ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Mr. Death on July 20, 2012, 07:20:45 PM
-
Thinking about Demonic Co-Pilot got me thinking...just what lasting effects should being taken out have?
Specifically, this comment by Becq:
The problem is that after using the belt for a short time, all someone would need to do is poke them and they'd keel over, having no consequences left to sacrifice. I still hold that a Sponsor Debt-style system would be more fun, more playable, more balanced, and better reflecting the "reality", so to speak.
I was going to respond that maybe a Hexenwulf might forgo taking the consequences at all, and allow themselves to simply be mentally Taken Out right off the bat and 'giving in' to the demon, so to speak. But mechanically, how would that giving in be represented? Aspect changes? Temporary aspects?
And then I got to thinking, how exactly does Taken Out work for the other types of conflicts? Yes, I know that whoever does the taking out decides it, but how is it, or can it be, mechanically represented?
Does someone who chooses to be Taken Out by a blow to the head--getting knocked out--suffer no consequences, when he would have taken the Moderate Consequence of a concussion if he'd stayed in the fight?
-
In the case of a hexen, I would be a bit bendy with what taken out means. Being taken out by your own ability would mean you were overpowered by your co-pilot. Maybe have the character act as a npc for the rest of the conflict that attacks at random be it friend or foe.
Technically the playeris no longer in the fight. But the entity that give them power is still eager to do some damage. But I also see how that may be interesting once or twice and get really out of hand and annoying if it's happening every conflict.
-
Well, the player would no longer be in the Mental fight--the game's clear that if you're taken out on one track, you can still participate in conflicts on the other tracks.
But I'm also talking about beyond the fight and that scene. If you let yourself be Taken Out mentally in this fight scene, what does that mean for the next scene? If you didn't take a consequence, is there a lasting aspect to being taken out?
-
Hmm yeah seems rather strange to take yourself out mentally, continue say a physical conflict like nothing happened, then be just fine the second the scene ends.
I would probably just use the easiest mechanic and slap a temp aspect that acts as a consiquence that lasts for a scene or two. Or you could treat it as a debt and get a free compel from the character.
-
Take-outs can do anything, by my reading. Inflict consequences, dictate behaviour, whatever.
The confusion around what being taken out by Demonic Co-Pilot means is one of the problems with that Power.
My default assumption is that the character becomes an excessively-violent NPC for the rest of the scene. Which frequently means absolutely nothing, since characters with Demonic Co-Pilot are often excessively-violent NPCs anyway.
Which kinda makes all that dice-rolling feel meaningless...
-
But mechanically, how would that giving in be represented? Aspect changes? Temporary aspects?
I think the best is to define a "new" concept: goals.
The DFRPG is written as a mirror to Jim's writing style, so we can go from his livejournal (http://jimbutcher.livejournal.com/2647.html) posts. In a conflict, you have opposing sides and each side has a goal. The side that wins the conflict can achieve their goal, the losing side does not. The middle ground would be a concession, where both sides win (or most often probably both sides lose). If you start out like that, it is much easier to figure out what is going to happen, once the fight is over.
I've just had something like that in my pbp, where a character wanted to interrogate a captured vampire. We started with a social conflict, where each of the opponents tried to convince the other to join his cause (or at least help him). The character won, and then we entered a Sequel (http://jimbutcher.livejournal.com/2880.html), where the character just asked his questions and the vampire answered, no further roll of a die needed.
In your demonic co-pilot example, the demon's goal would probably be full control of the body to go on a killing spree (though depending on the demon, it might be a little more refined). The host would most likely not want to give up his control, he only wants to use the transformation to kill some drugdealer and be done with it. Now if the host already has some consequences, the demon might just hit him again, when he is trying to do something important, and the only way the host can prevent that is taking an extreme consequence. Of course, you can always push on consequences the has taken to keep control before, which will probably get him to take an extreme consequence much quicker. A concession could be, that the host allows the demon control for a short time, if he also takes care of his goal. The GM would of course have to find a way to make a concession dangerous enough for the player to consider his options, otherwise he'd just always "let the dogs out" and be done with it.
