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 highlighted what I felt was the relevant token here, and that is some missions/investigations may literally be low-budget endeavors. Not just meaning acolytes first out of the gate, but some other overarching campaign meta, like inquisitorial rivalries stressing everyone's Influence/wealth/resources. As well, it could denote a "side" investigation, something in between investigative stages (Like when Eisenhorn went to speak with Geard about making Pontius a body but got caught up in the Lith mystery) where the PC literally have no presence, no Influence, and maybe just a few ceramic wafers in their pockets.

The point being that even if the monetary values given to items is spread out (somewhat) like this...

A cheap and minimally nutritious meal or short trip via public transit: 1/10 Throne

A battered but functional boltgun or transport lease: 500 Throne

A glitchy yet functional suit of light power armour or off-world transit via a tramp freighter: 50,000 Throne

...it provides context reference and clarity to GMs with less setting lore knowledge than us "grognards." This can only be a good thing, as it further aids GMs in properly evoking the setting dressings. Whether staging an investigation that begins within the world of high-stakes gambling that segues into unsanctioned psyker trafficking, or an investigation that begins within the mundane environment of indentured hog farmers trading choice piglets in exchange for "free medical care" lottery chits, the relative wealth of the setting is important to the the story being told, and requires the proper context by way of absolute rather than abstract monetary references.

However, I don't require and all-inclusive and exhaustive list of absolutes. And as others have said, and as has been proved possible by recent beta updates , I agree adding an additional GM-optional column to existing tables would be quite useful.

Apologies if this ends up looking like a double-post, but.. yeah.

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.

It doesn't take several paragraphs. It's an added column to pre-existing rows. It's an added box, explaining what Value represents and how to use it.

This is comparable to a single small illustration. It's functionally less than half a page.

If you'd read the thread, you'd know that, and you'd know that no-one has argued for a system replacing the idea of Influence Points. Nobody has suggested adding rules for rewarding players with thrones, or rewarding players with thrones. A reward or income system would be superfluous and needless.

They're agents of the Inquisition. The best they can expect is money for expenses or whatever they can acquire themselves in their downtime or in the field. What you suggest reminds me of the income system in DH1, which was (and is) ridiculous, except arguably in those cases someone (like a Noble) is receiving support from his house.

I wouldn't mind multiple notes and boxes on how to handle currency properly, or when it might be appropriate, when it's fitting for Acolytes to acquire it, what it means, and a little about it's concrete interaction with the Influence Point system. But no-one has argued for it and it's by no means necessary.

Well, as far as I see it, if currency IS to be included, it should be a meaningful inclusion, not a quick half-realised system to appease people. Which does kinda imply a fully featured set of mechanics.

Well, as far as I see it, if currency IS to be included, it should be a meaningful inclusion, not a quick half-realised system to appease people.

Which does kinda imply a fully featured set of mechanics.

I will also stop discussing this topic now, as it obviously makes no sense to talk against walls.

There seem to be 2 philosophies who will never agree on anything.

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?

Well, that's a specific situation in your game where it doesn't make sense, sure.

In my game, it would be more like: Bread is one food stamp. A clip of ammunition is 20 bottle caps. A Grav-truck is a harsh beating and a life sentence to a penal legion if you get caught stealing it. What do you do?

Granted, there could be worlds rich with used grav-truck salesmen (clearly a Slaanesh cult in the works!), but that won't be a common scenario in my games.

I could construct all sorts of scenarios deliberately designed to make the influence system look bad, but that's a lot of effort that could probably be better spend making up a unique monetary system for the local underhive if I felt it'd be essential for my campaign.

Fortunately, if I liked the Thrones system and wanted to reintroduce a galaxy-spanning universal currency I already have, like, six books stuffed full of stuff with a throne cost attached.

I wouldn't call the acquisition/requisition system perfect, but at the end of the day I think the Thrones system from DH1 was gosh darn terrible at simulating the economic realities of my vision of the 40K setting.

The "perfect" system would probably be a simple system to requisition special supplies from the Inquisition, plus a book with details of every known planet in the sector, including their particular brand of economics, and guides for creating your own worlds, complete with examples of various economic models to use.

I'm not sure I'd enjoy reading that book, though.

I will also stop discussing this topic now, as it obviously makes no sense to talk against walls.

There seem to be 2 philosophies who will never agree on anything.

Agreed!

Uh, no, wait. I disagree!

