is having DNPC as follower legal

[Trebuchet]

Re: is having DNPC as follower legal

 

I'm arguing that there is considerable logic to paying for the Follower aspect and receiving a disadvantage for the DNPC aspect. You could have:

 

(a) A 200 point follower who is not a DNPC. You get all the benefits of a 200 point follower. On rare occasions, he might be used as a plot hook, but he would cause nowhere near the issues of a DNPC, 8-.

 

( A 200 point DNPC who is not a follower. You get none of the benefits of a 200 point follower although, on rare occasions, he might be useful in some fashion.

 

© A 200 point follower who also a DNPC. You get all the benefits of a 200 point follower. He brings with him all the drawbacks of a DNPC, at the frequency you set by the disadvantage level you selected.

 

The more I consider this, the more I also come to believe that the "useful non-combat skills" reduction should be eliminated in favour of buying your DNPC as a Contact if you want to get that sort of benefit from him.

 

In short, my position is "pay for the benefits and get points for the drawbacks". That's how Hero is supposed to work.

I agree. Of course as a GM I would reserve the right to say "No" if the proposed Follower/DNPC IMO would be unbalancing and/or unfair to the other players. I'm perfectly willing to take this on a case by case basis; I see no need for a blanket "I'll allow/disallow that" in advance.

 

Personally, I'd probably be tickled if a player tried to bring in a trained dog as a Follower/DNPC rather than the usual detective, pilot, or computer hacker that seems to be the standard "Useful Skills" DNPC. (Followers, I've noticed in my albeit minimal experience with them, almost inevitably seem to be combat oriented.)

[Vondy]

Re: is having DNPC as follower legal

 

DNPC: Useful skills. Use it all the time for sidekicks who are both helpful and prone to hostage situations...

 

 

This is generally how I handle this kind of build as well.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: is having DNPC as follower legal

 

I agree. Of course as a GM I would reserve the right to say "No" if the proposed Follower/DNPC IMO would be unbalancing and/or unfair to the other players. I'm perfectly willing to take this on a case by case basis; I see no need for a blanket "I'll allow/disallow that" in advance.

 

With this in mind, however, would you concur that the rules as written, which prohibit this combined follower/DNPC, should be changed.

[caris]

Re: is having DNPC as follower legal

 

OK, the rules says that an NPC can be a DNPC or a Follower, but not both. So as a GM, I would not allow Hugh's hypothetical Follower that is also a 0 point DNPC.

 

I agree that a Follower that is used as a DNPC is not as useful as a Follower that is never used as a DNPC, and that should be reflected in the PCs points (assuming an otherwise identical build). The question is what is the best way to mechanically represent that?

 

If I feel that the NPG is generally more trouble than helpful, I go the DNPC route. If the player goes that way than he is implicitly accepting that fact.

 

Follower is a Perk. Generally, the rules do not provide for Perks being bought as Powers, so I tend to be reluctant to allow Limitations to be applied to them. Reading the Follower rules, I do not think that Limitations are needed. The rules indicate that the preferred method of reducing the cost of a Follower is to give the Follower Disadvantages. The rules do not require a Follower to have any Disadvantages at all, so a 200 point Follower built on 100 Base + 100 Disadvantages costs the PC less than a Follower built on 200 Base + 0 Disadvantages. So to my mind the way to reflect a Follower that is some times a DNPC is to give it Disadvantages like Hunted, Unluck, and possibly depending on how you feel about it Physical Limitation: Hostage Bait (Infrequently, Greatly) (change mix to your preference). All of these should be in addition to other Disadvantages that the Follower should logically take. It provides a mechanical base to determine both how much to impair the Follower/PC, and how much of a price break to give the PC on the Follower.

[SteveZilla]

Re: is having DNPC as follower legal

 

I'm arguing that there is considerable logic to paying for the Follower aspect and receiving a disadvantage for the DNPC aspect.

 

 

The more I consider this, the more I also come to believe that the "useful non-combat skills" reduction should be eliminated in favour of buying your DNPC as a Contact if you want to get that sort of benefit from him.

