Items of Power as Animals?

[Sanctaphrax]

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

Gotta say, I find this conversation pretty funny. I said you seemed contemptuous. You seemed offended, but didn't actually say that you weren't contemptuous. And now we're arguing about...something.

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

Wouldn't that include everything that could ever matter to a simulation?
 

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.

Well, the "unless it's a fact" qualifier that I threw in there was pretty important. And this isn't a fact, there's room for disagreement.

Aspects enable a group to create very realistic events. Therefore they are suited to simulating reality. I'm not sure where the hole in that argument is supposed to be.

As for why it sounds like an insult to me, let me give a few other similar statements that are clearly intended as insults:

-D&D 4e just isn't a good system for roleplaying.
-The Dresden Files, unlike most urban fantasy, are about plot and not about porn.
-The Storyteller system isn't really about who has the biggest numbers.

(All paraphrasings of things I've actually heard.)

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.

Summoned creatures can have their own actions, but they're not actually extensions of the character who summoned them. They're NPCs that just happen to be obedient.

At least, that's how most takes on summoning work. Including mine and UmbraLux's.

The problem with using Ritual is, like I explained last thread, that Ritual has a bunch of baggage.

It uses Lore, Discipline, and Conviction. It fails utterly whenever getting your ally's help isn't much effort. It assumes that you don't have your pet all the time, which may or may not be the case. It involves a lot of dice rolling. It gives out focus item slots.

And worst of all, it gives a bunch of abilities that have nothing to do with having a pet. Ritual's rules text is basically "do whatever the hell you want within a theme, as long as you put in enough time and effort". Limiting it to summoning one specific creature would be unfairly restrictive, so anybody who obtains a pet through Ritual will pick up the ability to do all kinds of thematically related stuff while they're at it.

Using Ritual just doesn't cover the multitude of pet-using character types out there. All that baggage will be appropriate for only a fraction of the characters that would use ally rules.

[Taran]

It uses Lore, Discipline, and Conviction.  It assumes that you don't have your pet all the time, which may or may not be the case. It involves a lot of dice rolling. It gives out focus item slots.

And worst of all, it gives a bunch of abilities that have nothing to do with having a pet. Ritual's rules text is basically "do whatever the hell you want within a theme, as long as you put in enough time and effort". Limiting it to summoning one specific creature would be unfairly restrictive, so anybody who obtains a pet through Ritual will pick up the ability to do all kinds of thematically related stuff while they're at it.

Using Ritual just doesn't cover the multitude of pet-using character types out there. All that baggage will be appropriate for only a fraction of the characters that would use ally rules.

Yeah, I know I've brought this up before and I know you've dismissed it but I still think it has some merit.

I'm not saying take ritual.  I'm saying take a power that is priced similarily to ritual.  It'd probably be around -2 because it gives you a very, very limited type of "ritual" that only lets you get a pet/ally/henchman/follower (-1), it also does not need to use Discipline, Lore and Conviction, it uses three other skills that are appropriate for the flavour of the pet(s) you want - which, I don't know, would be the equivalent of a stunt? (another -1)?

It doesn't give focus slots, or anything like that, but it gives you a little mini-game for tailoring you pet, buying powers, aspects, loyalty and duration.  Then you just play your pet.

You wanna be a rock star with a groupies and a body-guard that also your biggest fan?  Buy the Power that Uses Performance, Rapport and Presence

You want to hire a thug from Marcone/crime syndicates? Buy the Power that uses Resourses, Presence, Intimidation

You want a pet?  Survival, Empathy, Resourses
You want a magical pet like a pegasus? Survival, Empathy, Lore

Whatever.  You just have to keep your choices, so if survival is replacing Conviction, then that's how the power will always work and it is limited to the general type of creature chosen.

It fails utterly whenever getting your ally's help isn't much effort.