Especially in this case, you can write down the goal of the winner as an aspect. That way, you can let the player keep playing his character, but you can also compel (without a fate point, it's a tag on the taken out aspect) him to play out the demon's goal.
-
Hm.
For something like a Hexenwolf, that would make the "disadvantage" part of the power basically meaningless:
Demon: You must kill them! Kill them all! Eat their entrails! <inflicts X mental stress>
Hexenwolf: Actually, I'm cool with that. It was kinda my plan anyway... Have at 'em, just top off the tank when your done! <accepts the takeout, or conceeds, as appropriate>
Demon: Yay! <kills a lot>
For players, it means that either the player wants what the demon wants (in which case the GM gets to play the character during fights, which is silly) or the character struggles against the demon, in which case you have the very poorly designed power that we had been discussing in the other thread.
So if you accept that it is an NPC power, it seems fine. As a PC power, it's crap.
-
Con-session Territory
Demon "I want you to kill them all."
Player "Ok so I will kill them all in my own way."
Demon: Your own ultra-violent way.
Player: Accepted.
-
If both opposites have the same goal, they are not really opposites (and there is no real conflict). In this case, the demon might want to do something more. wreak even more havoc, find and kill some innocents. For a PC, there is most often than not the problem with teammates, where the demonic co pilot becomes the typical berserker who can't differentiate between friend and foe, his objective is just to kill kill kill.
That's what I meant. The player and the GM have to find ways to make the drawback of the power interesting, which is a pretty thin line, because it can either mean you won't use it ever, or you would use it all the time because there are no drawbacks.
-
So if you accept that it is an NPC power, it seems fine.
Not in my experience.
As an NPC power, I've found Demonic Co-Pilot to be a bunch of pointless dice-rolling.
-
For DCP to work, the player and GM need to agree that being taken out by it essentially means Death. That is, that character becomes an NPC. This gives incentive to take consequences or concede. And, like always, the concession needs to be bad enough to make it a clear disadvantage for the character.
Personally, I'd say Taken Out is permanent NPC. Concession would be Temporary NPC (for a scene or more) that places the character in the GM's control. This'll likely end up with lots of physical consequences or possibly a long term temporary aspect.
But for the power to work, the Taken Out result must be permanent or semi-permanent.
-
For DCP to work, the player and GM need to agree that being taken out by it essentially means Death. That is, that character becomes an NPC. This gives incentive to take consequences or concede. And, like always, the concession needs to be bad enough to make it a clear disadvantage for the character.
Personally, I'd say Taken Out is permanent NPC. Concession would be Temporary NPC (for a scene or more) that places the character in the GM's control. This'll likely end up with lots of physical consequences or possibly a long term temporary aspect.
But for the power to work, the Taken Out result must be permanent or semi-permanent.
While I agree with the spirit of this, I disagree with it in principle. It would really suck for someone to lose thier character in a conflict with themself. I would say that Taken Out would result in a temporary NPC but concessions would be shapeshifting out of the form it's linked to or sitting out the rest of the conflict while the character "struggles against the demon." But then, like many others, I hate this power and agree that the the cons outweigh the pros on this one... The least I can say about it is that it should be a +0 power due to it's downside (I can't quite say it should be +1... but it's close). The sad thing is it's actually a decent model for the type of internal struggle the power implies, it's just really poorly executed.
I may try playtesting a new method soon, because I prefer the idea of something like this (but better) over the use of sponsor debt mechanics. Two possible methods I'm considering are tracking the number of exchanges in a conflict in which the demon helps the player and then requiring the player to roll Discipline against that as a mental attack at the end of the conflict. If the player gets taken out by the resulting roll, he attacks his teammates. On each exchange he rolls his Discipline again against the same target number. His teammates may apply aspects to him through appropriate skills in order to help him in his struggle to regain control. Or they can take him out. He cannot concede at this point.
The second method is similar to the first, except that for every exchange in which the demon helped the the character, a roll is made against the character's discipline. The strength of that roll will be determined by the conviction of the demon, which is set by the GM. This method at least means that a character with a high Fists skill and low Discipline isn't rolling against his own high Fists skill +1 and gives the DM power to mitigate the rolls.
