Construct Creation

[Lonelylurker]

Paranet Papers gives good guidelines for creating undead, but fails to address the question of Constructs(eg. Golums, Animated Statues etc. It seems like the same basic parameters should apply, but it must be more difficult or no one would turn to Necromancy. So for those who want numbers to work with I suggest the following:

Calculate the complexity of construct creation thaumaturgy with a +3 to create the 'aspect' of the corporeal form and give it a base duration of 'scene'(15 minutes on the time chart) instead of 'sunrise'(afternoon).

That's effectively +11 complexity over a necromantic animation, giving plenty of temptation to start down the dark path, but gives 'law-abiding' minion-builders a decent baseline to work from.

Of course if you're animating an existing body the 'it is what it is' principle may provide a few 'free' benefits(eg. a stone statue would have some 'intrinsic' toughness), but anything exotic will require some pretty good explanations(and likely in character work which could require help from the other characters and possibly be a session in itself).

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't think this is a good idea.

The Paranet Papers guidelines are not good. Moreover, in this game getting the same mechanical effect in two different ways has the same cost both ways. I don't think breaking that rule is a good idea.

Lawbreaking does give some easy extra power, but I think the Lawbreaker Power represents that pretty well.

Also, 11 shifts is a lot.

[Haru]

As with every thaumaturgy magic (or every action in general), the more important question to "how" would be "why".

If you just create a construct to stand there in the corner, that's not going to be very interesting. Have 100 of them, for all I care.

Now when it comes to using them, that's when it gets interesting.

So I'd probably come at this from a totally different angle. So when it comes to a necromancer or an artificer, I'll assume that they'll have their undead or golems in arms reach, unless explicitly told otherwise. After that, it's basically the way they channel their magic.

So when Grevane attacks Harry, he does a regular necromancy magic attack spell, but instead of hurling dark energy at Harry, he sends his reanimated goons. Those goons are always with him, that's just his style, that's what allows him to do his magic. If he were a player character and needed to go somewhere he couldn't bring his chaps, he'd get a fate point for the trouble.

Likewise an artificer with a golem. If he wanted his golem to burst through a wall, he'd roll on a maneuver spell against the wall's strength, and if he succeeds, the golem bursts through.

Now one thing that creatures like allow for very nicely is sponsored magic and especially evothaum. You don't need to do a long ritual to break down that wall, you can do it immediately. You need some extra juice? Overload your golem. It might break down later, but at least you're through the wall.


Of course, the best way to play a big creature like that would be for another player to pick up the sheet and play it as their character.

[Lonelylurker]

I don't think this is a good idea.

The Paranet Papers guidelines are not good. Moreover, in this game getting the same mechanical effect in two different ways has the same cost both ways. I don't think breaking that rule is a good idea.

Lawbreaking does give some easy extra power, but I think the Lawbreaker Power represents that pretty well.

Also, 11 shifts is a lot.

Do you mean that Creating constructs should have the same complexity as necromancy? That seems rather overpowered, It also breaks the rule that conjurations start with a duration of 1 scene.

You could ignore the aspect cost since a zombie pre-supposes the 'corpse' aspect in the scene, but where would the 8 shifts for duration come from?

Haru, That's an interesting way to  look at it. To my way of thinking an animate construct is more like an investment that you make ahead of time to have a bit more oomph at a critical moment. Or a remote tool, to act while you're busy doing something else/don't want to expose yourself. A seperate  discreet 'unit' under your control but acting seperately. What you describe sounds more like a focus item.

[Haru]

Haru, That's an interesting way to  look at it. To my way of thinking an animate construct is more like an investment that you make ahead of time to have a bit more oomph at a critical moment. Or a remote tool, to act while you're busy doing something else/don't want to expose yourself. A seperate  discreet 'unit' under your control but acting seperately. What you describe sounds more like a focus item.

It's a very abstract way of doing it, granted, but it's much more than a focus item.

The problem with having a separate entity that can do stuff for you when you don't want to expose yourself is kind of boring. It's like watching a crime show and all they do is sit in their office and send out the beat cops. While the camera stays in the office.

Sure, you could then go and play the construct instead, but then you don't really need the wizard who created the construct anymore, if you always play the construct, because the wizard doesn't want to go out into danger.

And overall, the construct is a separate entity. You can still send it out to do stuff, for example send it out to look for something or someone. That would just be how you flavor your tracking spells. The construct just doesn't get any individual powers, because then it would take away from the characters spotlight. Or you basically give the player 2 characters to play, which isn't really all that fair to the rest of the group.

[Sanctaphrax]

Do you mean that Creating constructs should have the same complexity as necromancy? That seems rather overpowered, It also breaks the rule that conjurations start with a duration of 1 scene.

I think that necromancy should have the same complexity as constructs do. And neither should use the guidelines in the Paranet Papers. Because those guidelines are not fair at all.

Haru's method is a good one, but when I want to create semi-independent characters I use Method 1 from this page. So far I've found it to work pretty well in play.

PS: Whether the duration starts at a scene or a day or a year is just numerical fiddling, it doesn't mean anything narratively.

[Lonelylurker]

Agreed, it could get boring if overused, but it would either be pretty simple-minded or else really complex, and either way much easier to destroy than to rebuild.

Doing it abstractly as you suggest is certainly easier, but also has big holes. For example: You send it out to find something, the person it's looking for notices it and tries to ambush it to keep it from following. How hard was it to spot? Can it resist being blown away? How likely is it to escape?

