ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: citadel97501 on September 15, 2012, 08:14:03 AM
-
Hello all,
My players and I just had an interesting idea about how to emulate familiars and creatures like it, what about using the items of power rules but the creature has the powers of the item or applies them by its presence?
Quick Examples:
Cerberus Cub: -3 (-5 with a +2 discount)
-Echoes of the Beast: It is a dog?
-Pack Instincts: It is a dog?
-Ghost Speaker: It makes sense for a Cerberus Cub...
-True Aim: Fists rolls
-Claws: It is a dog?
Malk Familiar: -3 (-5 with a +2 discount)
-2 x Refinements: Specialties only not extra foci...
-Glamours
-Marked by Power
-
Items of Power grant their powers to their wielder. They do not wield those powers themselves. At least, not as far as game mechanics are concerned.
-
It is a fun idea, but the mechanics need to be just slightly different than they are for an item of power. I believe there was a thread here with rules for pets and companions that worked much better for this sort of thing.
-
My players and I just had an interesting idea about how to emulate familiars and creatures like it, what about using the items of power rules but the creature has the powers of the item or applies them by its presence?
It's been done and works well. ;)
-
I've heard this idea quite a few times, but I really have no idea how the heck it could work.
Seriously, Item of Power modifies your Powers. So an IoP pet with Claws would just give you weapon 2 Fists attacks.
Is that really the intent?
-
I've heard this idea quite a few times, but I really have no idea how the heck it could work.
Of course it can work. A role-playing game is a rule-based system with a variable and quantifiable outcome set in a persistent imaginary world where players influence the outcome and the environment through avatars (tokens present in and also influenced by the imaginary world), players feel attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable.
It doesn't matter whether your character / avatar is one being or multiple as long as everyone uses the same set of rules.
-
But that's the thing.
The Cerberus cub example here has Pack Instincts. By the Item of Power rules, that means that what it actually does is give its owner Pack Instincts.
I suppose it's possible that it's intended to work that way, but it really doesn't seem so. As I said in my last post, is that really the intent?
-
My intent on these abilities on the Cerberus Cub, is to allow you to have a low fists score and alertness while still having good rolls for these when you have your pet of power with you...
-
Well, the cerberus cub under these rules will help your Alertness and Fists. But if you have crummy skills, it'll only make you a bit less crummy.
PS: Linkity (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,30462.0.html) linkity (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,30475.0.html).
-
It also creates an indestructible animal.
I would find a way to abuse the hell out of that.
-
unless you shared consequences.
-
unless you shared consequences.
That wouldn't be 'using the IoP rules, though'. And if you're already building a separate Power, why not build one that better represents the narrative?
-
I see no problem with using the Item of Power rules for this type of thing, but keep in mind powers need to be justified. I do not really like the idea of a familiar IoP that gives True Aim or Claws for example (unless you flavor your fists attacks/skill rolls as the familiar attacking for you), but I have no problem with it helping you with alertness/senses, because it can communicate with you. In order for this to work and be fair, it should be the same (mechanically speaking) as any other item of power.
So for the Cerberus Cub example, I see no problem with the character being able to use Pack Instincts/Echoes of the Beast/Ghost Speaker when his pet is around (with his own skills), and narratively describe it as the pet sensing/interacting and relaying this information to him like a translator (either by talking or some mental connection). When you get into combat, it gets a little weirder, but I see no problem with the character using his fists roll, at +1 for true aim, with weapon 2 for claws, and having the attack flavored as the Cub going and biting/mauling someone (in the character's zone). Mechanically this is the same as an item granting the character these powers, but the narrative flavor of a power or stunt can be whatever you can think of.
For the Malk, I personally do not get the flavor of the Malk granting refinements, but that is not really a necessary part of the "item" (the character could just take them, and the item would cost -3 with a +2 discount). Also, Malks do not have Glamours, but I do like the concept of the item of power granting magic being flavored as your pet actually doing the casting (using your skills of course).
As for the indestructible animal thing, since the character and his pet will generally be in the same zone (in combat), there should really be not a mechanical distinction between attacks on the character and the pet (by the rules any attack that could target the pet, could also target the player), so again it all just sues the players stress and consequences. Out of combat, I would likely allow the player to invoke his "Item of Power" related aspect for effect to have the pet go off exploring or whatever without him (still using his skills, plus any powers the pet grants). This does not seem OP, even if the pet cannot be hurt itself (at least to me).
Basically, if you use the IoP rules, the mechanical effect it grants should be the same as if the pet was actually an item granting the powers to the character. How you flavor that narratively is totally up to you. Further, since aspects are so fluid and story driven any way, such an "item" provides great justification for invokes that a normal item could not (and possibly compels when it gets "dog-napped" or something).
