ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: devonapple on January 13, 2011, 08:08:50 PM
-
So, we have Conjuration, Crafting and Illusions, all of which make an effect.
For each of these, we have several of the following factors: Size, Quality, Number and Animus.
- Should these be unilaterally aligned?
- Should Crafting be just like Conjuring, but factoring in greater time for better quality and relative permanence?
- Should Illusions be like Conjuring, but cheaper because they are insubstantial?
- Should the AI of a golem be treated the same as the interactibility of an illusion? Is an illusion (in effect) a phantom conjuration?
- How expensive should Powers, Skills and Stunts be?
- Is paying to give the Golem the Demonic Copilot power the simplest way to animate it, without having to "program" the AI? Obviously programming your own AI is more reliable than the Demonic Copilot, but how much of a discount should it be to rely on the forces from the "Deep Deep South" for cheap labor?
I have a thread on Conjuring (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23613.0.html), there is another on crafting golems and other magical pets (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23608.0.html).
We may be close to getting some sort of unilateral method for adjudicating these thaumaturgical effects. What are your thoughts? Excluding, of course, "why bother?" because that is not what this thread is for - GMs will remain free to specify the difficulty of these things as they see fit in their own games. This is for those who do want some sort of guidelines. And hopefully we can make them simple and scalable.
-
-I think that Illusions should work similiarily to Conjuring, but Crafting shouldn't.
-I don't think that letting players create characters and then summon them with a complexity determined by the character's stats will work out well. It encourages minmaxing. A less mechanical approach where the GM assigns complexity based on gut instinct and creature power seems more viable to me. The problem is that we have no examples against which to measure the appropriateness of a given complexity.
-For potentially dangerous AI, I would use aspects. A spellcaster can accept a defect in exchange for +2 base complexity. For each defect, the GM picks an aspect for the summoned/created creature and can compel that aspect once for free.
-
-I don't think that letting players create characters and then summon them with a complexity determined by the character's stats will work out well. It encourages minmaxing. A less mechanical approach where the GM assigns complexity based on gut instinct and creature power seems more viable to me. The problem is that we have no examples against which to measure the appropriateness of a given complexity.
That seems to agree with the spirit of the game: players should not know the full stats of anything they summon.
However, we could still establish a mechanism for the GM to adjudicate costs, as long as it is understood that it is the GM's decision what is actually summoned and how much it costs, rather than the player picking and choosing. The player could have some input (such as "I need something that can fly and spit poison") and the GM could roll with that, generate a Nevernever critter on the fly, add in some unexpected bits, and use this guide to give the player a final Complexity. The player will know the final Complexity, but not exactly how those points were spent.
-For potentially dangerous AI, I would use aspects. A spellcaster can accept a defect in exchange for +2 base complexity. For each defect, the GM picks an aspect for the summoned/created creature and can compel that aspect once for free.
I would love for you to unpack this idea some more. I think I know what you are saying, and I like where it appears to be going, but I could be wrong, so if you would please elaborate, perhaps with an example, I'd appreciate it.
-
You are right, we do need some guidelines. But I have no idea what they should be.
Example of defects: Frederick the sorcerer needs to summon a big, powerful monster to help him in an upcoming fight against some ghouls. The GM tells him that an appropriate demon would require 14 complexity. Frederick has a base complexity of 4 and manages to get +6 complexity with Declarations and a minor consequence. But then he runs out of ideas for declarations and rather than take a moderate consequence he decides to let the GM assign 2 defects to the demon he summons. The GM decides to give the demon the aspects REALLY STUPID and MASTER OF COLLATERAL DAMAGE. Frederick does not know what those aspects are, but he does know that his demon has some nasty surprises in store.
The next day, Frederick and his demon are kicking some ghoul ass when the GM decides to compel MASTER OF COLLATERAL DAMAGE. If Frederick does not spend a fate point, the demon will destroy several parked cars and make a huge mess for Frederick to explain to the police. Frederick will not get a fate point if he accepts this compel.
Regardless of the results of this compel, the GM still has another free compel waiting for the REALLY STUPID aspect.
PS: There should be rules for summoning multiple creatures at once.
-
I like your idea about tacking Defects (or "mystery Aspects") onto the summoned creature to make up for any Lore deficit in the summoning. I think your example illustrated it quite effectively. It is a wonderful player-side source of potential drama. I'd still love to find a way to balance Demons/AIs against each other.
I think we should definitely set up a cost difference between Conjuring multiple noncombatant AIs or Illusions and Summoning/Conjuring multiple combatant AIs/Demons.
Do you think Method 1 on this thread (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23613.0.html) is costly enough for multiple combatant AIs/Demons? Or would you go for a straight Complexity increase of 1 or 2 shifts per copy?
So now we have:
Form:
Conjuration: Ectoplasm made Solid (can be animated by AI, Demon, or nothing at all)
Illusion: Light and/or Perception manipulated (can be animated by AI or nothing at all)
Summoning: Creature transported somewhere (can be a Demon or other Nevernever entity, and it is hinted that mortals can also be summoned)
Crafting: usually intended to create Enchanted Items - could theoretically be used to prepare artificial terrestrial bodies for inhabitation by a Demon or an AI)
Would putting a Demon or an AI into a previously prepared (Golem) Body be considered Summoning or Conjuration?
Would the old "elemental spirit" idea be considered an AI?
Does the mortal will create a limited consciousness out of nothing? Or is there some component from the Nevernever, the spirit world, or elemental energies which is inhabiting that potential?
Obviously summoned Demons (per Demonic Co-Pilot) have their own agendas whenever they are used for these things. Would other entities have similar things? Would this fall under the Defects idea mentioned above?
-
I don't know why I wasn't looking at this thread. It is exactly the kind of thing I dig.
Of note summoning is usually also ectoplasm made solid, just by the creature itself not by you. Though I suppose it might be interesting to actually summon a physical form from somewhere else. Would the being allow that? It would be risking it's actual life and limb in that case. It might also cause all sorts of havoc if freed (and be really hard to banish).
Would putting a Demon or an AI into a previously prepared (Golem) Body be considered Summoning or Conjuration?
