Put me down for using Influence. It's smooth.

I still think it is a strange characteristic.

How will your players really get different values in this if they usually undertake the same missions together ?

They will all be about the same level - the common feral world warrior will not have much less than the noble-born.

Its way too flat to be interesting and differentiating. The boost through Peer Talents is too less, the factor common-deeds of the acolyts too strong.

It is just a more or less rising number as the acolytes proceed in the most cases.

With money you formerly had bigger differences in income - also you had the inquiry skill with Fellowship where characters could focus on.

I just feel that now its more plain. Why not just stick the function to Fellowship ? It would help an underrated characteristic to get an important funtion.

I can life with it - but I dont like "Influence" that much.

And now you have the Commerce skill players can focus on.

As for salaries being different, that was one of the many features of the income system that made absolutely no sense. Why were you still making money from your former station in life now that you're an Inquisitorial agent? The notion that you work as an acolyte 'part time' is ridiculous considering the impracticality of travelling home to work.

I think the idea was that you'd set up a cover story by getting a job doing whatever it was you knew how to do from your former life, not commuting home to work. The other issue was the timescale of investigations. In the fluff, these took months or even years, so in that context working as an acolyte was indeed a part time job.

Sense or no sense, it gave some flavour to different character choices.

See the stay at the inquisition as paid seminar ;D

The commerce skill is ok now...but why not use it with Fellowship instead of Influence ?

I just see no need for an own Influence characteristic, as Fellowship is similar to it.

If DH2 is going to go with the influence method, why even have a monetary system at all in the game or even prices for items? Why not make it more similar to Death Watch in this manner?

Deathwatch's method is too based around a centralized, regimented means of equipping characters. Acolytes don't trot down to the Inquisitorial armoury and pick up their expertly maintained arms, generally.

But they do requisition it from some other place even if they have to take it by force.

Game mechanics wise, Death Watch and DH2 both get their gear by reputation and influence. The fluff on the other hand shows us that they go about getting their equipment in different ways however.

Elior makes a good point.

They take it by influence and force - while Deathwatch Marines take it by requisition and fame.

It is a more similar system than at the first look.

I must admit I mostly agree with GauntZero.

The influence system is too abstract and I feel I have gained nothing from it and just lost a dimension of the game (money).

"Schrödinger's money" covers the problem pretty well.. I can roleplay my rear of, charm my way through all the red tape, pass all my social skills with millions of degrees to gain access and I still don't know if I can afford that plasma pistol I want. Not untill I roll.

This kinda makes me not wanna try if my influence is low.. spend 20 min. sweet-talking a npc, doing favors and so on, with 30'ish influence I won't get the item... why wouldn't this boil down to "I want a plasma pistol, can I roll?"

How to gain access to contacts and equipment is already covered by so many other skills, CL: underworld = drugs, Peer talents/charm = things which might be requisitioned etc. etc.

However, now the price of such things are forever unknown and you don't know if you can afford it... No matter how much you prepare. Sure, you might get a bonus to you roll, no garantee. GM might decide "Well done, you get the stuff!" Great, GM fiat means this influence system can be completely scrapped when dealing with well prepared players. (Or risk some poor excuse as to why the church is suddenly out of sacred incense? Or promethium)

As you may notice, I really dislike influence

/rant.

I've sent of an email to FFG and got a reply of we understand your concerns and will see what we can do.

I've sent of an email to FFG and got a reply of we understand your concerns and will see what we can do.

Well done - that means they are aware that oppinions are quite biased.

This can also be seen by the immense number of comments this topic already has.

It seems to be one of the most discussed issues...

I know it is really not easy to price every item in a game...but somehow I really feel that it would feel better.

Not replacing influence, but enhancing it.

Influence could be, IF you can get it at all, but the price means what you have to pay for it.

You could even tie your income to influence - that would even somehow make sense and encourage to increase influence, but at the end of the day I really want to know how much money I have and what I can aquire for sure, not "maybe, if I roll alright".

I would have posted about it before but this thread had gone quiet and I didn't want to bump it to 9 pages.

GauntZero, You must be my brother from another mother.

Influence should be a social "thing" (favours owed, power within a organization, Rank in a set system) and NOT hard currency.

Actually, Influence should be just that.. Influence.

Edit: Spellering noot so guud

GauntZero, You must be my brother from another mother. Influence should be a social "thing" (favours owed, power within a organization, Rank in a set system) and NOT hard currency. Actually, Influence should be just that.. Influence. Edit: Spellering noot so guud

Who fights by my side, shall be my brother. And maybe even not sharing a mother, we do share a common believe and an enemy to face :-)

True.

