Items of Power as Animals?

[Sanctaphrax]

If the pet is an Aspect/part of a Power, then it isn't in any zone and can't be attacked. I mean, narratively it's there and you can punch it. But mechanically it only sort of exists.

So it's not limited to being in the same zone as its owner and whether it's indestructible has no effect on whether enemies can attack it.

[Centarion]

So it's not limited to being in the same zone as its owner

I would not allow this to justify "ranged" (as in not in the same zone as the character) fist attacks without more powers/stunts though. Is that what you are implying?

Otherwise I agree, it is mechanically "not there," or at least only as present as an item (so it is possible the enemy could try to steal it, like they could disarm you but not attack it).

[UmbraLux]

If the pet is an Aspect/part of a Power, then it isn't in any zone and can't be attacked. I mean, narratively it's there and you can punch it. But mechanically it only sort of exists.

So it's not limited to being in the same zone as its owner and whether it's indestructible has no effect on whether enemies can attack it.

It sounds like you're approaching it from a 'simulation' point of view instead of FATE's narrative approach. 

From a narrative PoV you don't need separate stats.  When it's important you can take consequences related to the pet..."My familiar has a broken leg" perhaps.  No need to change anything but the trappings...unless you're going for simulation rather than story manipulation.  And FATE isn't the best system for the former.

[Sanctaphrax]

Ha ha ha ha.

Seriously, I'm laughing out loud over here. Apparently I've lost the ability to speak coherently online.

[Becq]

I've got this picture of a character charging into combat, mightily swinging his pet two-handed by the tail and leaving vicious bite and claw marks on his targets...

Of course, the downside to this weapon would be when your trying to sneak into the evil mastermind's lair, and the GM compels you because your IoP barked...

[Sanctaphrax]

In retrospect, the drive-by laughter was rude. I apologize.

I was most certainly not suggesting that an IoP dog with Claws would give you ranged attacks. But that doesn't mean it won't leave your zone, it just means it won't let you make ranged attacks.

And my position is so anti-simulationist that it's pretty funny. I'm talking purely about abstracted game rules.

That being said, FATE is a rather good system if you want your game to work like a believable world, because its narrative is not rigidly linked to its mechanics. Mechanics like "X strength lets you lift X pounds" are fantastic at destroying simulations, and FATE has few of those.

So even if not for the apparent contempt for simulation, I'd have to disagree with your point about what FATE is and isn't good for.

[UmbraLux]

In retrospect, the drive-by laughter was rude. I apologize.

I was most certainly not suggesting that an IoP dog with Claws would give you ranged attacks. But that doesn't mean it won't leave your zone, it just means it won't let you make ranged attacks.

And my position is so anti-simulationist that it's pretty funny. I'm talking purely about abstracted game rules.

Actually, you appear to be stuck on treating the familiar and the character as separate entities mechanically.  In other words, trying to represent real world expectations with game mechanics.

FATE's fractal approach to entities is easy to manipulate.  A given group of aspects, skills, and stunts may represent a single character, a location, an organization, a scene, a city, or even an individual and his familiar.  You certainly could use individual sets of aspects, skills, and stunts for each...but it's not a requirement.  Depending on the result you're looking for it may or may not be desirable.

That being said, FATE is a rather good system if you want your game to work like a believable world, because its narrative is not rigidly linked to its mechanics. Mechanics like "X strength lets you lift X pounds" are fantastic at destroying simulations, and FATE has few of those.

Having the ability to voluntarily limit your narrative is very different from having a system which facilitates simulation.

So even if not for the apparent contempt for simulation, I'd have to disagree with your point about what FATE is and isn't good for.

If you're referring to my post, you really need to look up the definition of "contempt".  I stated a fairly obvious fact - FATE's core mechanics are primarily set up to manipulate an emerging story or narrative rather than manipulating discrete characteristics of an imaginary world.

Since I've not stated an opinion on relative value or worth, 'contempt' is either a red herring or simply in your perception.

[ways and means]

Lets play devils advocate here. A scorpion hawk from the Locke Lamora books.

The Falconer's Scorpion Hawk  [-4]
Obvious Item of Power [+2 A large hawk is not all that subtle]
Claws [-1]
Venous Claws [-2]
Remote Control/ Boosted Range [-1] Can attack from anywhere in line of sight.
Far-sight [-2] The falconer can see out of his birds eyes and can attack using the bird from afar.

[Centarion]

That looks like a reasonable "item of power," though I think that you payed for the boosted range 2 times (once with remote control and once with far-sight), the vision part of far sight may well be costed like a Strange Sense (-1). So your total cost seems right (-3), though the powers you listed would make it (-4).

The point here is that you have payed a refresh to be able to use your fists skill at range (through your hawk) and another point to allow you to see things from a different position. I would allow a character who could justify such things to take those powers, and this is a reasonable justification.

I would not allow attacking with fists in a different zone unless you payed for it.

I also agree that the familiar may not be tied to your zone all the time from a narrative stand point. But during combat, it should mechanically be treated as a part of you (as if it were actually an item) for balance purposes, unless you have payed to allow it to attack at range. I would still not allow *attacks* targeting the familiar, but I would allow maneuvers (similar to Disarmed) to capture it (potentially from characters not in your zone, if that is where you say your familiar is).

