ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: yrtalien on March 17, 2012, 03:51:54 AM
-
OK guys my player has another question I need help with:
He would like to use Thumaturgy to create some "ectoplasmic-bodied" protectors for his Sanctum.
He would like it to be "manned" / "piloted" by an AI as per Our World p.31
"Continual guidance requires ongoing energy
and attention; again, creating an AI for a golem
requires a lot of up-front energy."
Unfortunately other than the references under Constructs (Our World p31) there are no real hard rules that we can find on how to do this.
He's ready to give up on the idea, after I tried explaining Dresden is a little loose on rules like that (he likes crunch).
Can anyone help us?
Sorry for all the bother,
Thanks
-
Devon has a thread with proposed houserules for creating constructs. I can't for the life of me find it though.
Hey Devon? You link me the thread and I'll submit it for the resources.
No wait, I found it! Cause I'm awesome!
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23624.0.html
...And submitted for the resources board.
-
Can anyone help us?
From your description, I'd treat them as part of a ward. Build them as one or more ward 'traps' and flavor them as constructs.
-
You can find a summary of that thread here (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24744.msg1084269.html#msg1084269).
Not sure if treating guards as a landmine would work. Landmines only trigger when wards are breached, after all, and they just hit once each time.
-
You could always make the AI an NPC - write it up with aspects as if it was a PC. Even if one of those aspects was "I love my maker" there's still plenty of room for drama there.
Now I'm thinking about the second Amber series where someone made an AI and things didn't always work out with it. Called Ghostwheel, it was as much a character of that series as any Amberite.
Richard
-
Not sure if treating guards as a landmine would work. Landmines only trigger when wards are breached, after all, and they just hit once each time.
The trigger is adjustable and you can have multiple triggers - of course that does up the cost. As for hitting once, multiple landmines triggered serially is the brute force solution. However, I think I'd prefer a power splitting method as discussed in a recent thread on extending attacks - it's simpler and gives the construct "health" in the form of shifts of attack power.
-
But wouldn't it be better and simpler to model the creatures as creatures?
-
But wouldn't it be better and simpler to model the creatures as creatures?
Depends on your approach and on what part of the game mechanics you want to emphasize at the time. Remember, FATE gives us the tools to simulate something and to modify the narrative directly.
I'll probably model it as a hazard to be survived and overcome when I set up my next BBEG ward. (PCs are still dealing with apprentices.) That's taking inspiration from Fred's blog posts rather than directly from the game. But I tend to lean towards narrative mechanics over adding additional simulation mechanics. Your answer, and others', may be entirely different from mine. ;)
-
Hmm, any complexity estimates on something like Kage-Bunshin? That is, an ecto plasm construct clone of the caster with no available consequences.
For specialized uses it's relatively simple (whats the task this clone is doing? The what sets the complexity, that it's done with a clone doesn't figure in to it). For the general case, I have no clue.
-
I would just treat it like a glamour/veil a block vs alertness, because the clones hp doesn't matter if the attacker isn't fooled.
-
Hmm, any complexity estimates on something like Kage-Bunshin? That is, an ecto plasm construct clone of the caster with no available consequences.
For specialized uses it's relatively simple (whats the task this clone is doing? The what sets the complexity, that it's done with a clone doesn't figure in to it). For the general case, I have no clue.
A dude named Revlid, who you may be familiar with from his Exalted homebrewing, took a crack at a multiple body power here (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,29682.0.html).
It's far from perfect, but it's certainly a valiant attempt.
-
I would just treat it like a glamour/veil a block vs alertness, because the clones hp doesn't matter if the attacker isn't fooled.
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).
-
Sorry I was thinking of the substitution tecnique rather than mass shadow clones my bad.
-
The really simple thing, rather than figure out rules, is to:
1) get an idea what the player needs this construct to do
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
3) convert that to Thaumaturgy shifts
4) determine if the construct is always there, or "summoned" to deal with an intrusion: if always there, factor that duration into hiring DC, starting with a base duration of 1 scene; if summoned, add 2 to the summoning DC for each construct to make it a triggered effect, and *then* figure out duration.