 

There is a limit to any game’s graininess (level of fine detail). I think this is possibly one case. I can see *possible* attempts to abuse this by, say, taking some Uber-Skilled, Highly Positioned & Networked Normal as a DNPC yet only have to “pay” the 5 points that “Useful noncombat position & skills” causes on the Disad. Perhaps expanding the Disad by adding a “Very Useful (-10)” and “Extremely Useful(-15)” categories as well?

 

That way, the system doesn’t have an extra level of complication added to it, yet a potential abuse is rectified. Though the question remains: Wouldn’t being a Follower of Your Character count as an “Extremely Useful Noncombat Position”?

 

In short' date=' my position is "pay for the benefits and get points for the drawbacks". That's how Hero is supposed to work.[/quote']

 

AFAIK, that is pretty much how Hero works (within limits). And as I said before (I think I did, at least), I am not totally against the idea of being able to take a DNPC Disadvantage to make your Follower much less helpful (because he gets into real trouble much more often). But without the DNPC Disadvantage, it is not *impossible* for it to happen.

 

If the player pays points for an ability and gets a disadvantage tacked on' date=' I think the GM is abusing the word "occasionally".[/quote']

 

That is IMO a GM taking excessive liberty, and not one with the game system -- it isn’t rectified by adding a DNPC Disadvantage.

 

Perhaps you might also address the underlying issue. If it's OK for the GM to use the Follower the player paid 40 points for as a DNPC' date=' 8-, with no points to the player…[/quote']

 

Well, if taking that as a Disadvantage would result in it being worth zero points, I’m not sure I see the problem – unless you are saying that there is a large difference between having the DNPC “flavor” but no Disadvantage at all, and actually having a zero point Disadvantage?

 

I.e., are you saying that: (40 pt follower) != (40 pt follower and 0 pt DNPC Disadvantage)? This may be a place where Hero isn’t grainy enough. And if the GM is treating the Follower as a DNPC at a higher level than what was taken (if any), then again that is an issue with the GM, not the system.

 

… it should be equally OK for the player to take the DNPC' date=' 8-, and get all the benefits of that DNPC as a follower, right? Or do the rules change when the player would get an advantage, instead of a drawback, at no point impact?[/quote']

 

I.e., are you proposing that: (0 pt DNPC Disadvantage) == (40 pt follower)? I don’t think so. I could take every Normal in the whole world as followers that way.

 

There are two aspects to the NPC in question. He provides the benefits of being a 200 point follower and the drawbacks of being a DNPC' date=' 8-. Why is it difficult to envision that being purchased as both a Follower and a DNPC?[/quote']

 

It isn’t, really.

 

Even better. I'll have 100 point DNPC's' date=' amazingly more powerful, numerous useful noncombat skills, always around to help me out, rarely needs my assistance. Even if one needs help, the other 99 will be around to help him out. Remember, you said I can have as many 0 point disad's as I want. [/quote']

 

Sorry, I already took everybody in the whole world as 0 pt DNPCs. I’ve even organized them into self-protecting communities with some dedicated to protecting the others – I called them "police". All at no cost to me!

 

But then my GM said that one word that is accursed universally by min-maxers worldwide.

 

When this goes beyond occasionally to approach the same level as DNPC' date=' 8- (or 11-, or 14-) then I believe the character should get points. I wouldn't let him have the follower for free, so why should I believe it is reasonable that he get saddled with the DNPC for free?[/quote']

 

Going beyond occasionally is IMO a GM taking liberties, and is a problem with the GM that wouldn’t be resolved by taking a Disadvantage.

 

Unless the PLAYER decides the follower should be that much trouble by taking him as a DNPC at the appropriate level. And if he occasionally gets in trouble' date=' say every four or five adventures, that's a DNPC, 8-.[/quote']

 

Some parts of your posts, Hugh, make me think that you have concerns that a GM will treat the Follower as if you also had a DNPC Disadvantage at a significant level (i.e., worth more than 0 pts). If I misunderstood, I apologize for muddying the issue. However, these are two different issues. The first I don’t have any direct objections to, the second is IMO a problem with the GM that isn’t fixed by taking the Disadvantage.