If it were an npc sending a construct to spy on a pc(or a pc keeping an eye on another pc) then all those things(and more) would be highly relevant. Granted that when the target is an npc a fair bit of hand-waving can be used, but the spell should be fully useable regardless of "PC-light" status.

Sanctafrax; Thanks, I'll check that out. Do you think PP makes it to easy or to hard?

[Haru]

Doing it abstractly as you suggest is certainly easier, but also has big holes. For example: You send it out to find something, the person it's looking for notices it and tries to ambush it to keep it from following. How hard was it to spot? Can it resist being blown away? How likely is it to escape?

That's easily done as a compel. Or as a "success at a cost" sort of thing, when you tie. The construct even gives you a very good framework to do something like this.

If it were an npc sending a construct to spy on a pc(or a pc keeping an eye on another pc) then all those things(and more) would be highly relevant. Granted that when the target is an npc a fair bit of hand-waving can be used, but the spell should be fully useable regardless of "PC-light" status.

True. Though I wouldn't do it like this for an NPC. An NPC would get a construct as a fully fledged character as a sidekick. Or a minion. Or whatever fits its powerlevel. Because when it goes after the players. the scene is about it and the player characters, not the wizard that created it. I find that in Fate using equal rules for the player characters and the non player characters doesn't always make a 100% sense, often you need to adjust things to fit the scene. Not to cheat or to screw the players, but to make the story revolve around the player characters.

Though I can understand if this is not to your taste. I'm just trying to explain my idea as clearly as I can.

[Lonelylurker]

Different tastes I guess, I prefer internal consistency, even if it means a little more figuring sometimes. I've had bad experiences with 'double standard' systematology.

[Sanctaphrax]

I think that the PP system is usually too easy, but sometimes too hard. Look at these two zombies:

Kung-Fu Zombie

Legendary Fists
-1 Stunt: Footwork
-1 Stunt: Improved Footwork (Use Fists to sprint in combat)
-4 Supernatural Toughness
+3 The Catch (Headshots)

Regular Zombie

Good Fists
Fair Endurance and Athletics
Average Intimidation, Might, and Weapons
-1 Stunt: Very Fast (+2 to sprint)
-4 Supernatural Toughness
+3 The Catch (Headshots)

Both cost 14 complexity, despite the fact that the kung-fu zombie is massively more powerful.

PS: Also, I really dislike what they did with the Toughness Powers on the example zombies. Just sloppy editing, I guess, but it sours me on the whole system.

[Taran]

For a construct going in to gather information, I might just incorporate it into the complexity of a ritual.  I'd decide what skills anyone would use to break in.

Questions: 
is your construct breaking the door down or picking locks.
Sneaking or ransacking
Do you care if it's obvious


After those are answered, I'd incorporate it into the spell:
Burglary 3/ Might 4 - to get in
Sneak 4 - to go unnoticed
Investigation 5 - to find what you're looking for.

Total complexity 12/13

That assumes success on everything.  Or, if you want to make it more exciting, I'd let you pick the complexity and the individual rolls without telling you what you need for success.

Then I'd have the NPC roll against your numbers.  IF you want a quick, easy ritual, the NPC will, more likely, discover what's going on.  If you make a huge complex spell, it's likely you'll succeed.

Then, if any of the rolls fail, I'd allow the player to decide if they want to succeed with a consequence or back out....or if they fail badly enough, fail and back and suffer the consequence.

Because, really, once the spell is done, you don't really care what happens to the construct.  You only care whether you succeed  - so you can continue on with your goals, or fail  - and suffer the fallout.

[g33k]

Awwwww... MAN!!!!   
Here I was, expecting the DFRPG breakdown on how to "construct" (point-buy) all of Creation...   
 

[Quantus]

The Paranet Papers guidelines are not good. Moreover, in this game getting the same mechanical effect in two different ways has the same cost both ways. I don't think breaking that rule is a good idea.

Without derailing this thread too much, why do you say that?  (I havent looked at the Paranet Papers at all yet, Im just curious)

[Taran]

Without derailing this thread too much, why do you say that?  (I havent looked at the Paranet Papers at all yet, Im just curious)

I think that the PP system is usually too easy, but sometimes too hard. Look at these two zombies:

Kung-Fu Zombie

Legendary Fists
-1 Stunt: Footwork
-1 Stunt: Improved Footwork (Use Fists to sprint in combat)
-4 Supernatural Toughness
+3 The Catch (Headshots)

Regular Zombie

Good Fists
Fair Endurance and Athletics
Average Intimidation, Might, and Weapons
-1 Stunt: Very Fast (+2 to sprint)
-4 Supernatural Toughness
+3 The Catch (Headshots)

Both cost 14 complexity, despite the fact that the kung-fu zombie is massively more powerful.

PS: Also, I really dislike what they did with the Toughness Powers on the example zombies. Just sloppy editing, I guess, but it sours me on the whole system.

[regitnui]

(Not clued on the mechanics)

Wouldn't it be possible, for a long-term golem/construct, to flavour it as "Sponsored Magic"? Spells are the various manoeuvres the construct can use, debt becomes "damage" or "energy drain" on the construct's supply, and the compels resulting from debt can be reflavoured as the construct misbehaving/leaking magic/shutting down?