In Nomine Second Edition: What have we learned?

[Jason]

Originally Posted by JCD

And I don't try to metagame things that way. If it's a short term campaign or a one shot, then experience really doesn't matter. It really only becomes an issue with a medium to long term campaign (and I always shoot for them anyway).

I don't follow. What I'm saying is this:

If I run 6 serialized sessions, each occurring concurrently in game time, then I'm basically talking about a period of time under a week for the PCs. If I give out experience points according to the guidelines set by the GMG, that's going to be roughly 12 points, which is effectively a Force's worth of new Characteristics. I can't imagine a scenario in which a character could boost Strength by 4 points in under a week under any natural means, though. My own rule is that additions to Characteristics or Forces can't happen that quickly, but I haven't figured out a good way to formalize this in terms of points.

[JCD]

Originally Posted by Jason

I don't follow. What I'm saying is this:

If I run 6 serialized sessions, each occurring concurrently in game time, then I'm basically talking about a period of time under a week for the PCs. If I give out experience points according to the guidelines set by the GMG, that's going to be roughly 12 points, which is effectively a Force's worth of new Characteristics. I can't imagine a scenario in which a character could boost Strength by 4 points in under a week under any natural means, though. My own rule is that additions to Characteristics or Forces can't happen that quickly, but I haven't figured out a good way to formalize this in terms of points.

Shrug. I understand. Stress builds character. Frankly, using the 12 point way, I wouldn't allow the players to buy more then one level of characteristic at a time (this is a bit of a metagame function)


It's usually very hard for players to control their impulses to invest in one thing so monmaniaclly when they have skills, songs and found artifacts which they also want to buy (i.e. form a permanent attachment)

Additionally, you can tell them that such movement needs to take longer then a week.

For example, in Sorority Slaughter, my characte Curtis fought with Reina, a Habbalite. She abused his Free Will quite a bit with her Songs and emotional control. So for that two week period, he was justified in buying a point or two of Will...but not of slapping on a full force. In the interlude after this story arc, where we fast forwarded the game, he could 'round out' his force explaining what he did and didn't do to justify his added perception and will.

YMMV.

[Azel]

I'm rather partial to the difference because I feel that they do two different things. However, it hinges upon a reading the difference in CPs between Superior favor and experience (GMG p.6-8).

The 10 pt method allows you to get a force with the blessing of your Superior, which in my style of play is an important thing. It reinforces that this has been a conscious investment by your Superior and that they would be (usually) loath to strip forces they knowingly gave as punishment. Superiors would likely have an idea when their servitor fledged and how many "gifts of force" they've been handing out to the particular servitor. So they would know what their forces *should be* on their account. And thus there'd be a cap to how much force stripping would go on before the Superior really starts to rethink lashing out in anger (it may or may not save a PC).

Whereas building up by 12 pt experience method costs more, but is useful because you can essentially do it behind your Superior's back. (Note Liber Reliquarum "Aura Glasses" on p.51, and GMG p. 99-100 lack of reliable "force reading" as a Superior power -- unless they were in the middle of rearranging one's forces.) The in-game utility is obvious; secrets can keep you alive as a demon. Also, and perhaps just as important, there's no "Mother, may I" involved, or dipping into your CP pool of Superior favor -- useful for both angel or demons.

Like any rule in the game, it's a suggestion. However, as written this is why I find keeping both methods quite useful in my games. I personally don't find the cost consistency worth the sacrifice of game world characterization. Yet, I would agree that this could be a point clarified more in a future edition as to why both methods have utility.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Azel

I'm rather partial to the difference because I feel that they do two different things. However, it hinges upon a reading the difference in CPs between Superior favor and experience (GMG p.6-8).

...

Like any rule in the game, it's a suggestion. However, as written this is why I find keeping both methods quite useful in my games. I personally don't find the cost consistency worth the sacrifice of game world characterization. Yet, I would agree that this could be a point clarified more in a future edition as to why both methods have utility.

