Silly Summon Question

[DoItHTH]

Caris said:

 

Well, you have yet to convince me that there is a case where Summon: Generic Being is more effective than Summon: Specific Being, so I certainly will never allow it to cost less than the basic form of Summoning. Since I have a very tiny mind when it comes to keeping my rulings consistent for my players, the fact that I can see it’s potential for being more powerful than the generic, means that everyone has to pay an advantage for it, if I allow it at all.

 

here is a case where generic is better:

 

I summon a generic policeman to arrest the criminals I just beat up. No problem he gladly cuffs them and starts interviewing witnesses.

 

I summon Officer Stumpy who last week got hit by a car while walking between his cruiser and a car he just pulled over for speeding. Stumpy appears in a full body cast, screaming with pain since he now is laying on the ground instead of his nice soft hospital bed.

 

Ok is this not a case where specific is worse then generic?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by DoItHTH

Caris said:

 

Well, you have yet to convince me that there is a case where Summon: Generic Being is more effective than Summon: Specific Being, so I certainly will never allow it to cost less than the basic form of Summoning. Since I have a very tiny mind when it comes to keeping my rulings consistent for my players, the fact that I can see it’s potential for being more powerful than the generic, means that everyone has to pay an advantage for it, if I allow it at all.

 

here is a case where generic is better:

 

I summon a generic policeman to arrest the criminals I just beat up. No problem he gladly cuffs them and starts interviewing witnesses.

 

I summon Officer Stumpy who last week got hit by a car while walking between his cruiser and a car he just pulled over for speeding. Stumpy appears in a full body cast, screaming with pain since he now is laying on the ground instead of his nice soft hospital bed.

 

Ok is this not a case where specific is worse then generic?

 

This is the case in a nutshell. The ability to summon a specific police officer gave me no special advantages when Stumpy was in good shape. When he is in less than 100% full condition, I am at a disadvantage.

 

Similarly, if Officer Stumpy is investigated by Internal Affairs and becomes Felon Stumpy, I'm now left with the choice of saying "those were wasted points" or, in summoning him, freeing a felon from prison.

 

The case has been made that my "specific" summon may become friendlier over time. But the terms of my Summon determine how friendly he is. If I want him to get more friendly, I need to pay more points. That's the same way my EB becomes more accurate - I use experience to make it so.

 

Now, if "specific person" permitted me to select the police officer I wish to summon from a pool, then I could elect to summon Stumpy, but to bring Officer Friendly, who has neither been hit by car nor nailed on charges. I can also choose which skills I get to some extent (I can decide whether I want a sharpshooter from tactical or a detective from homocide). However, this requires me to take an advantage to widen my Summon, since it will allow considerable variation in allocation of points (I'd say +1/4 - "any human" being 1/2 and "any being" a +1)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

ERm I have a copy of the first issue of the Saddam Hussein "It's my Reich and I'm gonna do what I want to" comic book.

 

Also er What about Good old Ronnie Regan? he had a few moies under his belt.

 

Saddam - that's one.

 

Ronnie - gonna have to veto that - he made movies, no one made movies about him (as a politician). Sure, they get the occasional TV show on Biography, but that's not up to the standards of our Action Heroes!

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by caris

A mistreated follower, who leaves may never come back, meaning the points invested in the character are lost. A Summoned “Specific Person†who is mistreated will have to come every time he is summoned, and can be compelled to follow orders by an Ego contest.

 

"Amicable" eliminates the required ego contest, but doesn't say it is not still possible, I suppose. If you have already roll played your "amicable" summoned SPECIFIC being into a an antagonistic being, guess you're out of luck. If you made him hostile ("antagonistic" - ego roll bonuses), it's even harder to make that ego contest. And your roll is -1 per 10 active points in Summon already, so you better have a good Ego!

 

In addition logically, if a Summoned specific being can become less friendly over time without causing a cost break to the PC, than it should be able to become more friendly to the PC over time without costing the PC additional points. The power write up does not address the issue of the Summoned Being’s attitude changing over time. It would be equally valid to assume that the power “Summon†can also influence the attitudes of the beings summoned so whenever the Specific Being is summoned the power compels him to react to you at the level at which you paid the points regardless of past history. A distinct possibility given its ability to force the summoned being to perform tasks after the Ego contest.

 

Every couple of weeks, you appear in a strange man's house. He orders you to do his domestic chores, and you feel yourself compelled to obey. After the fifth time, are you starting to like him?

 

Either the character will have paid for friendly, or role played his way to a better relationship. He could have role played a better relationship with any character he meets.

 

Which takes us back to getting a KS, that you can keep rolling over and over again until you succeed, which I do not interpret the rules as allowing. In turn my interpretation means that Louie the art expert is not any more limiting than any other art critic. The fact that allowing you to summon Louie the art critic, who may not be any more beneficial than a random generic art critic opens me up to requests to Summon potentially abusive uses of the power means that either I don’t allow Specific Being Summons at all, or I make everyone buy the advantage. Granted this best fits my sense of fair play. You may feel that it is more appropriate for this to be ruled on a case by case basis. Steve apparently felt that the flat application rule with a stop sign best met his sense of fair play

 

So your sense of fair play is "Louie the Art Critic provides neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. Consequently, you must pay double if you wish to summon Louie (and Louie alone - if he dies, or becomes mentally unstable, too bad for you!) instead of a generic art critic.

 

As for Steve's sense of fair play, I wonder whether he would enforce that +1 for Louie, or turn to page 70 of FREd and read the discussion of special effects, and consider Louie to be a special effect. "Only if this benefit becomes useful in the game on a frequent basis, or the character tries to exploit it in combat, should the GM consider making him pay points for it." This "uber-rule" seems ignored in your discussion.