[Sanctaphrax]

Actually, you appear to be stuck on treating the familiar and the character as separate entities mechanically.  In other words, trying to represent real world expectations with game mechanics.

FATE's fractal approach to entities is easy to manipulate.  A given group of aspects, skills, and stunts may represent a single character, a location, an organization, a scene, a city, or even an individual and his familiar.  You certainly could use individual sets of aspects, skills, and stunts for each...but it's not a requirement.  Depending on the result you're looking for it may or may not be desirable.

I know. That's why most of my posts in this thread are about how that works.

But I can't get every effect that I'd want out of a pet from an IoP. And the things I want aren't terribly unusual.

Having the ability to voluntarily limit your narrative is very different from having a system which facilitates simulation.

Never seen a system which facilitates simulation. Not actively destroying it is the best I've seen, and FATE meets that goal.

If you're referring to my post, you really need to look up the definition of "contempt".  I stated a fairly obvious fact - FATE's core mechanics are primarily set up to manipulate an emerging story or narrative rather than manipulating discrete characteristics of an imaginary world.

Since I've not stated an opinion on relative value or worth, 'contempt' is either a red herring or simply in your perception.

That's not an obvious fact, I don't even think it's true.

Abstract mechanics don't necessarily have anything to do with story-telling. It's possible to run Aspects and Compels and take-outs purely based on what you think is realistic. Or what is mechanically optimal, for that matter.

Saying "this system doesn't do that" is usually a way of calling "that" unworthy somehow. I got that vibe from your post.

You really seem to have a low regard for simulation (I'm honestly not a big fan either) in general and in FATE in particular.

[UmbraLux]

Lets play devils advocate here. A scorpion hawk from the Locke Lamora books.

Some of the costs might be adjusted, but it looks good overall.
-----

I know. That's why most of my posts in this thread are about how that works.

Just an observation, but you're possibly the most prolific poster of unique subsystems / mechanics.  That's not using the fractal approach.

But I can't get every effect that I'd want out of a pet from an IoP. And the things I want aren't terribly unusual.

'Unusual' is relative.  I'd say wanting to act more than once per exchange is 'unusual' and not an expected result of having a pet / familiar....but that's me.

Never seen a system which facilitates simulation. Not actively destroying it is the best I've seen, and FATE meets that goal.

It's not a binary either / or - it's a rather wide spectrum.  Something like Shadowrun trends towards the simulation side while WaRP or more obviously, Wushu, trends towards manipulating a narrative.  FATE has mechanics for both but aspects are almost purely for manipulation of the emerging narrative.

That's not an obvious fact, I don't even think it's true.

If you don't think aspects are intended to manipulate a narrative, I'm not sure we have enough terms in common to carry on a reasonable discussion.

Abstract mechanics don't necessarily have anything to do with story-telling. It's possible to run Aspects and Compels and take-outs purely based on what you think is realistic. Or what is mechanically optimal, for that matter.

Everything (to a point) has to do with "story-telling".  That's not my point.  The real question is, 'what does a given mechanic manipulate'?  While there is some cross-over, mechanics for stunts & powers tend to manipulate setting effects (claws, fireballs, etc) and mechanics for aspects tend to manipulate the narrative (off balance, blinded by the light, etc).  Sure, you can (and should) limit aspect effects to internally consistent world effects...but that's a 'meta-decision' - a decision made by the group not the mechanic.  On the flip side, hitting with an attack is (almost) purely a skills / stunts / powers issue.

Saying "this system doesn't do that" is usually a way of calling "that" unworthy somehow. I got that vibe from your post.

Again, this is your perception.  Frankly, it's a perception made up of imagination and preconception. 

Seriously.  I'm an engineer - we call things what they are.  Saying my Tacoma can't fly isn't calling it "unworthy".  It's a simple recognition of capabilities...or lack thereof.  Similarly, I like FATE for narrative games and other games such as Savage Worlds for more of a simulation based style.

You really seem to have a low regard for simulation (I'm honestly not a big fan either) in general and in FATE in particular.

Show me evidence.  Have I stated something in this thread denigrating systems oriented towards simulation?

Without evidence it's just an unsupported accusation.  Libel, to use the legal term.

[Sanctaphrax]

-----Just an observation, but you're possibly the most prolific poster of unique subsystems / mechanics.  That's not using the fractal approach.

Well, yeah. When I use the fractal, I don't post anything about it. Because it's nothing new.

Well, except for the Minions, Attack! line of stunts. I posted those...unless I borrowed those from someone else? I don't recall.

And all those times I told people to treat allies as Aspects for lack of a better method.

Come to think of it, my nascent plan to stat up locations as characters might qualify too.

Oh, and there were those times I suggested flavoring Powers as the assistance of other beings.

More I think, more I realize that I actually talk more about fractal stuff than I thought I did.

'Unusual' is relative.  I'd say wanting to act more than once per exchange is 'unusual' and not an expected result of having a pet / familiar....but that's me.

