The resources trait confuses me

22 posts / 0 new
Last post
Grim G Grim G's picture
The resources trait confuses me

I can understand the need to simplify economic rules, and even if I don't like 2nd ed's system for aesthetic reasons, I'm willing to give the resources trait a chance. But there's thing I find baffling:

Your Resource trait may be affected by events in game. If your home is destroyed or you come across a secret cache of riches, the GM should adjust your trait level accordingly. You must pay the extra cost in Rez Points if your trait goes up, but you receive an RP credit if your wealth goes down.

So in other words, if you're rewarded with cash, you have to pay a tax, and if you lose your job, you get Rez points because reasons. How does this make sense?

As a GM, I have a rule of thumb that goes for all games: Rewards for a job well done come free, and if I take anything away from you it's either as a punishment for bad rolls, a temporary loss to change dynamics, or I'm going to compensate you with new stuff.

Again, I'll give this trait a shot, but if the rule about resource fluctuation and Rez Points remain, expect me not to use it in any of my games.

Decivre Decivre's picture
Grim G wrote:So in other

Grim G wrote:
So in other words, if you're rewarded with cash, you have to pay a tax, and if you lose your job, you get Rez points because reasons. How does this make sense?

In other words, resources are worth 2 Rez per level. To gain a level, you must have the rez. But you do not lose the Rez if the GM takes your resources. You get them back....

Note that the refund doesn't occur if you burn your own assets, only if the GM does it. Basically this is a rule of "if the GM decides to make you poor, you get your points back".

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.

Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.

Grim G Grim G's picture
Decivre wrote:

Decivre wrote:

In other words, resources are worth 2 Rez per level. To gain a level, you must have the rez. But you do not lose the Rez if the GM takes your resources. You get them back....

And if I decide to give them a resource bump as part of the plot, will I have to force them to pay the tax?
Decivre wrote:
Note that the refund doesn't occur if you burn your own assets, only if the GM does it. Basically this is a rule of "if the GM decides to make you poor, you get your points back".

If your GM just "decides" to make you poor, then you have a bad GM. You don't just take away things from your players because you want to, you do it because it's the consequence of failure. If you refund a player for their failure, then there is no tension, especially if you let them put those 2 Rez Points back into their resources.
Decivre Decivre's picture
Grim G wrote:And if I decide

Grim G wrote:
And if I decide to give them a resource bump as part of the plot, will I have to force them to pay the tax?

Yes. You're basically choosing their next advancement. That said, they can refuse the resource bump in theory. I've seen people turn down rewards in games.

Grim G wrote:
If your GM just "decides" to make you poor, then you have a bad GM. You don't just take away things from your players because you want to, you do it because it's the consequence of failure. If you refund a player for their failure, then there is no tension, especially if you let them put those 2 Rez Points back into their resources.

Not entirely disagreeing with the idea that it's bullshit if poorly used, but there are good plots to be had from wealth loss stories. Perhaps the theft of that loss is the catalyst for a new villain to pursue, or maybe it's a complication with family or being framed for a crime. Those Rez points can then be poured into other areas to represent the character training for their chance at revenge/vindication.

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.

Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.

Grim G Grim G's picture
Decivre wrote:

Decivre wrote:

Yes. You're basically choosing their next advancement.

Then that's abuse of GM power. You're literally making decisions about their character without their consent.
EDIT: Seeing you're additions to the statement, my reply is if the PCs refuse the resource bump then it isn't much a reward.
Decivre wrote:

Not entirely disagreeing with the idea that it's bullshit if poorly used, but there are good plots to be had from wealth loss stories. Perhaps the theft of that loss is the catalyst for a new villain to pursue, or maybe it's a complication with family or being framed for a crime. Those Rez points can then be poured into other areas to represent the character training for their chance at revenge/vindication.

If you can pull off ability loss without the players calling a dick move, then I guess compensation CAN work. However, that only justifies RP refunding for kick-starting an adventure, not for during.

That being said, banking on your PCs to go after a credit thief is risky. PCs are unpredictable and there's no telling if they'll bother giving chase, and who's to say they won't put those Rez points back into their resources like nothing ever happened?

Theliel Theliel's picture
It's a consequence of moving

It's a consequence of moving the wealth to a unified static trait.
It solves the "I need an accounting spread sheet to keep track of favors" problem of rep wealth but significantly complicates transactional wealth (cash) .
Since traits cost rez, increases to resources must be paid in rez.

