A Question about the perk “Named Possession”

[dcarson]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I could see that working if the general enchants were kept weak and low powered. And cue the rending of shirts and gnashing of Player's teeth...

Either capping the energy that can go into enchanting or having a list of abilities that can be enchanted, possibly based on type of item. So an enchanter can make a sword that sharper, does more damage, doesn't break etc. but one that warns of the presence of enemies or lets you turn invisible only happens via named weapon.

[Balor Patch]

Originally Posted by dcarson

Either capping the energy that can go into enchanting or having a list of abilities that can be enchanted, possibly based on type of item. So an enchanter can make a sword that sharper, does more damage, doesn't break etc. but one that warns of the presence of enemies or lets you turn invisible only happens via named weapon.

This may sort of happen naturally. Named Weapons typically won't have enchantments that could be done Quick & Dirty because energy over that limit is worth twenty-fold, at least in money.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I could see that working if the general enchants were kept weak and low powered. And cue the rending of shirts and gnashing of Player's teeth...

I don't think I run games for people like that.

One of the players in my current fantasy campaign is playing a trollwife. A while back she sought out a group of elves in an area where the PCs had travelled, and asked them to use their ability to enchant wood to make her an extremebow (like a longbow, but about a foot longer) with a name graven into it. Of course, she couldn't read the name herself—trolls are racially dyslexic and rely on eidetic memory—but she could memorize it. Since then, she's put points into things like extra HP for the bow and the ability to fire two arrows per shot.

(This is a world where mana-based magic doesn't exist, so the character points go to buy traits with gadget limitations, rather than energy points of enchantment. But the principle is the same.)

This isn't an incredibly powerful weapon—so far—but the player is having a lot of fun customizing it. It's becoming part of her legend. And that's really what Named Possession is for.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I don't think I run games for people like that.

Count yourself lucky.

[Lost on Venus]

Wow, I did not expect this much of a response. Thank you.

So many questions, where to start?

evileeyore: The creature in example one was a recurring monster of the GM’s design. I at this time I do not know where he is going with it. It shows up when we are not ready, kills some stock animals or NPC’s. We are slowly learning about it and it quirks. For that night I would call it a reoccurring speed bump. I considered it significant because a PC’s life was on the line. That’s pretty significant to us.
Also you said “Your next two are also in my opinion insignificant. Those are actions, those are not deeds.” A deed is an action. Please read the definition that I posted in the main question. If got the definition wrong please let me know.

Arnej; The Item used was my mages staff, with the mage staff spell placed on it. Yes it was helpful to the casting of spell.
Kalzazz; I did not mention the weapon used, because the question was about interpreting this perk.

tbrock1031, evileeyore; tbrrock1031, you are right on the subject about the level of weapons as named possessions.
“Glamdring and Orcrist were not typical swords of Gondolin, after all.”
Named possessions are a one point perk, not Glamdring and Orcrist. This perk would fit Arya Stark when she got her first sword from her brother.

One thing I want to point out about this perk. On the issue of point spent and what they get for this perk. Both rule versions quite clear. The GM alone decides when and how the points are manifest. In GRUPS the player spends his XP for his character. The player can negotiate with the GM about how the XP are spent on an Allie. But Named Possession perk, its all GM. If the GM wants +2 vs. goblins, fine. If the GM wants Pink butterflies, then you need the fine a use for pink butterflies.

Please continue with the wit and wisdom, I am impressed and indebted to you all for the ideas here in.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Lost on Venus

evileeyore: The creature in example one was a recurring monster of the GM’s design. I at this time I do not know where he is going with it. It shows up when we are not ready, kills some stock animals or NPC’s. We are slowly learning about it and it quirks. For that night I would call it a reoccurring speed bump. I considered it significant because a PC’s life was on the line. That’s pretty significant to us.

But is it significant to the story? To the world in which the story is set?

Also you said “Your next two are also in my opinion insignificant. Those are actions, those are not deeds.” A deed is an action. Please read the definition that I posted in the main question. If got the definition wrong please let me know.