-
In this case, I see "taken out" meaning that the Co-pilot takes charge for a scene.
Yes, you and the co-pilot both want to kill those people, but how about those people a block away? Or how about some wild and inappropriate sex - the sort that was hinted at by the FBI agents. Or how about damaging the car you came in, the one you were planning to leave in - meaning a more dangerous trip home, maybe causing you to invoke the power again.
In my view, this power is more closely linked to Lawbreaker than sponsored magic.
Richard
-
I'd make the result of being taken out by a Hexenwulf belt make a permanent aspect change on the character. To reflect letting go and allowing the demonic copilot you know, be the pilot. Or at least as a the result of it being used repeatedly.
-
That's the way I was thinking of going, honestly. Letting a PC go NPC is rarely fun, and it gives them an option beyond soaking up their consequences and subsequently getting Taken Out physically the first time they blow a dodge roll.
-
Not in my experience.
As an NPC power, I've found Demonic Co-Pilot to be a bunch of pointless dice-rolling.
Why would you need to roll dice if the host simply accepts takedown with the first mental attack, letting the co-pilot take the wheel for the duration of the conflict? Boom: no stress, no consequences, no rolling ... so long as the host and co-pilot have symbiotic goals.
-
If the host and co-pilot have symbiotic goals, then there is no conflict. If there is no conflict, there's no justification for an attack. If there is no justification for an attack, then the power shatters into a thousand tiny pieces of Badly Written.
-
If the host and co-pilot have symbiotic goals, then there is no conflict. If there is no conflict, there's no justification for an attack. If there is no justification for an attack, then the power shatters into a thousand tiny pieces of Badly Written.
Yeah, that.
Besides, letting people get out of the drawbacks of their Powers because they picked the right concept is just wrong.
(And honestly, rolling twice against yourself every action is pretty annoying even if the results matter. Especially if the results will matter or not depending on how things go.)
I'm still not sure what reason there is to not just use Sponsor Debt.
-
I think some of us are reading the RAW too broadly and not accounting for the intent. The intent (based on the idea that the power's there to emulate the Hexenwulf belts) seems to be that the demon's agenda will pretty much always be, if not opposed to, then a lot more extreme than the host's. So what you do is you make the demon's agenda single-minded and ruthless.
Something along the lines of, "KILL EVERYONE AND EAT THEIR FLESH". I find it hard to imagine many PCs will be okay with letting that take over regularly.
There is the point about the dice rolls, however. I suppose I don't see it as much of a problem because with IRC I can do like a dozen dice rolls in a couple seconds (keeping track of what goes where, however...
-
1. Even if you can roll fast, it's needless complexity. Not fun for me, and I tend to like complex rules. I expect many other people like it even less than I do.
2. If Demonic Co-Pilot requires you to understand an intent that it doesn't make clear, that's just another kind of bad writing.
3. Even when the intent is understood, most of the problems are still there. It still punishes high skills, it still may or may not be optional, it still doesn't represent what it's supposed to represent...and it still isn't fun. All this hassle for a generic +1.
-
1. Even if you can roll fast, it's needless complexity. Not fun for me, and I tend to like complex rules. I expect many other people like it even less than I do.
I did admit it was a problem, yes.
2. If Demonic Co-Pilot requires you to understand an intent that it doesn't make clear, that's just another kind of bad writing.
I think the margin bit with Harry and Billy directly discussing the Hexenwulf pelts makes the intent pretty clear, personally.
-
If other people don't get it, it's obviously not clear.
-
Not necessarily. It could be perfectly clear, but people just don't get it. I've seen people ask questions on TV Tropes whose answers are directly and clearly stated in the work in question. Never underestimate peoples' ability to completely misunderstand something that's clearly spelled out for them.
-
The definition of clarity is that people get it.
If people don't get it, it's not clear.
I guess you could express this as a percentage. If 99% get it, it's 99% clear. If 15% do, it's 15% clear. Etc.
-
I think he is referring to people who can see the clarity in front of them and not process it properly.
"Wghat weighs more a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?"
Many answer a pound of lead.
The answer is neither.