It is a fairly aggressive abstraction. I think it'd be more acceptable if the rest of the system got similarity squished, equipment giving pool points with a variety of options to get a moxie point instead of different ware/implants that give continously applied conditional static bonuses.

Keeping the extensive equipment list, each item with discreet features can make resources feel highly constraining.

Grim G Grim G's picture
Theliel wrote:It's a

Theliel wrote:
It's a consequence of moving the wealth to a unified static trait.
It solves the "I need an accounting spread sheet to keep track of favors" problem of rep wealth but significantly complicates transactional wealth (cash) .
Since traits cost rez, increases to resources must be paid in rez.

It is a fairly aggressive abstraction. I think it'd be more acceptable if the rest of the system got similarity squished, equipment giving pool points with a variety of options to get a moxie point instead of different ware/implants that give continously applied conditional static bonuses.

Keeping the extensive equipment list, each item with discreet features can make resources feel highly constraining.


Of course you'd need to pay for the trait in Rez, same with buying credits with them in 1st ed. But you should only spend Rez as part of your own progression, not because the GM forces it on you.
Decivre Decivre's picture
Grim G wrote:Seeing you're

Grim G wrote:
Seeing you're additions to the statement, my reply is if the PCs refuse the resource bump then it isn't much a reward.

The reward is the opportunity to receive an advance early, before the points have been earned. If they don't want that reward, then they don't want it.

Grim G wrote:
If you can pull off ability loss without the players calling a dick move, then I guess compensation CAN work. However, that only justifies RP refunding for kick-starting an adventure, not for during.

Unless it's a complication mid-story. Perhaps the villain cut the PC off from their resources in response to events already in play.

I just happened to give pre-adventure examples. There are possibilities all over.

Grim G wrote:
That being said, banking on your PCs to go after a credit thief is risky. PCs are unpredictable and there's no telling if they'll bother giving chase, and who's to say they won't put those Rez points back into their resources like nothing ever happened?

Then it represents them moving on with their life and time. The loss of resources opens up free time they didn't have, which they use to improve themselves elsewhere.

It's not a mechanic built around realism, but around not dicking your players with your choices. If the justifications feel flimsy for immediate Rez, make the refund in gradual increments over a few sessions.

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.

Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.

Grim G Grim G's picture
Decivre wrote:

Decivre wrote:

The reward is the opportunity to receive an advance early, before the points have been earned. If they don't want that reward, then they don't want it.

But what if they do want the reward but think that spending Rez is stupid? A reward isn't a reward of you have to pay for it, it's character progression without your approval.
Decivre wrote:

Unless it's a complication mid-story. Perhaps the villain cut the PC off from their resources in response to events already in play.

I just happened to give pre-adventure examples. There are possibilities all over.


I would never take away anything from a player without giving them at least one chance to defend themselves, and if they fail, then they have to suffer the consequences, no refund.

Decivre wrote:
Then it represents them moving on with their life and time. The loss of resources opens up free time they didn't have, which they use to improve themselves elsewhere.

Last time I checked, getting your income cut doesn't give you free time.

Decivre wrote:
It's not a mechanic built around realism, but around not dicking your players with your choices. If the justifications feel flimsy for immediate Rez, make the refund in gradual increments over a few sessions.

As I've said before, good GMs don't dick with their players by choice. They only do it when it's fair. When they are obligated to narrate failure.
Decivre Decivre's picture
Grim G wrote:But what if they

Grim G wrote:
But what if they do want the reward but think that spending Rez is stupid? A reward isn't a reward of you have to pay for it, it's character progression without your approval.

Your approval is your right to consent. Don't take the resources, don't approve. Simple as that.

And it's easy to make a roleplaying decision. Generosity and humility are virtues.

Grim G wrote:
I would never take away anything from a player without giving them at least one chance to defend themselves, and if they fail, then they have to suffer the consequences, no refund.

If that's how you want to do it. But the devs have decided the core book option will be more merciful.

Grim G wrote:
Last time I checked, getting your income cut doesn't give you free time.

If you live in a state of wage slavery, sure. But if you have more than one level of resources, that loss isn't going to put you on the streets.

In the former case, those extra Rez come from the extra pressure you put on yourself to stay afloat. Maybe it comes with a willpower check for stress.

Grim G wrote:
As I've said before, good GMs don't dick with their players by choice. They only do it when it's fair. When they are obligated to narrate failure.

Absolutely untrue. Bad things can happen in the setting outside of player choice. Perhaps they get a chance to avoid or resist, but not all consequences come solely from PC action.