*ducks*

*bolter fire is heard*

Well, that's a specific situation in your game where it doesn't make sense, sure.

In my game, it would be more like: Bread is one food stamp. A clip of ammunition is 20 bottle caps. A Grav-truck is a harsh beating and a life sentence to a penal legion if you get caught stealing it. What do you do?

Granted, there could be worlds rich with used grav-truck salesmen (clearly a Slaanesh cult in the works!), but that won't be a common scenario in my games.

But using that as a basis for arguing why other players shouldn't be given a tool is a terrible justification.

I could construct all sorts of scenarios deliberately designed to make the influence system look bad, but that's a lot of effort that could probably be better spend making up a unique monetary system for the local underhive if I felt it'd be essential for my campaign.

I'm not trying to make the Influence system to look bad, nor am I contriving outlandish scenarios deliberately designed to do so. The example I used to drive home my point was a very basic scenario, so basic that it is practically a trope.

Fortunately, if I liked the Thrones system and wanted to reintroduce a galaxy-spanning universal currency I already have, like, six books stuffed full of stuff with a throne cost attached.

Furthermore, the fact that you have six books full of stuff with throne costs attached doesn't mean that you should not add a representation of average value to acquirable objects in this system. Not only because the original ruleset is incompatible, but because an Edition should be able to stand on it's own two legs from the get-go, without referencing previous materials.

I wouldn't call the acquisition/requisition system perfect, but at the end of the day I think the Thrones system from DH1 was gosh darn terrible at simulating the economic realities of my vision of the 40K setting.

The "perfect" system would probably be a simple system to requisition special supplies from the Inquisition, plus a book with details of every known planet in the sector, including their particular brand of economics, and guides for creating your own worlds, complete with examples of various economic models to use.

I'm not sure I'd enjoy reading that book, though.

I wouldn't call the acquisition/requisition system perfect, but at the end of the day I think the Thrones system from DH1 was gosh darn terrible at simulating the economic realities of my vision of the 40K setting.

The "perfect" system would probably be a simple system to requisition special supplies from the Inquisition, plus a book with details of every known planet in the sector, including their particular brand of economics, and guides for creating your own worlds, complete with examples of various economic models to use.

I'm not sure I'd enjoy reading that book, though.

This is why adding an entire monetary system isn't as simple as just a column and a paragraph or two. There's a whole bunch of variables you need to take into consideration: conversion rates, salaries, how the monetary system dovetails with Influence, etc. There is simply no way to fit a well thought-out, usable monetary system into a couple of paragraphs. It'd need to be a couple of pages at least . Note that I'm not saying a monetary system is bad; it's just not something that has a place in Dark Heresy 2e, alongside Influence.

As for the pseudo-money item, FFG would be devoting a couple of paragraphs and a table to something that is entirely redundant, as it is nothing that can't be done with the existing Influence system and a bit of creativity. Besides, how would you obtain the pseudo-money item? An Influence roll, perhaps? Again, if you want to implement this in your own game, go ahead - I see no need to include it as part of the core rulebook, though.

[...]

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).

There is coin in the setting. It is irrelevant to the Influence mechanic, and thus you don't track it. It's simple as that.

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?

See, you keep talking about this as if this was some kind of special situation that warranted special treatment by the rules.

It's not. Rules don't have a special clause "you can't rely on your Influence except the part that's based on your sheer wealth". As far as rules are concerned, you can always rely on your Influence, and what part of your Influence is based on wealth is impossible to quantify.

Thus, the system handles your "scenario" perfectly well by... not treating it as any special scenario. That you disagree with this assessment is your problem, not the system's.

I could construct all sorts of scenarios deliberately designed to make the influence system look bad, but that's a lot of effort that could probably be better spend making up a unique monetary system for the local underhive if I felt it'd be essential for my campaign.

Fortunately, if I liked the Thrones system and wanted to reintroduce a galaxy-spanning universal currency I already have, like, six books stuffed full of stuff with a throne cost attached.

I wouldn't call the acquisition/requisition system perfect, but at the end of the day I think the Thrones system from DH1 was gosh darn terrible at simulating the economic realities of my vision of the 40K setting.

The "perfect" system would probably be a simple system to requisition special supplies from the Inquisition, plus a book with details of every known planet in the sector, including their particular brand of economics, and guides for creating your own worlds, complete with examples of various economic models to use.

I'm not sure I'd enjoy reading that book, though.

