Construct AI

[sinker]

2) figure out a Resources/Contacts difficulty for hiring a mortal to do the same job, factoring in any complications you want to add to the construct

I really dislike the idea of even using resources/contacts to hire someone to do more than a simple task or two (or maybe act as muscle). Not because of potential balance issues or anything, but because it's boring. If you're going to hire an NPC to do things while your PC sits at home, then why don't you just play the NPC?

That would be one of the specialized cases. The more general case is when I need to be working on a ritual at the same time the party needs to do leg work and they need some of my skills along for the ride, but it's unspecified at casting time which the will need... I suppose I could just go for thaumaturgical skill substitution putting the complexity at the sum of the skills the clone can do plus manauvers to give it tags for their use (since it won't get to roll).

I could see this working as a series of thaumaturgic simple actions all rolled into one ritual (Or even separated if you want). The one thing I'd keep in mind though is that, unless you're spending fate points a maneuver (which will provide a +2 benefit once) will never be as good as spending the three shifts directly on the action.

Though again, it's the least entertaining way to get any of those things done.

[ways and means]

Playing Marcone can't be all that boring.

[devonapple]

I played a New Orleans analogue of Marcone in a LARP once: not boring in the slightest.

[sinker]

I played a New Orleans analogue of Marcone in a LARP once: not boring in the slightest.

And I'm sure you actually did things. What I'm trying to say is that the act of rolling means that there is some narrative value in that event occurring, and similar value in both success or failure. The potential is there for something interesting to happen. Getting someone else to do it means that there is no potential for something interesting to happen, because you are not there. If it's unimportant for you to be there, then it's probably unnecessary for you to roll/hire someone/make a ritual.

[devonapple]

I really dislike the idea of even using resources/contacts to hire someone to do more than a simple task or two (or maybe act as muscle). Not because of potential balance issues or anything, but because it's boring. If you're going to hire an NPC to do things while your PC sits at home, then why don't you just play the NPC?

I meant to use that as a DC for the Construct, not to hire another Wizard to do it. Is that what you mean?

[GryMor]

I could see this working as a series of thaumaturgic simple actions all rolled into one ritual (Or even separated if you want). The one thing I'd keep in mind though is that, unless you're spending fate points a maneuver (which will provide a +2 benefit once) will never be as good as spending the three shifts directly on the action.

Of course it won't be quite as effective, but there is a bit of a balance/thematic consistency that a caster not give what is ostensibly an imprint of herself better skills than she has/can have (of course, if the caster has skill shuffle, that isn't that much of a limitation).

[sinker]

I meant to use that as a DC for the Construct, not to hire another Wizard to do it. Is that what you mean?

No, I'm talking in the mundane sense (and by extension the magic ritual).

More than anything, what I'm trying to say is if we have a fight for example, is it more fun for the PC to be involved, or to hire some goons and sit at home? What is the point in playing out that fight if the PC is completely uninvolved?

Of course it won't be quite as effective, but there is a bit of a balance/thematic consistency that a caster not give what is ostensibly an imprint of herself better skills than she has/can have (of course, if the caster has skill shuffle, that isn't that much of a limitation).

Ahh, I see. In this case I was viewing it as simply using thaumaturgy to get X done, rather than creating some analogue to get X done.

[devonapple]

And I'm sure you actually did things. What I'm trying to say is that the act of rolling means that there is some narrative value in that event occurring, and similar value in both success or failure. The potential is there for something interesting to happen. Getting someone else to do it means that there is no potential for something interesting to happen, because you are not there. If it's unimportant for you to be there, then it's probably unnecessary for you to roll/hire someone/make a ritual.

I think I get what you are saying, though I fear you may be painting in strokes far more broad than you perhaps actually intend.

All things being equal, spending X shifts of Thaumaturgy on a ward isn't wholly a waste: it is done for relative peace of mind when the character is away, and it definitely comes into play if the character is actually protected by the wards.