If there are forces in your campaign that have incentive to screw with your character's resources, and there's opportunity for them to do so, I absolutely do not see why it should not be a possibility outside of your character's decisions.

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.

Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.

eaton eaton's picture
Quote:And if I decide to give

Quote:
And if I decide to give them a resource bump as part of the plot, will I have to force them to pay the tax?

"Resources" is a catch-all trait that gives players the ability to bypass the normal in-game gear acquisition process. (At least, that's what its extended description seems to indicate). As described in the 2ed playtest doc, it allows players to spend points to simply *have* assorted items and gear at their disposal instantly, based on the assumption that a character with certain resources at their disposal would already be kitted out properly.

To me, this is fundamentally different than a player simply earning or losing credits or rep during the ebb and flow of a game. I'd like to see it explained/clarified in more detail in the EP2 core book, but the idea of trait addition/removal triggering automatic Rez costs was there in EP1 as well. EP1 RAW says that acquiring the Async trait, for example, *costs rez points* even if it happens unintentionally during a campaign due to GM fiat.

Personally, I'd like to see 'credits' still tracked as a player stat, and 'Resources' being used as a way to mechanically model above-and-beyond recurring income sources, familial wealth, etc. Gear acquisition costs were the big credit-linked item in EP1, and the move to complexity/restriction levels makes sense. Just as there were rules of thumb for fabbing items with specific costs in EP1, I'd like to see rules of thumb for *purchasing* items of specific complexity/restriction in EP2. Totally eliminating currency as something tracked or discussed seems like it's just flipping the problem rather than solving it.

Grim G Grim G's picture
My final words on the subject

Alright. This is the last response I'm making about this.

Decivre wrote:

Your approval is your right to consent. Don't take the resources, don't approve. Simple as that.

And it's easy to make a roleplaying decision. Generosity and humility are virtues.


I don't think you even know what I'm talking about anymore. Forcing PCs to spend Rez Points on a resource bump they may not even want is neither generous nor humane. Giving them that resource bump for FREE is. You always ALWAYS give your PCs rewards for free, and if there is a price, make sure it's small enough to be worth it.

What if you open a chest in D&D, and for every gold coin they take, they lose a point of experience? You don't, because that treasure is your reward for slaying the dragon. You earned it for being a badass.

Decivre wrote:
If that's how you want to do it. But the devs have decided the core book option will be more merciful.

So... let me get this straight. You are trying to tell me that taking away a PC's abilities for no other reason than because you want to is MORE merciful than giving the PC a fighting chance to keep their abilities. Would you care to explain how that works?
Decivre wrote:
Absolutely untrue. Bad things can happen in the setting outside of player choice. Perhaps they get a chance to avoid or resist, but not all consequences come solely from PC action.

If consequences don't have to come from the player's actions (or lack there of) then they're not consequences at all. What you are referring to are obstacles; things the PCs have to avoid, resist or overcome. The only thing that is out of their hands are the dice rolls, which are there for the sake of tension and keeping gameplay dynamic, and ultimately shouldn't matter if the PCs are using their skills to stack the odds in their favor.
Decivre wrote:
If there are forces in your campaign that have incentive to screw with your character's resources, and there's opportunity for them to do so, I absolutely do not see why it should not be a possibility outside of your character's decisions.

Because you can then just say that an asteroid falls from space and kills them. Game over. The PCs drive the plot forward, this is their story.

TL;DR If you have to pay full price for a reward, then there is no boon. If you get a full refund for a negative consequence then there is no excitement

UnitOmega UnitOmega's picture
I think we're not looking at

I think we're not looking at this meta enough.

If your GM gives you a big pile of cash or whatever enough to be a nest egg, they just say "Here's some rez points you can use to pay up resources" and you invest the money or whatever. Or you can take regular rez and buy it up. You smartly invest your money, or get a windfall of cash or whatever. Or maybe you turn it all into gold bricks, put it in a safe and don't touch it - that's not exactly cash that's liquid on you, is it?

Or maybe you blow all the cash on space coke and space hookers, and your Resources trait doesn't actually go up because you lost all that money. Maybe you decide at the meta-level you don't need all that money, so you blow your bank savings on space hookers and blow, and you drop down a level or two - but you learned some valuable life lessons and reinvest the CP in skills.

It's all an abstraction. Everything is an illusion. The GM makes whatever they want happen.

