I think we can probably model everything that we need to model with five powers/stunt trees.
-A Survival stunt tree that gives you pets. The base stunt could give you a small dog or a bird. Upgrades could go all the way up to a pack of wolves or a lesser dragon. Or a team of Pokemon.
-A Presence/Contacts/Resources stunt tree that gives you minions. The base stunt could give you a secretary. Upgrades could go all the way to a private army or Kincaid.
-A Lore stunt tree that gives you bound spirits and other magical creatures. The base stunt could give you Toot-Toot. Upgrades could go all the way to a genie in a lamp or The Za-Lord's Guard.
-A shapeshifting power that lets you transform into multiple bodies. Depending on the variant, this could either let you clone yourself (like Naruto), let you split yourself (like Twinrova), or let you create an army of minions (like the Sliver Queen).
-A power that represents having multiple bodies normally. Could be used for a hive mind or just for two characters played by one player. The bodies may or may not be identical to one another.
Have I missed anything?
If not, there's one thing that we need to work out immediately. Should the abilities of a minion depend upon the abilities of the original character or upon the amount of refresh invested or upon both?
@ways and means: Any particular reason for your opinion? I'm keen to avoid having companions be godly for weak characters and useless for powerful ones.
@UmbraLux: But...items of power are nothing like allies.From my PoV, there's no functional difference between a magic broom with the Wings power and a flying horse. Both grant the character flight in forms which may be temporarily taken away or lost.
Having a wizard working for you is not at all like having Evocation, Thaumaturgy, and The Sight.Perhaps not...but it's not all that different from having a magic eight ball called Bob which sees the supernatural and casts spells for you...when it's willing to do so. ;)
Has anyone looked at Bulldogs! (http://galileogames.com/bulldogs-fate/)?Personally I quite like the companion gift (read stunt) from Kerberos Club url=arcdream.com/home/?p=897/]Here[/url], it allows a pretty decent level of customisation for the companion, though as it is set up for the 'Strange Fate' system used in that game it might take some customisation for use in DFRPG.
Companion:
The character has a “helper” character.
The Companion defaults to Average (+1) quality, with one Average (+1) skill, 2 stress boxes in each stress track, and one Trifling consequence. A Companion requires the expenditure
of a Fate Point to act alone. Otherwise, he or she attaches to the character as a Minion would, and provides the character with a +1 bonus to any skill the two share in common.
In addition, each Companion automatically comes with three improvements, chosen from the list below. Unless otherwise indicated, an improvement can be taken more than once for the same Companion. Every time this Stunt is taken, it can be used to either create a new Companion or provide another three improvements to an existing Companion.
Improvements:
- Aspect: The Companion gains an aspect (but no Fate Points).
- Quality: Increase the Companion’s quality by +1, to a maximum of Good (+3).
A Fair (+2) Companion has one Average (+1) skill,
one Fair (+2) skill, 3 boxes in one stress track and 2
boxes in the other two.
A Good (+3) Companion has one Average (+1) skill,
one Fair (+2) skill, one Good (+3) skill, and 3 boxes
in each stress track.
- Communication: The character and the Companion have a special mode of communication in keeping with their capabilities. This could be a mental link, a high-tech satellite communications system or whatever else is thematically relevant. Attempts to break this communication link between the two are made against a difficulty of 2 + the Companion’s
quality.
- Independent: The Companion can act on their own without needing to spend a Fate Point, unless the Companion’s sent off on a mission of significant story importance (comparable with something a PC might do, for example). While the Companion is so separated, they have access to the main character’s Fate Points and two of their aspects relevant to their bond.
- Keeping up: If the main character has some unusual form of locomotion, the Companion can somehow follow along without getting left behind.
- Skilled: The Companion gains 3 skill points. None of a Companion’s skill ratings can exceed his or her quality.
- Gifted: The Companion gains one of the following [Stunts]: Equipment, Impact, or Theme. This improvement can’t be taken more than twice per Companion.
Impact: is attached to a specific skill (ie. Impact [Fists] and when used allows the
delaration of a fragile aspect on either yourself, your opponent or the scene (as
appropriate) as a free action.
Theme: gives acts pretty much like the standard DFRPG stunt for a specific grouping
of three thematically linked skills i.e:
- +1 to a narrow circumstance (eg. +1 to Fists when outnumbered, +1 to athletics
when evading capture).
- +2 bonus when the skill is used to manouver or block
- use the skill in place of another skill under specific circumstances
- Empowered: Upgrade the Power Tier of one of the Companion’s skills.
The Companion receives Tier Benefits from this skill the same way characters do. Empowered costs two improvement slots.
"Power Tiers" are a strange fate specific rule designed to allow superhumans of various "power levels" to compete and still allow a possibility that the less powerful combatant could bring down the greater (i.e. a Captain America vs Hulk type scenario). From a mechanical standpoint it involves the more powerful character replacing a DF with a D6 for each tier of difference between the two skills being used.