Probably I'd be more comfortable with it if PCs got both "favor points" and "experience points," with the cost of upgrading Skills, Songs, and Characteristics with XP being significantly more expensive ... but that sounds like kind of a pain for GMs to keep track of.

[Omegonthesane]

Originally Posted by Azel

I'm rather partial to the difference because I feel that they do two different things. However, it hinges upon a reading the difference in CPs between Superior favor and experience (GMG p.6-8).

The 10 pt method allows you to get a force with the blessing of your Superior, which in my style of play is an important thing. It reinforces that this has been a conscious investment by your Superior and that they would be (usually) loath to strip forces they knowingly gave as punishment. Superiors would likely have an idea when their servitor fledged and how many "gifts of force" they've been handing out to the particular servitor. So they would know what their forces *should be* on their account. And thus there'd be a cap to how much force stripping would go on before the Superior really starts to rethink lashing out in anger (it may or may not save a PC).

Whereas building up by 12 pt experience method costs more, but is useful because you can essentially do it behind your Superior's back. (Note Liber Reliquarum "Aura Glasses" on p.51, and GMG p. 99-100 lack of reliable "force reading" as a Superior power -- unless they were in the middle of rearranging one's forces.) The in-game utility is obvious; secrets can keep you alive as a demon. Also, and perhaps just as important, there's no "Mother, may I" involved, or dipping into your CP pool of Superior favor -- useful for both angel or demons.

Like any rule in the game, it's a suggestion. However, as written this is why I find keeping both methods quite useful in my games. I personally don't find the cost consistency worth the sacrifice of game world characterization. Yet, I would agree that this could be a point clarified more in a future edition as to why both methods have utility.

I don't see how making the cost consistent requires even the most miniscule sacrifice of game world characterisation.

Like, at all. In any possible, conceivable way.

The fact that you got your entire 12-point Force by the intervention of your Superior, as opposed to by your own hard work, is not a quantifiable thing that is worth a certain number of character points. Therefore, you should not have to spend or gain character points on it. Gaining a Force by divine fiat or by buildup, as a player-level out of character choice, is a valid decision with benefits and consequences either way - but if you cannot definitively and objectively, through strict game mechanics rather than through mutable flavour text, state that the differnce is worth 2 XP, or 5 XP, or *ANY* number of XP, then the difference should be 0 XP in terms of raw mechanics.

This could be mitigated by actually giving a strict mechanical penalty of some kind to getting Forces by Superior intervention, such as to justify its costing less. For example - every Force bought with the 10-point method could reduce the CD of all future invocations by 1, because your boss *knows* you should have it covered, he made you stronger so you could have it covered, and it's that much more annoying that you're calling him in.

[robkelk]

Originally Posted by Omegonthesane

... but if you cannot definitively and objectively, through strict game mechanics rather than through mutable flavour text, state that the differnce is worth 2 XP, or 5 XP, or *ANY* number of XP, then the difference should be 0 XP in terms of raw mechanics.

Why?

(It's an important question - do you have a reason for this stance, or is it one of your axioms of gaming? Reasons can be defended; axioms are mutable.)

[Azel]

Yeah, what you're talking about is design philosophy, and you're right -- it's arbitrary. As is just about any number in the whole canon corpus, too. I however do find that the in-game v. out-of-game difference does warrant a CP cost difference and I am OK with the arbitrary assignation of 2 CP being that cost.

You differ. That's fine. Keep it level in your games.

However, remember IN is a game that was published on the cusp of the movement towards player appeal to Rules As Written to curtail GM fiat. In Nomine is a game with literally GM fiat embodied as NPCs ruling directly over PCs. The two will never meet because of the inherent difference in design philosophy. I contend you can never make a "balanced" game of IN because it was never based on such a premise in the first place. Thus the importance of in-game methods of PC control, wholly based on GM judgment.

