I don't like that theres always a player who never gets any equipment because hes unlucky with his influence rolls. The rest of this thread is pretty nonsensical on both sides.

Players don't roll for their initial Influence acquisitions. Also, if you believe it's nonsensical can you explain why?

OK tell me how to do the above in influence because I don't see how.

Normally, you just remove "falling back on the authority of the Inquisition" from the repertoire of possible justifications for successful/failed rolls.

All these situations you list are yet more examples of someone trying to complicate a system that was never meant to be complicated and being surprised that their on-the-fly houseruling yielded problems.

I respectfully have to disagree. All of those examples all worked within the guidelines and rules of Dark Heresy 1st Edition. Equitable items of worth were used to trade for goods, services, and arms. How exactly does that complicate the system when it used the values and information directly from it?

No, trying to attempt the same scenarios that were perfectly playable under Dark Heresy 1st Edition will result in someone trying to complicate a system and finding what they previously had is now defunct and they then either have to house rule at that point , or change to a different scenario.

I'm pretty sure exchanging items for an Influence boost is still a thing, so that part is golden.

What is an ad-hoc houserule in those examples is claiming PCs had no access to their Influence because of secrecy. That's definitely not how it works in the new system, and I'm pretty sure that's not how it worked in Ascension (although I'm not betting on that, Ascension's Influence system was an ungodly mess and I replaced it whole-cloth with Profit Factor rules that one time I tried to run Ascension).

No, the Acolytes going deep undercover still use their Influence, because that's how you roll when your resources system is abstracted to such a high degree. With that in place, any scenario is perfectly playable.

Morangias -

Even if it was an Ascension level game, the base line was still in thrones. It's not a house rule as the Influence rules in Ascension were optional - i.e. the games played as such were completely legit without need of any house rules.

There was nothing ad-hoc about it. =(

I don't like that theres always a player who never gets any equipment because hes unlucky with his influence rolls. The rest of this thread is pretty nonsensical on both sides.

Players don't roll for their initial Influence acquisitions. Also, if you believe it's nonsensical can you explain why?

I'm not talking about initial acquisitions im talking about future acquisitions. One person rolls and succeeds and gets a new item, another person rolls and fails and at best can roll for something worse. Sucks to be them I guess.

Its nonsensical because the thread is arguing about a system that is used as an abstraction for 'player resources both on and off his current person' and saying that the abstraction that could mean anything cant be used for something (which is the whole point of the abstraction so your arguing against something you can specifically do).

I mean, I do not like influence but the arguments against it in this thread are pretty terrible.

Take the following situation from our Ascended campaign. The groups inquisitor had to go into hiding after upsetting some rather senior puritans and could not access any of his resources other than what the team had with them for fear of giving away there location - essentually there Influence was at 0 but because the group had a number of safe houses with small stashes of cash in them they were able to survive until they could clear up the misunderstanding. It did however leave them with a known, limited, amount of cash and the difficult choice between buying ammo and buying food.

In this scenario even though we were playing ascension with its influence mechanic we still fell back on the old Thrones system, and to be honest I'm not sure how I would have covered the above scenario with the new wealth mechanic.

Your influence is reduced to whatever is stashed in your safehouses. Your safehouses are your resources so you still have some influence left based on that + whatever few people you can talk to without it. If you want to go over that influence amount your hurting your subtlety by drawing on stuff that would give you away. The influence is little but its enough to grab food/ammo and small things. Anything that is giving a penalty to acquisition rolls is essentially a no no since if you fail you lose subtlety and see above.

The cell is currently operating on a Feudal World where the general population is kept in the dark about the existance of the imperium at large. The cell is operating covertly and without local support as they suspect that the planetary nobility and higher-ups (as in anyone who is likely to know about the imperium) are involved in there investigation. They were smart enough to bring some tradable items and reproduction-local currency but how does that translate to the new Influence system? They have no influence over or rep with the local population, and tradable items and coin are a finite resource so how do you account for the reduction of avaliable wealth every time they buy something (like food).

Perhaps i'm just being alot more detailed than I should with my group but they are enjoying having to plan those details - and when I leave them out of a mission my players quite often complain.

Influence is still a stat that you use to roll, impose an appropriate penalty to the rolls when they try to do stuff because their in an environment cut off from everything else. Their influence is a draw from whatever they decided to bring along/people they can still contact. Everything else is penalised because its not particularly helpful here.