- Numerous: Each time this improvement is taken, the main character gains
one additional Companion. (This does not grant additional improvement slots).
- Summonable: The Companion can show up at the main character’s beck and call without needing to resort to conventional means. This takes One Minute by default; for a Fate Point, the Companion arrives instantly. The Companion automatically vanishes at the end of the scene.
@degree of control over minions. Fair enough. I can understand the concern about game balance and action economy, and it's legitimate. Personally in my games we would houserule it so that the player controls his minions in order to ease the burden on the GM, but I get that in general it would be a concern. Now we just need a good wording for how much control the player has over their companions.
I like the idea of scaling the minion based on the skill which the stunt applies to. My only concern is that multiple skills seem to apply to different types of companion, for example lore to familiars or resources for professional hirelings. We could allow the player to choose which skill applies to a companion, subject to them convincing the GM that it's appropriate, of course.
So I think what we have agreed on so far is that stunts will govern minions and allies, while we will come up with a power or family of powers that deals with multiple bodies and its various permutations.
Minions:
A skill with this trapping can be used to call forth allies
of some kind—functionaries, bodyguards, supernatural
entities, or whatever else is appropriate to the skill’s theme.
By default, these allies must contacted by ordinary means,
such as a messenger or a telegram, and arrive under their
own power by conventional means. In some cases, this may
preclude their arrival altogether, such as if you’re trapped
in a prison with no way to contact the outside world. To
alter any of these parameters, take the Unusual Extra, once
for each alteration.
With a Fate Point and proper justification, the Minions can
arrive more quickly than would otherwise be considered
reasonable. Perhaps your operatives were already on the
scene, blending with the crowd until needed, or maybe that
crate over there just happens to contain a half-dozen of your
Robotic Soldiers, waiting to be shipped out.
Regardless, Minions cannot be called more than once per
scene, and the allies generated by it disperse or disappear,
as appropriate, once the scene is through.
Roll the skill against a difficulty of Mediocre (+0), and
spend the shifts obtained to produce your Minions. An
Average-quality Minion costs 1 shift, a Fair-quality
Minion costs 3 shifts, and a Good-quality Minion costs
5 shifts. All Minions must be of the same quality.
For 2 skill points, you get Simple Minions. Instead of
giving them skills, simply assign scopes, Physical, Mental,
or Social, according to their intended purpose within the
scene. A scope is a broad skill that covers a variety
of mundane functions. An Average Minion has one scope
at +1, a Fair Minion has one scope at +2 and one scope at
+1, and a Good Minion has one scope at +3, one at +2, and
one at +1.
For twice the cost, 4 skill points, the character can call
on Advanced Minions. These Minions can have full skill
pyramids of one, three, or six skills: one Average (+1) skill
for Average-quality Minions, two Average (+1) skills and one
Fair (+2) skill for Fair-quality Minions, and so on, using skills
instead of scopes. Advanced Minions are more customizable,
but also require more attention from the player to implement.
Each minion has a stress track equal to its quality. An
Average-quality Minion can take 1 stress, a Fair-quality
Minion can take 2, and a Good-quality Minion can take 3.
Minions cannot take consequences—once their stress
track is exceeded, they’re Taken Out. To obtain a
specific ally, such as an assistant or valet,
use the Companion Gift.
During a conflict Minions summoned by a power are
considered to be a single entity, receiving a +1 bonus to
skill rolls for each Minion in a group beyond the first.
Additionally when stress is dealt to a group of Minions it
is dealt to the group as a whole, divide the stress by the
stress track threshold of the minions and drop any
remainder, that is the number of minions Taken Out.
A specialized form of the Minions trapping, Duplicates, can be
used to create clones or identical copies of oneself. See the
sidebar for details. (Details below)
Tier Bonuses:
Superhuman Tier: By rolling the skill against a Superhuman difficulty
of Mediocre (+0), one of the Minions’ scopes or
skills can be upgraded to the Extraordinary Tier.
Ascendant Tier: As Superhuman Tier, but roll against
an Ascendant difficulty of Mediocre (+0) to upgrade one of the
Minions’ scopes or skills to the Superhuman Tier, or two
scopes or skills to the Extraordinary Tier.
Godlike Tier: As Superhuman Tier, but roll against
a Godlike difficulty of Mediocre (+0) to upgrade one of the
Minions’ scopes or skills to the Ascendant Tier, one
scope or skill to the Superhuman Tier and one other to
the Extraordinary Tier, or three scopes or skills to the
Extraordinary Tier.
Duplicates:
This is a specialized form of the Minions trapping,
one that can only be used to create copies of the
character. The duplicates arrive instantly, however
they’re created; for “slower” duplicates, take a Flaw
to that effect. Roll the skill against a difficulty of
Mediocre (+0), and spend shifts obtained to create
duplicates. An Average-quality duplicate costs 1
shift, a Fair-quality duplicate costs 3 shifts, and a
Good-quality duplicate costs 5 shifts. All duplicates
must be of the same quality. The duplicates
have one skill per rating available, as per their
quality (for example, a Fair duplicate has one +2
skill and one +1 skill). Only Strange skills can have
this trapping, and no duplicate can have a skill with
the Duplicates trapping.