-
An Item Of Power dog is still a dog. It has a trapping called It Is What It Is, so it's probably what it is. And generally one's dog does not share one's stress tracks.
If your dog is mechanically represented as an Aspect, then it still doesn't share your stress tracks because it can't be attacked or otherwise hurt.
I can understand the "animal-as-IoP" thing if the animal is just the source for some of a character's Powers, but whenever I see somebody suggesting IoP animals they seem to have effects beyond that in mind.
-
When I said "there should really be not a mechanical distinction between attacks on the character and the pet, so again it all just uses the players stress and consequences," what I meant was that since, in combat at least, the pet should be limited to being in the same zone as the character (especially if making fists attack for the character), you should just not have bad guys attacking the animal (a different flavor of Indestructible), and they should instead just attack the character.
If the entire purpose of the familiar is to act as a source of powers that the character otherwise would not have (and that work off the character's skills), then it makes a perfectly fine IoP. If you want it to have its own actions in combat/have its own skills/have its own stress, then you need to start looking for house rules like the minion rules linked earlier in this thread.
-
If the pet is an Aspect/part of a Power, then it isn't in any zone and can't be attacked. I mean, narratively it's there and you can punch it. But mechanically it only sort of exists.
So it's not limited to being in the same zone as its owner and whether it's indestructible has no effect on whether enemies can attack it.
-
So it's not limited to being in the same zone as its owner
I would not allow this to justify "ranged" (as in not in the same zone as the character) fist attacks without more powers/stunts though. Is that what you are implying?
Otherwise I agree, it is mechanically "not there," or at least only as present as an item (so it is possible the enemy could try to steal it, like they could disarm you but not attack it).
-
If the pet is an Aspect/part of a Power, then it isn't in any zone and can't be attacked. I mean, narratively it's there and you can punch it. But mechanically it only sort of exists.
So it's not limited to being in the same zone as its owner and whether it's indestructible has no effect on whether enemies can attack it.
It sounds like you're approaching it from a 'simulation' point of view instead of FATE's narrative approach.
From a narrative PoV you don't need separate stats. When it's important you can take consequences related to the pet..."My familiar has a broken leg" perhaps. No need to change anything but the trappings...unless you're going for simulation rather than story manipulation. And FATE isn't the best system for the former.
-
Ha ha ha ha.
Seriously, I'm laughing out loud over here. Apparently I've lost the ability to speak coherently online.
-
I've got this picture of a character charging into combat, mightily swinging his pet two-handed by the tail and leaving vicious bite and claw marks on his targets...
Of course, the downside to this weapon would be when your trying to sneak into the evil mastermind's lair, and the GM compels you because your IoP barked...
-
In retrospect, the drive-by laughter was rude. I apologize.
I was most certainly not suggesting that an IoP dog with Claws would give you ranged attacks. But that doesn't mean it won't leave your zone, it just means it won't let you make ranged attacks.
And my position is so anti-simulationist that it's pretty funny. I'm talking purely about abstracted game rules.
That being said, FATE is a rather good system if you want your game to work like a believable world, because its narrative is not rigidly linked to its mechanics. Mechanics like "X strength lets you lift X pounds" are fantastic at destroying simulations, and FATE has few of those.
So even if not for the apparent contempt for simulation, I'd have to disagree with your point about what FATE is and isn't good for.
-
In retrospect, the drive-by laughter was rude. I apologize.
I was most certainly not suggesting that an IoP dog with Claws would give you ranged attacks. But that doesn't mean it won't leave your zone, it just means it won't let you make ranged attacks.
And my position is so anti-simulationist that it's pretty funny. I'm talking purely about abstracted game rules.
Actually, you appear to be stuck on treating the familiar and the character as separate entities mechanically. In other words, trying to represent real world expectations with game mechanics.
FATE's fractal approach to entities is easy to manipulate. A given group of aspects, skills, and stunts may represent a single character, a location, an organization, a scene, a city, or even an individual and his familiar. You certainly could use individual sets of aspects, skills, and stunts for each...but it's not a requirement. Depending on the result you're looking for it may or may not be desirable.
That being said, FATE is a rather good system if you want your game to work like a believable world, because its narrative is not rigidly linked to its mechanics. Mechanics like "X strength lets you lift X pounds" are fantastic at destroying simulations, and FATE has few of those.
Having the ability to voluntarily limit your narrative is very different from having a system which facilitates simulation.
So even if not for the apparent contempt for simulation, I'd have to disagree with your point about what FATE is and isn't good for.
If you're referring to my post, you really need to look up the definition of "contempt". I stated a fairly obvious fact - FATE's core mechanics are primarily set up to manipulate an emerging story or narrative rather than manipulating discrete characteristics of an imaginary world.
