What does Taken Out mean?

[Tedronai]

Well, no. It's completely clear.

And simultaneously intentionally deceptive, yes.

And now you're just poking at semantics. The "usually" isn't some hole that breaks the power, it's them not wanting to bind themselves with an absolute.

This instance of 'semantics' is not trivial.  'Usually' quite clearly indicates 'NOT ALWAYS'.

[Mr. Death]

And simultaneously intentionally deceptive, yes.

In as much as asking a clear, direct, simple question is "deceptive," yes. Doesn't make it any less clear, which is the point--people can still misunderstand something even when it's perfectly clear.

This instance of 'semantics' is not trivial.  'Usually' quite clearly indicates 'NOT ALWAYS'.

And? The intent is still clear. Them giving a little wiggle room doesn't mean the power's intended for a light and fluffy 'demon' with a benign agenda.

[Richard_Chilton]

So sometimes it's evil, sometimes it's angry, but usually it's both.

Richard

[Becq]

Or it could be that the writer is fond of ironic understatement.

For example, if I said "Being shot in the head is generally a bad thing", you could argue that "generally" doesn't mean the same thing as "always", and that in fact my statement implies that quite often being shot in the head might well be a good thing (or at least a non-bad thing).  Logically, you would be correct.  But I still advise against shooting yourself in the head.

Similarly, the writer might have figured that the fact that it was very specifically described as a demonic co-pilot would be enough to convey to the reasonable reader that there was little expectation (more understatement, there!) of a warm and fuzzy, rainbow-colored, Lawful Good demonic co-pilot that really just wants to help you in any way that would make you feel good about yourself.

[Sanctaphrax]

Look, people, I am arguing in good faith here. When I say I didn't understand something, please don't try to tell me that I actually did understand it.

Lemme explain.

Pretty much every Power in DFRPG is reflavourable. People are encouraged to tinker, make their own Powers, and use Powers for unusual things.

(Breath Weapon and Incite Emotion are common targets here, people recommend 'em for all kinds of things)

So when I see a Power written specifically to not exclude a possibility, I tend to assume that that possibility is intended.

Obviously the default copilot is a nasty thing. But it is anything but obvious that non-nasty copilots are intentionally not viable.

PS: I still can't think of anything that Demonic Co-Pilot does better than Sponsor Debt.

[admiralducksauce]

I still can't think of anything that Demonic Co-Pilot does better than Sponsor Debt.

Wears out your dice.

Boom shakalaka!

In all seriousness, however, would you price it the same (-1 Refresh) if Demonic Co-Pilot was simply the Sponsor Debt mechanics separated from their Sponsored Magic package? More? Less?

[Mr. Death]

Look, people, I am arguing in good faith here. When I say I didn't understand something, please don't try to tell me that I actually did understand it.

I, at least, an not trying to tell you that. What I'm trying to say is that sometimes, if you don't understand something, maybe it's not because the text is unclear. Maybe it's because you just didn't get it.

So when I see a Power written specifically to not exclude a possibility, I tend to assume that that possibility is intended.

I would say more that it's a possibility that is accounted for, rather than intended.

[Tedronai]

In all seriousness, however, would you price it the same (-1 Refresh) if Demonic Co-Pilot was simply the Sponsor Debt mechanics separated from their Sponsored Magic package? More? Less?

I wouldn't apply a refresh cost to it.
Invokes paid for by (future) compels are not worth even [-0] refresh.

[Becq]

I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable making it -0; there is a small advantage to being able to take out Fate loans, and the current ruling appears to be that -0 powers do not cancel out the pure mortal bonus.  On the other hand, I'm not sure that is worth -1, either.

I'm thinking that it would be best to package it with another small benefit such that a -1 package cost would be fitting.  One possibility is to grant an additional +1 when invoking an aspect via debt.  (To prevent debt laundering, this should probably be coupled with a cost of two Fate points to buy off the resulting debt compel.)  Another possibility is to grant bonuses to actions taken to pay off a debt compel.  I'm uncertain about the benefit/cost balance on either/both options.