 

Since a Summoned being may leave at anytime unless the coerced to stay, I always took the paragraph discussing dispel, or suppress vs. Summoning only applying to other characters, in most cases. The paragraph in question also references “otherwise coerce the being into leavingâ€.

 

This paragraph references "a character", not "a character other than the one who summoned", but this is a good question which I think I'll put on the Rules board.

 

None of this qualifies as defining when the Summon beings no longer qualifies as applying towards the Summoner’s limit for number of beings summoned. The rule also applies to defining how many of the summoned beings that the character has present at one time, it does not address using summon to bring the same being back to the closest available area to contain the being. In the case of summoning a different generic being each time, he would not be able to summon the already existing being, since by definition he can only summon different ones each time, no impact. In the case where he is summoning a specific being, he can keep summoning that being as many times as he wishes to pay the END to do so.

 

Assuming we ignore the specific notation that "Summon should not be used as a cheap form of teleportation, nor as a way to Summon an individual so that the Summoner can kill him". As such, any player who is trying for these construicts, which seem to be your main abuse concern, are clearly outside the rules.

 

This paragraph goes on to reference Summona specific being as something requiring GM permission (two stop signs and an in-text admonition seems to me to indicate that Steve is well aware the power can be abused - are there powers which cannot?).

 

 

You are simply replacing “ranged†with “triggerâ€. As a GM I would require you to buy a megascaled transdimentional sense of some sort with it to go with it, but you would theoretically need it for the summon too, so I won’t quibble. On the other hand the follower can not choose if you put the power on him, or refuse to use the power if triggered. You are still in complete control of the power and pay the END for it, that is Usable as an Attack, not Usable by Others. (I’m sorry, I just don’t consider Followers inherently “slavishly devotedâ€.)

 

Why can't the follower choose to reject the use of Teleport on him? That's his choice - I made it so when I chose NOT to buy "usable as an attack". The fact it goes off when Triggered is the same as any other Triggered power - no one gets a choice!

[caris]

Originally posted by DoItHTH

here is a case where generic is better:

 

I summon a generic policeman to arrest the criminals I just beat up. No problem he gladly cuffs them and starts interviewing witnesses.

 

I summon Officer Stumpy who last week got hit by a car while walking between his cruiser and a car he just pulled over for speeding. Stumpy appears in a full body cast, screaming with pain since he now is laying on the ground instead of his nice soft hospital bed.

 

Ok is this not a case where specific is worse then generic? [/b]

 

The rub here is that we keep getting into the fact that we are taking the rules to do something that the base assumption is the power shouldn’t be doing, so the rules don’t address it. Your assumption here is that when you Summon Stumpy you get him exactly as he is at this moment in time, which is fine and logical. It is still an assumption. There is nothing in the power description indicating that would be the case. It is solely up to the GM to make it up on the spot.

 

Let’s take the example a step further. What if Stumpy died in that car crash? The rules do not discuss what happens when your Summoned dies or is injured when dismissed, because they assume it is irrelevant you are always going to get a different one. The basic assumption is that you will always get what you Summoned at full health and ready to go, so you could make the case that for the duration of the time that Stumpy is Summoned it is as if he was never hit by the car, and is fully functional.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by caris

The rub here is that we keep getting into the fact that we are taking the rules to do something that the base assumption is the power shouldn’t be doing, so the rules don’t address it. Your assumption here is that when you Summon Stumpy you get him exactly as he is at this moment in time, which is fine and logical. It is still an assumption. There is nothing in the power description indicating that would be the case. It is solely up to the GM to make it up on the spot.

 

Let’s take the example a step further. What if Stumpy died in that car crash? The rules do not discuss what happens when your Summoned dies or is injured when dismissed, because they assume it is irrelevant you are always going to get a different one. The basic assumption is that you will always get what you Summoned at full health and ready to go, so you could make the case that for the duration of the time that Stumpy is Summoned it is as if he was never hit by the car, and is fully functional.

 

Actually, FREd p.143, under Summon Specific Being, specifically cautions against allowing the summoning of Officer Stumpy (or Tony Blair) unless you've already located them by "some other means." It doesn't look like it was intended for summoning anything much beyond spirits of the dead, and doesn't directly address issues like always getting the same summoned toaster or demon at all. All of it comes the GMs call, which for a power as potentially unballancing as Summon makes perfect sense.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by caris

The rub here is that we keep getting into the fact that we are taking the rules to do something that the base assumption is the power shouldn’t be doing, so the rules don’t address it. Your assumption here is that when you Summon Stumpy you get him exactly as he is at this moment in time, which is fine and logical. It is still an assumption. There is nothing in the power description indicating that would be the case. It is solely up to the GM to make it up on the spot.

 

I think it's a much greater assumption to assume you get a fully healed facsimile of the character. Although I have seen Summon used in similar fashion to simulate both raising the dead and perpetual reincarnation.

 

But I can see why you feel this is unbalancing - you just keep adding extra benefits to the power. In addition to the ability to fully heal Stumpy (or, presumably, bring him vback from the dead), he's going to be pretty co-operative if he understands his choices are obedience, or I Dispel my summon and back you go!

 

Let’s take the example a step further. What if Stumpy died in that car crash? The rules do not discuss what happens when your Summoned dies or is injured when dismissed, because they assume it is irrelevant you are always going to get a different one. The basic assumption is that you will always get what you Summoned at full health and ready to go, so you could make the case that for the duration of the time that Stumpy is Summoned it is as if he was never hit by the car, and is fully functional.