Since I've not stated an opinion on relative value or worth, 'contempt' is either a red herring or simply in your perception.
-
Lets play devils advocate here. A scorpion hawk from the Locke Lamora books.
The Falconer's Scorpion Hawk [-4]
Obvious Item of Power [+2 A large hawk is not all that subtle]
Claws [-1]
Venous Claws [-2]
Remote Control/ Boosted Range [-1] Can attack from anywhere in line of sight.
Far-sight [-2] The falconer can see out of his birds eyes and can attack using the bird from afar.
-
That looks like a reasonable "item of power," though I think that you payed for the boosted range 2 times (once with remote control and once with far-sight), the vision part of far sight may well be costed like a Strange Sense (-1). So your total cost seems right (-3), though the powers you listed would make it (-4).
The point here is that you have payed a refresh to be able to use your fists skill at range (through your hawk) and another point to allow you to see things from a different position. I would allow a character who could justify such things to take those powers, and this is a reasonable justification.
I would not allow attacking with fists in a different zone unless you payed for it.
I also agree that the familiar may not be tied to your zone all the time from a narrative stand point. But during combat, it should mechanically be treated as a part of you (as if it were actually an item) for balance purposes, unless you have payed to allow it to attack at range. I would still not allow *attacks* targeting the familiar, but I would allow maneuvers (similar to Disarmed) to capture it (potentially from characters not in your zone, if that is where you say your familiar is).
-
Actually, you appear to be stuck on treating the familiar and the character as separate entities mechanically. In other words, trying to represent real world expectations with game mechanics.
FATE's fractal approach to entities is easy to manipulate. A given group of aspects, skills, and stunts may represent a single character, a location, an organization, a scene, a city, or even an individual and his familiar. You certainly could use individual sets of aspects, skills, and stunts for each...but it's not a requirement. Depending on the result you're looking for it may or may not be desirable.
I know. That's why most of my posts in this thread are about how that works.
But I can't get every effect that I'd want out of a pet from an IoP. And the things I want aren't terribly unusual.
Having the ability to voluntarily limit your narrative is very different from having a system which facilitates simulation.
Never seen a system which facilitates simulation. Not actively destroying it is the best I've seen, and FATE meets that goal.
If you're referring to my post, you really need to look up the definition of "contempt". I stated a fairly obvious fact - FATE's core mechanics are primarily set up to manipulate an emerging story or narrative rather than manipulating discrete characteristics of an imaginary world.
Since I've not stated an opinion on relative value or worth, 'contempt' is either a red herring or simply in your perception.
That's not an obvious fact, I don't even think it's true.
Abstract mechanics don't necessarily have anything to do with story-telling. It's possible to run Aspects and Compels and take-outs purely based on what you think is realistic. Or what is mechanically optimal, for that matter.
Saying "this system doesn't do that" is usually a way of calling "that" unworthy somehow. I got that vibe from your post.
You really seem to have a low regard for simulation (I'm honestly not a big fan either) in general and in FATE in particular.
-
Lets play devils advocate here. A scorpion hawk from the Locke Lamora books.
Some of the costs might be adjusted, but it looks good overall.
-----
I know. That's why most of my posts in this thread are about how that works.
Just an observation, but you're possibly the most prolific poster of unique subsystems / mechanics. That's not using the fractal approach.
But I can't get every effect that I'd want out of a pet from an IoP. And the things I want aren't terribly unusual.
'Unusual' is relative. I'd say wanting to act more than once per exchange is 'unusual' and not an expected result of having a pet / familiar....but that's me.
Never seen a system which facilitates simulation. Not actively destroying it is the best I've seen, and FATE meets that goal.
It's not a binary either / or - it's a rather wide spectrum. Something like Shadowrun trends towards the simulation side while WaRP or more obviously, Wushu, trends towards manipulating a narrative. FATE has mechanics for both but aspects are almost purely for manipulation of the emerging narrative.
That's not an obvious fact, I don't even think it's true.
If you don't think aspects are intended to manipulate a narrative, I'm not sure we have enough terms in common to carry on a reasonable discussion.
Abstract mechanics don't necessarily have anything to do with story-telling. It's possible to run Aspects and Compels and take-outs purely based on what you think is realistic. Or what is mechanically optimal, for that matter.
Everything (to a point) has to do with "story-telling". That's not my point. The real question is, 'what does a given mechanic manipulate'? While there is some cross-over, mechanics for stunts & powers tend to manipulate setting effects (claws, fireballs, etc) and mechanics for aspects tend to manipulate the narrative (off balance, blinded by the light, etc). Sure, you can (and should) limit aspect effects to internally consistent world effects...but that's a 'meta-decision' - a decision made by the group not the mechanic. On the flip side, hitting with an attack is (almost) purely a skills / stunts / powers issue.