I'd say it's summoning for a demon, since you're calling a spirit and binding it into service. The AI is always tricky to pin down though isn't it? What are you doing to create said AI? Or more importantly where does the animating force come from? If the wizard is actually animating it with his own force is it fair to assume that there's already sort of an AI built in (as long as the golem is fairly similar to the wizard's actual body, with arms and legs in all the right places) since that force is part of the wizard and knows how to move the wizard's body?
-
My first instinct is to have no mechanical difference between demons and AIs at all. I really have no idea how to differentiate them. Where a demon has evil desires, an AI has programming glitches.
Not sure exactly how to balance combat against noncombat. Perhaps you could summon some spirits without physical bodies in exchange for a reduced complexity.
I think that the cost to summon multiple creatures should vary depending on the cost of a single creature. While adding two complexity to get an extra Imp is probably reasonable, adding two complexity to get an extra Demon Lord probably isn't.
I wouldn't allow the use of crafting for construct creation, although I would allow summoning effects to be flavoured that way when placed in an enchanted item. This is because I want to avoid as many mechanical headaches as possible.
I don't know whether golem creation should be conjuring or summoning. I'm leaning slightly towards summoning.
I'd treat an elemental spirit just like a demon or AI mechanically.
I have no idea where conciousness comes from.
I would use the defect system along with regular old compels to represent the summoned creature's agenda.
-
I think there are a few ways the Demons could be used.
1) Summon the Demon. It creates its own ectoplasmic body, which it presumably has to expend Will to maintain, which means it has trouble with Thresholds and such.
2) Summon the Demon INTO an Ectoplasmic Shell you have created using a separate Thaumaturgic Ritual (in addition to the Circle, the Summoning and the Binding). Now the only logical advantages I can see with this is that:
a) the Demon is presumably expending less energy to occupy the Ectoplasmic Shell than to maintain an ectoplasmic body it self-generated - is this a power boost? Or is it more like item c (see below)? How much of a power savings should it be?
b) the spellcaster has some control over what the Ectoplasmic body looks like (of debatable permanence and utility - I wouldn't imagine for a second that Demon can't warp the Ectoplasmic Shell for its own purposes)
c) the Demon may be able to use the Ectoplasmic Shell to minimize the hazards of Thresholds - maybe the Demon gets to Invoke its Ectoplasmic Shell to add to a defense roll against the Threshold, or maybe the spellcaster would build it to negate X ranks of Threshold - seems like potential for abuse, but it is a potential advantage
d) the spellcaster may be able to give the Demon a particular power it may not possess when generating its own ectoplasmic body
3) Summon the Demon into a Golem Body of some sort, like the Demonic Co-Pilot ability in the Powers section. Presumably you build the Golem Body with particular attributes and abilities, then "enlist" the Demon to "pilot" it. That means you could build either a Diamond Golem that shoots sunlight, a Clay Golem with Malleability, or a Coal Golem that can shoot Brimstone, and whichever you built, you could theoretically enlist the same Demon to pilot it. Or the next one.
4) Summon the Demon into a Mortal Body. This sounds at one end of the scale like a Plot Device, and at the lower end of the scale, the before-mentioned Demonic Co-Pilot.
The Demon would, of course, want to be used instead of an AI so that it could wreak havoc and corruption here in the material world, and it would provide benefits up-front to entice a would-be Summoner. So however we balance things out, it should always be cheaper and/or more effective (in the short term) to rely on a Demon (but ultimately less safe).
I like your observation about AIs probably building off of the spellcaster's will. Would the AI then be limited by the spellcaster in the skills it could have? Would someone with a Mediocre Burglary be able/unable to craft an Infiltrator Golem and stock it with a Superb Burglary?
Can you imagine listening close to that field of conjured frogs and realize they aren't actually croaking, but saying "Ribbit" in Harry Dresden's voice?
-
I'd model the effects of using a demon instead of an AI with defects. Not because it's a perfect system (it clearly isn't) but because it's easy.
I'd say that methods one and two of using demons could be treated the same mechanically.
Not sure whether an AI should require the spellcaster to have the abilities that he wants to grant. I suppose that AIs could be differentiated from demons in that it costs extra to give an AI skills that you don't have.
-
Not sure whether an AI should require the spellcaster to have the abilities that he wants to grant. I suppose that AIs could be differentiated from demons in that it costs extra to give an AI skills that you don't have.
I like this... we may not charge the spellcaster for EVERY skill point possessed by an AI, but it makes sense ot make them pay for the difference in any given skill. Brilliant! Thank you.
I'd model the effects of using a demon instead of an AI with defects. Not because it's a perfect system (it clearly isn't) but because it's easy.
it is easy, and certainly an automatic Defect (or at least, the first Defect to be used for all but the most low-level thug Demons) would be something like "Demonic Agenda."
-
I think that the cost to summon multiple creatures should vary depending on the cost of a single creature. While adding two complexity to get an extra Imp is probably reasonable, adding two complexity to get an extra Demon Lord probably isn't.
That makes sense. Bigger, badder things should cost more to duplicate (wetting aside for a moment that having a bonus Demon Lord is not a benefit in the long run, but rather a mine of additional player trouble, and that kind of trouble is happy to come cheap).
I've been considering the following way to adjudicate something's Complexity (I also used the factorial symbol "!" incorrectly in a previous thread: x! = 1 * 2 * ... * x. I meant 1 + 2 + ... + x) - this assumes an independent AI with no relationship to the spellcaster, or perhaps a Demon:
1. Take highest skill rank and then add points for each lower skill level, down to 1 (Skill 5 would cost 5+4+3+2+1 = 15)
2. Add +1 for each additional skill at the highest skill rank
3. Add +2 Complexity for every Refresh worth of power, and +1 Complexity for every Mortal Stunt - subtract weakness like The Catch from the Complexity
4. For any duplicates, add up the preceding to get the Base Complexity:
Second: add 1/2 the Base Complexity or +2, whichever is higher (round up)
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 (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23613.0.html) pricing.
-
Another thing to think of is that there are more than just two options. As far as binding spirits to animate the construct you could use a demon or a fey spirit of some kind or some kind of spirit of knowledge, etc. A solution to putting skills into the golem that you don't have might be summoning something that does and you don't necessarily have to deal with down below for that. Any of these beings would of course have their own agendas and quirks, but they might not be nearly as dangerous as a demon. Then again sometimes dangerous is what you want.