 

Again, this covers off a lot of the difference in perceived values - if you allow that the Summoned character will always be fully healed and cannot die and be lost, the ability is worth...exactly as much as summoning a generic character of the same abilities who always arrives in full health. Maybe some bonus based on the benefits of our "specific individual" outside his personal stats (eg. a 1 point summon, +1 advantage = 2, for an Incompetent Normal looks pretty useless until I tell you it's the president's grandson).

 

Perhaps one solution is the EDM/Time Travel writeout. You can summon an exact duplicate of the specific individual (cloned, demon shapechanger, parallel universe, etc.), but the "real thing" is still out there, oblivious to your actions. Summon Grond and beat him - if you can - but the real Grond is still out there.

[caris]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

"Amicable" eliminates the required ego contest, but doesn't say it is not still possible, I suppose. If you have already roll played your "amicable" summoned SPECIFIC being into a an antagonistic being, guess you're out of luck. If you made him hostile ("antagonistic" - ego roll bonuses), it's even harder to make that ego contest. And your roll is -1 per 10 active points in Summon already, so you better have a good Ego!

 

It is still something you can not do with a Follower at all. If you piss off the follower, he doesn’t have to appear every time you call him. I can see quite a number of ways where I can use just that aspect of the power to my advantage, even if I have gotten the Specific Being so pissed off at me that he is now effectively “Antagonistic.â€

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Every couple of weeks, you appear in a strange man's house. He orders you to do his domestic chores, and you feel yourself compelled to obey. After the fifth time, are you starting to like him?

 

You’re a spirit of a dead mage consigned to a void and boring limbo. Every couple of weeks a strange man pulls you out of limbo, and engages you in lively conversation and asks you interesting questions. After the third time, are you starting to long for those occasions?

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Either the character will have paid for friendly, or role played his way to a better relationship. He could have role played a better relationship with any character he meets.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Yes, any player could role-play out his relationship with any NPC, but that isn’t the issue. The issue we are discussing here is, how buying Summon: Specific Being differs from buying a Follower. NPC’s that are brought into the game without the expenditure of points fall into what I call “plot devices,†which have another whole set of issues around them.

 

So your sense of fair play is "Louie the Art Critic provides neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. Consequently, you must pay double if you wish to summon Louie (and Louie alone - if he dies, or becomes mentally unstable, too bad for you!) instead of a generic art critic.

 

As I mentioned in another posted, your assumptions covering the Specific Being becoming hurt, disabled or deceased are not addressed by the rules.

 

Since I’m allowing the player to do something that I would not inherently allow every other player in my campaign to do, than, yes, I consider it fair to make him pay for the ability. If for no other reasons, so that I am at least partially compensated for having to explain to other players why his version of Summon: Specific Being is acceptable, and theirs is not. I might tell him not to bother building a power that way, because it is worthless, but I just wouldn’t let him do something for free that I make other people pay for. If I’m running a game and some one gives me a 1D6 EB that is Armor Piercing, and in my few if any people that he is going to be reasonably fighting have a Def small enough for it to be usefull, I may tell him to lose the Armor Piercing, but I won’t give it to him for free either.

 

Actually, my sense of fair play is to say “Why do you want to Summon Louie the Art Critic? Why do you feel Summon is the right construct for what you are trying to accomplish? Why do you want to Summon: Louie, rather than just Art Critics (assuming that I would consider it a valid category)?†I can think of only a limited number of situations where the player trying to buy Summon Louie the Art Critic is choosing it for some other reason than trying to exploit the benefits Summon over other reasonable constructs, and in those cases, since I have a blanket banning of the Summoning Specific Beings, I probably have some sort of work around.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

As for Steve's sense of fair play, I wonder whether he would enforce that +1 for Louie, or turn to page 70 of FREd and read the discussion of special effects, and consider Louie to be a special effect. "Only if this benefit becomes useful in the game on a frequent basis, or the character tries to exploit it in combat, should the GM consider making him pay points for it." This "uber-rule" seems ignored in your discussion.

 

Once again we are back to differing assumptions. For me special effect is how in the game world is the mechanical effect of the power manifested not the manifestation of the power itself. I do not consider the issue of “generic†being vs. “specific†being to be an issue of special effect any more than I consider Normal Damage vs. Killing Damage to be special effect.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

This paragraph references "a character", not "a character other than the one who summoned", but this is a good question which I think I'll put on the Rules board.

 

I said “in most cases†for a reason. It is pretty vague in the rules, and I certainly agree that it shouldn’t be abused. By the same token, I think requiring the Dispel simply to be able to ever use the power again is a tad excessive. Obviously, if I summon a “generic†lion and the lion is attacked by an opponent, the lion will probably start attacking that opponent, and I should not be allowed to “cancel†the summon on the lion. On the other hand should, I have to kill or dispel each lion I ever summon, before I can summon a new one?

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Assuming we ignore the specific notation that "Summon should not be used as a cheap form of teleportation, nor as a way to Summon an individual so that the Summoner can kill him". As such, any player who is trying for these construicts, which seem to be your main abuse concern, are clearly outside the rules.

 

Which sorts of begs the question, when isn’t summon a cheap form of Teleportation or EDM, particularly when applied to a specific being? The specific being has to exist somewhere, even if it is on another plane of existence, that is for game purposes some where.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

This paragraph goes on to reference Summona specific being as something requiring GM permission (two stop signs and an in-text admonition seems to me to indicate that Steve is well aware the power can be abused - are there powers which cannot?).