Saying "this system doesn't do that" is usually a way of calling "that" unworthy somehow. I got that vibe from your post.
Again, this is your perception. Frankly, it's a perception made up of imagination and preconception.
Seriously. I'm an engineer - we call things what they are. Saying my Tacoma can't fly isn't calling it "unworthy". It's a simple recognition of capabilities...or lack thereof. Similarly, I like FATE for narrative games and other games such as Savage Worlds for more of a simulation based style.
You really seem to have a low regard for simulation (I'm honestly not a big fan either) in general and in FATE in particular.
Show me evidence. Have I stated something in this thread denigrating systems oriented towards simulation?
Without evidence it's just an unsupported accusation. Libel, to use the legal term.
-
-----Just an observation, but you're possibly the most prolific poster of unique subsystems / mechanics. That's not using the fractal approach.
Well, yeah. When I use the fractal, I don't post anything about it. Because it's nothing new.
Well, except for the Minions, Attack! line of stunts. I posted those...unless I borrowed those from someone else? I don't recall.
And all those times I told people to treat allies as Aspects for lack of a better method.
Come to think of it, my nascent plan to stat up locations as characters might qualify too.
Oh, and there were those times I suggested flavoring Powers as the assistance of other beings.
More I think, more I realize that I actually talk more about fractal stuff than I thought I did.
'Unusual' is relative. I'd say wanting to act more than once per exchange is 'unusual' and not an expected result of having a pet / familiar....but that's me.
I agree, and I wasn't talking about that.
I meant more that pets could be in different places than their owners, and that they could provide a different dynamic in combat, and that they could split off some of a character's power into a semi-independent actor.
This is all interesting and worthwhile. There's a reason SotC has minion rules.
It's not a binary either / or - it's a rather wide spectrum. Something like Shadowrun trends towards the simulation side while WaRP or more obviously, Wushu, trends towards manipulating a narrative. FATE has mechanics for both but aspects are almost purely for manipulation of the emerging narrative.
I've played Shadowrun. If it's intended as a simulation, it's a terrible one.
This sort of thing is one reason I think your opinion of simulation is low.
If you don't think aspects are intended to manipulate a narrative, I'm not sure we have enough terms in common to carry on a reasonable discussion.
...
Everything (to a point) has to do with "story-telling". That's not my point. The real question is, 'what does a given mechanic manipulate'? While there is some cross-over, mechanics for stunts & powers tend to manipulate setting effects (claws, fireballs, etc) and mechanics for aspects tend to manipulate the narrative (off balance, blinded by the light, etc). Sure, you can (and should) limit aspect effects to internally consistent world effects...but that's a 'meta-decision' - a decision made by the group not the mechanic. On the flip side, hitting with an attack is (almost) purely a skills / stunts / powers issue.
I don't pretend to know intent, but I do know that the rules for Aspects are suitable for reality-modelling.
The rest of this is hard for me to follow because you use the word narrative in a very strange way. Setting effect too. Not sure what you're trying to say.
Again, this is your perception. Frankly, it's a perception made up of imagination and preconception.
Seriously. I'm an engineer - we call things what they are. Saying my Tacoma can't fly isn't calling it "unworthy". It's a simple recognition of capabilities...or lack thereof. Similarly, I like FATE for narrative games and other games such as Savage Worlds for more of a simulation based style.
...
Show me evidence. Have I stated something in this thread denigrating systems oriented towards simulation?
Without evidence it's just an unsupported accusation. Libel, to use the legal term.
I've heard the "game X doesn't do Y, it's about Z" thing quite a few times. It's almost always a way to say that either Y or X and Z is/are for stupid babies.
Seriously, it would be weird to say that if you weren't trying to denigrate something.
Unless of course it were factually true. Which it isn't, unless you're using words to mean things that I've never seen them be used to mean before. Because generally FATE returns realistic results unless you choose otherwise. Shadowrun, meanwhile, returns unrealistic results no matter what.
Oh, and it's not libel unless it's false. Supported or not, if it's true or arguable then it ain't libel.
-
I've played Shadowrun. If it's intended as a simulation, it's a terrible one.
This sort of thing is one reason I think your opinion of simulation is low.
Again, you're the one adding value judgements - not me.
I don't pretend to know intent, but I do know that the rules for Aspects are suitable for reality-modelling.
The rest of this is hard for me to follow because you use the word narrative in a very strange way. Setting effect too. Not sure what you're trying to say.
Narrative (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/narrative?s=t) is "an account of events". Setting effects are elements stemming from the chosen setting.
I've heard the "game X doesn't do Y, it's about Z" thing quite a few times. It's almost always a way to say that either Y or X and Z is/are for stupid babies.
Seriously, it would be weird to say that if you weren't trying to denigrate something.