In 1 game I played the gm wanted to run a cell of highly deniable acolytes who the inquisitor granted little to no support, literally mailing them tickets to travel and occasionaly assets like jewelry to be pawned off rather than any actual saleries. This left the group wih only the cash in their pockets to achieve their objectives, which we had to ration strictly (We even paid for food and accomadation, with the other option of simply risking camping in the lower hive). Good luck doing that with the abstract system.

You have a very low starting influence stat and you dont do much to advance it. Instead it goes up as the inquisitor sends them stuff and goes down when you spend it to keep your cell going. Run it like an influence tax system where you influence is constantly going down and if its ever below certain thresholds they lose reosurces (like accomdation) if it ever reaches 0 they are out of things like food. Spend influence to acquire things rather than just pure rolls.

OK tell me how to do the above in influence because I don't see how.

Boom.

Look, I get what your trying to say, you enjoy the prep work and influence takes that prep work away into an abstraction that makes it quicker to just get in. Just say you like the prep work and be done with it.

Its nonsensical because the thread is arguing about a system that is used as an abstraction for 'player resources both on and off his current person' and saying that the abstraction that could mean anything cant be used for something (which is the whole point of the abstraction so your arguing against something you can specifically do).

I mean, I do not like influence but the arguments against it in this thread are pretty terrible.

I believe the point you are missing with those arguments coming from fdgsd, Surak, and the others is that the GM has no control of the situation prior to rolling. The abstraction of Influence means the GM needs to improvise the reason or excuse after the matter. Abstraction is great most of the time. These GMs (alongside myself) are clearly stating we like to take it out of the abstract when we deem it necessary. Is that such a horrible idea?

With a framework of wealth in place, you can plan things beforehand reliably, and use it as a tool to enhance your game. More knowledge of the relative cost associations won't hurt a GM who loves abstraction so much they just roll opposing weapon skill test to resolve combats. It just gives other GM's another tool at their disposal to use.

Really this discussion can be boiled down to the pros and cons:

Pros:

- Gives relative cost values to items based on the Average.

- Hallmark of the First Edition.

- Supports low-budget campaigns and scenarios.

- Helps the GMs who don't want to or find it hard abstracting via Improvisational skills*

* Very important I feel, because I didn't start off well in my early years playing with great improvisational skills. Not having a reference often hurt me as I had to stop the game to think about it (during ADND days that is, not related to Dark Heresy)

Cons:

- More information in the core rulebook? Might be an additional page.

- Complicates the rules for GM's who want total abstraction?

- Hallmark of the First Edition.

- Adds some 'Bean Counting' if used.

I'm not talking about initial acquisitions im talking about future acquisitions. One person rolls and succeeds and gets a new item, another person rolls and fails and at best can roll for something worse. Sucks to be them I guess.

Its nonsensical because the thread is arguing about a system that is used as an abstraction for 'player resources both on and off his current person' and saying that the abstraction that could mean anything cant be used for something (which is the whole point of the abstraction so your arguing against something you can specifically do).

I mean, I do not like influence but the arguments against it in this thread are pretty terrible.

Pretty much this. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the way Influence works, in terms of what it covers. There might be problems with the way Influence works (see Nimsim's thread on the subject) but that's another argument. There are also problems with the way explicit monetary systems work (e.g. is the cost of a plasma gun the same on a fringe world as it would be on a major forge world?).

What this argument essentially boils down to is personal preference. Some people like running and playing games where you need to count your pennies. Personally, I don't; however, I will vehemently defend your right to run a game with fixed costs and actual money if that is what you want to do. What I don't agree with is that it should be included as a set of rules in Dark Heresy 2nd Edition. It's obvious that FFG are going for a more streamlined version of the rules, and there is simply not enough room in the rulebook to include a complete, robust system for both methods.

I believe the point you are missing with those arguments coming from fdgsd, Surak, and the others is that the GM has no control of the situation prior to rolling. The abstraction of Influence means the GM needs to improvise the reason or excuse after the matter. Abstraction is great most of the time. These GMs (alongside myself) are clearly stating we like to take it out of the abstract when we deem it necessary. Is that such a horrible idea?