A duplicate’s skills are limited to those belonging
to the character, and no duplicate can have a skill
rated higher than the character’s equivalent skill.
For duplicates that are radically different from the
character, such as past and future versions of the
same person, or duplicates called forth from alternate
dimensions, use the Minions trapping instead.
I agree that we should use stunts for pets and allies. Having a magic thing working for you does not require you to be magical. We can use Powers for the multiple bodies thing.
As far as all NPCs having refresh, in this case it's a balance concern, not a system homogeneity thing. I'm trying to wrap my head around whether a base stunt deserves refresh or not. If it does, then I suppose it could be left unspent, granting the ally some fate points. I'm doubtful. But if a one stunt ally really would be overpowered if you let it spend refresh, then it follows that the same ally would be overpowered once you gave it fate points available to spend. So we run into the same problem.Yep, this is one of the reasons I recommended re-flavoring the IoP rules. Shrug, that's history.
Tedronai raises an interesting point. Do allies get their own Fate Point pools? Can they get compelled?I'd ask players for an aspect associated with any pets/minions/companions. That's what I'd compel.
I'd probably say no and no, a compel to the ally is actually a compel to the player. Interested in hearing other viewpoints.
Reconnaissance was too grand a word in retrospect. I was just thinking that a sparrow could fly ahead and make some noise if it saw something.We're talking about a game based on the supernatural - I wouldn't have anything against a Supernatural Sense type stunt which allows seeing through an animal's eyes. A druidic type might even be capable of talking with animals.
Flying is a pretty important part of the narrative role of a bird. That's why a bird needs Wings.It's important to the bird, I agree. Is it important to the narrative? Unless the narrative uses the bird as a central character, I don't think it is important. As long as the PCs remain the protagonists, things which affect their narrative are far more important than details of a pet's abilities...except where those details add something to the PC's abilities. Just my two cents.
There's no reason why refresh without an upgrade stunt couldn't be balanced. It might be tricky, but it should be doable.I suspect we differ significantly here. My answer is "as much as the player put into it". If a player has 6 refresh to spend and wants to dump all 6 on the pet, I'm ok with it as long as they have a reasonable justification. It would pretty much make the pet the PC in my opinion - but that could make an interesting story.
I'm thinking reducing pyramid height by 1 might be worth 2-3 refresh.
Anyway. Tedronai, you said that you thought that we could model minions as characters of a given refresh tier. What tier do you think would be appropriate for a minion granted by a single stunt? Does the associated skill matter?
Similar question for UmbraLux. How much power ought a minion to have at base?
I'd ask players for an aspect associated with any pets/minions/companions. That's what I'd compel.
We're talking about a game based on the supernatural - I wouldn't have anything against a Supernatural Sense type stunt which allows seeing through an animal's eyes. A druidic type might even be capable of talking with animals.
important to the bird, I agree. Is it important to the narrative? Unless the narrative uses the bird as a central character, I don't think it is important. As long as the PCs remain the protagonists, things which affect their narrative are far more important than details of a pet's abilities...except where those details add something to the PC's abilities. Just my two cents.
I suspect we differ significantly here. My answer is "as much as the player put into it". If a player has 6 refresh to spend and wants to dump all 6 on the pet, I'm ok with it as long as they have a reasonable justification. It would pretty much make the pet the PC in my opinion - but that could make an interesting story.
That would be possible, but it'd also be outside the limits of a stunt.Yep, are you avoiding giving powers to companions?
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I have read it thrice and I can't find an interpretation that makes sense to me. Could you explain a bit further?
So, what you're saying is that you wouldn't offer allies any refresh at all. You'd just give players the ability to spend their refresh on powers for the ally. Is that correct?Basically. And I treat skill points similarly to the list above. Does it grant something the character couldn't do otherwise? If so, it needs to be paid for...
If so, would you use the same approach for skill points?
(Also, Devonapple's examples are relevant - though I'd treat a second action in an exchange as a power/stunt which costs fate in and of itself.)
What is the refresh value of Wings on a (for the purpose of argument, intelligent and communicative) pet sparrow?
- Conclusion: The PCs should pay refresh for any new abilities they gain from having a pet/companion.
What is the refresh value of Wings on a (for the purpose of argument, intelligent and communicative) pet sparrow?Zero unless the pet can carry the PC. That's my point - you'd pay for what the wings + intelligence + communication on a bird gets the PC. The new things he can accomplish....recon, listening in on some conversations, possibly combat maneuvers, etc.
Because it certainly isn't the same as that on the PC spending that refresh.
Yep, are you avoiding giving powers to companions?