I can't help but feel this was partly aimed at me as I've provided alot of examples here

I just want to say none of the examples I've used on these forums have ever been made-up - all of them have come from actual play within my DH1/RT/OW sessions - and yes while I admit the ones here did show situations where the influence system trips up a little that was the intent.

My goal was to get people thinkning about possible solutions to possible problems that I have Identified from nearly 6 different DH1 campaigns - one of which ran for nearly 3 years. I've got a lot of material to look through to find examples to help illistrate the point I'm trying to make.

at the end of the day we have been asked to Beta test the new rules, and I feel an important part of testing something is to see just what you can through at it before something doesn't quite look right. Once you identify the potential problem then the best way I've found to solve it is to have a lively debate where all possible solutions are aired before the poor soul tasked with actually fixing it (in this case FFG) actually has to make a descision.

Now I've loved reading the answers on this thread - be they intractable or open-minded - in a true beta test where the solution is uncertain both those points of view have massive value for the person who has to make the final descision. All I can really say is good luck to whoever at FFG has the job of looking at community feedback on the influence system, whatever you do some people are going to roast you alive and some are going to consider you second only to the god-emperor himself,

Now back to the thread

One of the things I liked form the old DH1 mechanic was the fact you could have an item that was stupid-hard to get hold of, but quite cheap if you can find it. Or you could have a really expensive item that was quite easy to get hold of if you had the cash (these were really good for sign posting rich areas in-game without making it too obvious). Is there some way of replicating this sort of thing with the influence system - nothing comes to mind for me at the moment but perhaps someone here has an idea?

Regards

Surak

(Edit)

PS. Just in case people are wondering one of the roles I have at work is stress-testing computer mapping systems - this may have coloured my approach to game testing

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.

This isn't D&D. The GM does not need to be given detailed guidance on how much "treasure" should be awarded for each advanture (just as the current system doesn't tell you the magic item reward rate). Yes, it will need slightly more than just an additional column on each item table (though that will do much of the work. However, it could be done in a page or, or maybe two, which could be found somewhere if needed.

See, you keep talking about this as if this was some kind of special situation that warranted special treatment by the rules.

It's not. Rules don't have a special clause "you can't rely on your Influence except the part that's based on your sheer wealth". As far as rules are concerned, you can always rely on your Influence, and what part of your Influence is based on wealth is impossible to quantify.

Thus, the system handles your "scenario" perfectly well by... not treating it as any special scenario. That you disagree with this assessment is your problem, not the system's.

Not really. The thing is that at the very least is that the system does not allow you to do certain things. As someone said earlier, this removes the "prep-work". To some players and GMs, trying to scrounge up the resources, getting together your contacts etc are as much as the adventure as getting through the cultists front door and beating up the genestealer patriarch you find within. However, in this system it is resolved with a single dice roll and explained as an ex-post facto thing ("Using your contacts you have got the password for the front door and he lets you in").

Now, in the case of the afore mentioned bribe incident, yes, you can explain it many ways, and in your position that is fine. "Ok, yes, you should have more than enough cash on you to bribe him, but that is not all influence represents, and he has rejected you for another reason. Lets say he just doesn't like the cut of your jib and just decided he doesn't want to let you in." Ok. Yes, you can do that. However, as said this is separate from the thing that was actually being attempted. You tried to use money... he doesn't like you. You failed. This starts to devalue things like charm etc, as if the social consequences of "Influence" are rolled up into the dice roll then a player doesn't get to, or doesn't bother (except when forced), to use skills such as deceive or charm, or whatever. "He doesn't like you" should be a consequence of a failed charm check, not a consequence of not getting your contacts into play.

I actually think sometimes it will be harder to justify success, rather than failure. "Ok, your on a feral world. You need to get the aid of the local village chief to assault the neighbouring village, and you have worked out that you need to give him a worthy gift." "I roll Influence. Target 48... cool 3 degrees of success." "Well, using your extensive network of contacts and accumulated wealth you find a suitable gift." "Wait... on this planet where no Imperial representative has been for 700 years due to a local warp storm, we only arrived 12 hours ago, were just beaten and robbed of all our worldly goods 6 hours ago, and we have no way to contact anyone off world?" "Yes." "Okay... so I am guessing this worthy gift was some of Frank's chest hair then? He certainly doesn't have anything else to offer."