Spending another Y shifts on an AI construct to patrol your home may seem, from a certain point of view, like unentertaining task delegation, or unnecessary complication. And if a scene happens without the player's presence, that may be true. But if the scene includes the player, it isn't a waste then is it? And if the player isn't physically there, the player could ostensibly play the AI as it tries to defend the home.

Ultimately, if a character wants to do X, it is because they feel X would be entertaining and/or useful to the plot.

[GryMor]

Ahh, I see. In this case I was viewing it as simply using thaumaturgy to get X done, rather than creating some analogue to get X done.

Thaumaturgy to get X done is the simple case where at the time of casting you know the specific task(s) you need completing and you fluff it as a limited clone being sent off to do them.

It's the general case where a specific task isn't a set of rolls known ahead of time but the more general, "support the group to the extent of our mundane capacities while I research the ritual the big bad is apparently working on" or "Protect our family to the best of our abilities while the non ectoplasmic me is hunting the big bad."

To some extent it amounts to a mechanism for one character to meaningfully participate in two concurrent scenes, albeit, in a vastly reduced capacity for one of them. This already happens to some extent with modern communications, hirelings, divinations, thaumaturgical attack rituals and a myriad of other mechanisms.

[sinker]

To some extent it amounts to a mechanism for one character to meaningfully participate in two concurrent scenes, albeit, in a vastly reduced capacity for one of them. This already happens to some extent with modern communications, hirelings, divinations, thaumaturgical attack rituals and a myriad of other mechanisms.

I worry about this simply because of the implications. If I can take part in two simultaneous scenes then why can't I take part in one scene twice? Then we run into the action economy issue.

@Devonapple: That really wasn't what I mean. I totally understand the OP's desire to have wards, and even for those wards to have guardians. It's GryMor's suggestion of using someone else in a scene that bugged me (and I now understand that his intent was actually to use himself in multiple concurrent scenes).

[GryMor]

I worry about this simply because of the implications. If I can take part in two simultaneous scenes then why can't I take part in one scene twice? Then we run into the action economy issue.

The hypothetical player of Marcone already ends up doing both of these, the first when he sends hench' along with some other PCs and the second when he goes with the other PCs and brings his hench' along.

The player of Harry manages to do this frequently with Bob and Mister.

Most of the time, working through agents and proxies doesn't generate scenes, but when the scene would exist anyway, the fact that the proxy is normally resolved as a single task action shouldn't mean the proxy can't participate in the scene, and as an effect of the player acting in accordance with their characters will, why not let them handle them (and spend fate points out of the main characters pool).

[sinker]

The hypothetical player of Marcone already ends up doing both of these, the first when he sends hench' along with some other PCs and the second when he goes with the other PCs and brings his hench' along.

To a degree I suppose. The Marcone character is not in direct control of them (I don't remember his actual name, but "Gimpy" from the first book is a great example) and can't contribute in any way towards their success or failure. They're more allied NPCs than they are extensions of a PC.

But again goons are boring. Ever notice that characters like that in books are either enemies or glossed over? Wonder why? Cause they don't add anything to the story, and spending time on them would just drag things down. Same principle applies here.

[ways and means]

But again goons are boring. Ever notice that characters like that in books are either enemies or glossed over? Wonder why? Cause they don't add anything to the story, and spending time on them would just drag things down. Same principle applies here.

Generals and leaders of men (goon masters) pretty much make up the majority of protagonists in fantasy and sci-fi, (Tyrion Lannister, Rand Al'thor, Ender Wiggin etc) as for the goons themselves well mooks as a rule aren't fleshed out (due to time constraints in narratives) but it is perfectly possible to make interesting characterful goons.   

[sinker]

as for the goons themselves well mooks as a rule aren't fleshed out (due to time constraints in narratives) but it is perfectly possible to make interesting characterful goons.

Yup, and those interesting goons are PCs, not NPC allies.

[ways and means]

Yup, and those interesting goons are PCs, not NPC allies.

So NPC allies can't be interesting ?, well I disagree but your entitled to your opinion.