If that's not clear you'll need to let me know where I need to elucidate. (Also, Devonapple's examples are relevant - though I'd treat a second action in an exchange as a power/stunt which costs fate in and of itself.)
- The bird (or other pet) is not a protagonist.
- The PCs*, as protagonists, spend refresh on abilities (whether permanent or temporary) which allow them to affect the way the game resolves - the narrative.
- Conclusion: The PCs should pay refresh for any new abilities they gain from having a pet/companion.
- Corollary: Abilities which have little or no affect on the PCs' ability to modify the narrative are simply scenery - an aspect. (Don't need to be paid for.)
*Or players. Whether the character spends fate or the player does is something of a blurry area.
Basically. And I treat skill points similarly to the list above. Does it grant something the character couldn't do otherwise? If so, it needs to be paid for...
Anyway, we all seem to agree that players should be charged for the benefit they get from a companion's powers.
So upgrading your companion ought to be generally cheaper than upgrading yourself.I'd use the rebate model - it seems to fit and is already in use elsewhere. I'd try to base the rebate on how often they may lose access to the companion-linked powers.
But how much cheaper?
Is it possible to word a stunt in such a way to create an NPC with it's own motivations that has an aspect or two linking it to the PC with the stunt. Therefore the NPC could also have a trouble aspect that makes the player help it out on occasion. It can have it's own minor plots. Also if mistreated it can go rogue and hte refresh spent on it can be refunded?
A) Like an item of power, buying refresh for a companion character is like buying powers for yourself, but with limitations. With IoP the powers are unavailable if you don't have the item with you, and are subject to certain compels based on the nature of the item. With a companion, you don't have access to those powers if the companion is unwilling or unable to lend a hand in a given situation, and they will generally be less skillful at employing said powers than you would be. So buying refresh to be spent by a companion should have some built in refresh refund, just like IoP.It makes a difference whether the companion is useful in dramatic conflicts (and which kinds), or whether they're a "home base" resource. Perhaps a "resource" character gets you a rebate of +2 Refresh like an Item of Power, but they suffer a -2 on anything outside the role you bought them for - you might be able to spend FP to mitigate that, but it's expensive. If they're a fighter or a talker - ie, they can take part in a physical or social conflict, whether with you or for you - that's a 1 refresh enhancement, so the rebate drops to +1. And if they can do both, the rebate vanishes altogether. Not sure whether mental conflicts should figure in there too.
B) Companions break action economy, and that is quite powerful. A companion may also have an entirely different skill focus than you do, granting considerable breadth of capability unavailable to PCs without a companion. Therefore refresh spent by companions should be strictly limited, and the last thing you want to do is grant a refund like you get from IoP. A stunt granting 1 refresh is about what you'd have following this model. - benign
I think that charging a player refresh to allow his companion to spend an equal amount of refresh is the way to go, and that trying to determine what powers might be "useful" to the character and which are just window dressing is not.I agree.
Yeah, companion stunts should probably require linked aspects. - SanctaphraxAbsolutely. I also think the Aspect should be worded in such a way as to indicate whether loyalty is a question (sometimes it won't be; Batman doesn't need Alfred's loyalty to be anything less than absolute in order to lead a dangerous and exciting life).
Wording needs work, but I think I'm onto something here.It's probably too late. ;)
Which means that if I'm not, you should shoot me down before I get too enthusiastic.
Each stunt gives 1-4 refresh. 1 refresh if having a companion with the power is as good as or better than having it yourself. +1 if the power only helps you indirectly. +1 if the companion isn't all that obedient. +1 if the power is for some reason impractical.
So if I use companion to represent my faithful slave with Psychometry, I need to spend a whole stunt on that psychometry. But if I use companion to represent that my overprotective father is a massive dragon, I can get his Titanic Size (Hulking Size x2) for 1 stunt.
Question: Does an otherwise pure mortal character who has a Comppanion with powers stop being a pure mortal?
It's probably too late. ;)
Seriously though, this seems far too open to abuse as a refresh / power generator. Even the 'overprotective father with hulking size' is going to show up when things get hairy to pull said child's feet out of the fire.
@UmbraLux:There is no functional difference between a power character X has and the same power on character Y when both are at a given player's disposal. So no, I'm not entirely certain we agree on whether or not powers should cost lest for a companion.
It's not too late yet. But it'll take more than two sentences to convince me.
I think we agree that having a companion have a power is often less valuable than having that power yourself. Which means that buying a power for your companion should often cost less than buying it for yourself.
(Assuming that we are in agreement so far...)
The question is, how much less? It seems that you think I've gone too far with the discounts. Would be interested in hearing how and why.
With some powers there's a major difference. Inhuman Strength, for example.
If I have Inhuman Strength, then my attacks do 2 extra stress.
If my companion has Inhuman Strength, then my companion's attacks do 2 extra stress.
The former is better than the latter, because my attacks are almost certainly stronger, more frequent, and tactically more important than my companion's.