Ok, yes, I am being a bit extreme with my example, and you always have GM fiat... but then you always had GM fiat. There is nothing new about that. Even with Throne costs you could go "Well, the Inquisitor has authorised you all funds necessary for this mission, and gives no **** about being subtle. Of course you have the funds to hire the 300 mercenaries you need for the assault on Vai Klinthork's mobile fortress." or "You want a set of power armour? Yes, I know you have 20,000,000,000 thrones, but your stuck on bloody Iocanthos at the moment, a planet not known for its production of extremely rare, specialised bits of kit. A second hand flak jacket, yes, maybe even a set of Carapace if you really scrounge around (though it will cost you 12 times the normal here), but no one on this entire planet has any power armour, so you cannot buy it. Try your luck when you get off planet."

One problem is My problem is that there is no inherent sacrifice for getting something. Unless you choose to sacrifice Influence to make a check automatically you suffer no loss for the fact that you have bought something. This to me just seems obviously open to abuse. "I will try to get some power armour." "Well, that's going to be a roll of 05 or less" "Yeah, but I don't loose anything for not making it, or even if I make it. Might as well give it a shot." Again, yes you have GM fiat and modification, but that was always present, it is not unique in the system.

Generally the effects that Influence have could already be adjudicated by the GM, or resolved through different game methods. You have lots of contacts, speak to them and see whether they can tell you something (maybe using a social skill roll of some kind). They tell you someone was overheard saying "Praise the multi-limbed purple monstrosity" and was let into the suspected cult HQ. You want to requisition some gear from the local PDF garrison. The GM has told you the Inquisitor has given full access to his authority, even the use of the rosette. PDF commander steps right to it... or he is in on the cult and finds some way to obstruct you. The Inquisitor has said in no way is his name to come into the matter. You have to convince the PDF commander of the ernestness of your mission and persuade him to provide back up without throwing the name of the Inquisitor around. Maybe involving some social skill checks. None of this required a special mechanic to do. it was built into the job of the GM, Now, mechanically, it is all one characteristic roll. I personally feel something is lost in this.

It also has resulted in them trying to force things to be more "balanced" against each other, as other than availability, they have no way to differentiate things against each other in rarity or the ability for players to get their paws on them. Boltguns no longer have the excessive cost of their ammunition to discourage you choosing them over autoguns, lasguns and shotguns. Looking at DH 1 you could see why even someone who owned a boltgun might not want to use it too often. Now? Erm... no. Yes, it may be harder to acquire, but once you have it? You might as well use it.

[...]

It's not. Rules don't have a special clause "you can't rely on your Influence except the part that's based on your sheer wealth". As far as rules are concerned, you can always rely on your Influence, and what part of your Influence is based on wealth is impossible to quantify.

Thus, the system handles your "scenario" perfectly well by... not treating it as any special scenario. That you disagree with this assessment is your problem, not the system's.

You're missing (ignoring?) the point. Relying solely on Influence in the presented scenario means the issues mentioned will crop out. In this scenario, Influence makes no sense.

The rules don't have a special clause saying "you can't rely on your Influence except the part that's based on your sheer wealth". Precisely. Influence is a composite of factors. In many situations, not all those factors will apply.

Not because it's a unique or special-snowflake scenario, or because I'm interpreting Influence like the devil reads the Bible, but because those composite factors simply doesn't exist and thus cannot be abstracted .

By definition, Influence includes your accumulated wealth. If accumulated wealth is all you have, because there are many situations accumulated wealth could be the only factor influencing your Influence Points, if your accumulated wealth is very low, abstraction is terrible, and if you define the independent points as to what exactly constitutes a single Influence point, the system either becomes redundant or break.

Again, you are presenting the scenario offered as something special. It is not. It's a very basic situation to be in. And if you still abstract at that very graspable level, Influence does nothing but ruin the suspension of disbelief.

If you have trouble following my logic in the post you quoted, please point out exactly what it is that you don't understand, or where my logic falters.

[...]

It's not. Rules don't have a special clause "you can't rely on your Influence except the part that's based on your sheer wealth". As far as rules are concerned, you can always rely on your Influence, and what part of your Influence is based on wealth is impossible to quantify.

Thus, the system handles your "scenario" perfectly well by... not treating it as any special scenario. That you disagree with this assessment is your problem, not the system's.

You're missing (ignoring?) the point. Relying solely on Influence in the presented scenario means the issues mentioned will crop out. In this scenario, Influence makes no sense.

The rules don't have a special clause saying "you can't rely on your Influence except the part that's based on your sheer wealth". Precisely. Influence is a composite of factors. In many situations, not all those factors will apply.

