Magical Creation and an Alternate Summoning System

[devonapple]

Well, I think that sounds pretty good. The systems we have here should probably replace all three steps of summoning if used for that.

The rewordings look fine, although I'd start duration at a day.

Now, tweaking the systems:

-We still need rules for groups.
-Might as well ditch the half price for stunts after the third bit in my model. It's just a meaningless complication.
-Might want to reduce the extremely high values of sticky qualities/defects in UmbraLux's model.
-I still think that the mechanics for taking out a creation under UmbraLux's model are screwy.
-These need playtesting.

I think Duplication can really get out of hand if we use the Duplication numbers I have in the Conjuration guidelines, which are mostly intended for noncombatant things.

Here are two options:

Option A (Cheapest Duplicates):

• Second creature: add 1/2 the Base Complexity, round up (counting Defects, Behavioral Model, etc., but not Duration)
• Third creature: add 1/4 the base Complexity, round up
• Fourth creature: add 1/8  the base Complexity, round up, and again for each after that, with a minimum Complexity of 1 shift per Duplicate.

Example: a 10-Complexity Imp would cost 15 for two, 18 for three, 20 for four, 21 for five, and +1 for each after that (a dozen would be 28 Complexity total, before counting duration)

Option B (Mid-Cost Duplicates):

• Second: add 1/2 the Base Complexity or +2, whichever is higher, round up (counting Defects, Behavioral Model, etc., but not Duration)
• Third through Fifth: add 1/4 the base Complexity or +1, whichever is higher per duplicate (round up)
• Sixth and more: use the Method 1 (from conjuration thread) pricing.

Example: a 10-Complexity Imp would cost 15 for two, 18 for three, 21 for four, 24 for five, 30 for anything from 6 to 10 (a dozen would be 32 Complexity total, before counting duration)

Option B (Conservative Cost):

• 2-5: +3 per Duplicate (that's +12 to get five)
• 6-12: +2 per Duplicate from 6 to 12 (that's +26 for a dozen of something)
• 13+: +1 per Duplicate after that

I don't know if I want to advocate going any lower than 1 shift per Duplication if we are talking about potential combatants or other assistance-giving NPCs.
Example: a 10-Complexity Imp would cost 14 for two, 18 for three, 22 for four, 26 for five (a dozen would be 36 Complexity total, before counting duration)

[devonapple]

-Might want to reduce the extremely high values of sticky qualities/defects in UmbraLux's model.
-I still think that the mechanics for taking out a creation under UmbraLux's model are screwy.

I'm inclined to leave the "taking out" element of that model as part of Umbralux's model, since it is still eliminating the whole Containment and Binding elements, and remains a legitimate shortcut between your model and the official rules about Summoning and Binding.

What I *would* like to hear more about is the sticky qualities and how those are envisioned. Umbralux, could you please illustrate an example of both a Sticky Defects and a Sticky Quality, as pertains to the GM, Fate Point expenditure, etc.?

[UmbraLux]

What I *would* like to hear more about is the sticky qualities and how those are envisioned. Umbralux, could you please illustrate an example of both a Sticky Defects and a Sticky Quality, as pertains to the GM, Fate Point expenditure, etc.?

In brief, I was pulling in an idea I've heard attributed to Strands of Fate.  A "sticky defect" would be an aspect the GM can compel or invoke at any appropriate time without giving the player a fate point and a "sticky quality" would be an aspect the player could tag or invoke without paying a fate point.  Since I'm working from secondhand information it's probably not quite the same as Strands, but it seems like a cool method of utilizing aspects.

[devonapple]

In brief, I was pulling in an idea I've heard attributed to Strands of Fate.  A "sticky defect" would be an aspect the GM can compel or invoke at any appropriate time without giving the player a fate point and a "sticky quality" would be an aspect the player could tag or invoke without paying a fate point.  Since I'm working from secondhand information it's probably not quite the same as Strands, but it seems like a cool method of utilizing aspects.

Got it. You have it right about the Sticky Aspects in SoF, but I feel we should maintain the potential Fate Point vector for the Summoner. Also, free tags are a powerful addition to an already cheaper (and as such, more powerful) Summoning schema. If you are alright with it, we may want to strike that one (or list it as an option), but retain the Defects option, since that is more in line with the existing DFRPG Aspect schema (though the Sticky Aspects can certainly be an option for those willing to get the GM to approve it).

[Sanctaphrax]

Sorry, I must have been unclear. The screwy part that I was referring to is the way that you have to do through the extreme consequence slot on every single creature, not the taking out system in general (although I don't exactly love that, either).

I'll need to think about the proposed methods of handling multiple creature creation some more before I give an opinion.

[devonapple]

Sorry, I must have been unclear. The screwy part that I was referring to is the way that you have to do through the extreme consequence slot on every single creature, not the taking out system in general (although I don't exactly love that, either).

Enslaving a Mortal to your Will requires inflicting Consequences, and the most Extreme Consequence requires that you pretty much take it out.
Transforming a Mortal to something else is as good as killing it, and requires taking it out.
Creating entirely new life is a feat usually reserved for Gods.

I'm certainly behind just keeping it to a Minor or Moderate Consequence for low-level Summonings, but are the more powerful Nevernever creatures really so simple to Bind that taking them out entirely is too much to imagine?

[Sanctaphrax]

I agree with you entirely about Nevernever beings. But UmbraLux gives Imps and other such things 20 shifts worth of consequences, and I don't agree with that.

I refuse to speculate about how exactly to handle the summoning and binding of mortals.

[devonapple]

I agree with you entirely about Nevernever beings. But UmbraLux gives Imps and other such things 20 shifts worth of consequences, and I don't agree with that.

Yeah, imps are scrubs.

Binding Mortals is relatively easy to adjudicate, as it is explained in Transformation and Disruption. Basically, take them out and they are yours.

The Umbralux System uses the existing Binding element of the Summoning RAW ("taking out" the target). However, the Containment and Summoning components have been replaced with a cost determined by the target creature's Refresh and Skills. I've amended the Umbralux system to say that low-level NPCs will concede on a Minor or Moderate. Does that sound alright, Umbralux? I don't think that will terribly unbalance the system.

[UmbraLux]

The Umbralux System...

Hehe, such a lofty title for what is essentially a modified version of Fred's suggestion. 

As for changing it, by all means - adjust however you want.  I'm throwing out suggestions and enjoying the feedback.  I don't see it coming up in game any time soon...even if it did, every group will (and should) adjust it to fit their preferences.

[devonapple]

I just had a thought:

If we don't want to pay for all 20 shifts of a creature's Consequence track, we don't have to! We only "take out" those Consequences which the Creature will actually take before Conceding! We essentially "buy" its Consequence track: 0 shifts for no Consequences (taking out its Stress Track is enough) up to 20 shifts to buy a full Consequence Track.

So if we wanted a tough Demon or Construct which will fight to the Extreme Consequence, then we have to put in all 20 shifts to buy the full Consequence Track of Minor, Moderate, Severe, and Extreme.

But, if we only want to buy, say, the Minor Consequence, then we only pay 2 Shifts. And, generally speaking, that creature will Concede or be Taken out if it suffers anything worse than a Minor Consequence.

Compromise!

[Sanctaphrax]

Yes, that sounds exactly right to me.

[Sanctaphrax]

Looking over the duplication methods again, I think method 2 works pretty well. However, the numbers get pretty screwy once you pump up the complexity enough. And I can't think of a better method, except to treat extremely large numbers of summons as a plot device.

[bibliophile20]

*cracks open the lab door, peeks inside*  So, how's it coming?  *slams door shut at the tidal wave of ectoplasm*  That well, I see.