What you say is true for some powers, though.
With some powers there's a major difference.Sure, as I've stated previously, I think you pay for what a power gets you and not for every power a companion may have. Wings on a sparrow, for example - they don't really give much to the PC at all.
I don't like the idea of refunding companions for having narrow areas of competence. - SanctaphraxI didn't mention the breadth of their competence, but whether they can routinely take part specifically in conflicts. Ie, can it fight for you, or the social (and perhaps mental) equivalent thereof, or is it, or are its actions limited to those normally taking place outside of "action scenes." Taking Alfred as an example again, he is good at tons of stuff and absolutely loyal, but he's not someone Bruce Wayne can typically send into combat or to talk the authorities into following a partiuclar course of action (though an FP spend can let him sucker punch a League of Shadows mook). That's a different question, and one that I do think it worth considering in the price.
@UmbraLux: You were getting that "extra action" anyway and that "extra set of stress and consequences" anyway."I'm" not getting those...I'll be re-skinning IoP rules for companions in the game I play. ;) Interestingly, they cover much of what you've discussed - though certainly not all. Thing is, I still see the second action and extra consequences as problematic, do I don't mind doing without those.
The enhancement of an action or trait that you have partial control over, like the attacks of your allies, is worth less than the enhancement of your own actions or traits.Look at it from a big picture point of view. I have two choices: 1) spend refresh on increasing my attack; and 2) spend refresh to get a second action which may be an attack. The second action will almost always be more efficient & powerful.
At least, I think so. What I want to know is, why do you think otherwise?
But if I give Alfred no combat skills, he isn't going to fight anyway. So why should I get rewarded for making him unable to do what he didn't have the skills to do in the first place? - SanctaphraxOk, that makes sense.
I believe tedronai was just saying yes.
Idea for a quirk system:
A quirk is an aspect that reflects an agenda separate from the player's. Orders given to a companion will be obeyed only as long as they are in accordance with this aspect. Quirky companions get +X refresh, where X is the number of stunts invested in them.
Idea for a companion mob:
There is an upgrade stunt that copies a companion, giving you another one with the same stats. It must be applied before all other upgrades. But when you upgrade one, you can upgrade the others at half price.
Idea for limits on skill boosters:
You can only buy a skill pyramid booster after buying a refresh upgrade. You can only buy a second after taking a quirk and 4 refresh upgrades.
Okay, I just came up with those in 15 minutes. They're probably awful. Pull them apart.
Looking back over this I think that by the look of things we have 2 seperate tracks here:
One for a character with a (semi)permanent hireling/companion. The equivalent of the DnD ranger who is followed around by a wolf (or the monk with the Fu Dog mentioned in another thread), or the guy who has a golem or summoned demon serving his purpose.
The second being the guy who can call upon an army of nameless mooks, ninjas or summoned beings at a moments notice.
Not sure if it's worth pursuing both, or if the second could be folded into the first. The second is usually something that falls within the purview of an NPC villain anyway, but might still be worth statting out for the fringe cases where a PC wants it.
Orladdin, you mentioned that you had read Kerberos Club and SotC, what do you think of some adaptation of the Minion trapping from Kerberos, or the stunt from SotC? Perhaps a mixture of the two?
Using separate stunt systems for important companions and armies of lame ones is very sensible. I think we should do that.Something I considered doing for modeling squires and the like, to make them a just bit more powerful, is to allow them to buy the same powers as their "owner" at half price (with a couple exceptions). Since this doesn't give the "owner" access to new abilities, and the cohort performing them is strictly weaker than the owner performing them, it should work fine. I'll be trying it out in two weeks at my next game and seeing how it goes.
Hearing that Orladdin has found a system slightly weaker than my current idea to be (maybe) slightly too weak is quite encouraging.
I like that suggestion for minion mobs. I wouldn't worry about high-power games, since in my 18-Refresh game I've found that swarms of Zombies tend to get owned pretty easily. And zombies are tougher than anything a 6-cap character will get for a stunt.
How would you go about making minion mobs with Powers? It's a bit of an edge case, but it'd be nice if we could model a loyal flock of birds as well as a loyal team of soldiers.
The important thing with followers/cohorts/companions/etc is to make sure they A) don't overshadow any of the players and B) don't allow the "controlling" player to dominate the game (by being over-powered, unstoppable, what have you). Since these "break" the action economy, they have to have reduced odds of succeeding to put them in-line with other stunts/powers.
The way I'm handling it in my game is a two-tier option:
For one refresh they get a companion. This is an animal, spirit, or otherwise less-able companion than a human being. As such, it cannot use basic equipment such as armor or guns. This companion has a quality rating (QR) equal to 2-less than the main character's applicable skill (Rapport, Contacts, Presence, however they flavor that they "recruited" this helper). The companion has one skill at that quality rating, two at QR-1 and three at QR-2. The companion has 2 boxes on each stress track by default and can take no consequences. The player can allocate refresh to purchase stunts/powers for the companion from their main character's pool if they wish.