 

Yes, didn’t Steve specifically state that because of its high potential for abuse being why it has an advantage? If Steve thought it was merely a matter of special effect he would have stated that this advantage was only needed in the cases where there is some clear advantage to the “specific being,†rather than making the advantage a blanket one?

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Why can't the follower choose to reject the use of Teleport on him? That's his choice - I made it so when I chose NOT to buy "usable as an attack". The fact it goes off when Triggered is the same as any other Triggered power - no one gets a choice!

 

The key here is that a Summoned being would not get that choice, and I asked you to model the power that Summon gives someone in terms of teleportation and EDM over there Summoned: Specific Being.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by caris

It is still something you can not do with a Follower at all. If you piss off the follower, he doesn’t have to appear every time you call him. I can see quite a number of ways where I can use just that aspect of the power to my advantage, even if I have gotten the Specific Being so pissed off at me that he is now effectively “Antagonistic.â€

 

Besides making a follower that comes when you call, automatically and instantaneously, what does Summon do? Sure, your Summon may not like you very much if you don't pay for amicable, so it's a way to have a less loyal follower.

 

You've made a lot of cmments about "Steve says" - why do you think Steve includes the power rather than requiring you to buy teleport and EDM for a follower?

 

You’re a spirit of a dead mage consigned to a void and boring limbo. Every couple of weeks a strange man pulls you out of limbo, and engages you in lively conversation and asks you interesting questions. After the third time, are you starting to long for those occasions?

 

Better buy Amicable then. Otherwise, the dead mage is neutral, and may even resent being pulled away from his eternal reward in the afterlife. You have to overwhelm him to get any answers, so clearly he's not overjoyed about being here.

 

As I mentioned in another posted, your assumptions covering the Specific Being becoming hurt, disabled or deceased are not addressed by the rules.

 

I'm hoping to get Steve's input on that...we'll see what he thinks. But you're right - it's not in the rules, so anything either of us believes is an assumption. But "Summon specific being also includes unlimited healing" seems the less likely interpretation.

 

Since I’m allowing the player to do something that I would not inherently allow every other player in my campaign to do, than, yes, I consider it fair to make him pay for the ability. If for no other reasons, so that I am at least partially compensated for having to explain to other players why his version of Summon: Specific Being is acceptable, and theirs is not. I might tell him not to bother building a power that way, because it is worthless, but I just wouldn’t let him do something for free that I make other people pay for. If I’m running a game and some one gives me a 1D6 EB that is Armor Piercing, and in my few if any people that he is going to be reasonably fighting have a Def small enough for it to be usefull, I may tell him to lose the Armor Piercing, but I won’t give it to him for free either.

 

AP has a game effect of halving most defenses. Besides "he gets to like you over time", you have yet to provide a single game effect benefit of summoning Louie the Art Critic rather than a generic Art Critic. The possibility he becomes amicable ovewr time contradicts your "he always arrives in the same state" argument regarding an injured "specific being".

 

Steve's comment on the rules board on loss of amicability [That’s up to the GM, but in general a character who abuses an Amicable Summonee is going to lose the benefits of that Advantage until he makes amends. It’s a matter of common sense.] implies these things can and will change over time. Oddly, this makes amicability more valuable for a generic summon - so I abuse this one - the next one will be amicable again!

 

Actually, my sense of fair play is to say “Why do you want to Summon Louie the Art Critic? Why do you feel Summon is the right construct for what you are trying to accomplish? Why do you want to Summon: Louie, rather than just Art Critics (assuming that I would consider it a valid category)?†I can think of only a limited number of situations where the player trying to buy Summon Louie the Art Critic is choosing it for some other reason than trying to exploit the benefits Summon over other reasonable constructs, and in those cases, since I have a blanket banning of the Summoning Specific Beings, I probably have some sort of work around.

 

Because Louie is the character's uncle. Because he's trying to build some personality and background rather than have a generic summon that's bland and unmemorable. Because he's trying to create a character, not just a series of abilities nailed together by flimsy justification.

 

Given the paucity of "benefits", it seems unlikely the player is "exploiting" them. I agree "Summon Specific Being" can be unbalanced if abused. The solution, however, is not "Pay +1 whether you get no benefits or whether you create the "unbeatable power". It is to set the Advantage cost commensurate with the advantage it provides.

 

If (for whatever reason) there is no desolidification permitted in your campaign, do you still let characters pay a +1/2 advantage for attacks that affect the desolid?

 

Once again we are back to differing assumptions. For me special effect is how in the game world is the mechanical effect of the power manifested not the manifestation of the power itself. I do not consider the issue of “generic†being vs. “specific†being to be an issue of special effect any more than I consider Normal Damage vs. Killing Damage to be special effect.

 

A "special effect" has no, or minimal, actual impact on the mechanics of game play - they are flavour. Two otherwise identical powers with different special effects impact the game in exactly the same way. Summon Generic Art Cirtic and Summon Uncle Louie have the same game benefits, but different flavour. KA's and normal damage have completely different game mechanics, even if they share the same special effects. To me, that's the difference.

 

I said “in most cases†for a reason. It is pretty vague in the rules, and I certainly agree that it shouldn’t be abused. By the same token, I think requiring the Dispel simply to be able to ever use the power again is a tad excessive. Obviously, if I summon a “generic†lion and the lion is attacked by an opponent, the lion will probably start attacking that opponent, and I should not be allowed to “cancel†the summon on the lion. On the other hand should, I have to kill or dispel each lion I ever summon, before I can summon a new one?

 

From the FAQ, Q: Can a character make an Amicable Summoned creature “go away†automatically, or must he buy a Dispel to accomplish this effect?