-
Another thing to think of is that there are more than just two options. As far as binding spirits to animate the construct you could use a demon or a fey spirit of some kind or some kind of spirit of knowledge, etc. A solution to putting skills into the golem that you don't have might be summoning something that does and you don't necessarily have to deal with down below for that. Any of these beings would of course have their own agendas and quirks, but they might not be nearly as dangerous as a demon. Then again sometimes dangerous is what you want.
That's true - there are numerous options. Most of the book examples mention AIs, Demons or Spirits, but Spirits could come in a wide variety of options, limited only by the imagination.
So that brings us back to the elements we do have control of:
Skills:
Should AI skills get a discount if the spellcaster creating it possesses the same skills?
Or should the skills portion of a conjuration/summoning cost the same no matter what type of entity is being used (AI, Demon, Spirit, or anything else)?
Stunts:
Is it enough to charge +1 Complexity for each Stunt?
Powers:
Is it enough to charge +2 Complexity for each Refresh of Powers?
Defects: These unintended Aspects are manifested by whatever is being summoned (like Demonic Agenda, Fey Prankster, Engine of Destruction, Dumb as a Hammer, and more). Each Defect can contribute 2 shifts towards making up the Lore Deficit for the Thaumaturgic Ritual.
Duplication:
Should spellcasters be allowed to Summon multiples of a creature with a single Ritual?
And we haven't even touched on the costs of Summoning a Mortal.
-
I've gone back to the "Spirit of the Century" rules, and one of the Stunts they have is the Minions stunt. Basically, a player with this Stunt gets 3 Minions of a certain competence (Fair, Average, etc.), as well as a few upgrades, which can be spent to increase their effectiveness, their numbers, etc.
I wonder if spellcasters like Binder should be given an equivalent Power (Nevernever Minions) which reflects the ability to reliably summon and control a certain number of supernatural minions in a given Scene or Scenario, rather than price it out as a Ritual and make it potentially uncertain?
Sort of like letting an Evocation specialist the Breath Weapon power to reflect mastery of ranged magical attacks?
-
I'd say that methods one and two of using demons could be treated the same mechanically.
I found this on YS 230:
"Some beings—especially those of pure spirit—cannot cross a threshold, since they’re usually using their magical power to hold their material world body together... If they cross a threshold without counteracting it, they just… melt. Some powerful creatures (such as demons) manage to get around this with a physical manifestation that they aren’t personally maintaining. Even so, when an entity crosses a threshold in a mystically manufactured body, most of the entity’s power goes toward holding it all together, limiting it to what its body can physically do."
I take this to support that a Threshold would still act as a Block on a Demon's actions, but that an Ectoplasmic Shell could still buffer it from being melted outright. Some mechanical difference then.
-
Updated to accommodate feedback from Fred Hicks at Evil Hat:
The general Complexity guideline for making something with Conjuration seems to be to use enough shifts to kill that which you would call up. It's a good guideline for Summoning as well, but in this case, if you want to build a construct of some sort, or an AI, this is what you do instead of a Thaumaturgic "Contacts" roll.
So it would work as follows:
1) Stat out what you want to build.
2) Figure out the number of shifts needed to take it out completely. One stress track, all consequences, plus one.
I would opt to pick the best stress track that the creature has, since we want the resource, not the body count, and this will mean you are generally paying for the Physical stress track of a physical combatant, and the Mental or Social stress track for something summoned to provide knowledge or guidance).
3) Tack on a difficulty surcharge equal to twice the refresh cost of the creature's abilities (Stunts and Powers).
4) Add Complexity for the duration - figure out with your GM whether you start from a Scene, a Day, or some duration in between.
This could be appropriate for AIs, Golems, Constructs, maybe even NPC Familiars. Demons and other spirits would still be a Contacts roll, but the system can probably handle them being Summoned using these Guidelines as well.
This method ignores skill points, except insofar as one of the creature's skills will be determining the Stress Track you would have to overcome. But it does take Powers into account.
Edit: Note that if you are summoning something with Toughness Powers, you might seem to be paying twice - once for the power, and once to overcome the added boxes on its Stress Track. Umm... how do folks feel about that?
-
Honestly, I think that's a terrible method. It encourages minmaxing and discourages sanity. Seriously, skills are more important than stress tracks or powers/stunts. What's more, that method makes summoning the weakest possible creature a 23 complexity ritual.
We can do better.
I was thinking that we could make people buy skill points in increments of five. Stunts might be best priced according to the number of stunts and powers that you have already. Since stunts don't stack, the first few should be more expensive than the rest. I like the idea of buying up the skill cap.
I approach minions as a stunt that lets you roll Contacts to hire people. No custom power would be needed to use a ritual for this.
-
Honestly, I think that's a terrible method. It encourages minmaxing and discourages sanity. Seriously, skills are more important than stress tracks or powers/stunts. What's more, that method makes summoning the weakest possible creature a 23 complexity ritual.
It may indeed be terrible for Summoning. But how do you feel about this as a method for *building* something completely new, like an AI or a Golem?
The rules already specify Summoning = a Thaumaturgic Contacts roll, and ideally the creature's exact stats should be known to the GM alone. The player may get a True Name or some other lead, and hope to have assessed how powerful to make the warding/binding spells, but to make Summoning in DFRPG the same as it works in Hero system seems to be sidestepping the spirit of the DFRPG setting. Summoning is fraught with danger, and Fred's feedback about summoning is that it generally belongs in the province of the GM, rather than coming up with an exhaustive and potentially abusable Summoning system.
-
Fred is right when he says that summoning should generally be managed by the GM. He's also right when he says that a summoning system would be abusable. But a bad system like that one is worse than no system at all, and having no system isn't as good as having a set of reasonable guidelines.
Skills should cost something, and a random Imp shouldn't get a full consequence track. But even ignoring those issues, I dislike the stress system. I won't use it myself, and I want something that helps me pick a reasonable complexity for a summoning and binding. Which is why I'm here, trying to work out a set of general rules.
PS: I'm not trying to be harsh here. I just really don't like that system.
-
PS: I'm not trying to be harsh here. I just really don't like that system.
Of course! No problem.