With a framework of wealth in place, you can plan things beforehand reliably, and use it as a tool to enhance your game. More knowledge of the relative cost associations won't hurt a GM who loves abstraction so much they just roll opposing weapon skill test to resolve combats. It just gives other GM's another tool at their disposal to use.

No the point your missing is that influence treats the use of money and all resources as a skill check like everything else in the system. You already don't have control over the situation if they used charm, deceive, disguise and everything else in the game. It changes nothing.

You failed to smooth talk the guard because he does not trust you. - Charm using Fellowship

You failed to bribe the guard because he does not trust you. - Charm using Influence

Thats how it works. Not liking it is fine. I don't like it but the argument is silly and its not going to change.

It's obvious that FFG are going for a more streamlined version of the rules, and there is simply not enough room in the rulebook to include a complete, robust system for both methods.

Room there is, I have to disagree. Adding the columns back in with the amount and a single paragraph or side bar is all that's needed. It's not complicated at all.

I will admit though the signs point to FFG seeming to be interested in abandoning it. Dark Heresy 1e currently has both, and will be the more robust of the two editions in terms of Requisition and Wealth for it.

I believe the point you are missing with those arguments coming from fdgsd, Surak, and the others is that the GM has no control of the situation prior to rolling. The abstraction of Influence means the GM needs to improvise the reason or excuse after the matter. Abstraction is great most of the time. These GMs (alongside myself) are clearly stating we like to take it out of the abstract when we deem it necessary. Is that such a horrible idea?

With a framework of wealth in place, you can plan things beforehand reliably, and use it as a tool to enhance your game. More knowledge of the relative cost associations won't hurt a GM who loves abstraction so much they just roll opposing weapon skill test to resolve combats. It just gives other GM's another tool at their disposal to use.

No the point your missing is that influence treats the use of money and all resources as a skill check like everything else in the system. You already don't have control over the situation if they used charm, deceive, disguise and everything else in the game. It changes nothing.

You failed to smooth talk the guard because he does not trust you. - Charm using Fellowship

You failed to bribe the guard because he does not trust you. - Charm using Influence

Thats how it works. Not liking it is fine. I don't like it but the argument is silly and its not going to change.

Let's agree to disagree. I don't feel like wasting my time because other people can't fathom me, as a GM, paying attention the wealth my players have to use as a potential trap/thought provoking encounter rather than delineating it to erroneous skill checks.

An example of what I am talking about:

GM: You come across a bunch of gangers. One of them sticks his hand out suggestively. "Twenty to pass" he barks.

Player 1: I only have five thrones.

Player 2 & 3: I don't have any. Spent it all before the game began!

Player 1: Can I try to deceive him? Make him think my purse is full?

Gm: Sure, that'll be a Deceive test.

Player 2: Wait, what If I offered him a few ammunition clips? It's worth about the same?

GM: Ok, that could work too. Try to convince him with a...etc.

As opposed to:

GM: You come across a bunch of gangers. One of them sticks his hand out suggestively. "Twenty to pass" he barks.

Player 1: Ok, I'll roll the influence test to see if I have it or not.

GM: Ok, Roll.

::Rolls ::

Player 1: Pass! Awesome, I throw him some thrones and get on my way.

or

Player 1: Fail! Man, I don't have twenty thrones or something?

GM: No, you did, but he cracks a smile as his gang laughs and start to close in on you. "Nah, I was lying. we'll be taking everything you have."

Both ways are completely fine. I like the ability as a GM to arrange either or as I see fit, rather than being pigeon-holed to one methodology.

With that, I'll be refraining from commenting more on this thread as I feel it's reached it's zenith.

Let's agree to disagree. I don't feel like wasting my time because other people can't fathom me, as a GM, paying attention the wealth my players have to use as a potential trap/thought provoking encounter rather than delineating it to erroneous skill checks.

You do understand that I like doing that too right? I do not like influence. This isnt a personal attack or anything. You like doing it one way and the game does it another, the problem is trying to get the game to do something different is not going to happen since its all just a personal preference thing.

Your scenario is also very dumb and specifically designed to make influence look nonsensical.

Influence is not 'you roll then figure it out' unless you want it to work that way. Just like a skill check you can run is at "how are you going to do this?"

"I am going to try and barter with him, and give him a clip of ammo to sweeten the deal."