They both weigh a pound. It is clearly stated in the question. It does not ask for mass. In which case lead is still wrong....
This is perfectly clear. it is 100% clear. No one can always account for human error. Humans can screw up anything. ;D
-
If people don't get it, it's not clear.
I'll have to check the text of the page, but it was pretty clear to me, and I'm notoriously thick in some cases.
-
The bit about the demon's agenda is at least as clear as the agendas for sponsored magic ... for what that's worth. In the power text, it states "The GM should think about what the co-pilot’s agenda is." and that the copilot is "Usually an evil, angry one". I parse this as basically the GM is directed to screw with the player.
But if the evil, angry spirit is co-piloting an evil, angry NPC ... what then? It's not as though the hexen-FBI were fighting the belts' influence all that hard...
-
In the power text, it states "The GM should think about what the co-pilot’s agenda is." and that the copilot is "Usually an evil, angry one".
Yeah, that's the thing.
If something is usually so, then sometimes it is not so. So some co-pilots are nice.
I don't believe that it's clear from the text that those nice co-pilots only inhabit the heads of people who'd find them problematic.
I don't want to debate the definition of clarity, but I'd use that pound joke as a good example of something unclear. It's deliberately misleading, it uses verbal trickery to make people misunderstand. How is that clear?
-
Well, no. It's completely clear. It specifically asks which weighs more, a pound of one thing (a unit of weight), and a pound of another thing (again, a unit of weight). Peoples' perceptions screw them up, but the question is 100% clear on what it's asking and what the options are.
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. The power makes the intent clear: This is for demons that are angry and evil, or violent, or something along those lines.
-
No matter what the personality is you need to make sure there is an actual conflict. Suppose the co-pilot a friendly spirit of goodness, and it wins. After it helps your friends it goes directly to charging the local red court base. Maybe you get captured. Maybe you start a war. Maybe it succeeds and the red court hates you now. Oh, and you gave all your stuff to charity. Regardless being taken out is bad.
-
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'.
-
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.
-
So sometimes it's evil, sometimes it's angry, but usually it's both.
Richard
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Mortals can still take debt, it's just not Sponsored.
(As I would have it.)
-
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.
-
Hm.
Yeah, good point. Maybe make the general rule "characters can take FP debt, to a sponsor if appropriate".
-
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.
-
Demonic Co-pilot is just a plain bad power that is only useful for dealing with unintelligent wild spirits and even then not optimally. It is a power with allows no subtly or even a voice for the co-pilot which doesn't recognise that a co-pilot may have multiple agenda's and multiple methods such as subtle shaping rather than directly attacking its hosts mind. If you are going to have a possessed pc then the co-pilots should be GM run pc capable of subtly and planning not just a damage mechanic.
-
only useful for dealing with unintelligent wild spirits
Well...yes. That's exactly what Demonic Co-Pilot is for--a spirit to do the "heavy lifting" when you're shapeshifted into a different form. It says exactly that in the power's description. It's not supposed to be for a complicated, scheming demon with all kinds of subtlety and plans within plans.
Look, Demonic Co-Pilot as a shapeshifting power isn't supposed to be complicated. The spirit is, presumably, some kind of spirit akin to whatever form you've shifted into. And the "agenda" is "act more like the form you're in."
So a wolf spirit makes you want to hunt and kill. Maybe a "benign" spirit like a dove or whatever makes you want to not give a damn and just go flying instead of what your real goals are.
The "agenda" of the Demonic Co-Pilot, to my reading, is supposed to be primal and simple--and primal and simple is easy to make opposed, or at least complicating, to the character's own agenda. (See: Any time Harry is ever faced with a female).
It kind of reminds me of the Discworld series' approach to shapeshifting and borrowing, for instance. Werewolves, the longer they stay in wolf form, act more wolf and dog like. One such villain is dispatched because he can't help but jump up to catch an object flying over his head (even if it's a firecracker). For witches in that series, "borrowing" is piggybacking on some kind of animal and controlling it from afar--and if the witch holds on too long, they may never come back (and when they do come back, they take on the animal's traits for a bit--borrow an eagle for a while, and you start giving rabbits and squirrels hungry looks).