I don't think so.  You can always cast a ritual with a power equal to your Lore, right?  So, if you want to find something quick, you can choose a less powerful ally.  But if you want a griffin to ride around on, you're going to have to hunt one down, train it and feed it(and possibly suffer consequences for screwing up) before you get one.

I just think that there are mechanics for this already in the book - why not use them.  And if you let a wizard summon a bunch of creatures from the nevernever - each with their own actions in combat - why can't someone else, with a similarly priced power do the same thing?

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't want to be too dismissive, because your approach isn't stupid or anything.

But it's pretty specific. It only really works for a limited class of characters.

Most of the concepts I've seen for companion-using characters have specific companions. And your approach chokes when trying to represent a single companion, because that basically defeats the point of Ritual entirely.

Plus it requires that you have a good way of handling thaumaturgical summoning, which puts you in homebrew territory already. You say the mechanics are already in the book, but...they're not.

And the modifications that you suggest making to the Ritual Power are kind of major. Given how finicky spellcasting is mechanically, I'd expect that Ritual rewrite to be more work than your average new Power.

PS: If I seem or seemed annoyed here's why. You seem to think that this is an easy way to do the whole subsystem, but it's not easy and it won't cover everything. So the whole "why bother with all this work" aspect of your posts about this bugs me.

I can't really fault you because you're not doing anything wrong, but my irritation probably shows and I figured you deserve an explanation.

[Taran]

I don't want to be too dismissive, because your approach isn't stupid or anything.

And the modifications that you suggest making to the Ritual Power are kind of major. Given how finicky spellcasting is mechanically, I'd expect that Ritual rewrite to be more work than your average new Power.

PS: If I seem or seemed annoyed here's why. You seem to think that this is an easy way to do the whole subsystem, but it's not easy and it won't cover everything. So the whole "why bother with all this work" aspect of your posts about this bugs me.

I can't really fault you because you're not doing anything wrong, but my irritation probably shows and I figured you deserve an explanation.

It's fine.  I also know that they don't really explain ways to do summoning...they just kind of give a outline.  But I really like your method of summoning, so it just seems automatic to do it like that.

Lastly, I don't have a lot of experience with summoning, so it's probably, as you say, more complicated than I'm supposing - although, sometimes I like complicated when it gives the detail want.  I just wanted to get the idea out there, though, because I think some people might find it works for them.

[Sanctaphrax]

Fair enough.

[UmbraLux]

Gotta say, I find this conversation pretty funny. I said you seemed contemptuous. You seemed offended, but didn't actually say that you weren't contemptuous. And now we're arguing about...something.

Contemptuous?  No.  Not really even offended. 

I am dumbfounded by what appears to be an insistence on creating negative value judgments out of neutral statements.  It's simply illogical enough to leave me at a loss.  I suppose it shouldn't...seeing things that aren't there is a very human condition. 

Wouldn't that include everything that could ever matter to a simulation?

You posted this in response to a pair of definitions.  Can you clarify your question?
 

Well, the "unless it's a fact" qualifier that I threw in there was pretty important. And this isn't a fact, there's room for disagreement.

Wrong.  You stated "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."

Not only am I not attempting to denigrate anything but the first statement of stating "X doesn't do Y" =  stating "something is stupid" is illogical.  It's a generalization fallacy - you're generalizing from a small and biased sample.  It also appears to be an attempt at a fallacious straw man argument - trying to make the subject about values rather than about mechanics.

Aspects enable a group to create very realistic events. Therefore they are suited to simulating reality. I'm not sure where the hole in that argument is supposed to be.

First hole - I never stated what aspects might or might not be capable of.  I believe my statement was about "aspect manipulation mechanics".  Second hole - not all aspects are equally suitable.  It's left up to individual groups to decide what works and what doesn't.  Using "Everything's on Fire!" has no mechanical difference from using "Everything's Wet!".  Mechanically you get either a +2 to a roll, a re-roll, or a negotiated event for both aspects.  The only differences are in the resulting account of events...the narrative.

