New Perk: Friend

[AlexanderHowl]

I am just playing around with the idea of a new perk that I have labeled Friend. Friend provides either Ally (50%; 6-) [1] or Ally (25%; 9-) [1]. If the Friend is only available for sex, it provides Ally (50%; 9-; Accessibility, Sex Only, -50%) [1] or Ally (25%; 12-; Accessibility, Sex Only, -50%) [1], but your friend is only willing to engage in activities that lead to sex, like dinner and a movie, though he or she will be willing to let you spend the night and cook you breakfast after you have sex.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I am just playing around with the idea of a new perk that I have labeled Friend. Friend provides either Ally (50%; 6-) [1] or Ally (25%; 9-) [1]. If the Friend is only available for sex, it provides Ally (50%; 9-; Accessibility, Sex Only, -50%) [1] or Ally (25%; 12-; Accessibility, Sex Only, -50%) [1], but your friend is only willing to engage in activities that lead to sex, like dinner and a movie, though he or she will be willing to let you spend the night and cook you breakfast after you have sex.

The friend available for sex really seems like something I'd leave up to roleplaying.

I don't see any merit in calling the general version a perk. It's equivalent in point cost to a low-end version of the standard advantage, and you've done the equivalent of the point cost calculation to derive it, and you're going to have to design the low-point-value character for the PC anyway, so it doesn't save any work or make things any simpler. You might as well just call it an advantage and not waste word count.

[jason taylor]

Isn't that more Love Interest? A love interest can be a friend too (such as Jamie and Eddie on Blue Bloods) or a friend can evolve into a love interest, or whatever. But what you described are primarily things to do with a love interest.

What do Cory and Shaun in Boy Meets World; Rick, TC, and Magnum, etc do together. Definitely not that.

Probably they have a backstory together. The friendship has to be about something, and if it is just about the plot that is Ally. However the backstory can be manipulated into something more interesting (while studying WW2 memorabilia they find a map to a Nazi Occult Secret for instance and now Someone wants them dead).

[Kromm]

There's already a Friend perk; see GURPS Power-Ups 2: Perks, p. 18. Adding ". . . with benefits" wouldn't really change anything at all.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Kromm

There's already a Friend perk; see GURPS Power-Ups 2: Perks, p. 18. Adding ". . . with benefits" wouldn't really change anything at all.

Note that this is not treated as a low-cost version of Ally; in fact, the definition says, "He isn’t a Contact, much less an Ally, and won’t get involved in adventures." In fact, the perk is basically the low end of Claim to Hospitality.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Note that this is not treated as a low-cost version of Ally; in fact, the definition says, "He isn’t a Contact, much less an Ally, and won’t get involved in adventures." In fact, the perk is basically the low end of Claim to Hospitality.

Yep . . . I created the perk, so I remember that detail. I think it's the best way to handle ordinary friends. Real friends aren't merely walking favors, like Contacts, yet most aren't willing to help you bury bodies, like Allies. I think Claim to Hospitality works best for the mi casa es su casa nature of ordinary friendships. I don't think mi cama es su cama changes anything, either.

[AlexanderHowl]

Perhaps the Perk then should be named Good Friend, which would either be a simplification of Ally (50%; 6-) or Ally (25%; 9-), or Booty Call, which would be a simplification of Ally (50%; 9-; Accessibility, Only Sex, -50%) or Ally (25%; 12-; Accessibility, Only Sex, -50%). In the former case, it is a friend who would help you move bodies. In the latter case, it is a friend with benefits that you can depend on to not have STDs, to use protection, and, if applicable, to use contraceptives.

[Brandy]

I've used something similar in games where I expanded the social mechanics a bit. I was using a two-tiered set of reaction numbers: reaction (short-term) and relationship (long-term). So you might have a good or very good relationship with an NPC, but still do something that causes a bad reaction in the moment, or have a neutral relationship with an NPC merchant but be able to talk them into a particularly favorable deal one day.

One of the mechanics was that over time, relationship, if not reinforced through play, would tend to drift over time back to Neutral (or whatever the default for that NPC was) but that players, for valuable relationships could spend a point and "stabilize" the relationship (borrowing the language from Create in powers).

As a GM, I liked the mechanic but my players at the time were pretty meh about it.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Perhaps the Perk then should be named Good Friend, which would either be a simplification of Ally (50%; 6-) or Ally (25%; 9-), or Booty Call, which would be a simplification of Ally (50%; 9-; Accessibility, Only Sex, -50%) or Ally (25%; 12-; Accessibility, Only Sex, -50%). In the former case, it is a friend who would help you move bodies. In the latter case, it is a friend with benefits that you can depend on to not have STDs, to use protection, and, if applicable, to use contraceptives.

"I have an established sexual relationship" is something I would normally just treat as a zero point feature. I mean, if a player said their character was married, I wouldn't charge them points for it (they might GET points, for Dependent (Loved One) or Sense of Duty). And the established sexual relationship is one aspect of being married. So why charge points for it separately?

For the versions that are low-cost Allies with being aspected, I would just treat them as the advantage Allies at a low level. Everything you say about them is already present in that advantage. I can't see any point in calling it a perk when the rules are the same and when you haven't simplified them in any way.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I mean, if a player said their character was married, I wouldn't charge them points for it (they might GET points, for Dependent (Loved One) or Sense of Duty). And the established sexual relationship is one aspect of being married. So why charge points for it separately?

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.