New Perk: Friend

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I've seen particularly useful spouses bought as allies: its particularly appropriate if they come up a lot and are built on a large point budget.

I wouldn't call that charging them points for being married. The points would be for the utility. That utility wouldn't change if the charactere were a spouse, a friend, a loyal servant, or a reliable employee, so the cost wouldn't either.

If there were an in-play penalty for going without sex, and having someone to provide it reliably were a way to avoid the penalty, then there would be a point cost. Probably as Mitigator for whatever the disadvantage was. But that seems kind of weird.

[oneofmanynameless]

I'm not sure the utility value of getting laid in most games so I don't really think having a friend with benefits needs to be specified as different from the 1 point claim to hospitality Kromm describes.

However, there are some circumstances where it might be more useful then a claim to hospitality. For example:

1. The campaign includes sex based magic or super powers and your friend is willing, or unwitting but you can use the abilities in clandestine ways and the friend will not be negatively impacted.
2. The GM is using some sort of stress system and considers sex a more meaningful method of relaxation then an evening of warm food, soft bed, hot shower, and good company.
3. the friend is willing to provide certain skills free of charge, such as whatever their professional skills are, or hobby skills such as esoteric medicine or fortune telling or pop psychology (or even erotic art if they're willing to hook up with people other than you at your behest!)

In those cases taking the friend perk and adding a (probably low point) contact that's defined to be the same person will probably cover the effects. If they're an ally they're willing to actually go on adventures with you, bury dead bodies with you, fight the zombies, plan your anti-mob vigilante campaign...

[TGLS]

I think you forgot 4) The character in question is a succubus and will die if they are celibate too long.

[Mark Skarr]

As the Forum Pervert, I've never used anything like that. If I were going to have "Friend, with Benefits" as a perk, it would mean that the friend was always up for hijinks.

But, more often than not, objects of affection (or even one-night-stands) are more likely to be quirks or disadvantages. I've used "Ill-Advised Hobby" (from Power-Ups 6, pg 28) with the hobby being "promiscuity" for a background flavor, if it's not worse than that. Mixed with "Checkered Past" and "Complicated" (both from pg 32) make it much more interesting, and, honestly, can provide the same effect, with more humor.

And, for those people where "Ill-Advised Hobby" is to mild, you can still keep "Checkered Past" and "Complicated" for more fun.

[oneofmanynameless]

Originally Posted by TGLS

I think you forgot 4) The character in question is a succubus and will die if they are celibate too long.

I didn't forget that. I was mentally including that in "sex based magic and super powers" but I guess I could have said, "sex related supernatural stuff" to make it clearer.

But the same thing applies: if you can get what you need from them without hurting them (usually not the case for succubi) and without them knowing it, or if it will hurt them but they are willing anyways, then they're probably worth more than the "friends" quirk implies. Spending another point on an ally or contact (depending on whether or not they're willing to adventure with you, or just 'refuel' you when you need it) would make sense.

If they're not witting participants and it does hurt them then they aren't really providing you a service. You don't have to pay character points for, "I steal from my friends. They'd probably care if they figure it out." In fact, I'm pretty sure that's the secret disadvantage.

[TGLS]

Fair enough, though the point costs would probably vary depending on whether it's 1 or 4. i.e. If I have a friend who can get me plutonium, the point cost will probably vary if I need plutonium to live or if I need plutonium to shoot lasers from my eyes.

[oneofmanynameless]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

As the Forum Pervert, I've never used anything like that. If I were going to have "Friend, with Benefits" as a perk, it would mean that the friend was always up for hijinks.

But, more often than not, objects of affection (or even one-night-stands) are more likely to be quirks or disadvantages. I've used "Ill-Advised Hobby" (from Power-Ups 6, pg 28) with the hobby being "promiscuity" for a background flavor, if it's not worse than that. Mixed with "Checkered Past" and "Complicated" (both from pg 32) make it much more interesting, and, honestly, can provide the same effect, with more humor.

And, for those people where "Ill-Advised Hobby" is to mild, you can still keep "Checkered Past" and "Complicated" for more fun.