For an additional refresh the companion is humanoid (or otherwise capable of using basic equipment) and gets an extra skill at QR.
So far, it's working fine. It almost seems like it's not good enough, though, so I'm considering buffing it. Better to underguess and make it better than overguess and have to nerf someone, IMO.
[Edit:] Ah, I see it's very similar to what you were proposing, Sanc.
I like this:There is a fine line between bullshit and roleplay. A very, very fine line.
I just have some issue with quality rating. I'm assuming as long as the PC can bull$**! his way around it: any skill (within reason) can function as the QR?
I also agree with Sanctaphrax that "armies" of minions should be handled differently than an important NPC/ally/buddy/pet.I agree entirely.
I think the following should also be required. The PC must have an aspect tied to his NPC/army/ally/buddy/pet. "My BFF from the cheerteam - Name X!" or "Fanatics die for me like lemmings"Yeah, having a follower with an aspect related to who they follow makes perfect sense. I actually kind of assumed it went without saying. My bad.
I think the NPC/army/ally/buddy/pet needs to have an aspect (perhaps even the high concept to ensure loyalty) related to the person who bought them.
How do we feel about the NPC/buddy/ally/pet/army having any refresh at all?The entity should not have refresh that isn't provided by the player/primary character. Otherwise it becomes possible to create infinite loops or "free" refresh. Big no-no.
Can said entity aquire fate points? I am inclined to say no unless the entity has a major impact on the story OR is a part of a small game (player pool is 2 or less).
If refresh ratings are allowed, we have to assume the entity has a measure of free will.
If refresh ratings are allowed what should that cost?
What happens to refresh (spent by the player) when said entity is destroyed? I would hope it is refunded.
Who should have control over the entity's actions? PC or GM?The PC. The GM already has NPCs and enough other things going on. The PC also created the ally with his/her own refresh. It's essentially an extension of their main character. The ally can be compelled, though, using its aspects.
I'd suggest we codify which skills are applicable when we do a formal write-up.
The PC. The GM already has NPCs and enough other things going on. The PC also created the ally with his/her own refresh. It's essentially an extension of their main character. The ally can be compelled, though, using its aspects.
I mostly agree. Just two quibbles:Yeah, alright. Perhaps we just include the two examples I gave, then; providing the common suggestions for Presense or Lore and leaving the rest up to the players. No reason to box people in if we don't have to-- they can discourse with their table about what's a reasonable "leadership" skill to use.
I don't think we should. It'd be a pretty pointless set of extra rules.
From a balance point of view, there's no need to prevent people from getting minions with their Athletics skill. In fact, the game is probably better balanced if everyone at the same power level gets the same minion quality.
The only problem with Athletics minions is that they don't make much sense.
And rules writers shouldn't try to tell people what makes sense. Let the players work it out themselves.
I disagree with this, as I said earlier in the thread.Sound arguments, and I think I see it your way now. It does make the RP much easier. Interacting with yourself just feels weird sometimes.
See, I think that making companions into obedient NPCs makes the stunts much less abusable while making them more interesting to play.
If my faithful bodyguard gets separated from me he should not automatically know what I want him to do. If he's an NPC, you can get that without resorting to Compels. And without placing a burden on the player, who might have trouble not metagaming in such a situation. (I probably would.)
Plus, almost every nightmare situation I can think of with these powers becomes less nightmarish if the companions are not player-controlled.
And finally, it lets players interact with their companions without talking to themselves. This is probably the most important point.
Suppose my companion is my girlfriend. We're having relationship problems. That could be a good scene, but if I'm playing the companion then the scene is sabotaged by the fact that I'm the only one in it.
My character's companions should be controlled by my character through orders or requests, not by me through player power.
If it's a hassle for the GM, groups can give the player more direct control. But I'd rather not make that the default, and the GM should still have control over consequence-taking and other such things.
As for mobs with Refresh, I'm thinking that they should get Refresh at twice the cost that normal companions get it at. Maybe let people trade a minion for a set of Powers and Stunts that would cost the player 1 Refresh.Yeah, perhaps. They are at the severe disadvantage of having little-to-no skills relative to the PCs... but powers or stunts that don't directly require skills are still going to be too powerful. You'd need a "restricted powers" list for the accross-the-board discount to be viable.
Do we want groups of followers to share a set of stunts? Or do we want players to have to micromanage their mooks?
Lets say I want my primary character mechanic to be a leader of men. I take followers 6 times, and end up with some number of followers -- let's say 18 for the sake of discussion.
Can I drop 8 of them to grant all of my followers a shared-set of 8 stunts (which are based on skill ratings, and therefore are less useful to the followers than to a PC)? Or do I then get 8 stunts to divide between them (requiring micromanagement)?
What if you can give up individual followers to grant stunts to the rest of them, but to buy them powers, you must spend your own refresh directly.