This has me at a bit of a loss on how to respond. It's simply so limitingly untrue that all I can do is say "no" or throw out examples. So here are a few examples starting with the obvious:
- One is not two.
- A bush isn't a chair.
- A truck doesn't fly well.
- A sword doesn't turn bolts well.
- FATE aspect manipulation mechanics aren't built to simulate events well.
To consider any of those denigrating requires the odd assumption that "X should do Y" - which isn't all all what has been said. It's simply a recognition of a limitation - not a value judgement. Not by me at least.
-
Just a side question that is or could be related - depending on how it's answered:
How do summoned creatures affect the action economy? If I summon a Cerberus Cub using Ritual, how does it act in combat? Does it get its own initiative? Does it have its own consequences?
If it does, it seems to me that Ritual is a much better way to make a pet than IoP, especially if your pet is something that CAN be summoned in the first place.
I also don't like the argument that if someone pays for a pet it should always be there. Pets and henchman need to sleep, gollums need to be repaired/re-imbued with magic, robots need to be recharged. The amount of time a pet is with you can all be simulated by using shifts of power on the time table. Eventually, the pet need to rest/return to its demense/run wild in the forest and the pet owner needs to re-aquire/make new deals with/reattune/locate their chosen pet or henchman.
I like the idea of using the mechanics of designing a follower/pet, not to actually SUMMON a follower(unless it's appropriate), but to aquire them. Then run them as you would a typical summoned creature.
If summoned creatures use up the summoners turn in combat, then my whole point is moot.
-
I prefer to avoid messing with the action economy. Too often it's a power multiplier. I've mentioned those concerns on other threads, no need to repeat here.
Not everyone feels the same of course. A couple sets of house rules add direct or indirect actions to an exchange.
-
Again, you're the one adding value judgements - not me.
Gotta say, I find this conversation pretty funny. I said you seemed contemptuous. You seemed offended, but didn't actually say that you weren't contemptuous. And now we're arguing about...something.
Narrative (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/narrative?s=t) is "an account of events". Setting effects are elements stemming from the chosen setting.
Wouldn't that include everything that could ever matter to a simulation?
This has me at a bit of a loss on how to respond. It's simply so limitingly untrue that all I can do is say "no" or throw out examples.
Well, the "unless it's a fact" qualifier that I threw in there was pretty important. And this isn't a fact, there's room for disagreement.
Aspects enable a group to create very realistic events. Therefore they are suited to simulating reality. I'm not sure where the hole in that argument is supposed to be.
As for why it sounds like an insult to me, let me give a few other similar statements that are clearly intended as insults:
-D&D 4e just isn't a good system for roleplaying.
-The Dresden Files, unlike most urban fantasy, are about plot and not about porn.
-The Storyteller system isn't really about who has the biggest numbers.
(All paraphrasings of things I've actually heard.)
Just a side question that is or could be related - depending on how it's answered:
How do summoned creatures affect the action economy? If I summon a Cerberus Cub using Ritual, how does it act in combat? Does it get its own initiative? Does it have its own consequences?
If it does, it seems to me that Ritual is a much better way to make a pet than IoP, especially if your pet is something that CAN be summoned in the first place.
I also don't like the argument that if someone pays for a pet it should always be there. Pets and henchman need to sleep, gollums need to be repaired/re-imbued with magic, robots need to be recharged. The amount of time a pet is with you can all be simulated by using shifts of power on the time table. Eventually, the pet need to rest/return to its demense/run wild in the forest and the pet owner needs to re-aquire/make new deals with/reattune/locate their chosen pet or henchman.
I like the idea of using the mechanics of designing a follower/pet, not to actually SUMMON a follower(unless it's appropriate), but to aquire them. Then run them as you would a typical summoned creature.
If summoned creatures use up the summoners turn in combat, then my whole point is moot.
Summoned creatures can have their own actions, but they're not actually extensions of the character who summoned them. They're NPCs that just happen to be obedient.
At least, that's how most takes on summoning work. Including mine and UmbraLux's.
The problem with using Ritual is, like I explained last thread, that Ritual has a bunch of baggage.
It uses Lore, Discipline, and Conviction. It fails utterly whenever getting your ally's help isn't much effort. It assumes that you don't have your pet all the time, which may or may not be the case. It involves a lot of dice rolling. It gives out focus item slots.
And worst of all, it gives a bunch of abilities that have nothing to do with having a pet. Ritual's rules text is basically "do whatever the hell you want within a theme, as long as you put in enough time and effort". Limiting it to summoning one specific creature would be unfairly restrictive, so anybody who obtains a pet through Ritual will pick up the ability to do all kinds of thematically related stuff while they're at it.