But, since the levels of Superiors grated upon you before, this is a notable continuation with your frustration of the game's lack of "balance" and player agency. So you're welcome to try to find a way to bring IN into a design philosophy more in line with your ideals.
:)

[Phoenix42]

Just to chip in here from the Gurps:IN front - I would also like to petition for some similar rules for Superior favour in the Gurps rules. It shouldn't be too hard really, considering the existence of reaction tables and the like...

So far, in my experience, the xp side of things tends to take care of itself - I have found that in our group, no xp were necessary, because the angels are able to improve their stats (with the exception of attunements/Forces) through training, the rules of which are well-mapped. Since our campaign includes several leaps through time, this generally allows for concrete improvement. Of course, you couldn't do that in all rounds, but generally I have found the idea that xp (or time, pure and simple) can be applied to improving skills and attributes and that superior intervention is required for the improvement of Forces and Attunements quite viable. Of course, this screws up the game balancing*, but then, IN isn't really balanced to start off with (humans vs. celestials, we all know who loses, despite the disturbance knack).

So in essence, what is the problem with Superiors handing out goodies in addition to, and regardless of, xp rewards, based on merit? I agree that the principles of reward through superior intervention could definitely be less opaque and more clearly defined, and should be, so that should be an extension of any IN edition, Gurps or not.

Incidentally, is there a vanilla-IN rule for improvement through study? Just asking...

(I admit that the rules discussion of IN is somewhat over my head, so if I reprinted what somebody said, or misinterpreted the discussion so far, my
apologies...)

*edit: just saw Azel's post - as you may have guessed, I second your stance on IN's balancing; but quite apart from the game mechanics, the whole world is based very much on being unbalanced, and rightly so... people complaining about balancing may want to address other points like humans vs. celestials vs. word-bounds vs. superiors first...

[Azel]

Originally Posted by Jason

Probably I'd be more comfortable with it if PCs got both "favor points" and "experience points," with the cost of upgrading Skills, Songs, and Characteristics with XP being significantly more expensive ... but that sounds like kind of a pain for GMs to keep track of.

Nah, let the players keep track of it. Also, outside of Rare and Forbidden Songs, most Skill, Common Songs, and Characteristics should be fine costed as is. In fact, it is said Characteristics would be something Superiors wouldn't normally bother with as a free gift (GMG p.9); if you did such a good job to warrant an extra gift beyond accrued favor, you'd get a force (or something else).

The big thing is getting things you normally wouldn't get from your Superior. Most of those will be free gifts from other Superiors. Some will be general experience. By making players want to do well in their Superior's eyes (favor points and freebies), but also allow the smaller stuff to be discoverable on their own (songs, characteristics, skills), there becomes a dynamic dual economy. Just be lazy and push these responsibilities upon your players. They'll have the motivation to figure it out. ;)

But hey, it's your game! Whatever makes your life easier. I have no problem rewriting other parts of the game for my group, so I wholly encourage others tailoring for parts such as this.

Edit: In example, I'd likely rule that the 1 CP you get for session attendance counts as experience. And since it's spendable mid-session (with GM approval) for non-characteristic/force resources, it's a pretty solid reward. In that way your players can start to do some simple bookkeeping. Be lazy! Save your thinking power for imagination!

[Omegonthesane]

Originally Posted by Phoenix42

So far, in my experience, the xp side of things tends to take care of itself - I have found that in our group, no xp were necessary, because the angels are able to improve their stats (with the exception of attunements/Forces) through training, the rules of which are well-mapped. Since our campaign includes several leaps through time, this generally allows for concrete improvement. Of course, you couldn't do that in all rounds, but generally I have found the idea that xp (or time, pure and simple) can be applied to improving skills and attributes and that superior intervention is required for the improvement of Forces and Attunements quite viable.

I actually have no problem with some bonuses requiring Superior intervention, given how much of a part they are of the setting. The problem I cited was with Forces - the value of a Superior's intervention cannot, and should not, be measurable in character points; therefore, you should not objectively save character points by getting a given bonus through their intervention rather than through your own hard work.