This would help deal with the innate cost imbalance of stunts-to-powers, and would give a supernatural leader a reason to have normal mooks.
Now I could always build 1 set of minions as a crack team of Commando Solicitors, but tbh that doesn't make much sense...I'm imagining a bare-chested muscle-man with a necktie tied around his forehead to keep the sweat and hair out of his eyes, clenching a fountain pen in his teeth as he army-crawls up the aisle of a courtroom.
PS: Should being an animal count as a quirk? I'm starting to think it should, but I didn't make it so when I wrote the example stunt.
It is also possible to adjust the height of a companion's skill pyramid. Reducing the height of a companion's pyramid by one allows the free purchase of abilities that would normally cost the primary character 1 Refresh. Increasing the height of a companion's pyramid costs 1 Refresh for each point of height and is only possible if an amount of Refresh equal to the square of the desired number of pyramid height increases has already been invested in the companion's abilities.Quite like this, as it makes excessive skill pyramid boosting prohibitively expensive, one worry that it might cause some flim-flamming in order to justify using high tier skills rather than using a lower level more justify-able one ("of course the related skill for my Wizard's Mercenary Hireling is his Discipline, he managed to impress him with his stolid and iron willed nature....").
I'm anti multi refresh stunts. I think a "simple" rules set regarding how to make a minion/ally/pet better by investing individual refresh points for upgrades is a better route.
Pet And Ally Rules, version two or three or maybe fourI would seriously advise against this option.
...
It is also possible to adjust the height of a companion's skill pyramid... Increasing the height of a companion's pyramid costs 1 Refresh for each point of height and is only possible if an amount of Refresh equal to the square of the desired number of pyramid height increases has already been invested in the companion's abilities.
...
Aight, how does that look?
Suggest you clarify at first mention of Quirks either that negative consequences thereof are treated as Compels for the player owning the stunt, or that they're treated as Compels against Debt (in which case they could still be bought out of, but wouldn't actually return a FP if accepted)
...("of course the related skill for my Wizard's Mercenary Hireling is his Discipline, he managed to impress him with his stolid and iron willed nature....").
For the minions stunt, I'd suggest giving them a stress track of 2 each, that seems to be the standard from SotC and Kerberos, and although minions are meant to be squishy, I think that a stress track of 1 could make them too easy to take out. Additionally it might be worth allowing them a grouped 'Taken Out' consequence, but this would probably require some playtesting to ensure that it doesn't result in too much book-keeping.
Also on minions, are we allowing people to drop the number of minions they can have in order to give them stunts/powers...
Something quite problematic just occurred to me:
How does one perform the cliche strangle-wire stealthy take-down (ie. grapple inflicting stress) on a minion if they have even the least bit of endurance under these rules?
I'm anti multi refresh stunts. I think a "simple" rules set regarding how to make a minion/ally/pet better by investing individual refresh points for upgrades is a better route.
It occurs to me that a modified version of the IoP rules could work pretty well for this kind of thing. Just would have to determine how skills would be assigned and at what cost (if any.) Obviously some things would be out such as unbreakable and the player would not have quite as much control so a slightly higher rebate might be in order (+3 or +4 perhaps.) Skills could be bought at 10/15 points per -1 refresh.
So if you wanted a pet wolf:
[-1] Echoes of the Beast
[-1] Claws
[-2] Inhuman Speed
[-2] Inhuman Strength
[-2] 20 Skill Points <= Depending on how many skill points a refresh ends up being worth.
[+4] One time rebate, large and hard to conceal, limited control (animal), can be killed
Total cost [-4] refresh.
I don't have a problem with multi-refresh stunts, but I agree that this write-up is probably too complicated as-is. I think, for the most part, it just needs to be worded clearer.
I would seriously advise against this option.
I don't think a minion or companion's skill cap should ever equal or exceed that of the main PCs. Such a caveat prevents someone's pet from outshining another player. Keep in mind, this is a minion or cohort we're building here. If they were all that good or interesting they should be a player character.
If you want to allow them to reduce their companions' skill cap for some benefit that's fine, but they should have a hard upper-bound that doesn't risk outshining other players.
Some people might want to play a character who benefits from the assistance of a much more powerful character.
If that character concept can be enabled in a mechanically balanced and elegant way, it should be.
Sure, it's niche. Most people wouldn't want to play a character who's weaker than their assistant. But if someone does want that, they should be able to.
PS: I don't understand the comment about how really powerful and interesting characters should be player characters. The Senior Council is powerful and interesting, but they wouldn't make good PCs in most games.
I don't think a minion or companion's skill cap should ever equal or exceed that of the main PCs. Such a caveat prevents someone's pet from outshining another player. Keep in mind, this is a minion or cohort we're building here. If they were all that good or interesting they should be a player character.
If you want to allow them to reduce their companions' skill cap for some benefit that's fine, but they should have a hard upper-bound that doesn't risk outshining other players.