Basically, just because you find a chest full of gold coins doesn't mean your resources automatically improves. You have to spend the RP as part of your character development to elect to take that option. Similarly, if you read a book on martial arts, but don't invest any RP your skill does not go up.

H-Rep: An EP Homebrew Blog
http://ephrep.blogspot.com/

Grim G Grim G's picture
eaton wrote:Quote:And if I

eaton wrote:
Quote:
And if I decide to give them a resource bump as part of the plot, will I have to force them to pay the tax?

"Resources" is a catch-all trait that gives players the ability to bypass the normal in-game gear acquisition process. (At least, that's what its extended description seems to indicate). As described in the 2ed playtest doc, it allows players to spend points to simply *have* assorted items and gear at their disposal instantly, based on the assumption that a character with certain resources at their disposal would already be kitted out properly.

To me, this is fundamentally different than a player simply earning or losing credits or rep during the ebb and flow of a game. I'd like to see it explained/clarified in more detail in the EP2 core book, but the idea of trait addition/removal triggering automatic Rez costs was there in EP1 as well. EP1 RAW says that acquiring the Async trait, for example, *costs rez points* even if it happens unintentionally during a campaign due to GM fiat.

Personally, I'd like to see 'credits' still tracked as a player stat, and 'Resources' being used as a way to mechanically model above-and-beyond recurring income sources, familial wealth, etc. Gear acquisition costs were the big credit-linked item in EP1, and the move to complexity/restriction levels makes sense. Just as there were rules of thumb for fabbing items with specific costs in EP1, I'd like to see rules of thumb for *purchasing* items of specific complexity/restriction in EP2. Totally eliminating currency as something tracked or discussed seems like it's just flipping the problem rather than solving it.


I would say losing points over a psi infection is slightly less terrible of an idea if it was unintentional, and thus, not a reward. Then again, if you're going with the angle that psi is ultimately bad, then being infected should be it's own punishment.
Decivre Decivre's picture
Grim G wrote:I don't think

Grim G wrote:
I don't think you even know what I'm talking about anymore. Forcing PCs to spend Rez Points on a resource bump they may not even want is neither generous nor humane. Giving them that resource bump for FREE is. You always ALWAYS give your PCs rewards for free, and if there is a price, make sure it's small enough to be worth it.

What if you open a chest in D&D, and for every gold coin they take, they lose a point of experience? You don't, because that treasure is your reward for slaying the dragon. You earned it for being a badass.


We've clearly talked past each other.

I understand that this isn't a reward in a traditional sense, but I still see it as a reward. Instead of receiving actual currency (since it is now abstracted as a trait), you basically receive the option for an immediate advancement to be paid later. Yes, it's not the same, but it's still a reward. You can't expect it to be the same, since it's now an abstraction. You could only receive four treasures ever if that were attempted with this system.

When I was referring to generosity, I meant on the player character's part. Turning down a reward is a staple of roleplay and fiction, so I don't see why it couldn't happen... especially in trade for a major favor.

Grim G wrote:
So... let me get this straight. You are trying to tell me that taking away a PC's abilities for no other reason than because you want to is MORE merciful than giving the PC a fighting chance to keep their abilities. Would you care to explain how that works?

No, I am telling you that taking away a player character's resources while refunding the experience spent to gain it is more merciful than stripping those same resources and not refunding them at all.

Grim G wrote:
If consequences don't have to come from the player's actions (or lack there of) then they're not consequences at all. What you are referring to are obstacles; things the PCs have to avoid, resist or overcome. The only thing that is out of their hands are the dice rolls, which are there for the sake of tension and keeping gameplay dynamic, and ultimately shouldn't matter if the PCs are using their skills to stack the odds in their favor.

Agree to disagree. The GM is a player as well, and his decisions are proxy to the decisions of NPC forces of your campaign. Obviously those react to player choices, but players react to GM choice in kind. Roleplay is a conversation, not a narration.

Grim G wrote:
Because you can then just say that an asteroid falls from space and kills them. Game over. The PCs drive the plot forward, this is their story.

TL;DR If you have to pay full price for a reward, then there is no boon. If you get a full refund for a negative consequence then there is no excitement

Of course the PCs drive the plot. But that's not the only influence on events at the table. For them to foil some villain, a villain has to hatch a devious plot (ie: a GM had to create a scenario, or choose a premade one).

The only way for players to completely and totally drive the plot is to run a sandbox game. But even then, the only way for you to portray natural reactions of NPCs within the setting is to portray them acting to drive the setting with their own agendas.