I love these.

Originally Posted by TGLS

Fair enough, though the point costs would probably vary depending on whether it's 1 or 4. i.e. If I have a friend who can get me plutonium, the point cost will probably vary if I need plutonium to live or if I need plutonium to shoot lasers from my eyes.

I mean yeah. "I have a friend that can get me very dangerous and highly controlled materials" is definitely worth more than, "I have a friend that can get me free food." And, "I need plutonium to live" is likely a Dependency or similar disadvantage while, "I need plutonium to shoot lasers from my eyes" is likely a matter of limiters on the eye laser advantage. Nothing to say you couldn't have all of the above. A succubus, for example, might need to vamp soul energy from someone through sex to survive and will die if they don't, but that soul energy might also be usable to fuel powerful mind control powers or demonic magics. They'd have dependency or a similar disad, that requires them to use their leech once a day for at least 1 FP/HP, but they can use their leech more to fill up an ER pool and have a number of powers such as mind control, or spells and power investiture, or both that can be fueled by that ER pool. Then having a friend that will willingly refuel you/feed you is certainly a worthwhile contact and certainly worth more than a claim to hospitality... and the GM can decide whether providing life energy at potentially serious cost of ones own life is equivalent to providing a free physician skill, or if it's closer to a free supply of a rare, dangerous, and controlled substance like plutonium. But I'd argue that the point cost of the friend is less based on what you need the rare/dangerous/illegal substance for and more based on whether it is rare/dangerous/illegal or not. Other advantages/disadvantages/and modifiers will create the difference in point cost between what you need it for.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I've seen particularly useful spouses bought as allies: its particularly appropriate if they come up a lot and are built on a large point budget.



But most of the time, I usually don't require points for relationships. In some games, I'll usually require players to explicitly detail their family, friends, and day job. Its usually a net disadvantage, if only slightly.

Isn't it something to be roleplayed though? At the least it will give several quirks, depending on what the PC and the friend do. It will also give the equiv of Ally, as well as any contacts the friend brings with him or her. It is quite likely to carry with it SoD or even Fanatic. Simon likely had Fanatic (River) and Byron and Slote had both at least SoD to Natallie in War and Remembrance (it may not reach Fanatic as neither just up and stopped the war on Natalie's account though Byron almost did). Lazlo took great risks for his wife such as tending her in a safehouse when she was sick instead of lighting off on his own.

Of these only Byron and Lazlo have their friend available for biological entertainment. Slote wanted Natalie romantically but he was a graceful loser after grumbling a bit and remained a friend. And of course Simon is an elder brother and doesn't get that from River.

On the other hand in most of the examples given, friend would not be the exact description of the relationship.

I think a friend would be someone with Philia rather then specifically eros. Eros is compatable with it. It is just a force multiplier.

[oneofmanynameless]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Simon likely had Fanatic (River)

Sense of duty is probably enough. It's an assumed part of allies.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

I think a friend would be someone with Philia rather then specifically eros. Eros is compatable with it. It is just a force multiplier.

Alright, I'm kinda getting off topic and beside the point here but since its asexual awareness week, my best friend is asexual, and I've spent a lot of time reading about and thinking about the relationships of love and romance and sex I'd argue with the idea that Eros is a force multiplier on Philia. A colored lense, perhaps. But I've seen nothing to indicate that the mean, median, mode, or range... or even standard deviation of the spread of devotional levels found in romantic or sexual relationships is greater than that of familial relationships. And I'd argue that if it appears lesser in friendship it is only because our society does not value friendship as much as family or romantic partners (and often when the higher levels of devotion are found in friends we either re-label them family or assume it must secretly be romantic.)

[AlexanderHowl]

I have known many people through the decades who successfully combined friendship and sex (and more who failed). Of those who failed, the two major reasons were pride and, paradoxically, acceptance. In the case of pride, the friendships would fall apart because the pride of one or more friends ended up being hurt because of the actions of the sexual partner. In the case of acceptance, the friendships evolved into romantic love through sexual activity, as the emotions became too intense for just friendship.