 

A: It’s up to the GM, based on how friendly/loyal the Amicable being is, but generally a character can make an Amicable being “go away†automatically, without the need for a Dispel.

 

From my question on the Rules Board: It “departs†when it actually leaves; losing control of it does not count as departure. As for having to Dispel it, that depends on the circumstances; for example, the Rules FAQ has a question re: being able to automatically “banish†Amicable Summonees.

 

Which sorts of begs the question, when isn’t summon a cheap form of Teleportation or EDM, particularly when applied to a specific being? The specific being has to exist somewhere, even if it is on another plane of existence, that is for game purposes some where.

 

Apparantly, when it is used in the usual parameters of the Summon power (ie you define what you summon, it always comes to you in the nearest open space, and you stick to the Summon rules). Using it to Teleport Betty the Barmaid away from her kidnappers would, in my view, be using it as a cheap teleport.

 

Yes, didn’t Steve specifically state that because of its high potential for abuse being why it has an advantage? If Steve thought it was merely a matter of special effect he would have stated that this advantage was only needed in the cases where there is some clear advantage to the “specific being,†rather than making the advantage a blanket one?

 

Of course. Wouldn't he also have noticed it's always a cheap form of teleport and EDM, and therefore banned the whole power outright? :confused:

 

The key here is that a Summoned being would not get that choice, and I asked you to model the power that Summon gives someone in terms of teleportation and EDM over there Summoned: Specific Being.

 

Get rid of Summon and instead require the power to be modelled by Teleport, EDM and Mind Control, then. Why does this differ depending on whether its a specific character?

[caris]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Besides making a follower that comes when you call, automatically and instantaneously, what does Summon do? Sure, your Summon may not like you very much if you don't pay for amicable, so it's a way to have a less loyal follower.

 

You've made a lot of cmments about "Steve says" - why do you think Steve includes the power rather than requiring you to buy teleport and EDM for a follower?

 

Actually, I referenced one specific statement by Mr. Long, and then speculated twice upon his possible reasoning based on what he has done. You asked if I thought he wouldn’t consider it an issue of special effect, I gave my answer and the reasoning for that answer.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Better buy Amicable then. Otherwise, the dead mage is neutral, and may even resent being pulled away from his eternal reward in the afterlife. You have to overwhelm him to get any answers, so clearly he's not overjoyed about being here.

 

You gave an example, implying that all uses of Summon would inherently lead to a worsening of relations with a specific being, I provided an example where the use of Summoning would lead to an improvement in relations.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I'm hoping to get Steve's input on that...we'll see what he thinks. But you're right - it's not in the rules, so anything either of us believes is an assumption. But "Summon specific being also includes unlimited healing" seems the less likely interpretation.

 

I certainly agree with you about how Steve will answer, since I made a reasonable interpretation of the rule that had strong abuse potential, but you are asking Steve to make a general ruling. Steve’s ruling is going to be geared toward preventing abuses of Summon: Specific Being. The real question is after listing all the reasons why “Summon: Specific Being†is inferior to “Summon: Generic Followerâ€, will Steve make any stronger ruling than “individual GM’s may waive the advantage and apply limitations for their campaigns if they find it to not be abusive, but the rule as written standsâ€?

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

AP has a game effect of halving most defenses. Besides "he gets to like you over time", you have yet to provide a single game effect benefit of summoning Louie the Art Critic rather than a generic Art Critic. The possibility he becomes amicable ovewr time contradicts your "he always arrives in the same state" argument regarding an injured "specific being".

 

Steve's comment on the rules board on loss of amicability [That’s up to the GM, but in general a character who abuses an Amicable Summonee is going to lose the benefits of that Advantage until he makes amends. It’s a matter of common sense.] implies these things can and will change over time. Oddly, this makes amicability more valuable for a generic summon - so I abuse this one - the next one will be amicable again!

 

First of all, the “Stumpy†example is an artificial construct where the GM created a situation where the specific is less effective than the generic. The statement that the GM can always create situations where one construct is superior over another doesn’t really prove anything either way. The better argument is that “Stumpy†was Summoned by you two days ago, and took 10 Body during the fight, and when you Summon him today he has not recovered all of the Body he lost. Now is that a legitimate argument for your side, but I believe that all of those limitations and restrictions were considered and Summoning Specific Being was still given a +1 Advantage to be done.

 

As for Steve’s comment on about the reduction of the “Amicable†advantage, he invoked the “common sense†ruling. Using common sense any time you are summoning reasonable intelligent and self-aware type of being, there is a chance that those beings are going to communicate amongst themselves. If “Stumpy†is merely a specific example of the “generic†group police officers, it seems reasonable that as you continue to summon up different police officer and treat them poorly, that word is going to get around. You would find that the police officers you summon are getting more and more hostile to you as time goes on.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Because Louie is the character's uncle. Because he's trying to build some personality and background rather than have a generic summon that's bland and unmemorable. Because he's trying to create a character, not just a series of abilities nailed together by flimsy justification.

 

Ok, so you have an Uncle Louie, who is an art critic, you expect that he is going to play enough of a beneficial role in the campaign to warrant paying points for him. Why are you using Summon, and not Follower, Contact, or Favor to build him? Convince me that this isn’t just a follower with a cheap form of teleport.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Given the paucity of "benefits", it seems unlikely the player is "exploiting" them. I agree "Summon Specific Being" can be unbalanced if abused. The solution, however, is not "Pay +1 whether you get no benefits or whether you create the "unbeatable power". It is to set the Advantage cost commensurate with the advantage it provides.