 

I don't know the effective frequency of an 8- DNPC, but I think that every 4-5 adventures sounds about right. But I would contend that a Follower is effectively a DNPC 4- (maybe 5-). I.e., it's possible to happen as a Plot Hook, but nowhere near the frequency of the lowest DNPC category.

 

No one is saying it is required. In fact' date=' by the rules as written, it is prohibited. I am saying it should not be prohibited - the option should exist for the same NPC to serve both roles.[/quote']

 

If "it" is the rules of "a Follower cannot also be a DNPC for the same character", then I am more or less in agreement with you.

 

In my experience' date=' DNPC's don't hang around all the time, being useful unless their roll comes up. They appear as window dressing on occasion, and impediments (their true function) more commonly. The OP wants an NPC that is both Follower and DNPC. I see no compelling reason the rules should preclude this.[/quote']

 

Would Spider-Man have to pay Follower points for Aunt May (who he took as a DNPC), because she provides him (in my example) with a place to live, cooks his meals, provides motherly advice from time to time? He interacts with her on a daily basis when he comes home from a hard day of taking pictures.

 

I would consider her to be window dressing most of the time (i.e., roleplaying material), since the "benefit" she is providing is of very low (IMO) value, and is of a mundane nature. Kind of like how I don't automatically expect characters to pay points for their normal cell phones, PDAs, cars, and homes.

 

The approach I like is to take both mechanics independently. That seems better than reducing the cost of a follower for also being a DNPC, or reducing the value of the DNPC disadvantage for the fact the NPC also provides advantages to the PC. Any of the three, however, is superior to "No, you can't do that."

 

As I said before, I am not against the idea of doing that. My concerns with the whole ball-of-wax are three-fold:

 

1. Allowing a Non-Zero DNPC Disadvantage to reduce the cost of the Follower to the character. (10 pt Disadvantage + 10 pt Follower) != (0 cost to the character).
   
2. Claiming that "just because" the Follower is with the Hero in his dangerous adventures automatically makes for a 14- DNPC, regardless of how often the GM actually chooses to place the Follower into a DNPC-like situation.
   
3. The GM making use of the Follower as if they were of a Greater DNPC frequency than what was taken for them (if any). Though even if no DNPC Disadvantage were taken for the Follower, it is not unreasonable for the Follower to be used as a Plot Hook, and thus potentially be treated like a 4- DNPC (maybe 5-).
   

After catching up on the new posts after typing this reply, I have to admit that Caris has a good idea.

[SteveZilla]

Re: is having DNPC as follower legal

 

alright

 

Thomas "Tex" Travis

 

owns

 

WISKEY THE WONDER DOG

 

who is a follower and a DNPC

 

would you allow this in your campain

 

 

Lord Ghee

 

Provisionally, yes, I would -- But would reserve final decision pending reviewing the writeups for both the Follower and the Character.

[JmOz]

Re: is having DNPC as follower legal

 

I'm getting to the point where I would like to see on positives removed from negatives, so if your DNPC is useful you would ALSO buy it as a contact or Follower (Depending on how useful). Or charges would not provide 0 end or uncontroled, etc... some things would probably have to be recosted...,

[Trebuchet]

Re: is having DNPC as follower legal

 

With this in mind' date=' however, would you concur that the rules as written, which prohibit this combined follower/DNPC, should be changed.[/quote']I'd be OK changing them, but I can already change those rules in my own campaign should the situation ever come up (unlikely).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: is having DNPC as follower legal

 

That is IMO a GM taking excessive liberty' date=' and not one with the game system -- it isn’t rectified by adding a DNPC Disadvantage.[/quote']

 

If you want a 40 point Follower who is rarely, if ever, in a position of requiring your assistance at an inconvenient time, you should pay 40 points for your follower and no DNPC. If I want a character who is rarely, if ever, in a position of providing assistance, I should take a DNPC disadvantage and no Follower. The OP posits an NPC who is commonly going to provide assistance, but will also require the PC's assistance at inopportune times. THAT NPC is best simulated by being both a Follower and a DNPC. It seems a perfectly logical construct, and I disagree with the rule which prohibits such a construct.