"Cool, Charm with Influence at +10 for the ammo you gave him"

Let's agree to disagree. I don't feel like wasting my time because other people can't fathom me, as a GM, paying attention the wealth my players have to use as a potential trap/thought provoking encounter rather than delineating it to erroneous skill checks.

You do understand that I like doing that too right? I do not like influence. This isnt a personal attack or anything. You like doing it one way and the game does it another, the problem is trying to get the game to do something different is not going to happen since its all just a personal preference thing.

Ah, I lied. I'm responding to this (since you directly asked me a question). I like Influence, and I like thrones. I want both, since we were already spoiled with both. Removing features always seems counter-productive to me.

But you are right - as is, the Beta test draft is not supporting what I have grown to admire about Dark Heresy (1st edition). However, I was led to believe that such concerns were meant to be shared on these boards since it's not a finished product and the devs apparently read this?

Ah, I lied. I'm responding to this (since you directly asked me a question). I like Influence, and I like thrones. I want both, since we were already spoiled with both. Removing features always seems counter-productive to me.

But you are right - as is, the Beta test draft is not supporting what I have grown to admire about Dark Heresy (1st edition). However, I was led to believe that such concerns were meant to be shared on these boards since it's not a finished product and the devs apparently read this?

They are not going to change/add a core mechanic when the beta ends in a week.

You may no think it is but adding in rules to use thrones instead is going to take time + effort + book space or your just going to end up with a 'GM make it up/wing it' system anyway.

:: blinks :: One week?

Wow. I am way too late. Looks like I'll stick to first edition then. =D

So, if we add Thrones back into the game, what prevents it from degenerating into a D&D -style 'quest for coins' game (which is one of my biggest peeves with 1st Ed)?

So, if we add Thrones back into the game, what prevents it from degenerating into a D&D -style 'quest for coins' game (which is one of my biggest peeves with 1st Ed)?

If you have requestion like it is how do you prevent a player being constantly screwed over because he cant make the influence roll?

Ahm...it is not changing a core mechanic...it is only ADDING 1 TABLE for requisitioning ABSTRACT MONEY ITEMS.

Thats not a new core mechanic, it is a feature to field .ocal currency if explizitely needed/ wanted.

It can even be declared as optional for all those who like to keep influence only.

But as the discussion here shows, there are quite some who would like to use this small sidebar option to enhance their games and it would be quite easy to give it to them without all of them needing to put another houserule in place.

People seem to be making the silly assumption that you can just throw in one paragraph and thrones costs and be done with it. That's... a rather narrow analysis of how the system works. It'd take several paragraphs, littered around the book, given you have to add information on how to manage rewarding players with thrones, what amount of thrones should be awarded for certain successful tasks, etc etc. Adding currency is not a small change.

Tom,

I'll agree that adding a money system isn't as simple as a paragraph here and a new column there. However I honestly feel that if FFG added some sort of wealth system seperate to the Influence mechanic they would only be increasing there player base as well as the flexability of the game.

-----

As I said right back at the start of this thread that lack of a player-controlable wealth system was one of the deal-breakers for my group (I feel the need to clarify MY GROUP not ME consider it a deal breaker, I would just find a wealth system useful), and I get the feeling that we aren't the only ones. Make it optional, hell make it a downloadable web-suppliament like "The Lost Data Slate" for "The Lathes", but please give us something. It would also hellp those of us who have a mountain of DH1 suppliaments when it comes to converting things backwards and forwards as it would serve as an extra point of reference, and lets be honest the weath of kits in the DH1 library is too good to ignore until DH2 gets a few suppliaments under its belt.

I am going to state my position on the Influence mechanic very clearly as in a tread this long its easy for things to get lost in the noise;

I like the Influence system, it should be in DH2 and it will be very useful as it was better thought out and written than Ascensions system.

Regards

Surak

People seem to be making the silly assumption that you can just throw in one paragraph and thrones costs and be done with it. That's... a rather narrow analysis of how the system works. It'd take several paragraphs, littered around the book, given you have to add information on how to manage rewarding players with thrones, what amount of thrones should be awarded for certain successful tasks, etc etc. Adding currency is not a small change.

I never talked about adding concrete money values, just an abstract money item with an "about" value.

And I wouldnt consider myself silly either.Not too much at least.

Well, played several session in Seeds of corruption i can say several things.