[Sanctaphrax]

I, at least, an not trying to tell you that. What I'm trying to say is that sometimes, if you don't understand something, maybe it's not because the text is unclear. Maybe it's because you just didn't get it.

If something is perfectly clear, everyone will get it and the truth will be obvious.

This is not the case here. I'm not even totally convinced that benign Co-Pilots should be disallowed.

If one person understands something and another does not, the thing is not clear. Assuming that something is clear because you can understand it is foolish; such a principle would have me believe that most of the human population consists of woolly-headed idiots. Because I've always found math to be simple and easy to understand, but most people around me seemed to have trouble with it. When I was a child I thought people just weren't trying, but now that I'm slightly older I've come to understand that something that's completely clear to me might in fact be totally unclear by any objective standard.

I would say more that it's a possibility that is accounted for, rather than intended.

I don't know what this means.

Wasn't the whole point of reply #18 that Demonic Co-Pilot does not account for such things?

...and the current ruling appears to be that -0 powers do not cancel out the pure mortal bonus.

What?

I'm fairly certain that ruling's wrong.

One possibility is to grant an additional +1 when invoking an aspect via debt.  (To prevent debt laundering, this should probably be coupled with a cost of two Fate points to buy off the resulting debt compel.)

Bad idea. Don't mess with the Compel system like this, it can only end badly.

A point of Sponsor Debt is a virtual Fate Point. This change would make that not so, rendering them much less point-full.

Another possibility is to grant bonuses to actions taken to pay off a debt compel.

Better, but probably pointlessly clunky and liable to make Compels into good things. Seriously, it's not good to mess with this stuff unless you really know what you're doing.

Personally, I think it's probably best to let people go into FP debt without a Power. It mitigates some systemic problems that show up when people have no FP. Namely, it means that non-taggable Aspects are never totally worthless and it means that Compels are never irresistible.

I dislike the idea of handing out irresistible Compels, it seems kinda mean unless the Compels are really soft.

As an added benefit, this lets Sponsor Debt be -0 with no issues.

[Tedronai]

As an added benefit, this lets Sponsor Debt be -0 with no issues.

Well, except the Pure Mortal, thing.

I just find it more convenient to label such things as having a cost of [N/A].

I think even the Pure Mortal Purists would have difficulty truly justifying denying the bonus solely on the basis of access to Sponsor Debt.

[Sanctaphrax]

Mortals can still take debt, it's just not Sponsored.

(As I would have it.)

[Tedronai]

What is Sponsor Debt other than debt owed to some powerful entity in exchange for favours they granted?

If Mab whispers to you in your dreams, telling you the (or at least partial) winning lottery numbers for the following week, in exchange for some nebulous payment sometime in the hopefully distant future, that would certainly seem to me like Sponsor Debt, and like something that would be hypothetically available to a Pure Mortal.

[Sanctaphrax]

Hm.

Yeah, good point. Maybe make the general rule "characters can take FP debt, to a sponsor if appropriate".

[Mr. Death]

If something is perfectly clear, everyone will get it and the truth will be obvious.

Just plain not true.

This is not the case here. I'm not even totally convinced that benign Co-Pilots should be disallowed.

By a strict reading of the rules, they shouldn't be--but to my reading, it's not the intent of the power.

Assuming that something is clear because you can understand it is foolish;

Just as foolish as assuming something is unclear just because you misunderstand it.

such a principle would have me believe that most of the human population consists of woolly-headed idiots.

...Have you watched the news lately? Anything on MTV? Jersey Shore? There's a whole heap of evidence for this.

I don't know what this means.

I mean that when they were writing it, they may have accepted as a remote possibility that someone might have a non-evil demonic co-pilot, but they didn't intend people to have non-evil demonic co-pilots.

Like how wearing a bullet-proof vest accounts for the possibility you'll be shot, but wearing it certainly doesn't mean you intend to be shot.