I also cited the rules from the FAQ for a world where it's Superior upgrades only for Forces - rules under which your fourth and final attribute point costs only 1 point as your Superior finishes attaching the Force, so that there is no net incentive to save 10 points and spend it all at once.

Originally Posted by Phoenix42

Of course, this screws up the game balancing*, but then, IN isn't really balanced to start off with (humans vs. celestials, we all know who loses, despite the disturbance knack).

For random humans, I don't have a problem with this. However I (and my entire table) had a problem with the pretense that a 6-force human is a viable player character in a party of angels, so (having boosted the starting Forces of a random human to 6 already) we boosted the starting player character human Forces to 7, with associated character point at chargen increase. I would go further, and give human PCs - and only human PCs - the amount of XP they'd need to spend to have the stat sheet of a 9-Force angel, not to make humans seem powerful, but with an emphasis of "This is how astoundingly badass a mere human has to be to be picked over one of the big boys".

Originally Posted by Phoenix42

So in essence, what is the problem with Superiors handing out goodies in addition to, and regardless of, xp rewards, based on merit? I agree that the principles of reward through superior intervention could definitely be less opaque and more clearly defined, and should be, so that should be an extension of any IN edition, Gurps or not.

The only problem is that because Superiors are explicit GM fiat, their intervention or non-intervention cannot be measured in character points, and thus should not cost character points.

I would have no problem in principle with a codified Favor Points pool, as a separate track, which you would have to spend from to get any bonuses that rely on your Superior's help either in direct action or in rubber-stamping the paperwork to permit it (Attunements, Rites, secret/forbidden Songs) in addition to character points.

Originally Posted by Phoenix42

Incidentally, is there a vanilla-IN rule for improvement through study? Just asking...

In general? None that I know of. The closest I can think of is the codified rules for learning Songs without having them implanted by your Superior.

Originally Posted by Phoenix42

*edit: just saw Azel's post - as you may have guessed, I second your stance on IN's balancing; but quite apart from the game mechanics, the whole world is based very much on being unbalanced, and rightly so... people complaining about balancing may want to address other points like humans vs. celestials vs. word-bounds vs. superiors first...

Superiors are total GM fiat NPCs, they can be unbalanced, so long as the GM doesn't (and ideally doesn't give himself the option in even theoretical fluff terms) let them either do the PCs' job for them, or undo everything the PCs just spent the campaign doing. To cite two examples from actual games, I have no problem with Asmodeus being summoned by the enemy spy and manifesting as a storm to knock the mansion down into the sea and thereby try to kill the whole party; I have a quite massive problem with Asmodeus appearing as an assumed to be unstoppable warrior to personally pick up the Big Bad demon after our angelic party captured her.

Word-bound are NPCs, and while some guidelines for how powerful their super attunement should be, they can still be unbalanced - but it would help to be able to gauge how overpowered they are by how many XP they've spent from starting character status to their current power level.

Originally Posted by robkelk

Why?

(It's an important question - do you have a reason for this stance, or is it one of your axioms of gaming? Reasons can be defended; axioms are mutable.)

All else being equal, the more things that are covered by game rules, the less work the GM is forced to do just to run a fun game. For example, if there was a Favour Points pool or something, the GM would not have to remember to smack a player character at some point for relying on their boss' favour - they'd already have expended some of it in verifiable terms.

Obviously, the GM is free to throw out and rewrite any bits of the rulebook he doesn't like, at his table. However he should do so openly, and should provide players with all amended rules that will affect them. For example, if you've cooked an attunement for the demons in an angelic game, you don't have to tell the players until you run a demonic game; but if you've nuked the effects of the Songs of Charm, you'd better say you're doing that before the game starts. To do otherwise is to devalue the rules - and if you don't value the rules, you might as well be playing magical tea party.