-
I think even the Pure Mortal Purists would have difficulty truly justifying denying the bonus solely on the basis of access to Sponsor Debt.
I have no problem justifying it.
A Pure Mortal is a PC with no intrinsic supernatural powers, not a PC without really useful intrinsic supernatural powers. If a PC gaina a supernatural - even one as useless as Cassandra’s Tears, then he isn't a Pure Mortal.
And if he entered into an agreement, pact, or are otherwise opened up to a theoretical "take sponsor debt for non-magical rolls" powers, then he is not a Pure Mortal.
Richard
-
no intrinsic supernatural powers
A mortal who can take sponsor debt has no intrinsic powers. Intrinsic, by definition, means a power belonging wholly to the mortal, as part of them. Sponsor debt is not something that is not a power of the mortal, but instead an outside source granting them aid (by definition, not intrinsic).
When you take a power, like Cassandra's Tears, you are no longer pure mortal, you have your own supernatural power (even if it isn't useful). Such a character is clearly no longer pure mortal, they have an intrinsic power (though I would likely let them have the bonus, for game balance reasons). On the other hand, entering into a bargain with an entity does not give you powers by itself, you have no powers, you cannot do anything special, you just sometimes get a boost (invoke an aspect or such, which is clearly not a supernatural power) to whatever normal mortal thing you are doing in exchange for your "help" later.
Weather or not you choose to give out the bonus refresh in a given circumstance is your choice. As is what you want to call a pure mortal. But the reason the bonus exists in the rules is clearly for balance reasons (or at least the decision to add it is motivated strongly by balance, among other possible factors). If a character does not have any useful supernatural powers, they are going to be weaker than one who does, that is why they get a bonus in my game (not for flavor reasons).
Also, I agree demonic co-pilot is a horribly worded power and would just be better off as an aspect and sponsor debt. You can invoke the aspect to help you when you are acting in accordance with the co-pilot's agenda and you get compelled when you aren't. If you wanted to make it cost something it would be easy to allow the demon to help you when you act to further its goals, look at a power like Righteousness, which is kind of like demonic co-pilot where the co-pilot is God, just re skin as appropriate (change conviction to some other skill, change out the burst attack for some other ability you can use, maybe after you savagely kill someone).
-
Oh buggerall we're not getting into this argument again, are we?
-
Well...yes. That's exactly what Demonic Co-Pilot is for--a spirit to do the "heavy lifting" when you're shapeshifted into a different form. It says exactly that in the power's description. It's not supposed to be for a complicated, scheming demon with all kinds of subtlety and plans within plans.
Look, Demonic Co-Pilot as a shapeshifting power isn't supposed to be complicated. The spirit is, presumably, some kind of spirit akin to whatever form you've shifted into. And the "agenda" is "act more like the form you're in."
So a wolf spirit makes you want to hunt and kill. Maybe a "benign" spirit like a dove or whatever makes you want to not give a damn and just go flying instead of what your real goals are.
The "agenda" of the Demonic Co-Pilot, to my reading, is supposed to be primal and simple--and primal and simple is easy to make opposed, or at least complicating, to the character's own agenda. (See: Any time Harry is ever faced with a female).
It kind of reminds me of the Discworld series' approach to shapeshifting and borrowing, for instance. Werewolves, the longer they stay in wolf form, act more wolf and dog like. One such villain is dispatched because he can't help but jump up to catch an object flying over his head (even if it's a firecracker). For witches in that series, "borrowing" is piggybacking on some kind of animal and controlling it from afar--and if the witch holds on too long, they may never come back (and when they do come back, they take on the animal's traits for a bit--borrow an eagle for a while, and you start giving rabbits and squirrels hungry looks).
I see as a failure of simulations it is called demonic co-pilot but it really fails to model the majority of demons we have seen in the Dresden Verse, demonic co-pilot should be the power to use for modelling a Denarian (a demonic entity that possess and manipulates it's host) but it utterly fails when used for this purpose.
-
Yes, it utterly fails when you try to use it for something that it was clearly never intended to be used for.
Just like Evocation utterly fails if you try to use it to simulate Thaumaturgy.