Using Ritual just doesn't cover the multitude of pet-using character types out there. All that baggage will be appropriate for only a fraction of the characters that would use ally rules.
-
It uses Lore, Discipline, and Conviction. It assumes that you don't have your pet all the time, which may or may not be the case. It involves a lot of dice rolling. It gives out focus item slots.
And worst of all, it gives a bunch of abilities that have nothing to do with having a pet. Ritual's rules text is basically "do whatever the hell you want within a theme, as long as you put in enough time and effort". Limiting it to summoning one specific creature would be unfairly restrictive, so anybody who obtains a pet through Ritual will pick up the ability to do all kinds of thematically related stuff while they're at it.
Using Ritual just doesn't cover the multitude of pet-using character types out there. All that baggage will be appropriate for only a fraction of the characters that would use ally rules.
Yeah, I know I've brought this up before and I know you've dismissed it but I still think it has some merit.
I'm not saying take ritual. I'm saying take a power that is priced similarily to ritual. It'd probably be around -2 because it gives you a very, very limited type of "ritual" that only lets you get a pet/ally/henchman/follower (-1), it also does not need to use Discipline, Lore and Conviction, it uses three other skills that are appropriate for the flavour of the pet(s) you want - which, I don't know, would be the equivalent of a stunt? (another -1)?
It doesn't give focus slots, or anything like that, but it gives you a little mini-game for tailoring you pet, buying powers, aspects, loyalty and duration. Then you just play your pet.
You wanna be a rock star with a groupies and a body-guard that also your biggest fan? Buy the Power that Uses Performance, Rapport and Presence
You want to hire a thug from Marcone/crime syndicates? Buy the Power that uses Resourses, Presence, Intimidation
You want a pet? Survival, Empathy, Resourses
You want a magical pet like a pegasus? Survival, Empathy, Lore
Whatever. You just have to keep your choices, so if survival is replacing Conviction, then that's how the power will always work and it is limited to the general type of creature chosen.
It fails utterly whenever getting your ally's help isn't much effort.
I don't think so. You can always cast a ritual with a power equal to your Lore, right? So, if you want to find something quick, you can choose a less powerful ally. But if you want a griffin to ride around on, you're going to have to hunt one down, train it and feed it(and possibly suffer consequences for screwing up) before you get one.
I just think that there are mechanics for this already in the book - why not use them. And if you let a wizard summon a bunch of creatures from the nevernever - each with their own actions in combat - why can't someone else, with a similarly priced power do the same thing?
-
I don't want to be too dismissive, because your approach isn't stupid or anything.
But it's pretty specific. It only really works for a limited class of characters.
Most of the concepts I've seen for companion-using characters have specific companions. And your approach chokes when trying to represent a single companion, because that basically defeats the point of Ritual entirely.
Plus it requires that you have a good way of handling thaumaturgical summoning, which puts you in homebrew territory already. You say the mechanics are already in the book, but...they're not.
And the modifications that you suggest making to the Ritual Power are kind of major. Given how finicky spellcasting is mechanically, I'd expect that Ritual rewrite to be more work than your average new Power.
PS: If I seem or seemed annoyed here's why. You seem to think that this is an easy way to do the whole subsystem, but it's not easy and it won't cover everything. So the whole "why bother with all this work" aspect of your posts about this bugs me.
I can't really fault you because you're not doing anything wrong, but my irritation probably shows and I figured you deserve an explanation.
-
I don't want to be too dismissive, because your approach isn't stupid or anything.
And the modifications that you suggest making to the Ritual Power are kind of major. Given how finicky spellcasting is mechanically, I'd expect that Ritual rewrite to be more work than your average new Power.
PS: If I seem or seemed annoyed here's why. You seem to think that this is an easy way to do the whole subsystem, but it's not easy and it won't cover everything. So the whole "why bother with all this work" aspect of your posts about this bugs me.
I can't really fault you because you're not doing anything wrong, but my irritation probably shows and I figured you deserve an explanation.
It's fine. I also know that they don't really explain ways to do summoning...they just kind of give a outline. But I really like your method of summoning, so it just seems automatic to do it like that.
Lastly, I don't have a lot of experience with summoning, so it's probably, as you say, more complicated than I'm supposing - although, sometimes I like complicated when it gives the detail want. I just wanted to get the idea out there, though, because I think some people might find it works for them.
-
Fair enough.
-
Gotta say, I find this conversation pretty funny. I said you seemed contemptuous. You seemed offended, but didn't actually say that you weren't contemptuous. And now we're arguing about...something.
Contemptuous? No. Not really even offended.
I am dumbfounded by what appears to be an insistence on creating negative value judgments out of neutral statements. It's simply illogical enough to leave me at a loss. I suppose it shouldn't...seeing (http://gcbro.com/recent.htm) things (http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/) that (http://www.lochness.co.uk/fan_club/thisyr.html) aren't (http://www.fairygardens.com/sightings/) there (http://www.ghostsofamerica.com/) is a very human condition.