Let's put imps and demons and pixies aside for a moment. Just forget about Summoning altogether for this next bit.
[Edit: this is based on Fred Hicks' recommendation for creating constructs like Cassius' snakes, Victor Sells' scorpion, and the Wardhounds. Summoning wasn't the intent.]
How do you feel about these rules for making something new, like an AI, familiar or Golem. This would be Conjuration or Crafting , not Summoning. Summoning a Pixie using these rules is prohibitive, but how about making one's NPC familiar?
-
Sorry, should have been more clear. I don't like this system for anything. Same reasons as previously stated.
By the way, I think that we are setting the complexity too high. Here's a revised system, designed by me to make it difficult to twink. It should work for either summoning or creating creatures, but since it hasn't been tested in any way at all please don't take it too seriously.
Skills cost 2 complexity per 5 points.
Skill cap costs complexity equal to the additive factorial-like thing that you suggested divided by 2 (round up).
Stunts cost 1 complexity apiece for the first 3, 1/2 apiece after that.
Powers cost 1 complexity per refresh point. Some powers may be prohibited, others may cost extra (especially when combined effectively).
Duration costs are normal. Bear in mind that some creations might be effectively permanent, with duration representing lifespan.
How does that look? It's still expensive, but a bit less so.
-
How does that look? It's still expensive, but a bit less so.
Why do you think the system suggested by Hicks is too expensive?
Regarding the system you propose - looks like a summoned / created being with fifteen skill points, and three points in powers or stunts would cost six shifts plus duration - that correct? It seems too easy to me.
-
Skills cost 2 complexity per 5 points.
Skill cap costs complexity equal to the additive factorial-like thing that you suggested divided by 2 (round up).
Stunts cost 1 complexity apiece for the first 3, 1/2 apiece after that.
Powers cost 1 complexity apiece. Some powers may be prohibited, others may cost extra (especially when combined effectively).
Duration costs are normal. Bear in mind that some creations might be effectively permanent, with duration representing lifespan.
So, going by the Will-o'-the-Wisp (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,21533.msg955260.html#msg955260):
Skills: it has 15 points of skills; 15/5 = 3; 3 * 2 = +6 shifts of Complexity.
Skill cap: Highest skill is Good (+3); so (3+2+1) divided by 2 = +3 shifts of Complexity.
Stunts: there are none.
Powers: it has 6 Powers with a combined total of 9 Refresh.
I'm not sure if you would rule that as 9 shifts of Complexity for the *total Refresh*,
or 6-ish shifts of Complexity for the *number* of Powers.
In this case I'll be conservative and opt to choose +9 shifts of Complexity.
Duration: until the next sunrise/sunset unless otherwise indicated: +0 shifts of Complexity.
Total: 18 shifts of Complexity (15 if we count Powers instead of Refresh spent on powers).
Does that match your proposed system, Sanctaphrax?
-
Yes, that's it exactly. It isn't cheap, but then again it shouldn't be when the creature in question has supernatural power to match a submerged character. The Will O The Wisp might deserve a discount for its highly suboptimal power list, but that's a GM call and not relevant to the construction of guidelines.
I meant to count refresh spent on powers, as you thought. Editing my post now to say that.
I think that the system proposed by Hicks is too expensive because it is impossible for a creature to cost less than 23 complexity under it.
-
I think that the system proposed by Hicks is too expensive because it is impossible for a creature to cost less than 23 complexity under it.
It is expensive, but in some cases... one *IS* creating a whole new creature.
Then again, I'm now reviewing the Zombie Animation ritual on YS 301:
"Zombie Animation
Animating a zombie is a two-spell process: a summoning and a binding. First, the caster must summon a spirit to inhabit the corpse he wishes to animate, and then the caster must bind the spirit to his will.
Type: Thaumaturgy, summoning then binding
Complexity: Varies for both;
the summoning is typically 6-10 (based on conflict against the spirit’s Conviction),
and the binding is even higher, often 10-14 (again, based on conflict against the spirit’s Conviction and desired duration)
Duration: The summoning is only for a scene, but the binding is of variable duration.
Effect: One spirit is summoned and bound to one corpse, animating it and binding it to the caster’s will.
Variations: Call up additional shifts of power to animate more zombies.
Notes: The caster must provide an audible “heartbeat” for the duration of the binding, most frequently a drumbeat."
So that can range from 16-24 total shifts (split between two rituals, though), for just the one Zombie. I'm not sure how to figure a Spirit's Conviction though...
-
That's a lot, maybe a bit too much. Then again, zombies are pretty dangerous. It's not absurd, especially when you consider that the binding complexity includes duration.
Hicks' method actually gives reasonable results as long as you summon something of at least moderate power, ignore extreme consequence slots, have a decent match between powers and skills, and no toughness powers. But that's too many restrictions for me.
Here are some more difficulties from my method. I don't know whether they are reasonable or not.
Zombie: 16 (assuming a functional skill pyramid)
Uberzombie: 26
Zombie Triceratops: 34
Poisonous Demon: 14
Imp: 9
Demon Lord: 88
Demonic Collossus: 51
Thug Demon: 24
Guardian Statue: 22
-
That's a lot, maybe a bit too much. Then again, zombies are pretty dangerous. It's not absurd, especially when you consider that the binding complexity includes duration.
Should we read that as it taking a Scene to call up the spirit, but after binding it to the Zombie it stays put for the duration of the Binding? Or would the Summoning duration ideally need to match the Binding Duration?
I could see it argued either way.
-
I think that the system proposed by Hicks is too expensive because it is impossible for a creature to cost less than 23 complexity under it.
Well, if I'm interpreting your suggestion correctly, a 10 shift ritual would get you an entity with 5 skill points, a cap of +3, and 3 points of powers. That close to correct?
If so, a decent summoner should be able to call two or three each morning. Let's say he calls up a 'Dazzler', a 'Baffler', and a 'Screamer' imp / construct. Each has diminutive size, wings, and a different +3 skill targeting various maneuver types. They also have one other power or stunt and a couple lesser skills. The summoner now has three maneuver creating bots for a fairly trivial investment.
