Allies - Am I doing something wrong?

[simulatoralive]

Originally Posted by aesir23

An Ally who is on your side but is actively trying to see you dead or in prison is an Oxymoron.

As for the dead part, imagine your enemy wants to kill you, so he'll make the occasional attempt on your life. But on the other hand, he really wants to kill you himself, so he's going to make darn sure you don't die by someone else's hand. One day he tries to blow your head off with a sniper rifle. The next, he's yelling, "Look out!" as someone else tries to do the same.

As for the prison bit, he wants you to go to prison because you committed some crime. He's doing it out of the goodness of his heart, trying to reform you. Prison is just the first step. You could call this tough love.

I could see either of these as an interesting side-story in a campaign.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by simulatoralive

As for the dead part, imagine your enemy wants to kill you, so he'll make the occasional attempt on your life. But on the other hand, he really wants to kill you himself, so he's going to make darn sure you don't die by someone else's hand. One day he tries to blow your head off with a sniper rifle. The next, he's yelling, "Look out!" as someone else tries to do the same.

You bring up a valid point, I guess it is possible to imagine a scenario where an Ally was also a full-value enemy.

For the purposes of the ongoing discussion, I would definitely not make and Ally behave as an enemy unless the character were receiving points for that disadvantage.

[Pagan]

Maybe our GM styles are just incompatible. Your arguments seem to say that the players are there to follow the dictates of the story. I think the story is there to provide the players with a framework for fun and excitement. Not to say that going along with a story is not fun but it seems more confining than having the pcs create their own stories with the plot threads, situations, settings and npcs you introduce into your world.

Your non ally npcs should be just as vital and vivid as your allies, patrons, and dependents. If they aren't, you're missing out on a great part of telling a story. Most of my campaign (10 years now) is remembered through the npcs the pcs have encountered along the way. The settings are great, the adventures thrilling, but the npcs are what really grab the players and what you can "usually" go back to.

There have certainly been betrayals in that time and certainly they hit hard, ally or non ally.

[Joel]

Originally Posted by BMR

Likewise, Dr. Yueh was a conditioned Ally of Duke Leto Atreides, only to become a traitor when his wife was kidnapped. But even as a traitor, he still helped Lady Jessica and Paul escape. In a campaign begun before the events of Dune, there would have to be some means of roleplaying this.

The obvious solution is simply to make Yueh an Ally. Then he betrays the PC at the appropriate point in the adventure, and PCs simply lose the advantage. PC point value is lowered, and they don't get a refund. However, the adventure will grant the player an Ally in the form of Chani, or even a full blown Patronage of the Fremen. This is also a freebee on the part of the GM, and the PC value goes up accordingly.

Another more PC-centric way this could play out is that the PC doesn't want Yueh as an ally anymore and refunds those points, then letting the GM do whatever he likes with Yueh, takes a liking to this Chani the GM has introduced (or that the player has made up himself), buying her as an ally for the points he got from dumping Yueh, and then chosing to spend some more points he has earned to get Freemen patronage, because he thinks Freemen are awesome. I he hadn't wanted the Freemen as patrons because he thinks they're a bunch of barbarians, he could have grabed Chani and gone back to civilization (still hiding ofcourse, unless you would allow him to somehow buy off his enemies disadvantage). This isn't really a perfect example though as Paul is a lone PC.

Edit: Basically the players aren't just a passive 'audience', they run their PCs and get a say in what their PCs have spent points in, like their allies, or is otherwise written into their character, the GM runs the rest of the world.

Edit2: These are just different options, I'm sure your PCs tend to throw wrenches in your plots for fun and profit, and I've enjoyed both kinds of games.

[BMR]

Originally Posted by Pagan

Maybe our GM styles are just incompatible. Your arguments seem to say that the players are there to follow the dictates of the story. I think the story is there to provide the players with a framework for fun and excitement. Not to say that going along with a story is not fun but it seems more confining than having the pcs create their own stories with the plot threads, situations, settings and npcs you introduce into your world...

and

Originally Posted by Joel

Another more PC-centric way this could play out is that the PC doesn't want Yueh as an ally anymore and refunds those points...

...Basically the players aren't just a passive 'audience', they run their PCs and get a say in what their PCs have spent points in, like their allies, or is otherwise written into their character, the GM runs the rest of the world...

I can dig it, but I'm afraid I haven't been communicating as clearly as I thought. Using the word "audience" was misleading in the context of roleplayers.

That said, my style does involve telling a story. My mind functions that way, so I do what is within my skill and pleasure range. But I believe my methods do open up player involvement.

Playing with the rules opens new paths and provokes new player actions and reactions. Which is why I like the idea of the GM throwing monkey wrenches into Allies. It's something players don't expect, and it creates an uniquely intimate conflict, because they are essentially battling their own offspring. But what I have done here is set the stage. The players, far from passive, must act or fail to act as they see fit, and as the roll of die determines.

My prime player concern would be those who cannot handle the dictates of the die, of the rules, or of the world. There needs to be valid threats and penalties or the story becomes as passive and narrow as people worry about. Not to mention imbalanced. That's what disadvantages and critical failures are for.

Still some of the outside ideas you folks offer might be solutions. To me, giving and taking Allies and Enemies is expediant, as much for the convenience as for the nettling of the player. But perhaps this can evolve.