That said, I don't see why taking resources has to be seen as a punishment for characters. It's a way to move the plot, simple as that. As you mentioned earlier, perhaps the characters won't care to regain their fortune. If that's the case, why punish them for not having interest in your sidestory idea?

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.

Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.

LibraryDrone LibraryDrone's picture
It feels a little like the

It feels a little like the resources track in Fragged Empire actually. Not the same mind you, but simmilar. Resources give a general idea of how much money/tradeable goods/ reputation that just lets people give you shit you have lying around and it's just assumed you have the cash on hand to buy shit that you need as that's your general income. Saves a lot of math. As a Gm you can, instead of giving your characters money, give them specific items or information, or whatever else that they are interested in. if they really dont want the thing they can trade it in. and paying the rez sounds fair to me to get resources back. your house burned down with all your stuff inside it? Someone stole your identity and emptied out your bank account? Your purse got stolen? you crashed your car? well that stuff is gone and you need to expend effort/time/money to get it back.

“Science fiction is very well suited to asking philosophical questions; questions about the nature of reality, what it means to be human, how do we know the things that we think we know.”
― Ted Chiang

Ian Argent Ian Argent's picture
Resources isn't that granular

A change in a character's resource level isn't small change. You go from being able to casually buy a suit of clothes, to a high end computer, to a nice car, to a house, at the drop of a hat. A boost is not an incidental reward, it's the reward for accomplishing a major goal.

Edit: by which I mean at will they can buy as many of these things they like if they take some time, not that they can buy one once

o11o1 o11o1's picture
Personaly I like the new

Personaly I like the new setup of resources. That said, I might have missed the rules, but if losing your Resources (by plot, not burning) refunds the CP, is the same also true of your starting morph, or not true?

Or doMorphs just have the highest complexity rating and are gotten like other tyes of gear?

A slight smell of ions....

Dilf_Pickle Dilf_Pickle's picture
QFT

Grim G wrote:
TL;DR If you have to pay full price for a reward, then there is no boon. If you get a full refund for a negative consequence then there is no excitement

^^^

One of my many problems with narrativist role-playing. If others like it, great, but to me it ends up in some pretty nonsensical places, like "your reward is I obligate you to buy this".

CordialUltimate2 CordialUltimate2's picture
Now the resource trait is

Now the resource trait is super overpowered mechanically. Say you want to get 3 major items at the start of the game.

So you have 2 choices if they are not in the eq. packs.
You use Rep to get them or you use Resources trait. Now here comes the catch.

I am 100 Rep individual.
I use networking to get 1 Major item then I get another paying 4CP worth of burned rep then another.
Total Rep burned 40.
CP cost 8.
Requisition time 72hours. Or 24hours.
My rep won't recover by itself. My Major favor will refresh at the end of an campaign. When the hell that is?
As I am using this trait Cost of CP per Major Item converges to -> 4CP

I am Resources lvl 4 character.
I get one Major Item and then 2 other Major items.
Assets burned none.
Requisition time 36 hours or 12 hours.
I can do that again on the next session.
As I'm using this trait cost in CP per item converges to ->0 CP

Exurgents wanna eat your ass and you are low on ammo? Register to mobile gear catalogue at eldrich.host.mesh! ORDER NOW! FOR FREE PLASMA MINIMISSILE PACK! *explosive delivery options included

ThatWhichNeverWas ThatWhichNeverWas's picture
Why is this even a problem?

The correct answer is to charge them the Rez after the scenario for keeping the resource increase, instead of treating it like a temporary buff.

If it's felt a greater reward is deserved, increase the Rez reward to either reduce the effective cost (if it's kept) or represent what the character got in exchange (if it isn't).

Ta-Da.

-Edit-

Err, we don't know how Rep works yet, do we?
*Rereads Playtest Documents*

In the past we've had to compensate for weaknesses, finding quick solutions that only benefit a few.
But what if we never need to feel weak or morally conflicted again?

CordialUltimate2 CordialUltimate2's picture
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:

ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:

Err, we don't know how Rep works yet, do we?
*Rereads Playtest Documents*

Sorry I've got the last years playtest documents. So far played 1 session with it.

Now I have it all mixed up in my head, what is what and what was realeased.

Exurgents wanna eat your ass and you are low on ammo? Register to mobile gear catalogue at eldrich.host.mesh! ORDER NOW! FOR FREE PLASMA MINIMISSILE PACK! *explosive delivery options included