It's my definition of 'deed' getting in the way here. I personally define deeds as something worth telling stores about.

However I should have been focusing on the word significant. Neither of those last two events sound significant to me (as I mentioned for the vampire, is this the BBEG or a walk-on Buffy staking?).




Basically there are two ways to run this Perk*, Parsimoniously and Generously.

Parsimoniously - Only 'truly' significant deeds count. Slaying Balrog (or even the Rock Troll, if you aren't Gandalf), overcoming the Swamp of Despair, Ousting the Evil Necromancer from his Throne of Bone, etc. Not defeating ten goblins, not crossing a flooded river (even though dangerous), not putting on your pants in the morning. In other words the things a storyteller would talk about the character doing long down the road.

Generously - Every exp the PC earns the item earns. For the most part (as long as something occurred that could be considered 'significant' (plot-moving) or in the Perk's wheelhouse (Thaumaturgically)).



* Okay, there is a third way: Inconsistently; that is sometimes the GM could decide "The gobbos this session were 'worthy' of earning the item points" when normally gobbos are a nuisance threat and normally the item only earns exp for seriously important deeds.




Something to keep in mind... this is a Perk. It's 1 point. In my opinion it needs to remain in the realm of "worth 1 point".

Now if it's paired with Signature Gear and the PC has to keep upping the SigGear to compensate for the growing Named Item? That changes things... I could even be swayed to the Generous side of the argument (depending on the setting).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Basically there are two ways to run this Perk*, Parsimoniously and Generously.

Parsimoniously - Only 'truly' significant deeds count. Slaying Balrog (or even the Rock Troll, if you aren't Gandalf), overcoming the Swamp of Despair, Ousting the Evil Necromancer from his Throne of Bone, etc. Not defeating ten goblins, not crossing a flooded river (even though dangerous), not putting on your pants in the morning. In other words the things a storyteller would talk about the character doing long down the road.

Generously - Every exp the PC earns the item earns. For the most part (as long as something occurred that could be considered 'significant' (plot-moving) or in the Perk's wheelhouse (Thaumaturgically)).

Neither is quite right, and there's a third: Every eep the PC earns the item earns *if the item played a part in earning the eep*. Truly significant deeds count extra because a single such deed can earn you an extra eep. Routine deeds count toward the normal eep or two for the session.

Compare the rules I originated for qabalistic power accumulation: You get 1 energy point for 8 hours of prayer and meditation, 16 hours of studying scriptures, or 32 hours of leading a good life by the teachings of your faith—but a siingle major mitzvah gains you 25 points.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Lost on Venus

One thing I want to point out about this perk. On the issue of point spent and what they get for this perk. Both rule versions quite clear. The GM alone decides when and how the points are manifest. In GRUPS the player spends his XP for his character. The player can negotiate with the GM about how the XP are spent on an Allie. But Named Possession perk, its all GM. If the GM wants +2 vs. goblins, fine. If the GM wants Pink butterflies, then you need the fine a use for pink butterflies.

At least in the original wording, though, it calls for "an appropriate enchantment" and says that enchantments "reflect the uses to which the item was put." So the GM could decide that your sword got +1 against all foes, or +2 against goblins, or became harder to break—but it's hard to see any scenario where pink butterflies would be appropriate to any use to which a sword was put.

[Tuk the Weekah]

Originally Posted by whswhs

but it's hard to see any scenario where pink butterflies would be appropriate to any use to which a sword was put.

Tough to parry a sword that has an irregular cloud of pink butterflies fluttering around it. :-)

I had a GM who used to do stuff like this to us irregularly. It always turned out to have some kind of use--in which case, the GM would describe the cloud of pink butterflies that appeared every time you drew the sword (or whatever the effect was), and left it up to us to discover on our own that it granted -1 to all opponents' active defences.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Tuk the Weekah

Tough to parry a sword that has an irregular cloud of pink butterflies fluttering around it.

Yeah, but in that case, the effect is the improved attack capability. The pink butterflies are a special effect.