First of all, requisition systems works, but have some negative side effects. At the start of adventure party is onboard of the Ship with large privileges. So any requisitions they take - is reasonable. Next they land on planet. Planet may have, or may have no local currensy. Party know no one on planet. More of it they strangers and have actualy zero usefull things to trade. So what exeactly represent requisition on this planet? Why its the same as on board of the ship in radicaly diferent circumstanses?

My players got their way by bringing some food rations from ship and trade them, but just as it is - i dislike requisition system during the game, but find it quite adequate in pre-game process.

Take the following situation from our Ascended campaign. The groups inquisitor had to go into hiding after upsetting some rather senior puritans and could not access any of his resources other than what the team had with them for fear of giving away there location - essentually there Influence was at 0 but because the group had a number of safe houses with small stashes of cash in them they were able to survive until they could clear up the misunderstanding. It did however leave them with a known, limited, amount of cash and the difficult choice between buying ammo and buying food.

In this scenario even though we were playing ascension with its influence mechanic we still fell back on the old Thrones system, and to be honest I'm not sure how I would have covered the above scenario with the new wealth mechanic.

Your influence is reduced to whatever is stashed in your safehouses. Your safehouses are your resources so you still have some influence left based on that + whatever few people you can talk to without it. If you want to go over that influence amount your hurting your subtlety by drawing on stuff that would give you away. The influence is little but its enough to grab food/ammo and small things. Anything that is giving a penalty to acquisition rolls is essentially a no no since if you fail you lose subtlety and see above.

The cell is currently operating on a Feudal World where the general population is kept in the dark about the existance of the imperium at large. The cell is operating covertly and without local support as they suspect that the planetary nobility and higher-ups (as in anyone who is likely to know about the imperium) are involved in there investigation. They were smart enough to bring some tradable items and reproduction-local currency but how does that translate to the new Influence system? They have no influence over or rep with the local population, and tradable items and coin are a finite resource so how do you account for the reduction of avaliable wealth every time they buy something (like food).

Perhaps i'm just being alot more detailed than I should with my group but they are enjoying having to plan those details - and when I leave them out of a mission my players quite often complain.

Influence is still a stat that you use to roll, impose an appropriate penalty to the rolls when they try to do stuff because their in an environment cut off from everything else. Their influence is a draw from whatever they decided to bring along/people they can still contact. Everything else is penalised because its not particularly helpful here.

In 1 game I played the gm wanted to run a cell of highly deniable acolytes who the inquisitor granted little to no support, literally mailing them tickets to travel and occasionaly assets like jewelry to be pawned off rather than any actual saleries. This left the group wih only the cash in their pockets to achieve their objectives, which we had to ration strictly (We even paid for food and accomadation, with the other option of simply risking camping in the lower hive). Good luck doing that with the abstract system.

You have a very low starting influence stat and you dont do much to advance it. Instead it goes up as the inquisitor sends them stuff and goes down when you spend it to keep your cell going. Run it like an influence tax system where you influence is constantly going down and if its ever below certain thresholds they lose reosurces (like accomdation) if it ever reaches 0 they are out of things like food. Spend influence to acquire things rather than just pure rolls.

OK tell me how to do the above in influence because I don't see how.

Boom.

Look, I get what your trying to say, you enjoy the prep work and influence takes that prep work away into an abstraction that makes it quicker to just get in. Just say you like the prep work and be done with it.

First thankyou for responding to the examples I posted. I can see your point, specially with example 2 but I don't feel a d% influence roll would work the level of example 3.

You're close with your prep work coment but resource management would be a better word for it. When I bribe someone I can't then use that money to buy stuff which is part of what all 3 examples had.

Well, played several session in Seeds of corruption i can say several things.First of all, requisition systems works, but have some negative side effects. At the start of adventure party is onboard of the Ship with large privileges. So any requisitions they take - is reasonable. Next they land on planet. Planet may have, or may have no local currensy. Party know no one on planet. More of it they strangers and have actualy zero usefull things to trade. So what exeactly represent requisition on this planet? Why its the same as on board of the ship in radicaly diferent circumstanses?My players got their way by bringing some food rations from ship and trade them, but just as it is - i dislike requisition system during the game, but find it quite adequate in pre-game process.

Thats exactly it.