That's why I prefer the more expensive method. Independent allies / minions essentially give the player that most valuable of all game statistics - extra actions. All that said, if a summoned entity is angry or stupid enough to only act when and as the summoner directs it (using up the summoner's turn) I withdraw my objection.
-
Way I see it, the summoned creatures don't require guidance during combat. However, they might not act the way you want them to. They might not make maneuvers, for example. Or perhaps they won't let you tag the aspects they create. While they are loyal to you, they are still NPCs and not under the direct control of the player.
Ultimately, though, the GM has to be careful lest the game's balance be disrupted. That's just the way the Thaumaturgy system works.
The thing is, I want it to be possible to summon something with a small ritual. If all summoning has 23+ complexity, then all summoning is a huge deal.
Seriously, look at what a 23 complexity ritual can do. An 11 shift ward with a duration of "a mortal lifetime" is also 23 complexity. That's a lot more impressive than a summoned creature with no stress track longer than two and no powers or stunts.
Anyway, how do those complexities in my last post look? I honestly have no idea if my system works.
PS: You can't have a Good skill with 5 skill points. Summons still need to follow the skill pyramid.
-
Anyway, how do those complexities in my last post look? I honestly have no idea if my system works.
Overall I like it - for things with little or no initiative or intelligence. I think I'd be willing to use both - summon an animal intelligence imp with a few shifts or a human intelligence demon with a lot more.
PS: You can't have a Good skill with 5 skill points. Summons still need to follow the skill pyramid.
Three skills, one each at Average, Fair, and Good. Though that does require 6 points...you're correct.
-
Interesting point there. I guess we could add another factor to determine complexity. We could call it Behaviour or Control, and it would cover both this issue and devonapple's earlier question about a non-defect way to represent demonic drawbacks.
You get animal intelligence, no initiative, and rudimentary order-following for +0 complexity. For a little extra complexity, you could get human intelligence, independant action, and perfect obedience (the ability to control the summon like a second PC). For a little less complexity, you could get literal mindlessness, perverse initiative, and flawed obedience (either exploiting loopholes, misunderstanding instructions, or just plain disobeying from time to time).
So, does this sound good to you? And what sort of cost do you think would be appropriate?
-
I did kinda like the Defect mechanism, though it is probably giving stats to something the GM should just decide for dramatic purposes.
Are we still talking about Constructs (Conjured or otherwise), or are we edging into Summoning? I feel like there are still a few variables which got released and I want to make sure we are on the same page.
-
Are we still talking about Constructs (Conjured or otherwise), or are we edging into Summoning? I feel like there are still a few variables which got released and I want to make sure we are on the same page.
From a system mechanics point of view, is there a difference? Should there be a difference?
In the interests of simplicity I'd recommend keeping the same system mechanics for any entity gained via thaumaturgy - whether crafted from physical parts, created from ectoplasm, called as an ally, or summoned and bound. The differences are profound as far as the story goes but not mechanically.
-
From a system mechanics point of view, is there a difference? Should there be a difference?
In the interests of simplicity I'd recommend keeping the same system mechanics for any entity gained via thaumaturgy - whether crafted from physical parts, created from ectoplasm, called as an ally, or summoned and bound. The differences are profound as far as the story goes but not mechanically.
Insofar as the system mechanics are supposed to support the story more than the crunch, there should be some difference. We do want mechanics, but we should try to align them with the potential story impact. Ultimately, these things are limited by our imagination, so it comes back down to three questions:
1) What do we get? Powers, skills, ally, etc.
2) How much do we pay? Shifts, stress.
3) How likely will this cause plot complications? Things like the Defects, Demonic Agendas, and other sources of drama.
Spending 23 shifts on a Construct is a different story than spending the same on a Demon or a Troll. They could all look the same on paper, with similar powers, but their Aspects and the GM's take on each one's agenda and attitude will differ widely.
If it makes sense that any Conjured or Summoned option is roughly balanced between "What do we get?" and "How likely will this cause plot complications?" then I would be happy to make everything cost the same, get back to the story, and trust the GM and players to work out the drama between themselves. I feel like I'm spinning my wheels, and I'd be happy to get back on firm land with this so we can get a nice system to use. I appreciate all of your help!
-
Spending 23 shifts on a Construct is a different story than spending the same on a Demon or a Troll.
Yes, there are profound differences in the resulting story. However I'm not convinced the mechanics need to differ. Compare a Clockwork Mage to a Demon Binder as each sets about putting together or acquiring a new servant...
Our Clockwork Mage is going to spend time inscribing Symbols of Animation on the Individually Crafted Brass Gears he had special ordered. He's going to build his Molten Brass Circle and surround it with Symbols of Unity and Coal Gathered from a Foundry. He'll hire some thieves to steal some Wire from a Robot Factory. Then he gathers all his ingredients in the circle and takes the time to Place Each Gear Perfectly.
Meanwhile, the Demon Binder is building a Circle of Blood and gathering Candles Discarded by a Church upon which he scribes Runes of Binding and Obedience. He'll steal a Corrupted Symbol of Life from a doctor working for the mob and research the Demon's Name. Finally he'll place a Token of Pain in the circle as an offering and take care to Pronounce the Name Exactly.
The difference in stories is profound. Yet mechanically, both have simply maneuvered to set up seven aspects for their given rituals. That's where the story is!
-
Wow, those are nice aspect ideas.
Anyway, I don't see any reason to use different rules for constructs and summons. I'm not opposed to the idea, I just don't see the point.
I wasn't suggesting getting rid of the defect system. I still like that. But defects don't model some things very well. Things like positive initiative and easy control would be included in the Behaviour factor, as would rules for simply summoning something and setting it free.
I think that Behaviour might be better modeled as a complexity multiplier than as an adder, just like quantity.
-
Alright, so we go for Multipliers - how is this:
Behavior Index:
Robot (x1.25 cost) - obeys commands, no free will or initiative, but no surprises either.
Thug (x1.5 cost) - can be directed, some free will, but requires attention to keep in line.
Animal (x1 cost) - can be directed, but unsuited for certain tasks; untrained and instinctual.
Specialist/Lieutenant (x1.75 or x2 cost) - free willed, relatively independent; can be given complex tasks or command others.
How's this for a start?
-
Robot seems like a x1 modifier to me. I would feel a bit bad charging extra for mindless obedience.