PS: I don't understand the comment about how really powerful and interesting characters should be player characters. The Senior Council is powerful and interesting, but they wouldn't make good PCs in most games.Yes, but the senior council is not around solving the party's problems for them (or, at least they shouldn't be.)
Some people might want to play a character who benefits from the assistance of a much more powerful character.Then they should give up their own skill rank maximums to boost that of their allies'. Someone should be less good at something.
If that character concept can be enabled in a mechanically balanced and elegant way, it should be.
Sure, it's niche. Most people wouldn't want to play a character who's weaker than their assistant. But if someone does want that, they should be able to.
Suggest you clarify at first mention of Quirks either that negative consequences thereof are treated as Compels for the player owning the stunt, or that they're treated as Compels against Debt (in which case they could still be bought out of, but wouldn't actually return a FP if accepted)Yeah, I agree. Allow a player to buy them off with their own FPs... and perhaps, allow the player to take them to gain FPs-- after all, they're complicating their life.
That's all I've got, for now. Maybe more later.
It'd be handy if the OP were updated to include links to the sub-posts with the rules which come as close to completed as you've gotten so far. I want to catch up, but sifting through 7 pages for the gems is a little tedious, and it's been a while since I originally read this thread.Sorry, I pulled that most annoying of forum magic tricks and disappeared. I'll update with what you suggest as soon as i finish reading the rest of the thread!
Sorry, I pulled that most annoying of forum magic tricks and disappeared. I'll update with what you suggest as soon as i finish reading the rest of the thread!Hey, thanks! I must be a better summoner than I thought! Welcome back.
Yes, but the senior council is not around solving the party's problems for them (or, at least they shouldn't be.)
Then they should give up their own skill rank maximums to boost that of their allies'. Someone should be less good at something.
To give you an idea, the phenomena I am trying to avoid is the event that finally demonstrated to me that D&D version 3.X was broken, about ~six years ago. The party had a fighter and a wizard/druid multiclass. Both had perfectly reasonable character backgrounds and concepts, but through his system mastery (using all stock, out-of-the-book feats and powers), the wizard/druid build a crocodile familiar that was simply better in every way than the fighter. It could hit harder, hit more often, grapple far better and had natural armor and weapons. It also had human intelligence. The wizard/druid took his perfectly reasonable concept for a character -- a hedge-wizard from the swamp with a crocodile familiar -- and entirely invalidated the party's main fighter-type. This was because the rules allowed it to happen.
[Edit:] I should also point out that the fighter was also created by someone who knew what they were doing. They made no mistakes (other than picking Fighter in 3.X) that could be blamed for the ridiculous disparity in power.
I'm suggesting we prevent this capability. Skill cap is the easiest and most guaranteeable way to do it, in my opinion.
Yeah, I agree. Allow a player to buy them off with their own FPs... and perhaps, allow the player to take them to gain FPs-- after all, they're complicating their life.
Sorry, I pulled that most annoying of forum magic tricks and disappeared. I'll update with what you suggest as soon as i finish reading the rest of the thread!
Wow. I was just treating my pet foo dog as an aspect. I had no idea we could give them aspects and abilities of their own.
I would have thought the most obviously broken companion would be worth 1 refresh have pretty cruddy skills and do nothing but maneuver to give a bonus to his PC.
That sort of nonsense is a big part of the reason I like treating companions as NPCs.
You can't tell your dog to place Aspects on you. You can tell it to help you attack or to distract your enemies, but the dog might not do that with maneuvers. It might use Blocks and stuff. Or maybe it just won't pass the tags to you.
I guess you could always just adjust the maneuver difficulty on the fly, but that's a bit of a kludge. I like the NPC solution better.
Why shouldn't your dog maneuver to place "Flanked" on your enemy? Isn't that what he's doing when he harries it from behind?
What I like is that it makes a "follower" more plausible. Sure, I have faithful friends, but if I need help hauling a truck-load of dirt around my yard, I still have to take time, check with their scheduals, provide them beer and, in the end, I probably owe them a favour in return. All this can be reflected using the summoning rules.
I think it also offers for a broad variety of players: the guy with one faithful helper would pump more shifts into that one follower. That's the point - you can customize as much as you want - but it takes time and energy.
I just think that you could make any of your examples (jeeves, tweety bird, super robot) using the summoning rules.
Maybe allow players to perform such a "ritual" uing Character Creation, so they can begin having their allies at hand?
I don't follow.
PS: This has been bugging me, so please forgive a bit of nitpickery. You can't do rituals with just Conviction and Discipline. Lore is necessary.
Also, what did I say to give you the impression I thought Discipline & Conviction were the only skills needed for rituals? Or was that aimed at someone else?
I meant, since the first session of a DFRPG game would be city and character creation, you could pull off such a "summoning ritual" during the first session in order to represent the companions you'll have with you with the game begins proper.
There's a couple of points that you've misunderstood, but I won't push the subject since it's not the kind of solution you're looking for.