Having "demonic" in the name doesn't mean it's meant to represent every kind of demon ever mentioned in the series. I'm not sure how many times I have to keep saying this: It's made for a specific purpose, to emulate the kind of demonic influence that inhabits the Hexenwulf belts. It's not made to emulate every demonic interaction ever, and if it "fails" at doing that, it's not the fault of the power, it's the fault of someone who's failing to understand what the power's for.
-
Oh buggerall we're not getting into this argument again, are we?
Not on my side. I've stated my view and I don't believe explaining it further will change anyone's mind. I could copy and paste the Pure Mortal template as well as various other sections of the rules, but why? If anyone's interested in that then it's all there in the archives - and I know doing so won't alter anyone's opinions.
Richard
-
Does someone who chooses to be Taken Out by a blow to the head--getting knocked out--suffer no consequences, when he would have taken the Moderate Consequence of a concussion if he'd stayed in the fight?
The way I've run this is that the only mechanical baggage that comes with being Taken Out comes as a result of the negotiation and agreement on what the Taken Out should encompass. While a Moderate consequence "Concussion" is certainly on the table when you're Taken Out by being knocked unconscious, so are things like being robbed, captured and held hostage, social consequences like "left on the freeway naked at rush hour", and so on. The only reason you should end up with consequences after a Taken Out result is if it is agreeable to the players involved.
In your example above, I would say a Moderate consequence "concussion" is very appropriate, but no, it is not and should not be mechanically enforced when someone's Taken Out.
As for Demonic Co-Pilot, I don't even know what people are arguing about anymore. Nobody's going to convince anybody who hasn't already been convinced.
-
As for Demonic Co-Pilot, I don't even know what people are arguing about anymore. Nobody's going to convince anybody who hasn't already been convinced.
Nobody convinces their opponents in an internet argument (except in very rare situations). The format is like that of a political debate; you're trying to show the world that you're right. It's about the (possibly imaginary, possibly real) audience.
Just plain not true.
By a strict reading of the rules, they shouldn't be--but to my reading, it's not the intent of the power.
Just as foolish as assuming something is unclear just because you misunderstand it.
You're kind of showing my point here. If something is the clear intent, then there's no need for separate readings. If people understand something, then it's clear. If they don't, then it's not. I don't understand how you can even use the word clarity without that definition.
...Have you watched the news lately? Anything on MTV? Jersey Shore? There's a whole heap of evidence for this.
Enjoying lowbrow entertainment does not make you stupid. It just means that you like lowbrow entertainment.
I haven't watched a TV show in about four years...but my brother is a Jersey Shore fan. I think he has bad taste, but he's definitely not stupid.
I'm an arrogant guy sometimes, but I don't have the hideously bloated self-image required to look down on "the masses" because their hobbies are different from mine.
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.
What?
The whole issue we're arguing right now is that it doesn't account for the possibility of a non-evil co-pilot. It breaks when you add one, barring unusual circumstances.
-
Back on topic, when you are taken out the character taking you defines what happens to you. If he wants to say "okay, you were knocked unconscious with no other ill effects" and the table agrees it's reasonable, then that's what happens. He wants to say "I punch nose cartilage into your brain, killing you" and the table agrees it's reasonable, then that's what happens. If he wants to hold to the middle ground, to assign non-lethal consequences and the table agrees it's reasonable, then that's what happens.
Kill someone with a punch? It happens. Boxers occasionally get "taken out" in lethal ways. Type "Boxer kills" into google and one of the first results is http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/crime/s/1316282_video_former_boxer_kills_man_with_killer_punch (http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/crime/s/1316282_video_former_boxer_kills_man_with_killer_punch) - which is about a 'one pouch, one death" fight.
That's assuming that it isn't a concession - which is the only time you negotiate a takeout. If you get taken out without conceding, the only restrictions on what happens is:
a) it has to be something that the table agrees is reasonable, and
b) if it involves your PC's death you still "own your death scene".
And if the entity taking you out is a demonic one (say, attached to a power named "demonic co-pilot" as opposed to "angelic co-pilot"), the takeout isn't going to be a good thing for you.
Richard
-
You're kind of showing my point here. If something is the clear intent, then there's no need for separate readings. If people understand something, then it's clear. If they don't, then it's not. I don't understand how you can even use the word clarity without that definition.
How are you defining "people understand"? What's the threshold? Is it only clear if everyone reading gets it on the first go? If so, then there's almost nothing that can be truly called "clear."
Enjoying lowbrow entertainment does not make you stupid. It just means that you like lowbrow entertainment.
I haven't watched a TV show in about four years...but my brother is a Jersey Shore fan. I think he has bad taste, but he's definitely not stupid.
I'm an arrogant guy sometimes, but I don't have the hideously bloated self-image required to look down on "the masses" because their hobbies are different from mine.
That line was mostly a joke. But the point remains, there is plenty of evidence for stupidity in people. Watching Jersey Shore may not make you stupid (and isn't what I meant--I meant the people on Jersey Shore, and the people who take them as role-models), but I could make the argument that paying Snooki thousands of dollars to speak to students at a college just might.
Or the "Who needs good grades/Who needs condoms when you have swag?" posters I've seen lately. (Presuming they're real, anyway, I haven't given enough of a damn about them to verify).
What?
The whole issue we're arguing right now is that it doesn't account for the possibility of a non-evil co-pilot. It breaks when you add one, barring unusual circumstances.
I made a slight concession, that the writers may have anticipated and accounted for the possibility, after rereading the power, and have shifted my argument to that non-evil co-pilots are against the clear intent of the power.
-
I'm fairly certain that ruling's wrong.
I could be mis-remembering, but I thought that some time back when we had the Pure Human discussion, that someone pulled out an email from Fred that indicated that the threshold for losing Pure Human was spending refresh on powers. I did not share that opinion, but there it was.
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.
As I mentioned, I wasn't entirely happy with it either. The problem was that on the one hand I liked the idea of making sponsored invokes a bit more powerful (basically just tacking on a stunt that allows a particular sort of invoke to grant +3 instead of +2), but on the other hand do so allows Fate laundering (I invoke with sponsored debt to get a +3, then buy off the debt later by spending a Fate point). So yeah, it's probably a no-go.
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.
Compels can only be good things in the hands of a GM who's not trying hard enough. By definition, its only a proper compel if it causes trouble for the character.
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.
But it also creates a new problem (or at least what I see as a potential exploit) by way of offering 100% interest-free Fate loans. Borrow Fate whenever you need it, so long as you buy off the debt with a Fate point when you get one -- no consequences. Or, better yet, wait to hear what the proposed compel is, then decide whether to take a possibly "easy" compel, or buy it off.
-
How are you defining "people understand"? What's the threshold? Is it only clear if everyone reading gets it on the first go? If so, then there's almost nothing that can be truly called "clear."
Clarity is not binary.
Perfect clarity would result in perfect understanding from all who witnessed it.
Perfect lack of clarity would result in total misunderstanding from all who witnessed it.
Everything else will be somewhere between those two extremes.
-
By your definition, then, perfect clarity cannot exist. So what's the point in discussing it?
It would make more sense to define clarity in terms of being able to communicate concepts to those reasonably equipped to understand the concept, but I doubt that the world's most skillful communicator could convey to, say, an infant how to fold a towel in a way that the infant could understand. Which makes "clarity" a worthless concept.
-
Which makes "clarity" a worthless concept.
No, it makes 'clarity' a concept on par with 'heat', or 'darkness', or any other gradated measure.
-
No, it doesn't. A Joule of heat is a Joule of heat regardless of any outside factors. A lumen of light emission is a lumen of light emission, regardless of outside factors. If a witness doesn't know what a Joule of lumen is, that does not change the amount of heat or light. Nor does precision of instruments change the amount of heat or light, though it will affect the fidelity of measurements made. But there is a physical truth which is absolute. These are objective measures.
Your definition of clarity depends heavily on the capacity of the witnesses to understand it. The same person could give the same communication to different groups without any variation, and his "clarity" measure could easily range from 0% to 100% based solely on the witnesses and their capacity to understand.
I don't care how clearly you explain yourself, you will have 0% clarity on any attempt to explain the basics of folding a towel in half to a group of 1 month old children -- not because you aren't explaining clearly, but because the audience has 0% capacity for understanding the subject matter regardless of the clarity of the explanation. If your scale is no more precise than rating everything it measures as "ranging from 0% to 100%, depending on the witness", then there's no point in the measurement.
-
It's like beauty or tastiness.
Something is beautiful if people say it's beautiful after seeing it, and something is tasty if people like eating it.
Something is clear if people understand it.
I don't understand how this is even a question. I feel like I'm explaining English to a space alien.
Compels can only be good things in the hands of a GM who's not trying hard enough. By definition, its only a proper compel if it causes trouble for the character.
Yeah, so making them give bonuses is really problematic.
But it also creates a new problem (or at least what I see as a potential exploit) by way of offering 100% interest-free Fate loans. Borrow Fate whenever you need it, so long as you buy off the debt with a Fate point when you get one -- no consequences. Or, better yet, wait to hear what the proposed compel is, then decide whether to take a possibly "easy" compel, or buy it off.
What exactly is the problem here?
So far as I can tell, the issues you bring up here are actually the intended functionality of ordinary FP.
Sure, it's a power increase. But it's a tiny one, and one that everyone gets, so who cares?
(In case it's not obvious, you still need GM permission to take debt. And you don't get to choose when Compels come your way.)
I made a slight concession, that the writers may have anticipated and accounted for the possibility, after rereading the power, and have shifted my argument to that non-evil co-pilots are against the clear intent of the power.
No, they didn't anticipate or account for the possibility. If they had, the Power would work properly when that possibility arises.
Also, I don't think you're using the word "intent" right.
-
No, they didn't anticipate or account for the possibility. If they had, the Power would work properly when that possibility arises.
Also, I don't think you're using the word "intent" right.
I really don't see how that's the case. The power is linked directly with the Hexenwulf belts--artifacts that made their users go mad very quickly, taking on primal and wolf-like behaviors. The description says the spirits doing the co-piloting are usually violent, angry, and evil. The margin comments say it's a power for bad people and you'd have to be nuts to take it.
The intent looks pretty clear to me.
I mean, look, I think you guys are looking at it as more complicated than it needs to be. It's a shapeshifting power, and the spirit is there to help with the shapeshifting heavy-lifting, ergo, it's a spirit that's akin to whatever you're shapeshifting into, so its "agenda" is to make the host more like whatever he's shapeshifted into.
The problem arises when you try to make the demon's agenda more complicated than that, which I think is against the expressed intent of the power.
-
Back on topic, when you are taken out the character taking you defines what happens to you. If he wants to say "okay, you were knocked unconscious with no other ill effects" and the table agrees it's reasonable, then that's what happens. He wants to say "I punch nose cartilage into your brain, killing you" and the table agrees it's reasonable, then that's what happens. If he wants to hold to the middle ground, to assign non-lethal consequences and the table agrees it's reasonable, then that's what happens.
Kill someone with a punch? It happens. Boxers occasionally get "taken out" in lethal ways. Type "Boxer kills" into google and one of the first results is http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/crime/s/1316282_video_former_boxer_kills_man_with_killer_punch (http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/crime/s/1316282_video_former_boxer_kills_man_with_killer_punch) - which is about a 'one pouch, one death" fight.
That's assuming that it isn't a concession - which is the only time you negotiate a takeout. If you get taken out without conceding, the only restrictions on what happens is:
a) it has to be something that the table agrees is reasonable, and
b) if it involves your PC's death you still "own your death scene".
And if the entity taking you out is a demonic one (say, attached to a power named "demonic co-pilot" as opposed to "angelic co-pilot"), the takeout isn't going to be a good thing for you.
Richard
Bolded for emphasis, its hard to find relevant information sometimes on here lol. I agree with Mr Chilton on this one. It's entirely plausible to receive a consequence after being taken out. Another way it to chuck an aspect on them. I had a player who was a Were-Jaguar grapple a punk and then used intimidate to take him out on the mental stress track. He then gave him the aspect "Terrified of Cats" which came in useful later in the game when he encountered the punk again.