Rules for Pets and Allies

[Tedronai]

• Conclusion:  The PCs should pay refresh for any new abilities they gain from having a pet/companion.

What is the refresh value of Wings on a (for the purpose of argument, intelligent and communicative) pet sparrow?
Because it certainly isn't the same as that on the PC spending that refresh.

[UmbraLux]

What is the refresh value of Wings on a (for the purpose of argument, intelligent and communicative) pet sparrow?
Because it certainly isn't the same as that on the PC spending that refresh.

Zero unless the pet can carry the PC.  That's my point - you'd pay for what the wings + intelligence + communication on a bird gets the PC.  The new things he can accomplish....recon, listening in on some conversations, possibly combat maneuvers, etc.

[Sanctaphrax]

Yep, are you avoiding giving powers to companions?

No, I just think that that Supernatural Sense would probably have to be taken by the player who had the companion.

• The bird (or other pet) is not a protagonist. 
• The PCs*, as protagonists, spend refresh on abilities (whether permanent or temporary) which allow them to affect the way the game resolves - the narrative. 
• Conclusion:  The PCs should pay refresh for any new abilities they gain from having a pet/companion.
• Corollary:  Abilities which have little or no affect on the PCs' ability to modify the narrative are simply scenery - an aspect.  (Don't need to be paid for.)

If that's not clear you'll need to let me know where I need to elucidate.  (Also, Devonapple's examples are relevant - though I'd treat a second action in an exchange as a power/stunt which costs fate in and of itself.)

*Or players.  Whether the character spends fate or the player does is something of a blurry area.
Basically.  And I treat skill points similarly to the list above.  Does it grant something the character couldn't do otherwise?  If so, it needs to be paid for...

Thanks, that's quite a helpful explanation.

Anyway, we all seem to agree that players should be charged for the benefit they get from a companion's powers.

And generally, having a power yourself is better than having a companion with it.

So upgrading your companion ought to be generally cheaper than upgrading yourself.

But how much cheaper?

I'd really like to get a simple answer here, but I am prepared to go case-by-case if necessary.

[Tedronai]

Anyway, we all seem to agree that players should be charged for the benefit they get from a companion's powers.

Such would seem, to me, to be inherent in all options presented thus far.
The only disagreements have been in the costing formula.

[Sanctaphrax]

Exactly, I just wanted to make it explicit because

a) I wanted some clear common ground
and
b) I wanted to see if anyone was going to say no.

EDIT: Something I just realized: The "players should be charged for the benefit they get from a companion's powers" thing is not inherent to a simple ratio approach like "1 stunt for 2 refresh" or to a refresh level approach like "make a Feet In The Water character". Those approaches could work just as well or better if the idea was to charge players for the benefits their companions get from their companions' powers. It is, however, inherent to the comments of the people presenting those approaches. (Did that make any sense at all?)

[UmbraLux]

So upgrading your companion ought to be generally cheaper than upgrading yourself.

But how much cheaper?

I'd use the rebate model - it seems to fit and is already in use elsewhere.  I'd try to base the rebate on how often they may lose access to the companion-linked powers.

[benign]

I may be in the minority, but I greatly prefer a simple set of rules to a complicated, highly subjective exhortation to price a companion based on the presumed impact that it will have on the narrative of the campaign.

Implicit in the pricing of everything in DFPRG, stunts powers etc., is that a strict price can be given to an option that expands the choices available to a player. Not every player in every game will get the same utility out of a a power or stunt, but the power does offer the same broadening of choices and so is priced the same independent of its "actual" value to the player and independent of what situations the particular campaign tends to involve. Thus nowhere in the DFRPG does it advocate offering a discount for strength powers in an RP-heavy campaign, or an increased charge for wings in games where hedge mazes play an important role in the plot.

I think that charging a player refresh to allow his companion to spend an equal amount of refresh is the way to go, and that trying to determine what powers might be "useful" to the character and which are just window dressing is not. There is always going to be a player who comes up with creative ways to use powers that the GM didn't expect, which make his companion underpriced. That leads to resentment at the table, which leads to conflict (the OOG, bad kind), and we don't want that.

If we do go that route, I still kind of like the tack I originally took: 1 stunt gets you a companion with no refresh but some skills, another stunt improves that with some amount of refresh, probably 2 or 3 (2 evens out the amount of refresh spent on the companion with the amount they have to spend, 3 effectively gives them a refund of 1), and further stunts increase their refresh by 1. I'm also intrigued by UmbraLux's idea to tie the refresh to the likeliehood that the companion is available to you, maybe also with a tie to how broadly they are willing to assist you. So a superpowered white court companion who cravenly refuses to risk his life might give you a better refund than a former Marine who swore a life debt and routinely risks his life for you without question. Though those differences (and the one Lux brought up) could also be well handled with compels . . .

[Silverblaze]

Is it possible to word a stunt in such a way to create an NPC with it's own motivations that has an aspect or two linking it to the PC with the stunt.  Therefore the NPC could also have a trouble aspect that makes the player help it out on occasion.  It can have it's own minor plots.  Also if mistreated it can go rogue and hte refresh spent on it can be refunded?

[benign]

Is it possible to word a stunt in such a way to create an NPC with it's own motivations that has an aspect or two linking it to the PC with the stunt.  Therefore the NPC could also have a trouble aspect that makes the player help it out on occasion.  It can have it's own minor plots.  Also if mistreated it can go rogue and hte refresh spent on it can be refunded?