How is someone not accepting a bribe from you because he recognizes you as someone he dislikes a poor justification? That seems like a really good one. The justification doesn't always have to do with the player's actual skill. If you want tht level of detail, then use a multiple dice mechanic that uses different dice to represent different factors. Otherwise, with d100, the cause of a failure and success can be anything the GM wants. You might say a player fails a ballistic roll because dust blows up on his face. A melee roll because his sword scrapes the wall. Perception roll because the players hair got in his eyes. It seems pretty logical that a social roll fails because someone decides that he hates you. Why didnt that add a penalty to begin with? The thug didnt recognize you until you offered the bribe. I don't see many players complaining that they want a retroactive penalty being added.

Edit: or if you really want just say the player ineptly offered the bribe or offered way too much and the thug thinks he's arbites.

I wasn't saying that there are not reasonable ways to handle the specific example in-context (i.e. Influence). Having the result of a roll have nothing to do with what the roll was about is what is a terrible post-hoc justification as to why the character failed at what he was attempting.

The system exists to support the narrative. The ups and downs of being a human, trying to use their skills and character to achieve.. whatever it is s/he wants to achieve. This is the most basic assumption I can possibly make about a roleplaying system of any kind, and perhaps this is where the disconnect between us lie.

Therefore, a Charm roll, to me, represents the character trying to charm another person.

An Intimitade roll, to me, represents the character trying to intimidate another person.

An Influence roll, thusly, represents the character trying to use his accumulated Influence Points, defined as "wealth, but also the intangibles of debts, favours, and reputation." That definition is straight out of the rulebook, it's non-negotiable RAW.

And when a character fails a Charm roll, he's failed it because he simply isn't charming enough. Not any other post-hoc justifications. He has failed to charm, woo or otherwise garner the favour of whomever he's trying to kiss up to. Maybe the person he tried to charm was homosexual. Doesn't matter, it's a failure to charm.

And when a character fails an Intimidate roll, he's failed it because he isn't intimidating enough. Not because rocks fall, everyone dies . Not because reasons . The character tried, and failed at what he was attempting. He didn't fail some other, unrelated thing. He failed intimidate. And when he succeeds, he succeeded in intimidate. If he had succeeded in Intimidate, the narrative outcome similarly shouldn't be that he nuzzles his new loverboy on the cheek.

Although thinking about it, I guess nuzzling someone could be considered a form of intimidating in the right circumstances. But that's beside the point. Eww. Man-kisses.

Now, knowing what Influence represents, by definition , and settling that a roleplaying system, the rules, exists to support the narrative and the characters attempts in context , post-hoc justifications that does not relate to the subject matter is ridiculous.

[...]

If you use it like that, without making undue presumptions before making the check, there will never be a situation where an Influence roll yields nonsensical results.

If, however, you assume a character is carrying 1k Thrones on his person in a system where there's no such item as Thrones and you're explicitly not supposed to count them, then of course it will make no sense that he can't bribe a "sell my mother for a hot meal" thug. But it's the assumption that's wrong, not the system.

You call it an undue presumption, but it's clearly meant to represent a number of factors. One of these factors are, by definition , accumulated wealth.

If you say that there is no such thing as thrones (or currency in general), and that's why it shouldn't be tracked, then there's a huge disconnect going on here, between fluff narrative, and the interpretation thereof, and the stated rules for abstraction.

If I say that a character is carrying 1k thrones in a narrative where this clearly and objectively exists, the fault lies with the system's inability to represent this. To assume that there is no currency just because it doesn't exist as a listed value on items is an erroneous assumption, especially when it's clearly settled that Influence is supposed to be an abstraction of this (amongst other things).

I'm not talking about initial acquisitions im talking about future acquisitions. One person rolls and succeeds and gets a new item, another person rolls and fails and at best can roll for something worse. Sucks to be them I guess.

Its nonsensical because the thread is arguing about a system that is used as an abstraction for 'player resources both on and off his current person' and saying that the abstraction that could mean anything cant be used for something (which is the whole point of the abstraction so your arguing against something you can specifically do).

I mean, I do not like influence but the arguments against it in this thread are pretty terrible.

No-one is arguing against Influence Points or abstraction. I think it's a great idea. I think this is what not only you, but many others, seems to be missing.

I haven't seen a single person arguing against the Influence Point system. Most of the time, it makes sense. It really does. It's a location-specific abstraction of wealth and resources available for the acquisition of goods and services.

