll before they actually meet/find the trader or person/organization that has the item(s) they are looking for. This makes more sense to me as it's easier to say that they didn't find anyone who was suitably impressed or needed anything the players have than tell them that "while the mechant has three clips of lasgun ammo, he's not interested in trading them for that best quality bolter you have", since you failed your infamy roll.

It's a flawed systems, but I haven't come up with anything I like better yet.

Well, maybe the PC's rival offered a best quality boltgun AND an evening his own personal Daemonette!

That or the merchant in question HAS heard of the PC, which is exactly why he refuses to trade. He had family on X, dammit!

That said, I don't really think you need to presume the merchant has the item in question. If a PC goes "I intend to go out, find someone who has it and then do/offer X" then they've provided more than adequate fuel to judge consequences, without putting words in the GM's mouth, as it were.

I know, but the scenario is often like this:

Player: I want to find a trader. I think I'll try to hit up that nice chap I traded with earlier. The one I made a nice deal about those chainswords earlier.

GM: Sure. He remembers you and welcomes you into his shop. He invites you to take a look around and see if you find anything particularly interesting.

Player: Are there any lasguns on display?

GM: Sure. He keeps a few in a locked gun cage.

Player: I want one of those. I really don't need this eviscerator i looted from that lovely sororita. I want to make a trade.

GM. Okay, That gives you a nice bonus. Make your roll!

Player: *rolls 99*. Ouch...

GM: I guess he didn't want it after all..

I'm not saying my way is perfect, but it prevents situations like that.

Personally, that's a bit more detail that I'd warrant for BC shopping, but that's flavor and preference. However, I still don't really see the disconnect. Maybe the guy doesn't want the chainsword. He's overstoked on them already (hence the nice deal! He wants to get rid of them), he's superstitious (it's from a Sororitas! Bad luck!) or maybe he's holding the lasguns for someone else.

Economics, especially in a non-organized, disconnected and vaguely anarchistic (in the non-political movement sense) place like the vortex are rarely as simple, straightforward and coherent as the one we're used to. And considering how complicated, convoluted and positively schizophrenic OUR economy is, that's saying a lot!

All good points, but my players and I keep butting our heads against the system as it stands now. And it seems we're not the only ones.

I think infamy works great for favours, and larger transactions, but the systems falls apart when it comes to the "everyday shopping" of most rpg's (weapons, basic equipment etc).

We actually have looted thrones off of people. So I imagine that our GM is going to use both systems. I'm hoping that he just does it the RT way when we are on Imperial worlds using infamy, though making us use a lore:underworld or some such test to find a "merchant" willing and able to deal with heretics. It could even be another infamy test to see if any of the shadier legit merchants would be willing to deal with us.

I think that the Infamy system is best used for shopping completely off screen. If you're going to take the time to roleplay out the shopping, then the Infamy system shouldn't be used. The Availability and Scale are going to matter on finding what you want, but actually getting it is going to be a matter of using your other Characteristics, Skills, Talents, and possibly even gear in a mini-adventure. This may occasionally be the more satisfying way of gaining some of the higher-end items anyways...

Thanks to Reverend mort for his replies, I think you probably clarified the system for me and I feel a lot more confident about handling it. It would seem that Infamy was always meant to be even more fast, loose and abstract than Rogue Trader's Profit Factor characteristic; thus enabling a GM to come up with justifications for Acquisitions based on the specific character.

So, for example, if a Chaos Space Marine warlord has a lot of his Infamy from subduing opponents or raiding worlds for their wealth, the GM will make note of this and have a lot of Acquisitions being traded for the Chaos Lord's tribute or loot, or even BEING tribute or loot, whereas a Heretek might be explained as trading black market technical details to a contact in exchange for equipment.

I guess in a way, the Infamy system puts a little more onus on the GM to come up with justifications, but it also provides a lot more flexibility to do so. Hm. I think I'm liking Infamy even more now.

I would say that Infamy represents a wide varity of curreny and influence types. An aspect of the game that struck me is undercover heretics on imperial worlds. Now in order for Infamy to work as an acquisition encounter you'd probably have some form of coinage, or some badge of office (Renegade Inquisitor flashing his Rosette (?). Beyond that I like adding the idea of tribute into the mechanic as well, as for the first game I'm planning will involve the PC group or Warband having access to one particular type of thing (A Void-Ship, a Manufactorum) Now just owning this wouldn't give any bonus infamy, though it could be used as a part in objectives, but could be folded into the tribute idea. Locals work for you as serfs or as bonded ratlings on a ship. Anyway, Agree as is often the case with Reverent Mort's analysis.

Magni, the rules actually state that heretics get a -10 to acquisitions tests on imperial worlds.

Infamy is directly tied to your personal reputation and might. How would you resolve a situation where the players are undercover, trying to aquire items from someone who has no idea who they are?

Jackal_Strain said:

Once again, Infamy is only for 'off-screen' between the scenes acquiring of items. If the PCs are 'on-stage' then they would use skills like Commerce and/or Charm, or possibly Intimidate and/or Deceive. Likewise, they could always opt with Stealth and/or Security to steal the item.

It doesn't say anywhere that infamy is only used "off screen", and while I agree with you that it's the easiest way to handle it, it's not the most elegant imo. Some players like to know how much a certain item cost, or just how much they need of one thing to bribe a local warlord, and the infamy system doesn't allow for those players to manage their economy in a "traditional sense". It could be said that that's both good and bad, but I can't help. but feel that the current system is quite unelegant.

I'm thinking of adding a hard currency system to the game to use in addition to the infamy system that's already in place. That way players can use the current system where it's appropriate and use it to simulate exchange of services, secrets, power or forcing, charming or impressing someone in to give you what you want. And they can use the hard currency when they feel that it will be too hard to do such a thing or just want to get what they want with minimum fuzz, if they have the cash.

Off to the drawing board.

I just posted such a system in the House Rules section. Well, there is no currency in it, since I don't think anyone stamps or prints money in the Vortex, and Thrones can probably be fit in some category of my system.

I agree that there shouldn't be an universal currency for the vortex, but svereal worlds might have their own form. That just adds to the flavour imo. Smart players will spend their "money" on one world on somethign valuable they can sell on the next if it uses another form of currency.

Jackal_Strain said:

Reverend mort said:

It's simple. It's too simple, and thus fails to explain a lot of strange situations it forces into play without a lot of handwavium from the Gm.

Various currencies will not be a problem as my players are all adults that understand how such a system would have to bes solved. I think it will proved a great way to highlight how various worlds infused with chaos will solve the situations (some worlds might use imperial thrones as currency while others might use human eyeballs f.ex).

I understand that you're not a fan of the idea, but I have a feeling that it wil work out great. I'm still hammering out the details, but I can say right now that it wont look anything like the massive work that K0balt's done. HIs system looks great, but simply too complex and massive for what I'm trying to do.

@ jackal_Strain

If you come up with something, post it.

I like the ease of Infamy and, what was it in rogue trader? Reputation? My issue with these systems is that it's frustrating when you want to get something that should be easy to get (or plentiful to use a precise terms) and you role poorly. "But I just want to buy some shoes!"

The other issue that people probably run into is if you're trying to pass yourself off as a Rogue Trader or maybe just a regular merchant, then it's not a matter of saying, "it's harder to use your infamy, you get a -10 penalty", it's the fact that you're trying to be "In Cognito" (sp?). So you need another way of aquiring things because infamy will blow your cover.

Lecram said: