Allies: Free Points amplification?

[RedMattis]

I could see letting an Ally go bad, but that will be shortly followed by either a refund of points or a chance to redeem/save said ally.
I'm not going to make them secretly bad and plotting against the player though.

I could see...
The ally turning traitor when they all are the prison and the Ally takes up an offer to switch sides.
The ally getting bit by an evil vampire and turning Jackass Evil (Buffy Style).

I'd be careful about...
Letting enemies blackmail the ally to give up information about the PCs
Letting an Ally by possessed secretly for any amount of time.

I wouldn't
Let the ally betray the PCs secretly and still stay around.

Either way, I'm not going to make the player pay points for an Ally that has turned traitor.

Edit: As a general rule, I'd say "don't" when it comes to Allies turning bad.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Unless they're, you know, under the magical or psionic control of another NPC. You can do this with a PC too, but it's logistically more difficult because it requires one of the PLAYERS to keep a secret about having been "altered."

Certainly, but that has little to do with the topic, which is more about how the Ally advantage works than about what the GM can do to Allies. Allies should be every bit as subject to illness, crippling, maiming, curses, possession, death, disintegration, and general bad luck as the PCs. Some of these things can make a person crazy, even turn him against his friends. But that's just what happens on adventures. I was speaking about spontaneous betrayal and deception of the PC by the Ally, wholly initiated by the Ally as a machination of the GM who feels that the Ally is too useful for the points.

[Snargash Moonclaw]

It might be helpful to look at the concept in bigger picture terms - like allies in international politics. In creating an Ally at least a general outline of the "terms of the alliance" should be "negotiated" (worked out) between the GM and Player - as well as "how close an alliance" exists. (This latter is reflected primarily in availability.) Both parties have their own agendas and an NPC Ally isn't going to maintain an alliance that violates their agenda. In smaller, incidental terms, they will react poorly to PC requests which are in some manner counter to their own interests. The alliance also works both ways and a PC who fails to maintain their side should face a reduction in the Ally's availability until they remedy the situation.

The above should also then indicate necessary story elements should an Ally "go bad". Even in the most Machiavellian game setting the PC should generally have the means to see it coming and in a setting of convoluted intrigue the player should understand up front the sort of influences and currents which are present in the story/setting. There's nothing wrong with having a double-dealing schemer for an Ally - but the PC should have some idea that this is the case - it may well be part of why they want that Ally. I don't think that it's hard and fast that an Ally absolutely must stay so - if the Ally's and PC's agendas change over time until they are incompatible or even opposed the relationship should reflect this. Whatever the causes for this change should also then provide the mechanism by which a different Ally comes into play - the PC should still have an equivalent Ally - one whose agendas are more in line with the PC's than the former Ally's have become.

In the most Machiavellian cases I can see an Ally double-crossing the PC, but such a scenario would certainly require the introduction of the replacement - in this case the PC "finds out who his real friends are." (A common story element in crime/espionage genre movies. . .) Then again, they might later find out that their (original) Ally was actually helping them all along - or at least honoring the friendship enough to ensure the PC isn't directly harmed when their nefarious plot comes to fruition. (I would certainly be cautious about incorporating such a story arc and it would only be appropriate to a very narrow range of campaign types.)

As in the real political arena, alliances in campaign should be multifaceted and fluid. Since Allies are NPCs of major significance in the game, they should be role-played as such. I think that doing any less (and simply treating them is static "resources with faces" for the characters) is denying the players of the real value of the Advantage.

[Orienda]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

Perhaps in general terms, but the GM is still within their rights to say "No, sorry, Super-Robot-Buddy-9000 will need the Maintainance and Restricted Diet (Plutonium Fuel Pellets) disadvantages. And his eye-lasers have Unreliable, since you haven't worked the glitches out." An Ally actually built or designed by a PC may allow the player to specify exact stats a bit more, but it's still the GM designing things.

Obviously all characters, especially allies, are subject to GM approval, but a 150% base point warbot is going to be a pretty effective combatant, no matter what way you run it. Most disadvantages, after all, are fairly priced.

[pnewman]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I was speaking about spontaneous betrayal and deception of the PC by the Ally, wholly initiated by the Ally as a machination of the GM who feels that the Ally is too useful for the points.

What if the Ally has a Sense of Duty - Party? Suppose Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice are all going on an adventure together. Bob is an immoral, Greedy, Bloodthirsty, sociopath (your basic PC). He asks for 'a stout shield brother to aid me' [Ally, 100% of PCs strength, 15 or less]. The GM, who can see where this is going and doesn't want to create an NPC who will just help Bob attack Carol and Ted and Alice when it comes time to decide the whole 'treasure shares' problem decides that 'Igor the Fighter' should be an Ally of the whole party, not just Bob.