 

If (for whatever reason) there is no desolidification permitted in your campaign, do you still let characters pay a +1/2 advantage for attacks that affect the desolid?

 

Would I let the character pay the points? Yes, I would. I would also tell the player that those points are worthless, just as I tell players that beyond a certain point multiple levels of Armor Piercing are worthless. I don’t stop the players from spending worthless points, if that is what they want to do.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

A "special effect" has no, or minimal, actual impact on the mechanics of game play - they are flavour. Two otherwise identical powers with different special effects impact the game in exactly the same way. Summon Generic Art Cirtic and Summon Uncle Louie have the same game benefits, but different flavour. KA's and normal damage have completely different game mechanics, even if they share the same special effects. To me, that's the difference.

 

Actually, wasn’t the entire point of your initial question premised in the assumption that there are mechanical differences between a “generic†and a “specific†summon, and that those differences warrant a limitation? Haven’t we been discussing how the rulings and the way that the power has to work effectively in game terms have to vary between the two cases?

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

From the FAQ, Q: Can a character make an Amicable Summoned creature “go away†automatically, or must he buy a Dispel to accomplish this effect?

 

A: It’s up to the GM, based on how friendly/loyal the Amicable being is, but generally a character can make an Amicable being “go away†automatically, without the need for a Dispel.

 

From my question on the Rules Board: It “departs†when it actually leaves; losing control of it does not count as departure. As for having to Dispel it, that depends on the circumstances; for example, the Rules FAQ has a question re: being able to automatically “banish†Amicable Summonees.

 

You forgot to cover in your question, and Steve did not address the issue if the Summoned being is forced to “departâ€. If it is killed has it departed? If it is grabbed and carried away, has it departed?

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Apparantly, when it is used in the usual parameters of the Summon power (ie you define what you summon, it always comes to you in the nearest open space, and you stick to the Summon rules). Using it to Teleport Betty the Barmaid away from her kidnappers would, in my view, be using it as a cheap teleport.

 

Of course. Wouldn't he also have noticed it's always a cheap form of teleport and EDM, and therefore banned the whole power outright? :confused:

 

Get rid of Summon and instead require the power to be modelled by Teleport, EDM and Mind Control, then. Why does this differ depending on whether its a specific character?

 

Alternatively, Summon isn’t a cheap form of teleport when it is used to pull a meaningless, bland, and unmemorable character into the game? As you pointed out it is generally easy to assume that a “generic†summon has no meaningful existence outside of his being summoned. It is much harder to maintain that assumption when it is the same distinctive summoned being each time.

 

The issue of generic vs. specific is important, because the in game side issues are relevant when it is one over the other. Like, why could I summon Betty 3 phases ago, but now that the evil wizard teleported away with her I can’t? If it is because the wizard has erected a “magical†barrier, what advantages do I need to overcome it? Why do I need an advantage for summoning “current monarch of the kingdom†or “the guy hunting meâ€, and not for summoning “Bettyâ€? The list keeps going all down through all the differences we’ve been siting through this thread.

 

Truthfully, neither of us is truly arguing that there is no mechanical difference between the two concepts. What we are arguing is which one deserves to get the cost break. The rules have assigned the generic version the cost break. Presumably, because of the much higher potential for abuse. I think it also creates a simpler conceptual frame work under which to work.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by caris

You gave an example, implying that all uses of Summon would inherently lead to a worsening of relations with a specific being, I provided an example where the use of Summoning would lead to an improvement in relations.

 

Wouldn't the "generic mage spirit" be just as pleased to leave limbo as the "specific mage spirit"? I suspect the "generic" would be as good or better, in that the "specific spirit" gets used to the privilege. Bottom line: like anything else, you can generally worsen the relationship through role playing, but if you want the benefits of a better relationship consistently, you'll have to pay the points to buy up the loyalty.

 

I certainly agree with you about how Steve will answer, since I made a reasonable interpretation of the rule that had strong abuse potential, but you are asking Steve to make a general ruling. Steve’s ruling is going to be geared toward preventing abuses of Summon: Specific Being. The real question is after listing all the reasons why “Summon: Specific Being†is inferior to “Summon: Generic Followerâ€, will Steve make any stronger ruling than “individual GM’s may waive the advantage and apply limitations for their campaigns if they find it to not be abusive, but the rule as written standsâ€?

 

Nice logic there... First you say "Summon Specific Being will heal the being up, so no disadvantage if he's injured/killed". Then you say "Well of course Steve will rule that doesn't happen, but that's irrelevant". You were provided with an example where Summon Specific was, in fact, a drawback. That was what you requested. We have now established that your convoluted rulkes interpretation which makes it not a drawback was incorrect. Do you now accept that the potential injury of the "specific being" creates a case where "summon generic" is more advantageous?

 

In any case, the whole point of this discussion is an analysis of when one would deviate from the general rule, not whyether the book says "Specific person is a +1 advantage". It does. The question is whether that cost should always be applied, or whether the GM should run his game and revise costs where the benefits are there, not hide behind the Big Book and say "This is the Rule!".

 

The single best thing about the Hero system is its versatility. When a reasonable power construct is inefficient due to point costs put in place to prevent abuses, the system effectively bans a reasonable character ability. Thus, the rules should be interpreted (in my vision of the world) in such a fashion that the cost a character pays for an ability is commensurate with the benefits of THAT ability, not the abusive ability someone else may try to use the same mechanic to obtain.

 

How many character examples in Hero's myriad of products explicitly state they are not in strict accordance with the rules? Why are they in "official products, if not because the rules must be applied with common sense, not simply adhered to blindly?