I agree, and I wasn't talking about that.

I meant more that pets could be in different places than their owners, and that they could provide a different dynamic in combat, and that they could split off some of a character's power into a semi-independent actor.

This is all interesting and worthwhile. There's a reason SotC has minion rules.

It's not a binary either / or - it's a rather wide spectrum.  Something like Shadowrun trends towards the simulation side while WaRP or more obviously, Wushu, trends towards manipulating a narrative.  FATE has mechanics for both but aspects are almost purely for manipulation of the emerging narrative.

I've played Shadowrun. If it's intended as a simulation, it's a terrible one.

This sort of thing is one reason I think your opinion of simulation is low.

If you don't think aspects are intended to manipulate a narrative, I'm not sure we have enough terms in common to carry on a reasonable discussion.

...

Everything (to a point) has to do with "story-telling".  That's not my point.  The real question is, 'what does a given mechanic manipulate'?  While there is some cross-over, mechanics for stunts & powers tend to manipulate setting effects (claws, fireballs, etc) and mechanics for aspects tend to manipulate the narrative (off balance, blinded by the light, etc).  Sure, you can (and should) limit aspect effects to internally consistent world effects...but that's a 'meta-decision' - a decision made by the group not the mechanic.  On the flip side, hitting with an attack is (almost) purely a skills / stunts / powers issue.

I don't pretend to know intent, but I do know that the rules for Aspects are suitable for reality-modelling.

The rest of this is hard for me to follow because you use the word narrative in a very strange way. Setting effect too. Not sure what you're trying to say.

Again, this is your perception.  Frankly, it's a perception made up of imagination and preconception. 

Seriously.  I'm an engineer - we call things what they are.  Saying my Tacoma can't fly isn't calling it "unworthy".  It's a simple recognition of capabilities...or lack thereof.  Similarly, I like FATE for narrative games and other games such as Savage Worlds for more of a simulation based style.

...

Show me evidence.  Have I stated something in this thread denigrating systems oriented towards simulation?

Without evidence it's just an unsupported accusation.  Libel, to use the legal term.

I've heard the "game X doesn't do Y, it's about Z" thing quite a few times. It's almost always a way to say that either  Y or X and Z is/are for stupid babies.

Seriously, it would be weird to say that if you weren't trying to denigrate something.

Unless of course it were factually true. Which it isn't, unless you're using words to mean things that I've never seen them be used to mean before. Because generally FATE returns realistic results unless you choose otherwise. Shadowrun, meanwhile, returns unrealistic results no matter what.

Oh, and it's not libel unless it's false. Supported or not, if it's true or arguable then it ain't libel.

[UmbraLux]

I've played Shadowrun. If it's intended as a simulation, it's a terrible one.

This sort of thing is one reason I think your opinion of simulation is low.

Again, you're the one adding value judgements - not me.

I don't pretend to know intent, but I do know that the rules for Aspects are suitable for reality-modelling.

The rest of this is hard for me to follow because you use the word narrative in a very strange way. Setting effect too. Not sure what you're trying to say.

Narrative is "an account of events".  Setting effects are elements stemming from the chosen setting. 

I've heard the "game X doesn't do Y, it's about Z" thing quite a few times. It's almost always a way to say that either  Y or X and Z is/are for stupid babies.

Seriously, it would be weird to say that if you weren't trying to denigrate something.

This has me at a bit of a loss on how to respond.  It's simply so limitingly untrue that all I can do is say "no" or throw out examples.  So here are a few examples starting with the obvious:
 - One is not two.
 - A bush isn't a chair.
 - A truck doesn't fly well.
 - A sword doesn't turn bolts well.
 - FATE aspect manipulation mechanics aren't built to simulate events well.
To consider any of those denigrating requires the odd assumption that "X should do Y" - which isn't all all what has been said.  It's simply a recognition of a limitation - not a value judgement.  Not by me at least. 

[Taran]

Just a side question that is or could be related - depending on how it's answered:

How do summoned creatures affect the action economy?  If I summon a Cerberus Cub using Ritual, how does it act in combat?  Does it get its own initiative?  Does it have its own consequences?

If it does, it seems to me that Ritual is a much better way to make a pet than IoP, especially if your pet is something that CAN be summoned in the first place.

I also don't like the argument that if someone pays for a pet it should always be there.  Pets and henchman need to sleep, gollums need to be repaired/re-imbued with magic, robots need to be recharged.  The amount of time a pet is with you can all be simulated by using shifts of power on the time table.  Eventually, the pet need to rest/return to its demense/run wild in the forest and the pet owner needs to re-aquire/make new deals with/reattune/locate their chosen pet or henchman.

I like the idea of using the mechanics of designing a follower/pet, not to actually SUMMON a follower(unless it's appropriate), but to aquire them.  Then run them as you would a typical summoned creature.

If summoned creatures use up the summoners turn in combat, then my whole point is moot.

[UmbraLux]

I prefer to avoid messing with the action economy.  Too often it's a power multiplier.  I've mentioned those concerns on other threads, no need to repeat here.

Not everyone feels the same of course.  A couple sets of house rules add direct or indirect actions to an exchange.