As for why it sounds like an insult to me, let me give a few other similar statements that are clearly intended as insults:

-D&D 4e just isn't a good system for roleplaying.
-The Dresden Files, unlike most urban fantasy, are about plot and not about porn.
-The Storyteller system isn't really about who has the biggest numbers.

(All paraphrasings of things I've actually heard.)

Yes...back to the generalization fallacy.  Just because some humans are male doesn't make all humans male.  A Good Thing.    Similarly, you can't go from 'some comments' taking this form are denigrating to 'all comments'.

Summoned creatures can have their own actions, but they're not actually extensions of the character who summoned them. They're NPCs that just happen to be obedient.

At least, that's how most takes on summoning work. Including mine and UmbraLux's.

Didn't bother to go look up the threads but I believe the discussion at the time was around thaumaturgy.  The few times extra actions were discussed I seem to remember advocating against them or at least charging a significant cost. 

-----

Cutting through the fallacies to the bottom line - IoP rules work just fine for entities who are usually with you but may be lost (temporarily or permanently) on occasion.  They're not going to give the player any extra power or actions - but there's no need to do so.

If you do want extra actions as part of your companions some other set of (probably house ruled) mechanics will do a better job.

The real issue is deciding what you as a group want and how much you're willing to modify the system.   

[Sanctaphrax]

I am dumbfounded by what appears to be an insistence on creating negative value judgments out of neutral statements.  It's simply illogical enough to leave me at a loss.  I suppose it shouldn't...seeing things that aren't there is a very human condition. 

...

Wrong.  You stated "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."

Not only am I not attempting to denigrate anything but the first statement of stating "X doesn't do Y" =  stating "something is stupid" is illogical.  It's a generalization fallacy - you're generalizing from a small and biased sample.  It also appears to be an attempt at a fallacious straw man argument - trying to make the subject about values rather than about mechanics.

...

Yes...back to the generalization fallacy.  Just because some humans are male doesn't make all humans male.  A Good Thing.    Similarly, you can't go from 'some comments' taking this form are denigrating to 'all comments'.

Yes, I know that I didn't prove logically that you were expressing contempt. I just figured you probably were because you said something that, in my experience, is always said as a way to express contempt.

If you stick to what comments mean literally and what can be proved logically, you'll miss the vast majority of what people say. So you've gotta extrapolate, and sometimes that gets you the wrong answer. So it goes.

You posted this in response to a pair of definitions.  Can you clarify your question?

It applies to both. What is there that happens in the game world that isn't part of an account of events? And what is there that exists in the setting that doesn't stem from the setting?

First hole - I never stated what aspects might or might not be capable of.  I believe my statement was about "aspect manipulation mechanics".  Second hole - not all aspects are equally suitable.  It's left up to individual groups to decide what works and what doesn't.  Using "Everything's on Fire!" has no mechanical difference from using "Everything's Wet!".  Mechanically you get either a +2 to a roll, a re-roll, or a negotiated event for both aspects.  The only differences are in the resulting account of events...the narrative.

If you replaced the word narrative with the word simulation, that passage would be equally correct. In fact, no important thing about it would change.

I'm starting to think that there's a word meaning issue here.

Didn't bother to go look up the threads but I believe the discussion at the time was around thaumaturgy.  The few times extra actions were discussed I seem to remember advocating against them or at least charging a significant cost.

Remember this? Your approach creates semi-independent characters, like mine.

It also involves a significant cost, like mine.

Cutting through the fallacies to the bottom line - IoP rules work just fine for entities who are usually with you but may be lost (temporarily or permanently) on occasion.  They're not going to give the player any extra power or actions - but there's no need to do so.

If you do want extra actions as part of your companions some other set of (probably house ruled) mechanics will do a better job.

The real issue is deciding what you as a group want and how much you're willing to modify the system.   