Wouldn't that include everything that could ever matter to a simulation?
You posted this in response to a pair of definitions. Can you clarify your question?
Well, the "unless it's a fact" qualifier that I threw in there was pretty important. And this isn't a fact, there's room for disagreement.
Wrong. You stated "I've heard the "game X doesn't do Y, it's about Z" thing quite a few times. It's almost always a way to say that either Y or X and Z is/are for stupid babies.
Seriously, it would be weird to say that if you weren't trying to denigrate something."
Not only am I not attempting to denigrate anything but the first statement of stating "X doesn't do Y" = stating "something is stupid" is illogical. It's a generalization fallacy - you're generalizing from a small and biased sample. It also appears to be an attempt at a fallacious straw man argument - trying to make the subject about values rather than about mechanics.
Aspects enable a group to create very realistic events. Therefore they are suited to simulating reality. I'm not sure where the hole in that argument is supposed to be.
First hole - I never stated what aspects might or might not be capable of. I believe my statement was about "aspect manipulation mechanics". Second hole - not all aspects are equally suitable. It's left up to individual groups to decide what works and what doesn't. Using "Everything's on Fire!" has no mechanical difference from using "Everything's Wet!". Mechanically you get either a +2 to a roll, a re-roll, or a negotiated event for both aspects. The only differences are in the resulting account of events...the narrative.
As for why it sounds like an insult to me, let me give a few other similar statements that are clearly intended as insults:
-D&D 4e just isn't a good system for roleplaying.
-The Dresden Files, unlike most urban fantasy, are about plot and not about porn.
-The Storyteller system isn't really about who has the biggest numbers.
(All paraphrasings of things I've actually heard.)
Yes...back to the generalization fallacy. Just because some humans are male doesn't make all humans male. A Good Thing. ;) Similarly, you can't go from 'some comments' taking this form are denigrating to 'all comments'.
Summoned creatures can have their own actions, but they're not actually extensions of the character who summoned them. They're NPCs that just happen to be obedient.
At least, that's how most takes on summoning work. Including mine and UmbraLux's.
Didn't bother to go look up the threads but I believe the discussion at the time was around thaumaturgy. The few times extra actions were discussed I seem to remember advocating against them or at least charging a significant cost.
-----
Cutting through the fallacies to the bottom line - IoP rules work just fine for entities who are usually with you but may be lost (temporarily or permanently) on occasion. They're not going to give the player any extra power or actions - but there's no need to do so.
If you do want extra actions as part of your companions some other set of (probably house ruled) mechanics will do a better job.
The real issue is deciding what you as a group want and how much you're willing to modify the system. :)
-
I am dumbfounded by what appears to be an insistence on creating negative value judgments out of neutral statements. It's simply illogical enough to leave me at a loss. I suppose it shouldn't...seeing (http://gcbro.com/recent.htm) things (http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/) that (http://www.lochness.co.uk/fan_club/thisyr.html) aren't (http://www.fairygardens.com/sightings/) there (http://www.ghostsofamerica.com/) is a very human condition.
...
Wrong. You stated "I've heard the "game X doesn't do Y, it's about Z" thing quite a few times. It's almost always a way to say that either Y or X and Z is/are for stupid babies.
Seriously, it would be weird to say that if you weren't trying to denigrate something."
Not only am I not attempting to denigrate anything but the first statement of stating "X doesn't do Y" = stating "something is stupid" is illogical. It's a generalization fallacy - you're generalizing from a small and biased sample. It also appears to be an attempt at a fallacious straw man argument - trying to make the subject about values rather than about mechanics.
...
Yes...back to the generalization fallacy. Just because some humans are male doesn't make all humans male. A Good Thing. ;) Similarly, you can't go from 'some comments' taking this form are denigrating to 'all comments'.
Yes, I know that I didn't prove logically that you were expressing contempt. I just figured you probably were because you said something that, in my experience, is always said as a way to express contempt.
If you stick to what comments mean literally and what can be proved logically, you'll miss the vast majority of what people say. So you've gotta extrapolate, and sometimes that gets you the wrong answer. So it goes.
You posted this in response to a pair of definitions. Can you clarify your question?
It applies to both. What is there that happens in the game world that isn't part of an account of events? And what is there that exists in the setting that doesn't stem from the setting?
First hole - I never stated what aspects might or might not be capable of. I believe my statement was about "aspect manipulation mechanics". Second hole - not all aspects are equally suitable. It's left up to individual groups to decide what works and what doesn't. Using "Everything's on Fire!" has no mechanical difference from using "Everything's Wet!". Mechanically you get either a +2 to a roll, a re-roll, or a negotiated event for both aspects. The only differences are in the resulting account of events...the narrative.