The others look good.
Behaviour Index (Part 2):
Uncontrolled (x0.5 cost) - does what it pleases, which probably isn't what you want it to do.
Disloyal (x0.75 cost) - can be directed, but won't obey properly. Either looks for loopholes or simply lacks any intelligence at all. Requires micromanaging.
Super Robot (x2 cost) - obeys instinctively, can be commanded like a second player character.
How's that? Is there anything I missed?
-
Robot is supposed to imply no complications. Simple and reliable. Zombies would be a good example. Reliability should be a bonus.
So would only one of these modifiers count? Or do you envision combining any? How much math are we making folks do? :)
-
I don't think that any of the modifiers can be combined.
I suppose that charging a little extra for reliability isn't so terrible. Anyway, I've got two more behaviour levels to add and then I think we'll be set.
Behaviour Index (Part 3):
Single Function Robot (x1 cost) - does one thing only, without free will, initiative, or surprises.
Battle Butler (x3 cost) - perfect obedience, absolute loyalty, entirely independent, will act to help the summoner on its own initiative.
-
I think demon summoning treated the same as constructs is a bad idea. (If I missed something, my apologies, but that seems to be part of what is going on in the discussion).
All demons have an agenda. They vary in intelligence and strength, but you aren't going to get a perfect demon puppet. At best you MIGHT be able to cow it if you are far more powerful than it (but it still might kill you if it gets independent control and gets a chance). There shouldn't be any certainties when dealing with demons. I'd have some lore related role in determining the power of the demon you summon (or rather, how ACCURATE you are at determining the power, a failed role might mean it is far more powerful than you expected and could break lose). Demon summoning should generally be very dangerous unless you are very careful about it and even then you shouldn't be able to have much certainty about what you get. Harry got a pretty rude awakening about it (as did the Shadowman for that matter). Control should be done via discipline checks of some sort, I think, perhaps with the ability for a foci to add your check. Controlling multiple demons would require an "attack" on multiple targets. Knowing their name would be pretty much a requirement, I'd think.
Constructs are a bit trickier. I'd lean towards having them cost item slots, with the ability to reduce that cost if they are bound within a particular threshold (potentially being free, though perhaps the strength of the threshold or something like that determines how many it can support). Still, free roaming constructs would be very tricky to balance, I think. Same perhaps with demons. Very tricky as far as players using them.
-
I suppose that charging a little extra for reliability isn't so terrible. Anyway, I've got two more behaviour levels to add and then I think we'll be set.
Does this still meet your initial expectations? It seems to be getting close to the same cost (or more in your 'Battle Butler' case) as the system Fred suggested while being more complex.
Resetting a bit, how does this look:- + max shifts to take out entity
- + one shift per power / stunt point
- + shifts equal to entity's skill cap
- + shifts for duration
- +/- three shifts per quality or defect (one free tag)
- +/- nine shifts per sticky quality or defect (always in effect)
Some things, such as demons, should probably automatically get a Dark Powers are Always Willing to 'Help'...for a Price or an Interprets Everything to fit it's Own Agenda sticky defect...or even both.
That keeps it simple and allows for cheap summoning - at a price.
-
Well, UmbraLux, I have to admit that you have a point. But I can't get behind a system where skill points are free, or one where complexity starts at 23. The system I suggest is indeed more complex, but that isn't necessarily a problem. The complexity is simply a result of taking more into account, and I for one don't mind it.
Then again, these rules are intended primarily as guidelines to help GMs ajudicate summoning. So as long as the two methods return similar results it isn't all that big a deal. So I guess I'll just make a list of summonable/constructable creatures with associated complexities (from both methods) so that we can compare.
PS: I think that qualities and defects should be worth two complexity instead of three. After all, a fate point gives two complexity.
-
Well, UmbraLux, I have to admit that you have a point. But I can't get behind a system where skill points are free, or one where complexity starts at 23.
Regarding skills, I agree to a point. That's why I added the skill cap cost. Regarding complexity / number of shifts, I don't see much difference between starting low and adding multipliers or starting high and reducing cost - either way we appear to be ending up with similar numbers of shifts for similar entities.
The system I suggest is indeed more complex, but that isn't necessarily a problem. The complexity is simply a result of taking more into account, and I for one don't mind it.
I prefer keeping things simple but, you're correct, not everyone will.
Then again, these rules are intended primarily as guidelines to help GMs ajudicate summoning. So as long as the two methods return similar results it isn't all that big a deal. So I guess I'll just make a list of summonable/constructable creatures with associated complexities (from both methods) so that we can compare.
Sounds cool.
PS: I think that qualities and defects should be worth two complexity instead of three. After all, a fate point gives two complexity.
I went with paying three shifts per aspect because that appears to be the base cost of creating a maneuver aspect via spell. (It is for evocation at least - YS:252. Thaumaturgy isn't as clear - it sends you on a page turning chase through simple actions to setting difficulty levels.) Also, I don't necessarily think you should get the same amount out of the spell as you put in. Entropy affects spells as well as thermodynamics. :)
-
Complexities for various summons and constructs, before counting duration, qualities, and behaviour. Complexity with my method is first, complexity with UmbraLux's is second.
Angel: 41/50
Void Revenant: 56/69+ (model does not cover shapeshifters)
Zombie: 16 (assuming a functional skill pyramid)/37
Uberzombie: 26/48
Zombie Triceratops: 34/55
Poisonous Demon: 14/33
Imp: 9/32
Demon Lord: 88/78+ (model does not cover shapshifters)
Demonic Collossus: 51/68
Thug Demon: 24/43
Guardian Statue: 22/46
Zombie Chimera #3: 38/49
Will O' The Wisp: 18/35
Note: all complexities calculated using physical stress track, including armour and extra physical consequences.
-
Here's my comparison:
The second method returns much higher complexities, especially in the following cases:
-Physically tough creatures
-Very small creatures
In order to solve this, I suggest that the mental stress track be used instead of the physical one. Also, the level of consequence that the summon will take should be limited based on their expected significance. So a random Imp would only take a minor consequence, while a Demon Lord would take severe or even extreme consequences. This method makes it possible to calculate the complexity to summon/create shapeshifters, since True Shapeshifting and Modular Abilities can't increase the mental stress track.
