I agree with Tom. Influence can be the result or at the very least tied to one's ability to make contacts. This is in the realm of Fellowship. I also think that Influence should be separate from Fellowship in game mechanic terms but there is certainly no reason why it couldn't be played this way.

I dunno, maybe because we were supposed to be discussing the merits of whether influence should be a individual or group wide value.

If he wants to propose removing the influence system as it stands and going back to what it was previously, ie bartering and shopping based on fellowship, surely he should have the decency to make a new thread, so people who wish too, can discuss the merits of it.

I know how it's supposed to be used by the letter of rules.

I'm articulating my opinion of changes that could be made - this is a Beta forum discussion, right?

The way I see it, I get to the same outcome without the need for a whole sub system - which seems an advantage to at least consider.

Tom's point that it might make Fellowship to strong is a fair one - and I would be concerned that a fellowship specialist would hog more of the spotlight then currently the case. My own solution to that is to spread out fellowship across the party by making peer talents more important so, for example, the Mechanicus character has a much easier time interacting with Mechanicus member than the generic fellowship character - but that is probably outside the breadth of this thread.

Look, the old system was all fellowship based for everything of this nature.

Now they have an Influence system, which is NOT based on Fellowship and Money.

Of course you can use fellowship, because that is what we used to use for all interactions of this nature, here they are refining it, fellowship is used to personal interactions and Influence is used to get gear, and troops or favours from various imperial institutions that you cannot go shopping with.

If they wanted to keep it simple and no extra thinking or rolling required they would NOT have changed the system.

So what you are saying has no bearing on this discussion about influence being individually tracked or as a group

I know how it's supposed to be used by the letter of rules.

I'm articulating my opinion of changes that could be made - this is a Beta forum discussion, right?

The way I see it, I get to the same outcome without the need for a whole sub system - which seems an advantage to at least consider.

Tom's point that it might make Fellowship to strong is a fair one - and I would be concerned that a fellowship specialist would hog more of the spotlight then currently the case. My own solution to that is to spread out fellowship across the party by making peer talents more important so, for example, the Mechanicus character has a much easier time interacting with Mechanicus member than the generic fellowship character - but that is probably outside the breadth of this thread.

This would work the same way if applied to the Influence system. I personally like the influence system. A charming person is always charismatic but an jackass is always a jackass (As we've all seen on these forums! ) It is also fair to note that IRL many VERY influential people could HARDLY be considered paragons of charm! Influence is IMO subtly different from fellowship. A Gang leader's influence is almost all about his personal leadership among his Gang but carries very little weight in society at large. As such said character may have a very high fellowship while having fairly low influence. Conversely, A Priest of the ecclesiarchy may be a raving ass but only a fool will not at least listen when he speaks. In this case the character may be "challenged" in the fellowship arena but still have High influence. I do agree that these values should be modified when dealing with different organizations though. A Tech priest will have a much easier time getting a desired result from the Admech than he would in the Ecclesiarchy!

Agreed that it is something that should be applied to the influence system and social system - though for me that's perhaps another sign it should be the same thing.

I should clarify; when I've been saying "fellowship" I should have been saying "social skills" - not just charm, but stuff like intimidate too (I imagine the latter in the case of the gang leader)

But I take the point about people who are outliers.

I should clarify; when I've been saying "fellowship" I should have been saying "social skills" - not just charm, but stuff like intimidate too (I imagine the latter in the case of the gang leader)

Do you have any ideas for how this would work in the rules? I don't want to discourage debate but I don't see a replacement influence system that won't leave players needing Mechanicus favors but only having Adeptus Arbities favors in the bank.

To avoid further offending Balenorn's topic sensibilities, I'll start another thread.