The argument isn't revolving around the presence or absence of the Influence Points system.

The argument is revolving around the inclusion of an extra column on object tables listing relative worth in monetary currency on an average imperial world, on objects that would considered to be remotely accessible at all. Or it's exclusion.

That's it.

It doesn't add complexity. It doesn't really take up space, maybe a small box on a single page clarifying what it's for. It doesn't confuse anyone. It's not an extra system on the sideline of the old one.

It gives context. It explains relative worth of objects. It allows players and gamemasters to extrapolate or abstract availability and price on worlds relative to the average. It's an additional tool in the hands of gamemasters. It represents fluff substance and supports the suspension of disbelief.

OK tell me how to do the above in influence because I don't see how.

Normally, you just remove "falling back on the authority of the Inquisition" from the repertoire of possible justifications for successful/failed rolls.

All these situations you list are yet more examples of someone trying to complicate a system that was never meant to be complicated and being surprised that their on-the-fly houseruling yielded problems.

No.

If the only representation of your total Influence is your available amount of coin, the only one - you have no contacts, you have no Inquisitorial support (in DH1.. did anyone ever rely on the Inquisition? The games I played, we were always in bad company), you have nothing.

Except coin.

Again, this is not an uncommon or unique scenario. It is nothing special. It's a very basic situation, for very basic Acolytes, operating in very basic circumstances.

All you have is coin. Pure wealth. Influence is, by definition, wealth. Not just wealth, but also wealth. But in this situation, the one described, it is only wealth, because that's the only thing that is representing your current Influence. Nothing else is available.

The coin on your person.

What do you do? Do you remove Influence as you buy objects? Because that's the only thing that makes sense, right? You use your limited wealth - again, your sole measurement of Influence in the stated, basic scenario - and you choose whether to buy ammunition, food, or transportation.

So you use that Influence. You buy bread. You buy some ammunition. Narratively, you spend wealth, no? Basic objects, food, transportation, ammunition, easily acquirable, and let's ignore the fact that even though they should be easy to find, you just might fail to acquire it because your Influence is well into the single digits.

You spend that Wealth. You spend the very definition of your current Influence Points.

The only thing that makes sense is that you spend Influence. That Influence is lost. It's just not there anymore. It's gone. You gave it away to the merchant, to the grox-herder and the shady drug-dealer over there.

For four cases of ammunition for your automatic stubber, how much Influence do you remove?

For the food, how much Influence do you remove?

For the transportation, how much Influence was that worth?

When you are using your Influence as currency, because that is what it is, nothing else , what is the value of Influence Points relative to the goods and services you acquire , and by extension, how much is a single point of Influence effectively worth in averages, easily judged by the points spent and the narratively reasonable price of said goods and services ?

What would be the threshold value of a single Influence Point. Would buying food detract a point, or would you consider food too cheap? What about the ammunition, would a squad's worth of ammunition detract a single point of ammunition, at maybe 1000 thrones, is that what would be reasonable to assume an Influence Point is worth in this context? The transportation? Surely a grav-truck would cost enough to warrant spending an Influence Point, right?

Or is it a composite of all of them? If you have a single Influence Point, supposedly representing a small amount of available coin, by it's very definition, how do you intend to spend it? How is a player supposed to know what is reasonable or what it can pay for, how is he supposed to say "We'll get a grav-truck and some food" with any certainty? How is there going to be the basis for an argument on how to proceed as a group of destitutes and wisely (or unwisely!) spend that limited amount of coins? Assign concrete values relative to the scenario offered? Track fractions of an Influence Point?

And at this point, what would be the difference between Influence representing available thrones, and a listed value?

The situation isn't just ridiculous. It's needless. You accuse the idea of having listed general values based on relative, generalized worth of objects of trying to complicate a system that was never intended to be complicated. But it's not true.

Rather, not having listed values complicates things in situations that aren't complicated at all .

Influence makes sense in situations that are complicated. Situations that allow for you to use a composite number of factors affecting a number of issues and contexts. Situations in which your contacts are assets, your friends and allies are numerous, your enemies are ambigious, and your wealth or resources are abstract and hard to grasp.

It doesn't make any sense in situations that are basic, clear-cut and easily graspable. You have 800 thrones. Bread is 10 thrones. A clip of ammunition for your automatic stubber is 50. A grav-truck is 750. What do you do?