Not because it's a unique or special-snowflake scenario, or because I'm interpreting Influence like the devil reads the Bible, but because those composite factors simply doesn't exist and thus cannot be abstracted .

By definition, Influence includes your accumulated wealth. If accumulated wealth is all you have, because there are many situations accumulated wealth could be the only factor influencing your Influence Points, if your accumulated wealth is very low, abstraction is terrible, and if you define the independent points as to what exactly constitutes a single Influence point, the system either becomes redundant or break.

Again, you are presenting the scenario offered as something special. It is not. It's a very basic situation to be in. And if you still abstract at that very graspable level, Influence does nothing but ruin the suspension of disbelief.

If you have trouble following my logic in the post you quoted, please point out exactly what it is that you don't understand, or where my logic falters.

Yes, Influence is the sum total of many factors. Some of them are tangible, some not so much. But it's not divisible, because even those factors that could theoretically be quantified (like wealth) explicitly aren't, they exist as undefined parts of a larger abstracted number. What you keep doing is claiming that at any point you can remove any of these partial undefined qualities from the equation, and getting frustrated that it doesn't leave you with a number.

In other words, it's Schrodinger's money. You both have and lack sufficient means to bribe the guy, but you won't know until you open your wallet (i.e. test Influence). You both have and don't have friends in right places, but you won't know until you ask that general for help (again, test Influence). Before you go and test that Influence, there's only one good answer to any query regarding the money, repute or favors you've accumulated so far, and that answer is "maybe". Once again, you either can't grasp or refuse to grasp that it's supposed to be completely abstracted all the time. There's no point at which you're supposed to look at the Influence value and say, "but wait a minute, we need to recount what we can actually throw at this problem". Nope, it doesn't happen.

Does it break suspension of disbelief? For you, perhaps. But "incompatibility with Fgdsfg's playstyle" is not an actual issue with the rules. They work perfectly fine for how they're supposed to work.

In other words, I perfectly get your point, I just think it's not a valid point to be raised against those rules.

I really don't see why there needs to be rules for currency to be honest especially in the 40k universe. Every world would end up needing their own currency system considering each planet has different supply and demand for certain items. I think it's far better to allow the GM to wing it in these situations without burdening the game with more rules on money. As a GM, I've never found money to be an issue in DH.

It wouldn't be hard for a GM to separate bribery checks if the PC's Inquisitor let the PCs know how much money they had for a budget on any given mission. I think this was simulated in the Ravenor Books as well.

In other words, it's Schrodinger's money. You both have and lack sufficient means to bribe the guy, but you won't know until you open your wallet (i.e. test Influence). You both have and don't have friends in right places, but you won't know until you ask that general for help (again, test Influence). Before you go and test that Influence, there's only one good answer to any query regarding the money, repute or favors you've accumulated so far, and that answer is "maybe". Once again, you either can't grasp or refuse to grasp that it's supposed to be completely abstracted all the time. There's no point at which you're supposed to look at the Influence value and say, "but wait a minute, we need to recount what we can actually throw at this problem". Nope, it doesn't happen.

Does it break suspension of disbelief? For you, perhaps. But "incompatibility with Fgdsfg's playstyle" is not an actual issue with the rules. They work perfectly fine for how they're supposed to work.

Well, it is a valid criticism: "The old system used to be able to let me do x. The new one doesn't." Now, that may be part and parcel of the way the system works, and perfectly designed for what the designers want it to do, but I don't think it is an invalid criticism to say "I do not like this change, and here is why. Is there anyway to accommodate this as well?"

Also, as you are describing it this new mechanic removes control from both the players and the GM. As you say, it is Schroedinger's money/contacts etc. This means that player preparation is totally out of the equation. "Ok, you go to your safe and make sure you have plenty of cash for bribes" Ten minutes later "Nah, you don't have enough." "But I specifically said I wanted to make sure I was stocked up." "You spent it all on hookers." "When?" Or "Right, we have spoke to Councillor Frailmonteef to get him to introduce us to the contact. With his good word we should be a shoe in." "Erm... Sorry, the contact refuses to give you the information." "But we specifically made sure they would trust us." "Not what the dice say."

Of course, yes, you can say "You hand over the wad of cash you had stuck into your belt and he lets you in" or "After carefully checking the Councillor's letter of introduction he eyes you up and hands a data stock over." Of course. GM fiat for good player preparation... but then you are reducing the value of Influence in the first place, and increasingly leaving with the question of why you should bother with this new mechanic in the first place.