Is it OK if all the PCs pay for the same Ally? How would the point cost work if they did? What about activation rolls? If Igor is there on a 15 or less should he be there if any of the PC's make their activation rolls?

When Bob betrays Carol and Ted and Alice than Igor's probably going to need to pick a side. If Igor's got Sense of Duty - Party than he's probably going to side with Carol and Ted and Alice, not Bob. Should Igor's behavior also depend on who made their activation rolls this week? If Igor attacks Bob when he betrays the party is this fair to Bob, who did after all pay points for him? If Igor _doesn't_ attack Bob is this fair to Carol and Ted and Alice, who also paid points for an Ally? Does this show that a 'party Ally' was a bad idea in the first place?

[Kromm]

Allies are always personal – not shared property. If the PC spending points can't count on an NPC's help in a PvP situation, then he shouldn't have to pay points for that NPC as an Ally. Allies are probably poorly priced for games with lots of PvP . . . but really, PvP isn't a goal of GURPS. GURPS is quite squarely a Rule Zero-supporting game that requires a GM like it requires dice, pencils, and rulebooks.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Kromm

GURPS is quite squarely a Rule Zero-supporting game that requires a GM like it requires dice, pencils, and rulebooks.

I'd say it requires one even more than dice, pencils and rulebooks. I've GMed a few diceless games*. I'm getting by well without pencils**. And I know a GM who never touched a rulebook, but nonetheless GMs GURPS***. I've yet to see a GMless GURPS session.

This topic comes up from time to time, so I'm actually semi-determined to faq it (scroll down to the end of the first post). I hope you approve.
__________________

* == admittedly, no combats, though I was close.
** == okay, I use a computer.
*** == well, his NPCs are rather arbitrary though . . . and he doesn't handle GM-dependent crunchy traits well.

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Allies are always personal – not shared property. If the PC spending points can't count on an NPC's help in a PvP situation, then he shouldn't have to pay points for that NPC as an Ally. Allies are probably poorly priced for games with lots of PvP . . . but really, PvP isn't a goal of GURPS. GURPS is quite squarely a Rule Zero-supporting game that requires a GM like it requires dice, pencils, and rulebooks.

Huh. But then we need to figure out whether Alfred would take Bruce, Dick, or Tim's side when it comes down to it, whose NPC Ally he therefore is, or if he is in fact another PC....

[pnewman]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Allies are always personal – not shared property. If the PC spending points can't count on an NPC's help in a PvP situation, then he shouldn't have to pay points for that NPC as an Ally. Allies are probably poorly priced for games with lots of PvP . . . but really, PvP isn't a goal of GURPS.

But doesn't the _sort_ of help you can expect from an NPC Ally depend on their disadvantages? An Ally with Pacifism will act differently than an Ally with Bloodlust, for instance. Is giving an Ally any Sense of Duty larger than 'Sense of Duty - whoever paid points for me' a bad idea?

Suppose that a WWII era patriotic superhero 'Star-Spangled Man' has 'Stars and Stripes Kid' as an Ally. They both have 'Sense of Duty-America'. What happens when the Germans trick 'Stars and Stripes Kid' into believing that 'Star-Spangled Man' is really a Nazi? Shouldn't he then act against 'Star-Spangled Man'? Since 'Stars and Stripes Kid' doesn't have Indomitable than, by the rules, he is subject to this sort of influence. Therefore shouldn't 'Star-Spangled Mans' player realize that this is a possibility?

[Phantasm]

Originally Posted by pnewman

But doesn't the _sort_ of help you can expect from an NPC Ally depend on their disadvantages? An Ally with Pacifism will act differently than an Ally with Bloodlust, for instance. Is giving an Ally any Sense of Duty larger than 'Sense of Duty - whoever paid points for me' a bad idea?

Suppose that a WWII era patriotic superhero 'Star-Spangled Man' has 'Stars and Stripes Kid' as an Ally. They both have 'Sense of Duty-America'. What happens when the Germans trick 'Stars and Stripes Kid' into believing that 'Star-Spangled Man' is really a Nazi? Shouldn't he then act against 'Star-Spangled Man'? Since 'Stars and Stripes Kid' doesn't have Indomitable than, by the rules, he is subject to this sort of influence. Therefore shouldn't 'Star-Spangled Mans' player realize that this is a possibility?

Certainly a plot hook, in which case it comes down to the PC playing Star-Spangled Man convincing Stars and Stripes Kid into believing otherwise. Also note that, realistically, a person is only going to believe such propaganda for as long as he goes without evidence that goes against it. And so the plot comes down to the German agent and the Star-Spangled Man pitting their wits against each other to win over the Kid's loyalty. (A critical failure on the Ally's frequency roll could lead to such a plot.)