 

I am not saying all followers should be DNPC's, or that all DNPC's should be followers. I am saying that NPC's which have elements of both are properly modelled by being both Perk and Disadvantage.

 

Well' date=' if taking that as a Disadvantage would result in it being worth zero points, I’m not sure I see the problem – unless you are saying that there is a large difference between having the DNPC “flavor” but no Disadvantage at all, and actually having a zero point Disadvantage?[/quote']

 

I'm saying that taking a zero point disadvantage and paying no points should not provide you with a follower at no point cost. In other words, DNPC != Follower.

 

And if the GM is treating the Follower as a DNPC at a higher level than what was taken (if any)' date=' then again that is an issue with the GM, not the system.[/quote']

 

The fact that the player who wants to take the follower as a DNPC is prevented, by the book, from doing so is an issue with the system.

 

I.e.' date=' are you proposing that: (0 pt DNPC Disadvantage) == (40 pt follower)? I don’t think so. I could take every Normal in the whole world as followers that way. [/quote']

 

I am suggesting that allowing DNPC's to also be followers is no different from mandating that followers also be DNPC's. This is the argument posited by some posters claiming that it should not be possible to take the Follower as a DNPC.

 

Some parts of your posts' date=' Hugh, make me think that you have concerns that a GM will treat the Follower as if you [i']also[/i] had a DNPC Disadvantage at a significant level (i.e., worth more than 0 pts). If I misunderstood, I apologize for muddying the issue. However, these are two different issues. The first I don’t have any direct objections to, the second is IMO a problem with the GM that isn’t fixed by taking the Disadvantage.

 

Some posts by those who feel allowing the same NPC to be both DNPC and Follower lead me to be concerned that they feel that DNPC at a significant level is bundled in with the Follower.

 

Would Spider-Man have to pay Follower points for Aunt May (who he took as a DNPC), because she provides him (in my example) with a place to live, cooks his meals, provides motherly advice from time to time? He interacts with her on a daily basis when he comes home from a hard day of taking pictures

 

I would consider her to be window dressing most of the time (i.e., roleplaying material), since the "benefit" she is providing is of very low (IMO) value, and is of a mundane nature. Kind of like how I don't automatically expect characters to pay points for their normal cell phones, PDAs, cars, and homes.

 

It is the simple fact she is window dresing, providing no benefit that the character would otherwise pay points for, that removes her from "follower" contention. Let's change Aunt May into Uncle Fred the bounty hunter. Fred shows up for pretty much every session, driving his customized vehicle and loaded for bear. "But he's a DNPC, not a follower" says the player "He's always around, but he only gets in trouble on an 8-. The rest of the time, he's my ride - did I mention his van has a full criminology lab and medi-center and he's a forensics expert and medical doctor?"

 

Aunt May - DNPC. No cost. Uncle Fred - Follower - pay the freight.

 

As I said before, I am not against the idea of doing that. My concerns with the whole ball-of-wax are three-fold:

 

[*]Allowing a Non-Zero DNPC Disadvantage to reduce the cost of the Follower to the character. (10 pt Disadvantage + 10 pt Follower) != (0 cost to the character).

 

You mean like "Enhanced senses Powers 25 points; Blind Disadvantage 25 points?

 

If your example were split into two characters, one a follower and the other a DNPC, the same results are achieved, and I doubt there would be any argument it is an abuse. Let's make the DNPC my Follower's spouse.

 

[*]Claiming that "just because" the Follower is with the Hero in his dangerous adventures automatically makes for a 14- DNPC' date=' regardless of how often the GM actually chooses to place the Follower into a DNPC-like situation.[/quote']

 

Absolutely - taking the DNPC disadvantage says "this guy is a DNPC", and the frequency determines how often he will be placed in a DNPC-type situation. If you set the level at 14-, expect to spend a lot of time protecting your follower.

 

[*]The GM making use of the Follower as if they were of a Greater DNPC frequency than what was taken for them (if any). Though even if no DNPC Disadvantage were taken for the Follower' date=' it is not unreasonable for the Follower to be used as a Plot Hook, and thus potentially be treated like a 4- DNPC (maybe 5-).[/quote']

 

Same issue - if the player sets DNPC at 8- (or takes no disadvantage), he should have only an 8- frequency for these issues (infrequent to never if he takes no disadvantage).