-
I feel shapeshifters don't need a discount. I'm not so sure I want to assume the shapeshifter needs to be on it's toughest build to be summoned, but they have immense utility. So we don't need to assume one is at it's highest level of toughness.
I believe that the stress track used should be the highest one on the creature, coming from the assumption that the creature is generally needed for whatever it's highest stress track is.
I do like using the creature type to indicate how many consequences it will take. That's pretty cool, and will definitely bring down costs for the simpler low-commitment creatures.
-
The mental stress track part is mainly intended to remove the doubled cost of toughness and size powers, but it also has the positive effect of making Conviction important.
I wasn't suggesting that shapeshifters get a discount, but I don't think that shapeshifting powers should cost extra when no other type of power does.
I still prefer my method, but these changes ought to make the other one more reasonable.
-
I think I can get behind not charging double for toughness powers then - excellent point.
I mostly worry that choosing Conviction will encourage a Summoner to minmax and pick high-strength, low-Conviction thug types, but low-Conviction creatures are more vulnerable to mental manipulation so they can be their own balancing factor there, perhaps?
Definitely getting close!
-
Complexities for various summons and constructs, before counting duration, qualities, and behaviour. Complexity with my method is first, complexity with UmbraLux's is second.
It looks like you didn't discount any with defects, that correct? Some probably should...zombies might be Slow, Follows Orders Literally and Requires Constant Drumbeat to reduce cost by 9 to 27. Demons would have Dark Powers are Always Willing to Help...for a Price, Interprets Orders to Suit Own Agenda and possibly more (imps may be Stupid or Cruelly Mischievous while Demon Lords might be Difficult to Control).
Regarding shapeshifters, why do you feel they're not covered? Isn't it just a matter of paying for the powers? Same with small creatures - that's just the Diminutive Size power. Regarding tough creatures, I agree with devonapple - they should cost more than something less durable and less useful.
---
Here's an alternative to copying entities from the book - how would you summon or create these?
Illusory Messenger Powers: Diminutive Size, Wings. Stunts: Urban Tracker. Skills: Survival +3, (plus others to have pyramid). Cannot Affect the Material World (sticky) and Follows Orders Robotically (sticky).
- Cost: 11 (23+2+1+3-18)
Clockwork Hound Powers: Claws, Inhuman Strength. Stunts: Footwork. Skills: Fists +3, (plus others...).
Follows Orders Robotically (sticky).
- Cost: 21 (23+3+1+3-9)
Agroklargah the Demon Powers: Claws, Inhuman Strength, Speed, and Toughness* (catch is +1 holy items & faith). Stunts: Caveat Emptor and Terrifying Demon. Skills: Deceit +5 (plus others...).
The Dark Powers are Always Willing to Help...for a Price (sticky), Interprets Orders to Suit a Hellish Agenda (sticky), and Hates Being Bound (not sticky - but the summoner may be in trouble if the demon gets enough fate points).
- Cost: 15 (23+6+2+5-21)
*Didn't charge for the added consequence as you suggested. If you do charge for it, add 2 to the cost.
-
@UmbraLux: Shapeshifters are not covered because the traits that determine cost are subject to change. I ignored defects because they aren't relevant to the current question of "what stats can you get for X complexity?" Discounts can be worked out later.
@devonapple: Yeah, the ease of minmaxing is a major reason for my dislike of this system. I guess that using the best stress track (ignoring powers) would help with that.
Or we could ditch this whole "taking out" thing and use a static value, making the cost of summoning
static value + refresh cost + consequences
which would be even easier.
PS: Zombies aren't slow.
-
@UmbraLux: Shapeshifters are not covered because the traits that determine cost are subject to change.
Aren't they simply paying for the number of points spent on powers? Doesn't matter if the given power changes. (Exception being if you're paying twice for power granted consequences.)
I ignored defects because they aren't relevant to the current question of "what stats can you get for X complexity?" Discounts can be worked out later.
Hmm, I see the discounts as integral to the system. Just as the multipliers are in the system you proposed.
Or we could ditch this whole "taking out" thing and use a static value, making the cost of summoning
static value + refresh cost + consequences
which would be even easier.
Interestingly, this is essentially what I did in the above examples. Started everything out at 23.
PS: Zombies aren't slow.
Depends on the zombies! I always like the Romero version - mindless, shambling, and hungry. ;D
-
Shapeshifting can increase Endurance, which increases the complexity of the ritual by your system.
The discounts shouldn't be taken as integral because they are modifiers. The behaviour multipliers are also being ignored right now. We're just looking at stats, and thinking about what you should get for a given cost.
PS: I think it should be possible to summon things without taking defects.
-
PS: I think it should be possible to summon things without taking defects.
I agree. That said, I don't see 30 shifts as all that difficult. The seven aspects I threw out in an earlier post are +14 and it wouldn't be difficult to come up with more. Particularly if it's a group effort. Add that to the four or so you have from Lore, the potential of accepting or inflicting up to 20 or so consequences (potentially a lot more for NPCs willing to kill), and one per scene skipped for PCs. Thaumaturgy is powerful! No reason to make it more so.
On a side note, I've been going through the Thaumaturgy rules to make a cheat sheet...and noticed something I hadn't paid much attention to in the past. One of the sidebars on YS:273 alludes to summoning corporeal entities. I'd definitely require that to 'take out' the summonee - and without defects. I'm somewhat curious also, could you summon a human without breaking the fourth law?
-
30 shifts is a whole lot. Those seven aspects represented a pretty impressive bit of ritual preparation to me, and making all seven Declaration rolls wouldn't be easy in one of my games. Look at the entropy curse in the spellcasting examples section of YS. It's presented as a very powerful spell and its complexity is 26 (if I recall correctly).
I think that summoning corporeal entities is totally different from summoning incorporeal ones. I'd actually treat it as a form of forcible teleportation, and we all know how hard teleporting is in this game.
-
30 shifts is a whole lot. Those seven aspects represented a pretty impressive bit of ritual preparation to me, and making all seven Declaration rolls wouldn't be easy in one of my games. Look at the entropy curse in the spellcasting examples section of YS. It's presented as a very powerful spell and its complexity is 26 (if I recall correctly).