I personally really liked Ascension - I like the idea of Influence sat alongside money; especially since it included an influence test to acquire 'a bag of moneys' which you then had the use of.

The problem, as noted, may be that influence covers too many things; the strings one pulls to get a box of shells from a spire-top noble armourers who is exquisitely careful not to mention the word "Inquisition" despite blatantly knowing who you are is not the same as the means one acquires a desperately-needed resupply of ammo in the field from a down-hive sump-scum arms dealer. But your stat is the same.

Hence why I like the acquisition/recquisition sitting alongside one another. For suitably high level acolytes, it's not an issue, just the same as it's not for Rogue Traders; unless special circumstances apply you can assume the latter carries sufficient 'pocket change' to buy the store. - it rather depends what level you're setting your game at.

One other thought; Rogue Trader (I think?) had a suggested rule where you got a cumulative -10 each time you "went shopping" in a single gaming session. Something like that might be good, to stop people over-using influence. One of the big weaknesses of Influence in Ascension is that it could be used as a substitute for money, fellowship, lore tests, and fighting power simultaneously and without exhaustion....

I really doubt FFG is still reading this trainwreck of a thread but if they are there's a great post buried in here, the gist of which is that the issues people have with the Influence system are not with the system itself, but their interpretation of it.

Including an explanation in the rulebook about how Influence is to be used, interpreted, and limited would be a great start to dispelling these misinterpretations. I hope they don't cave to the vocal few who do not understand the abstraction of item acquisition.

I really doubt FFG is still reading this trainwreck of a thread but if they are there's a great post buried in here, the gist of which is that the issues people have with the Influence system are not with the system itself, but their interpretation of it. Including an explanation in the rulebook about how Influence is to be used, interpreted, and limited would be a great start to dispelling these misinterpretations. I hope they don't cave to the vocal few who do not understand the abstraction of item acquisition.

We are not stupid.

We know what abstraction means.

BUT: not everyone likes it and at least I think, it would be better to use money in addition, as the abstract ways has some serious downsides and oddities.

I really doubt FFG is still reading this trainwreck of a thread but if they are there's a great post buried in here, the gist of which is that the issues people have with the Influence system are not with the system itself, but their interpretation of it.

Including an explanation in the rulebook about how Influence is to be used, interpreted, and limited would be a great start to dispelling these misinterpretations. I hope they don't cave to the vocal few who do not understand the abstraction of item acquisition.

*sigh*

I wonder if you're just a troll, or if you've actually managed to trawl through 9 pages of a thread without understanding any of the issues.

We all know what abstraction is, we know what it means. There's no "interpretation" here; what Influence is and what it constitutes is plainly stated in the book. You want to include an explanation in the rulebook for something that has already been explained?

I am not a troll, I have read the thread, and I remain unconvinced by the arguments of those in the Hard Currency camp. The Influence system works fine. None of the scenarios concocted in this thread actually refute the system itself. Adeptus-B's post (#122) points this out, but others have done the same.

It's ultimately a playstyle disagreement, and personally I'm happy FFG has moved away from the beancounting of the days of yore, and I think mixing the two would be a complicated mess.

Ok lets get down to the nuts and bolts of this;

Influence and Hard Currency can co-exist side by side - they have been doing it in DH1 since Ascension just fine - and the one you prefer is very much a matter of playing style/personal preference.

Myself (and others) arguing for a Hard Currency system to be reenstated to DH have at no point asked for Influence to be removed - It very much has its place in an investigative game like DH

The problem comes in the grey area where the two systems overlap - mainly using Influence when logic would point me towards a Hard Currency solution (the "bribe XYZ for info situation" if you like). Its this greey area where both systems can benift from the presence of each other. Having a day of bad rolls, good thing your character thought to bring a fat wad of cash to losen some mouths. Absolutley skint, handy that one of your team has some markers they can call in with the local gangs to get you the word on the street.

In the end I know its down to the way you like to play, for our group the planning side of a mission can often become a mission in and of itself (they once went on an entirely player-driven sub-campaign just to make sure they had some boot-leg booze to use as tradables on there next mission because the planet they were going to had a barter economy). But equally during our high-powerred Ascended campaign last year it was refreshing to have the Inquisitor throwing his weight around with a massive Influence level backed up by some healthy Good Reputations to get hold of a starship to move his small army of retainers to where he needed them.

Just my 2 Thrones worth

Surak

I admit I haven't read every word of every post in this thread- has anyone pushing for hard currency presented a solution to the problem of 'treasure hunting' taking over the game?

Treasure hunting would only be a problem if you can keep currency between planets more easily than get new stuff with that treasure.