[SteveZilla]

Re: is having DNPC as follower legal

 

Some posts by those who feel allowing the same NPC to be both DNPC and Follower lead me to be concerned that they feel that DNPC at a significant level is bundled in with the Follower.

 

Well, that is up to them if that is how they want to run their game. Which is why IMO all aspects of a character should be discussed with the GM prior to starting that character. That way, there is unlikely to be surprises mid-stream due to differing opinions.

 

Let's change Aunt May into Uncle Fred the bounty hunter. Fred shows up for pretty much every session, driving his customized vehicle and loaded for bear. "But he's a DNPC, not a follower" says the player "He's always around, but he only gets in trouble on an 8-. The rest of the time, he's my ride - did I mention his van has a full criminology lab and medi-center and he's a forensics expert and medical doctor?"

 

Aunt May - DNPC. No cost. Uncle Fred - Follower - pay the freight.

 

Agreed. Uncle Fred gives way too much benefit to be just a DNPC in that example. "Hi, I'm the Emperor. I'd like you to meet my DNPC, Darth Vader..." Not gonna fly.

 

You mean like "Enhanced senses Powers 25 points; Blind Disadvantage 25 points?

 

No, because the Blind Disadvantage takes up part of the total Disadvantages the character can have, and the Enhanced Senses Powers of 25 points still costs the character 25 points out of his total (Base+Disads) CP.

 

If your example were split into two characters' date=' one a follower and the other a DNPC, the same results are achieved, and I doubt there would be any argument it is an abuse. Let's make the DNPC my Follower's spouse.[/quote']

 

Nope. Because even then the DNPC Disadvantage takes up part of the character's total Disadvantages, and the Follower costs the character points from his total (Base+Disads) CP. Whether or not the Follower and the DNPC are the same NPC (presuming the GM allows this) is irrelevant to the way the Perk and the Disad are accounted for on the character sheet.

 

Say for example that during construction, a 200 Base + 150 Disads (350 total CP) character purchases a 25 pt Follower and takes a 10 pt DNPC that is the same NPC. This character has assigned 10 points of the 150 in Disads he will come up with, and has spent 25 of the 350 CP he will have available.

 

The character does not get to reduce the cost of the Follower by the value of the DNPC Disadvantage. This would give the character the ability to have *more* than 150 points of Disadvantages.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: is having DNPC as follower legal

 

Well' date=' that is up to them if that is how they want to run their game. Which is why IMO all aspects of a character should be discussed with the GM prior to starting that character. That way, there is unlikely to be surprises mid-stream due to differing opinions.[/quote']

 

This is very true. It assumes, however, that either the player realizes his assumption that a Follower is not a DNPC (with no disad points) is not shared by the GM, or the GM realizes his assumption that Followers are also DNPC's (with no disad points) is not shared by the player. Once the Follower has had to be rescued for the third time in a dozen game sessions, the problem is tougher to talk out.

 

Agreed. Uncle Fred gives way too much benefit to be just a DNPC in that example. "Hi' date=' I'm the Emperor. I'd like you to meet my DNPC, Darth Vader..." Not gonna fly.[/quote']

 

:angel:But I took the five point hit for "useful noncombat position - Emp[eror's right hand man" No. Not gonna fly!

 

No' date=' because the Blind Disadvantage takes up part of the total Disadvantages the character can have, and the Enhanced Senses Powers of 25 points still costs the character 25 points out of his total (Base+Disads) CP.[/quote]

 

Perhaps there is some confusion here. My view is that the player has three choices:

 

- take a DNPC disadvantage solely. The NPC is detrimental - he gets in trouble and requires you to bail him out. You do not get significant benefits from the DNPC, although an occasional ancillary benefit might arise, especially if he has useful noncombat skills. You didn't pay points - you don't get benefits.