 

Note that the book includes tons of "should not's", (for example, "Special powers should not be used in power frameworks"). Numerous examples also exist, in FREd and in other products (and I understand Steve is heavily involved in editing and approving products) where these rules are waived. (Flash defense in a gadget pool, for example.)

 

If I were Steve, I would not make any stronger ruling outside a formal revision to the rule books. That would, in my eyes, contitute a specific change to the rules best addressed in an actual rules book. Will some costs change if there is a 6th edition? Probably. Will Summon be among them? Who knows. But it is one of the newer abilities, so it has less history, and thus less experience, behind it. It's also one of the ones that generates significant discussion and controversy. So I suspect it would be looked at more closely than, say, "Should we change Force Field or Energy Blast?"

 

First of all, the “Stumpy†example is an artificial construct where the GM created a situation where the specific is less effective than the generic. The statement that the GM can always create situations where one construct is superior over another doesn’t really prove anything either way. The better argument is that “Stumpy†was Summoned by you two days ago, and took 10 Body during the fight, and when you Summon him today he has not recovered all of the Body he lost. Now is that a legitimate argument for your side, but I believe that all of those limitations and restrictions were considered and Summoning Specific Being was still given a +1 Advantage to be done.

 

The GM did not create the situation. The player did, when he designed his character as he did. Now the question becomes whether, in fact, the +1 advantage is appropriate in all cases. And that is the discussion at hand. If a Limitation is not limiting, it isn't worth any points. If an Advantage carries no advantage, why should it be worth points?

 

There is no overall advantage of Summoning Officer Stumpy over Summoning a generic policeman with these stats. There may be some benefits (familiarity being key), but drawbacks also exist (he gets hurt, he quits the force, he doesn't like you any more) whice pretty much net out (if not create net drawbacks). No advantage, so no Advantage. There is an overall advantage to Summoning Tony Blair over summoning a generic individual having the same stats and skills, but holding no special position of power or fame. There's an advantage, so you buy an Advantage.

 

In my campaign, I invoke the "common sense"ule and say "you're not getting an advantage from summoning Stumpy over a generic police officer, so you need not pay extra points. But, he will not become more friendly over time unless you pay for the Amicable advantages over time."

 

In yours, the player chooses between paying double points for no increase in efficiency or puts the idea back on the shelf and summons bland, generic policemen instead (or not summoning at all and saving this interesting, but unusual, contruct for a more reasonable GM). We remove a reasonable ability from the game, and the game is weakened (just a bit, but if we disallowed every power which could be subject to abuse, what's left?)

 

As for Steve’s comment on about the reduction of the “Amicable†advantage, he invoked the “common sense†ruling. Using common sense any time you are summoning reasonable intelligent and self-aware type of being, there is a chance that those beings are going to communicate amongst themselves. If “Stumpy†is merely a specific example of the “generic†group police officers, it seems reasonable that as you continue to summon up different police officer and treat them poorly, that word is going to get around. You would find that the police officers you summon are getting more and more hostile to you as time goes on.

 

And you talk about me assuming things ito the powers? One could just as easily assume "generic" summoned creatures return from whence they came, unchanged and with no memory of what happened to them, or that Summon creates a facsimile being instead of a real one. It all depends on special effects.

 

In any case, I suspect your players will quickly learn not to use Summon in your campaign, as you seem to have a bias against the ability in general.

 

Ok, so you have an Uncle Louie, who is an art critic, you expect that he is going to play enough of a beneficial role in the campaign to warrant paying points for him. Why are you using Summon, and not Follower, Contact, or Favor to build him? Convince me that this isn’t just a follower with a cheap form of teleport.

 

It is a Summon with a special effect that the guy who shows up always has the same name, personality and wardrobe. Should Aladdin's Genie be a Follower or a Summon (we'll ignore Contact and Favour for now)? He is a Summon with a bit of flavour.

 

Convince me that Summon of a generic being is in any material way different from summoning a specific being which has stats identical to the generic being. How is "Generic Collie" any different from "Laddie, the Generic Collie"?

 

Actually, wasn’t the entire point of your initial question premised in the assumption that there are mechanical differences between a “generic†and a “specific†summon, and that those differences warrant a limitation? Haven’t we been discussing how the rulings and the way that the power has to work effectively in game terms have to vary between the two cases?

 

It was that the mechanical differences between "summon one specific being only" and "summon a generic being each time" were generally not sufficient to support a +1 advantage for the former over the latter. If the "generic being" or "specific being" always has the same stats, always shows up fully healed, always has the same personality and always arrives with the same amicability towards the summoner, what mechanical difference is there between "Summon Uncle Louie the Art Critic" and "Summon Generic Art Critic"? There is none. Consequently, it is a special effect, neither an advantage nor a limitation.

 

If, however, injury of Uncle Louie is not healed by the next Summon, and the death of Uncle Louie means the character points are now wasted (unless you find a use for summoning a dead body, I suppose), then this power is less useful than Summon Generic Art Critic. Whether that should manifest in the form of a -1/2 limit, a -1/4 limit or no limit (and, given the likelihood of Louie being used in combat, I'd say the last - a combatant would be different), it should not manifest in a doubling of the cost solely because the player thought through the summon and wants an effect that brings no mechanical advantage whatsoever.

 

You forgot to cover in your question, and Steve did not address the issue if the Summoned being is forced to “departâ€. If it is killed has it departed? If it is grabbed and carried away, has it departed?

 

Addressed to Steve; good points

 

Alternatively, Summon isn’t a cheap form of teleport when it is used to pull a meaningless, bland, and unmemorable character into the game? As you pointed out it is generally easy to assume that a “generic†summon has no meaningful existence outside of his being summoned. It is much harder to maintain that assumption when it is the same distinctive summoned being each time.