If you replaced the word narrative with the word simulation, that passage would be equally correct. In fact, no important thing about it would change.
I'm starting to think that there's a word meaning issue here.
Didn't bother to go look up the threads but I believe the discussion at the time was around thaumaturgy. The few times extra actions were discussed I seem to remember advocating against them or at least charging a significant cost.
Remember this (http://this)? Your approach creates semi-independent characters, like mine.
It also involves a significant cost, like mine.
Cutting through the fallacies to the bottom line - IoP rules work just fine for entities who are usually with you but may be lost (temporarily or permanently) on occasion. They're not going to give the player any extra power or actions - but there's no need to do so.
If you do want extra actions as part of your companions some other set of (probably house ruled) mechanics will do a better job.
The real issue is deciding what you as a group want and how much you're willing to modify the system. :)
Mm. Even if the companion is usually with you some common companion effects are not elegantly representable through an IoP.
For example, a frail character whose extremely strong companion fights for them would require a lot of wrangling. If I send my pet lion across a street to maul you should be able to punch it. But by the IoP rules you can't. And if you take me out, my lion is dealt with automatically. Which is weird because I have a tiny stress track while my lion is really tough. And while my lion might be fast enough to act before you, I'm not. So my initiative might depend on whether my action is lion-based or not. My lion can jump over a chasm in order to pursue a foe, but I can't. Etc, etc.
None of this is insurmountable. You could write a custom Power that lets you attack at range by opening yourself up to melee attacks from the people you hit. You could take a really weird Catch. You could handwave the initiative thing. You could give my lion an inexplicable aversion to chasing people when I'm not following. Etc, etc.
But it's not a very good solution. It's a kludge, a hack job.
-
Mm. Even if the companion is usually with you some common companion effects are not elegantly representable through an IoP.
For example, a frail character whose extremely strong companion fights for them would require a lot of wrangling. If I send my pet lion across a street to maul you should be able to punch it. But by the IoP rules you can't. And if you take me out, my lion is dealt with automatically. Which is weird because I have a tiny stress track while my lion is really tough. And while my lion might be fast enough to act before you, I'm not. So my initiative might depend on whether my action is lion-based or not. My lion can jump over a chasm in order to pursue a foe, but I can't. Etc, etc.
None of this is insurmountable. You could write a custom Power that lets you attack at range by opening yourself up to melee attacks from the people you hit. You could take a really weird Catch. You could handwave the initiative thing. You could give my lion an inexplicable aversion to chasing people when I'm not following. Etc, etc.
Each of these "problems" are based in how something is described...the narrative. The mechanics don't need to change for the narrative to be different. Just need to take an objective look at your goals.
But it's not a very good solution. It's a kludge, a hack job.
I get it. You don't like it and it doesn't work for you. Shrug. The world is a big place, it has room for many points of view.
Re: Everything else - This is a text medium...the only communication tool is words. There's no tone, expression, or body language to add meaning. Just words. If we can't use logic and rely on the other to write what they mean, we may as well be speaking different languages. We're certainly using different protocols. Not going to waste time responding if there's such a poor chance of communication.
-
Each of these "problems" are based in how something is described...the narrative. The mechanics don't need to change for the narrative to be different. Just need to take an objective look at your goals.
But the narrative and the mechanics are supposed to correspond. That's why Fists is Fists and not Skill #X.
I get it. You don't like it and it doesn't work for you. Shrug. The world is a big place, it has room for many points of view.
I'm actually not totally opposed to it, I just know that it's a rather limited approach. And it bugs me when it's presented as a general solution.
Re: Everything else - This is a text medium...the only communication tool is words. There's no tone, expression, or body language to add meaning. Just words. If we can't use logic and rely on the other to write what they mean, we may as well be speaking different languages. We're certainly using different protocols. Not going to waste time responding if there's such a poor chance of communication.
You'll have to give up internet forums, then. And probably communicating in general.
The vast majority of meaning is implied. No two people speak exactly the same language, and misunderstandings will happen.
It's just something you (general you) have to live with.
As evidence for the above statement, I present legal and game-rule ambiguities. Rules and laws are written specifically to convey single correct interpretations, yet their meanings are often still vague.
-
I'm actually not totally opposed to it, I just know that it's a rather limited approach. And it bugs me when it's presented as a general solution.
I hope what I was talking about was not interpreted as a general solution to all pet/companion/minion related characters. I was just saying that the specific examples in the OP (and then some presented later in the thread) seemed to work well. While I am sure there are character concept out there where having an animal behave as an IoP will not work, I can think of many where it will work well. And for the characters where it does work, it is a very clean and simple solution.