I think that summoning corporeal entities is totally different from summoning incorporeal ones. I'd actually treat it as a form of forcible teleportation, and we all know how hard teleporting is in this game.
The death curse is rated at 36 for its target, but could be in the mid-20s for average targets. The minimum for taking out anything deathwise is 23:
20 for the whole Consequence track
3 for the shortest possible Stress track (should really target 5 or more)
0 to overcome a Mediocre Endurance check that rolled a 0 or worse (should really target 6 or more)
But this is just review. This could easily fail, even against a scrub. Although most nameless NPCs will only go to a moderate consequence (per the rules) I think death is a different matter. Then again, "nameless NPCs" don't usually become the target of death curses, do they? ;) So, low 30s is a decent target for killing an average mortal being.
As far as summoning mortals... forced teleportation would make sense, but I think the easiest way to model it in this system is to "take out" the mortal like with a Transformation effect (or a death curse). Teleportation is just too hard in the system, and I'm not convinced that's how they would do it. The "taken out" mechanic is usually a good "all or nothing" guideline for how powerful a spell is. I think it is appropriately harder than Summoning a Nevernever creature (which only require you to overcome the creature's Conviction, as well as Contain and Bind it). I think the Summoning would be the hardest part of that, but the BInding and Containing would be about the same as with a Nevernever critter.
Re: Fourth Law - Containing, Summoning, and Binding are the three aspects of this discipline. Binding a mortal would be a Fourth Law violation. Containing would not be.
You can leave out the Binding and just bargain with the mortal, avoiding the Fourth Law violation.
You could leave out Containing and just trust that you can avoid a summoned mortal's wrath, but it wasn't really a violation of a Magical Law.
The Summoning itself might constitute a Second Law violation, but little else.
Behavior Index:
- Uncontrolled (x0.5 cost) - does what it pleases, which probably isn't what you want it to do.
- Disloyal (x0.75 cost) - can be directed, but won't obey properly. Either looks for loopholes or simply lacks any intelligence at all. Requires micromanaging.
- Animal (x1 cost) - can be directed, but unsuited for certain tasks; untrained and instinctual.
- Single Function Robot (x1 cost) - does one thing only, without free will, initiative, or surprises.
- Robot (x1.25 cost) - obeys commands, no free will or initiative, but no surprises either.
- Thug (x1.5 cost) - can be directed, some free will, but requires attention to keep in line.
- Specialist/Lieutenant (x1.75 cost) - free willed, relatively independent; can be given complex tasks or command others.
- Super Robot (x2 cost) - obeys instinctively, can be commanded like a second player character.
- Battle Butler (x3 cost) - perfect obedience, absolute loyalty, entirely independent, will act to help the summoner on its own initiative.
But getting back to Summoning: the book already has rules for Summoning - what we have been statting out, I had intended more for making Constructs.
As it is, Summoning and Binding works as follows:
1. Contain
2. Summon
3. Bind
Containing
* Create a Ward (attune Strength & Duration to your purposes)
* Usually need entity’s True Name as a Lore Declaration
Summoning
* Conviction contest with target entity (aim for Conviction +5 to +10)
* Resisting entities attack through block (usually mental conflict using Conviction)
* Bargain or Bully with an interpersonal skill, or Bind using magic (see below)
Binding
Option 1. Use enough shifts to “take out” entity - this completely binds it.
Option 2. Assault being with its True Name in a multiple-exchange Mental Conflict:
* Mental conflict: Your Discipline vs. entity’s Conviction
* Assault directly with spirit evocations
* Entity will likely try to break or pervert the Binding when it recovers its Consequences
So, are we creating these Summoning rules to roll up the Binding and the Summoning together?
-
Yes, this was intended to include summoning and binding. But if you only want to use it for construction, that's fine.
I'm not really a fan of that summoning system, honestly.
Behaviour chart looks good.
-
I am now realizing *my* error for having inadvertently lumped Summoning in with Conjuring.
Let's finalize the discussed method of Conjuring, and mention early on that folks who are not satisfied with the Summoning rules (or find them to be too expensive) can substitute this system, and specify which elements we want to to replace (Containing, Summoning and/or Binding).
Option 1)
This was the initial Sanctaphrax version, which I reworded:
- Skills cost 2 complexity per 5 points.
- Skill cap costs complexity equal to [highest skill rank added to each lower rank] divided by 2 (round up).
Example: Highest rank skill is level 3, therefore (3+2+1)/2 = 3] - Stunts cost 1 complexity apiece
for the first 3, 1/2 apiece after that. - Powers cost 1 complexity per refresh point.
- Choose a Behavioral Modifier (listed above)
Add the total Complexity of Skills, Skill Cap, Stunts and Powers
Multiply that Complexity by the Behavioral Modifier to get the creature's basic Complexity, before applying Duration - Duration costs start at a day and go up or down from there.
Bear in mind that some creations might be effectively permanent, with duration representing lifespan.
Option 2)
Umbralux offered this option, which I have edited:
- max shifts to take out entity (minor entities only need a Minor or Moderate Consequence)
- + one shift per power / stunt point
- + shifts equal to entity's skill cap
- +/- 2 shifts per Quality or Defect (one free tag)
Qualities = generally useful traits; Defects = unknown flaws (potentially problematic traits, incompetencies or hidden agendas - +/- 9 shifts per sticky Quality or Defect (always in effect)
- Some things, such as demons, should probably automatically get a Dark Powers are Always Willing to 'Help'...for a Price or an Interprets Everything to fit it's Own Agenda sticky defect...or even both.
- + shifts for duration - starts at a day and goes up or down from there.
I originally chose a Scene for the basic duration, but we'll use a Day (the GM may determine whether it is that or something longer, depending on circumstances).
Was my rewording accurate?
-
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.
-
Just went back through the thread and found a suggestion for rules for summoning groups. Here it is:
Second: add 1/2 the Base Complexity or +2, whichever is higher (round up)
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.
The third category looks a bit sketchy to me, but the first two are fine. But there's really no chance of a creature having 4 complexity or less to create, so we might as well get rid of the "or +X, whichever is higher" bits.
-
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 (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23613.0.html)) 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)
-
-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.?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
Yes, that sounds exactly right to me.
-
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.
-
*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.