 

Again, sounds like you just don't like Summon. How is it that Steve did such a great job measuring the benefits and limits of summoning a specific being, and missed the boat on the power as whole, I wonder. Maybe the better answer would be to scrap "Follower" and make it a modified form of Summon.

 

The issue of generic vs. specific is important, because the in game side issues are relevant when it is one over the other. Like, why could I summon Betty 3 phases ago, but now that the evil wizard teleported away with her I can’t? If it is because the wizard has erected a “magical†barrier, what advantages do I need to overcome it? Why do I need an advantage for summoning “current monarch of the kingdom†or “the guy hunting meâ€, and not for summoning “Bettyâ€? The list keeps going all down through all the differences we’ve been siting through this thread.

 

OO REVELATION OO Your examples all include characters who are important to the campaign outside their existence as a being the character Summons. Mine (eg. Uncle Louie) assume the character has no importance to the campaign outside his existence as a Summoned being. That may be a summary of the difference in a nutshell.

 

If the character has campaign importance outside existence as a summoned being (Betty the Barmaid, the King's Daughter, your DNPC), then they are a "specific being" subject to the +1 advantage. These are the potentially abusive situations.

 

If, on the other hand, they have no real campaign existence outside being a summoned creature (ie a generic art critic vs Uncle Louie), they are not really "specific beings" and no advantage should be required. Note that this precludes taking your summoned being as a DNPC, for example.

 

They automatically show up fully healed, just like a generic summon, and their amicability never changes (or changes as an it would for a generic summon) unless you take a limitation (or advantage) of some form in this regard.

 

Truthfully, neither of us is truly arguing that there is no mechanical difference between the two concepts. What we are arguing is which one deserves to get the cost break. The rules have assigned the generic version the cost break. Presumably, because of the much higher potential for abuse. I think it also creates a simpler conceptual frame work under which to work.

 

"Potential for abuse" is the real problem. This is the crux of the matter. Adding a +1 advantage to all uses of a power, abusive or not, subjects reasonable players to unreasonable extra point costs while permitting abuse to occur provided the cost is paid. The advantage should determine the Advantage - if it's not getting any difference over generic "summon", there should be no difference in cost. If the power is twice as useful, a +1 advantage is appropriate. And if it's three times as useful (or what have you), the advantage should increase accordingly. But the points should be based on the actual benefits of this specific power, not the potential for abuse inherent in the mechanic as a whole.

[DoItHTH]

Assuming that nuthing comes for free. The President buys the appropriate KS, Perks, etc. to do what he does. Then the most abusive thing "Specific Being" that I can think of would be to allow the player the ability to summon another player to assist him on the battlefield. Granted this is a pretty powerful, and could be considered a form of teleport. But the player must specify which player ahead of time and must buy the power with enough points to summon a character with points probably comparable to his own.

 

However to simply summon a superbeing of a generic type but as powerful would also be equally useful. The only difference is the generic case would then require some advantage to make the summoned superbeing as easy to deal with as your friend. Ahhhh and here comes the +1 "Slavishly Loyal" modifier. I guess that would depend how well you get along with the other players in your group

 

For this specific case it seems to me that using the "summon" power for this SFX makes sense from the stand point of buying teleport with a bunch of advantages would be more cumbersome.

 

Can someone give me a clearly abussive summon of a specifc being. (Please dont use campaign significance as the abuse since, like I started the post, I dont believe the Perks come free.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by DoItHTH

Assuming that nuthing comes for free. The President buys the appropriate KS, Perks, etc. to do what he does.

 

The problem here is that the perks are largely priced with combat effectiveness in mind. Wealthy and Head of State are pretty cheap if you think about the real life benefits, but they don't takle down Firewing in open combat!

 

Then the most abusive thing "Specific Being" that I can think of would be to allow the player the ability to summon another player to assist him on the battlefield. Granted this is a pretty powerful, and could be considered a form of teleport. But the player must specify which player ahead of time and must buy the power with enough points to summon a character with points probably comparable to his own.

 

However to simply summon a superbeing of a generic type but as powerful would also be equally useful. The only difference is the generic case would then require some advantage to make the summoned superbeing as easy to deal with as your friend. Ahhhh and here comes the +1 "Slavishly Loyal" modifier. I guess that would depend how well you get along with the other players in your group

 

I'd rather have the generic guy - my teammate is normally there anyway! Would you need slavish loyalty? He's a superhero, isn't he? Surely he won't stand idly by while the villains trample the champions of Good and Righteousness! I'd say at least Friendly - you want him to know which spandex-clad crazies are the villains!

 

For this specific case it seems to me that using the "summon" power for this SFX makes sense from the stand point of buying teleport with a bunch of advantages would be more cumbersome.

 

Yup. What's Summon for if not to bring you some help?

 

Can someone give me a clearly abussive summon of a specifc being. (Please dont use campaign significance as the abuse since, like I started the post, I dont believe the Perks come free.)

 

How bout "it's his DNPC". That was a good example earlier - my DNPC is never in danger since, with a mere snap of my fingers, she returns to me.". This is especially ugly since more valuable DNPC's have less points and are therefore cheaper to summon. Feeble old grandma DNPC 14-; 25 point. Summon Feeble old grandma - 1 point x 2 = 2 points. What shall I spend the remaing 23 points on?

 

And just in case my players are reading, let me state now

NO WFAY!

 

I think if you want to Summon specific individuals, you buy a VPP, Summon only, changes automatically. WAY more effective than paying to just summon that one guy.