Mm. Even if the companion is usually with you some common companion effects are not elegantly representable through an IoP.

For example, a frail character whose extremely strong companion fights for them would require a lot of wrangling. If I send my pet lion across a street to maul you should be able to punch it. But by the IoP rules you can't. And if you take me out, my lion is dealt with automatically. Which is weird because I have a tiny stress track while my lion is really tough. And while my lion might be fast enough to act before you, I'm not. So my initiative might depend on whether my action is lion-based or not. My lion can jump over a chasm in order to pursue a foe, but I can't. Etc, etc.

None of this is insurmountable. You could write a custom Power that lets you attack at range by opening yourself up to melee attacks from the people you hit. You could take a really weird Catch. You could handwave the initiative thing. You could give my lion an inexplicable aversion to chasing people when I'm not following. Etc, etc.

But it's not a very good solution. It's a kludge, a hack job.

[UmbraLux]

Mm. Even if the companion is usually with you some common companion effects are not elegantly representable through an IoP.

For example, a frail character whose extremely strong companion fights for them would require a lot of wrangling. If I send my pet lion across a street to maul you should be able to punch it. But by the IoP rules you can't. And if you take me out, my lion is dealt with automatically. Which is weird because I have a tiny stress track while my lion is really tough. And while my lion might be fast enough to act before you, I'm not. So my initiative might depend on whether my action is lion-based or not. My lion can jump over a chasm in order to pursue a foe, but I can't. Etc, etc.

None of this is insurmountable. You could write a custom Power that lets you attack at range by opening yourself up to melee attacks from the people you hit. You could take a really weird Catch. You could handwave the initiative thing. You could give my lion an inexplicable aversion to chasing people when I'm not following. Etc, etc.

Each of these "problems" are based in how something is described...the narrative.  The mechanics don't need to change for the narrative to be different.  Just need to take an objective look at your goals.

But it's not a very good solution. It's a kludge, a hack job.

I get it.  You don't like it and it doesn't work for you.  Shrug.  The world is a big place, it has room for many points of view.

Re: Everything else - This is a text medium...the only communication tool is words.  There's no tone, expression, or body language to add meaning.  Just words.  If we can't use logic and rely on the other to write what they mean, we may as well be speaking different languages.  We're certainly using different protocols.  Not going to waste time responding if there's such a poor chance of communication.

[Sanctaphrax]

Each of these "problems" are based in how something is described...the narrative.  The mechanics don't need to change for the narrative to be different.  Just need to take an objective look at your goals.

But the narrative and the mechanics are supposed to correspond. That's why Fists is Fists and not Skill #X.

I get it.  You don't like it and it doesn't work for you.  Shrug.  The world is a big place, it has room for many points of view.

I'm actually not totally opposed to it, I just know that it's a rather limited approach. And it bugs me when it's presented as a general solution.

Re: Everything else - This is a text medium...the only communication tool is words.  There's no tone, expression, or body language to add meaning.  Just words.  If we can't use logic and rely on the other to write what they mean, we may as well be speaking different languages.  We're certainly using different protocols.  Not going to waste time responding if there's such a poor chance of communication.

You'll have to give up internet forums, then. And probably communicating in general.

The vast majority of meaning is implied. No two people speak exactly the same language, and misunderstandings will happen.

It's just something you (general you) have to live with.

As evidence for the above statement, I present legal and game-rule ambiguities. Rules and laws are written specifically to convey single correct interpretations, yet their meanings are often still vague.

[Centarion]

I'm actually not totally opposed to it, I just know that it's a rather limited approach. And it bugs me when it's presented as a general solution.

I hope what I was talking about was not interpreted as a general solution to all pet/companion/minion related characters. I was just saying that the specific examples in the OP (and then some presented later in the thread) seemed to work well. While I am sure there are character concept out there where having an animal behave as an IoP will not work, I can think of many where it will work well. And for the characters where it does work, it is a very clean and simple solution.