The super simple (though expensive) means is to summon up enough shifts to kill the entity you want to create (26-36 or so), effectively summoning a character from scratch.
-
The super simple (though expensive) means is to summon up enough shifts to kill the entity you want to create (26-36 or so), effectively summoning a character from scratch.
Or 9 shifts if the entity can't take any consequences (fragile ectoplasm clone/projection of the caster)? (4 for the best stress track, 4 for a maxed resistance roll, 1 to take out, doesn't get any of the casters powers)
That is actually low enough for no special prep thaumaturgy, but not quite low enough to skip paying for duration...
-
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.
-
Playing Marcone can't be all that boring.
-
I played a New Orleans analogue of Marcone in a LARP once: not boring in the slightest.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
So NPC allies can't be interesting ?, well I disagree but your entitled to your opinion.
I never said that NPC allies can't be interesting, I said that NPC goons are by definition uninteresting.
But that's not really the point. The point I'm trying to make is that using goons on the PC side of a standard physical conflict is boring. Ever try it? Usually it just means that there's a period of time where the GM is playing against himself and the players sit there. Even if you allow player control, it still has a tendency to bog down. It's not usually fun.
I can tell I'm on the less popular end of this argument though. If everyone else loves doing that, then there's no reason for me to dissuade them.
-
So NPC allies can't be interesting ?...
No, but they should not out-shine PCs. Ever.
-
No, but they should not out-shine PCs. Ever.
Of course they should, it cheapens the PCs surpassing them if there wasn't the scene or two when the NPCs shined brighter or overshadowed them.
That said, in the cases we are talking about, it's not NPCs out shining PCs, it's the tools wielded by one PC supporting another PC.
-
Of course they should, it cheapens the PCs surpassing them if there wasn't the scene or two when the NPCs shined brighter or overshadowed them.
I believe the spirit of Orladdin's dissent pertains to "GM's pet" NPCs who are ostensibly "adventuring companions" (or simply allies) but consistently outshine the players, handle all of the heavy lifting for them in an adventure, and devalue the agency of the PCs. It is a fine rhetorical point to make in the greater context of NPC-hiring to fill unoccupied niches in a particular group/mission/etc.
Hiring a merc to cover your back during a duel? Okay.
Hiring a merc to be your long-term bodyguard? Alright, sure. Ideally there should be a PC rising to fill a similar niche, but if nobody wants to, nobody wants to.
Hiring a merc to be your long-term bodyguard and making him do everything that needs doing? That's when it seems silly.
-
Hiring a merc to be your long-term bodyguard and making him do everything that needs doing? That's when it seems silly.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make.
-
This is exactly the point I was trying to make.
Yes, but it appeared as if you applied that point unilaterally to a discussion about having ectoplasmic construct bodyguards tied to a ward, which differs from the "Superstar NPC Ally" in two key ways:
1) the constructs and the AI overseeing them aren't in a position to do everything the player can do, only better - they are focused on fighting intruders, and presumably, the player is better at magic
2) the constructs and the AI aren't in a position to replace the player - they are geographically tied to one spot, watching the player's stuff
And even if the OP wants more out of their AI, having the ectoplasmic equivalent of a supercomputer running one's house has plenty of narrative conflict potential (can the AI be mind-controlled and turned against the maker? let's find out!), and numerous fictional analogues (though SYnergy, the AI from "Jem" is the only one coming to mind at the moment).
-
No, but they should not out-shine PCs. Ever.
I never said that NPC allies can't be interesting, I said that NPC goons are by definition uninteresting.
But that's not really the point. The point I'm trying to make is that using goons on the PC side of a standard physical conflict is boring. Ever try it? Usually it just means that there's a period of time where the GM is playing against himself and the players sit there. Even if you allow player control, it still has a tendency to bog down. It's not usually fun.
I can tell I'm on the less popular end of this argument though. If everyone else loves doing that, then there's no reason for me to dissuade them.
I totally agree with both statements. I like to roleplay with interesting meaningful NPC's. I also prefer to not seem like wallpaper compared to them. Might be hard to find the happy medium for some, but it works well.