I think, as far as the bribe example goes, it's important to consider that your actual people skills very much affect whether anyone will be inclined to accept the bribe. It's not that they don't want to accept your healthy sum of money, it's that they don't find you to be trustworthy enough to give information to, or something along those lines.

This may be grossly oversimplifying it, but wouldn't some basic difficulty modifiers be appropriate for using influence in isolated places or places where they don't have a lot or can't use a lot of money? Have the player describe where his influence comes from to start (or don't, no real need) and have them describe how they use their influence in whatever roll. Give the roll a penalty based on how unavailable those resources are. Keeps it simple. And yeah, a table of values would be nice but the problem is that it would not be able to cover the breadth and depth you'd really want it to. I think just using influence and its penalties would be fine, though, and just count money as an "item" that can be used to get an influence bonus "that stack of bills is worth +30 influence, however you want to divide it."

Edit: and yes, I hate the problem of influence screwing people based on its random nature, but I already suggested my solution in another thread (limit acquisitions to IF bonus, assign values to availability that scale from 0-10, allow automatic acquisitions of rarity equal to IF bonus +2 at start of investigation, allow automatic acquisitions of items with rarity below IF bonus that count towards acquisition limit.

I don't allow my players to make the Influence roll for the sake of roleplaying. I as the GM make the roll secretly. That way they never know if it's a sure fire success or not. For all they know, they failed and the ganger is going to lead them into a trap and rob them or have them killed because he smells something fishy.

A simple roll of the dice is nice but I like players to be more involved than that.

I'm just not seeing a situation that can't be dealt with by applying common-sense modifiers or other existing rules (I'm not going to try to track down all of these quotes, I'll just paraphrase them):

What about situations, like an underground black market, where credit or authority-based Influence would be useless and only hard currency is accepted?

The PCs take a moderate penalty to represent the fact that they are limited to hard currency or negotiables in this setting.

What if the PCs are robbed, or otherwise lose their gear?

They suffer a substantial penalty until they can contact HQ for additional resources.

What if the PCs are deep undercover, with only very limited resources (in the form of an occasional bag of jewels to be pawned for cash) which must be rationed?

Apply a situational cap to Influence, combined with a cumulative penalty each Influence test until they receive their next bag of jewels, when the penalty resets.

What if the PCs take the jewels from a dead nobleman?

They can 'spend' them on a one-time Influence bonus with someone open to negotiable items.

What about a well-off PC being unable to purchase a cup of recaff due to a botched roll?

Use the standard rules for all Tests, and only roll if the outcome is in doubt.

What about PCs who are unable to get equipment due to consistently unlucky rolls?

Fate Points can be spent on any Test, not just in combat.

How can you explain a wealthy PC failing to bribe a guard due to a bad Influence roll?

The PC acted so ham-handed in offering the bribe that it made the guard suspicious that the PC was an undercover Enforcer, trying to entrap him; since no amount of coin is worth spending the rest of his life in a penal colony, the guard tells the PC to get lost (leaving it to the PC to use Charm or Intimidate to change his mind...).

I don't think Influence results in any more odd results than any other aspect of this game (people routinely get shot in the head and walk away, after all...). What minor problems do come up are outweighed by the benefits of eliminating 'treasure hunting' as a PC motive, in my opinion...

I agree. My perspective is that the GM should always be thinking outside of the box instead of always looking inside the rules. The PC doesn't have to KNOW why the ganger didn't take the money. Instead the PC should be wondering WHY the ganger didn't take the money. He should be wondering if he gave himself away or if the gangers know something that he doesn't. Paranoia ensues. It builds drama which builds roleplaying which is the whole point of the game.

Likewise, players should be more focused on the roleplaying instead of being hardcore rules lawyers. If a GM has a reputation of being fair, players won't accuse him/her otherwise. It's the GM's prerogative to fudge die roles from time to time to enhance the fun factor.

When it comes down to it, not every world's monetary system will be the same. An armoury world will likely have better prices on body armour than a feral world where it's rare. Also, do we really expect feral worlders to even use thrones as their primary money? I would think that they would be using some kind of precious metal like gold, silver, copper, etc. It's likely that thrones have ZERO value there especially on feral worlds that resist or hate the Imperium. The rules can't cover all of that.

Both of you are using preference as justification to deny alternative approaches. We may as well throw out combat as well and fold up skills into influence at this rate.