If you wanted an ally that had loyalty problem, or something else that affects how useful it can be, I think you can just take the normal stunt, as well as an aspect related to them ("cowardly mercenary" or something). Whenever the companion is less useful than it otherwise would be, that aspect gets compelled, awarding a fate point. In that way it's kind of a soft refund, offering fate points to be spent occasionally as opposed to a permanent return of refresh.

That way you could accommodate such a character idea without having to make a special power or stunt for it.

[Sanctaphrax]

If an ally is less loyal than would be expected, it should either get a blanker discount or frequent compels.

I also would like a simple system.

I suppose that a rebate would work. Only problem is that rebates tend to encourage people to take the minimum amount of powers available. If you have Feeding Dependency, you only want to attack 2 refresh of your powers to that Dependency.

Does anybody have a good idea for a way that rebates could scale with power purchases?

I might have one myself, but it's still half-formed. I'll try to finish it tomorrow.

[benign]

I think we can expand this line of thought to say whenever an ally is unavailable to help out in a situation where they should be useful, you are eligible for a compel and a fate point.

In some situations an ally wouldn't be able to contribute to the conflict even if they were present, so it's a weak compel, i.e. the player doesn't get a fate point. For example, a player's secretary had to pick up her kids from soccer practice and so couldn't participate in the vicious throwdown the PCs had with a cranky godling. She wouldn't have contributed to the fight anyway, so the GM can rightly say that the player gets no fate point.

On the other hand, any time a player could legitimately say "man, I wish my companion were here!", and that companion can't be for some reason, it is worth a fate point.

Thoughts?

[UmbraLux]

I think that, and many compel situations, will change from one table to another.  I'd just go with making the companion an aspect* and let the table compel as they would other aspects.

*For clarity, not necessarily just an aspect.  But a set of stunts / powers which include a relevant aspect.

[Sanctaphrax]

Yeah, companion stunts should probably require linked aspects.

And while having them unavailable could be a compel it could also be a number of other things.

Anyway, here's my idea for the rules:

A companion stunt gives a 0-refresh companion with a skill pyramid 1 shorter than your linked skill.
An upgrade stunt adds 1 to the height of your companion's skill pyramid.
Another upgrade stunt gives refresh.

The basic companion stunt can give 1 stunt's worth of refresh if you reduce the pyramid height by 1.

That's all fairly basic stuff so far. Here's the interesting bit.

Each stunt gives 1-4 refresh. 1 refresh if having a companion with the power is as good as or better than having it yourself. +1 if the power only helps you indirectly. +1 if the companion isn't all that obedient. +1 if the power is for some reason impractical.

So if I use companion to represent my faithful slave with Psychometry, I need to spend a whole stunt on that psychometry. But if I use companion to represent that my overprotective father is a massive dragon, I can get his Titanic Size (Hulking Size x2) for 1 stunt.

Wording needs work, but I think I'm onto something here.

Which means that if I'm not, you should shoot me down before I get too enthusiastic.

[benign]

It sounds good, at the very least I'm interested in seeing how you develop the idea. It's intriguing.

I still don't like the idea of offering some refresh for trading in skill points, though. In my opinion it introduces an equivalence between the two resources that isn't anywhere else in the game, and this isn't the place to establish it.

[SunlessNick]

A) Like an item of power, buying refresh for a companion character is like buying powers for yourself, but with limitations. With IoP the powers are unavailable if you don't have the item with you, and are subject to certain compels based on the nature of the item. With a companion, you don't have access to those powers if the companion is unwilling or unable to lend a hand in a given situation, and they will generally be less skillful at employing said powers than you would be. So buying refresh to be spent by a companion should have some built in refresh refund, just like IoP.

B) Companions break action economy, and that is quite powerful. A companion may also have an entirely different skill focus than you do, granting considerable breadth of capability unavailable to PCs without a companion. Therefore refresh spent by companions should be strictly limited, and the last thing you want to do is grant a refund like you get from IoP. A stunt granting 1 refresh is about what you'd have following this model.  -  benign

It makes a difference whether the companion is useful in dramatic conflicts (and which kinds), or whether they're a "home base" resource.  Perhaps a "resource" character gets you a rebate of +2 Refresh like an Item of Power, but they suffer a -2 on anything outside the role you bought them for - you might be able to spend FP to mitigate that, but it's expensive.  If they're a fighter or a talker - ie, they can take part in a physical or social conflict, whether with you or for you - that's a 1 refresh enhancement, so the rebate drops to +1.  And if they can do both, the rebate vanishes altogether.  Not sure whether mental conflicts should figure in there too.

I think that charging a player refresh to allow his companion to spend an equal amount of refresh is the way to go, and that trying to determine what powers might be "useful" to the character and which are just window dressing is not.

I agree.

Yeah, companion stunts should probably require linked aspects.  -  Sanctaphrax

Absolutely.  I also think the Aspect should be worded in such a way as to indicate whether loyalty is a question (sometimes it won't be; Batman doesn't need Alfred's loyalty to be anything less than absolute in order to lead a dangerous and exciting life).

Question:  Does an otherwise pure mortal character who has a Comppanion with powers stop being a pure mortal?