 

- take a Follower perk only. The NPC is beneficial - he helps you out. You do not suffer significant drawbacks from the NPC, although an occasional issue might arise as a plot hook (but certainly no more often, and to no greater extent, than the DNPC would have been advantageous).

 

- take both a Follower perk and a DNPC disadvantage - the NPC is both beneficial and detrimental (the latter in the frequency and extent reflected by the level of the DNPC disadvantage. In this final case, the DNPC Disadvantage takes up part of the total Disadvantages the character can have, and the Follower Perk still costs the same points out of his total (Base+Disads) CP. To me, this is superior to reducing the DNPC value for functionality, or reducing the follower cost for drawbacks.

 

Nope. Because even then the DNPC Disadvantage takes up part of the character's total Disadvantages' date=' and the Follower costs the character points from his total (Base+Disads) CP. [b']Whether or not the Follower and the DNPC are the same NPC (presuming the GM allows this) is irrelevant[/b] to the way the Perk and the Disad are accounted for on the character sheet.

 

Emphasis added. I agree - the mechanics should be identical. But the rules as written tell us that a follower should not also be taken as a DNPC. I believe that prohibition (requiring a house rule to override) should not exist. As you quite correctly note, same person or different should be irrelevant. But the rules as written make it relevant.

 

Say for example that during construction, a 200 Base + 150 Disads (350 total CP) character purchases a 25 pt Follower and takes a 10 pt DNPC that is the same NPC. This character has assigned 10 points of the 150 in Disads he will come up with, and has spent 25 of the 350 CP he will have available.

 

The character does not get to reduce the cost of the Follower by the value of the DNPC Disadvantage. This would give the character the ability to have *more* than 150 points of Disadvantages.

 

I agree 100%. I take it, then, that you agree the rules as written should be changed from "a follower cannot also be a DNPC" to an example much like your own, above. Your first paragraph would, in my view, slide neatly into the rulebook, displacing "They can't be the same person".

[SteveZilla]

Re: is having DNPC as follower legal

 

This is very true. It assumes' date=' however, that either the player realizes his assumption that a Follower is not a DNPC (with no disad points) is not shared by the GM, or the GM realizes his assumption that Followers are also DNPC's (with no disad points) is not shared by the player. Once the Follower has had to be rescued for the third time in a dozen game sessions, the problem is tougher to talk out.[/quote']

 

I think it doesn't automatically make it tougher on its own -- it depends more upon the people (player & GM) involved. If they can have a rational discussion at that point, then can likely come to some sort of consensus.

 

That consensus might involve nothing more than a change in how the Follower is treated by the GM, or it might involve a change to the PC's character sheet, or a combination of both.

 

But if either of both people take an adversarial stance, then the odds of a successful resolution "don't so much as fly as plummet".

 

- take both a Follower perk and a DNPC disadvantage - the NPC is both beneficial and detrimental (the latter in the frequency and extent reflected by the level of the DNPC disadvantage. In this final case' date=' the DNPC Disadvantage takes up part of the total Disadvantages the character can have, and the Follower Perk still costs the same points out of his total (Base+Disads) CP. To me, this is superior to reducing the DNPC value for functionality, or reducing the follower cost for drawbacks.[/quote']

 

I would like to mention that I think that in all three cases the Disads on the Follower should IMO reflect how it was built on the main character's sheet. Caris suggested this earlier, and applying this could modify the cost of the Follower.

 

I agree 100%. I take it' date=' then, that you agree the rules as written should be changed from "a follower cannot also be a DNPC" to an example much like your own, above. Your first paragraph would, in my view, slide neatly into the rulebook, displacing "They can't be the same person".[/quote']

 

Pretty much, I believe. I would favor some wording that allows them to be the same NPC, but that the GM should evaluate the combination to see if both the Perk and the Disad in combination are correctly valued.

 

Also, I see a detail that IMO shouldn't be overlooked. AFAIK, Followers have full knowledge of the Hero's Secret ID (if any). A DNPC Disad for that Follower would then have to *not* use the "DNPC is unaware" option.

[LordGhee]

Re: is having DNPC as follower legal

 

Thanks everyone for your input.

 

Great thread

 

Lord Ghee