Allies - Am I doing something wrong?

[The_Nightwatch]

I would just caution that, if you want to make a character's ally a secret enemy instead, know your player. I've known some people that would feel betrayed by me "pulling something like that on them," and might quit the game in a huff.

Note, however, that if you want them to quit in a huff, this might work...

[bcd]

Originally Posted by lachimba

Well I will give an example of where I think there could be conflict between an ally and the Character.

The PC is accused of a serious crime. The Ally is in law enforcement has honesty, truthfulness, duty etc.

Acting in direct opposition to your Ally's wishes is a pretty good way to lose him as an Ally. In this particular case you might then use the character points freed up to buy your cell mate as an Ally instead :-)

Mind you, it will usually be pretty easy to convince your Ally that you were framed, or that it's a case of mistaken identity, etc., (whether true or not) in which case your Honest Ally will probably do all in his power to help prove your innocence. Depending on the situation and his other personality traits he might even help you avoid capture since jailing an innocent person is a travesty of justice!

[BMR]

Originally Posted by Ego Archive

You and I will have to disagree then. I was specifically thinking of characters like like spy's if you had an ally who was a spy for a different organization, who would help you with dangerous, and difficult tasks, but who still reported back to his superiors with whatever information he felt he could use...

<snip>

...I would say even a lifelong friend could turn on you, say if your enemy captures his family and uses them to manipulate him or her. At that point it would be up to the GM make it right (bring in another ally to save the day, or have his ally "turn back" at the last minute), but it doesn't mean that the GM can't use an Ally to drive the story, that would be silly.

Dr. Kromm and others are correct if they say that Allies are advantages, bought and paid for. But Basic Set - Characters plainly states that you can lose advantages and gain disadvantges as the adventure dictates. You get no points in compensation, and the value of your character is lowered accordingly. To quote the book edited by the Line Editor himself, "... that's just the breaks of the game!" (p. B291)

If a player takes it personally and quits, too bad. Storytelling isn't all about giving people everything they want, all of the time. If it was, your story would be totally predictable and stagnant. A good storyteller knows that you sometimes inflict pain for the greater pleasure of the adventure, even if it costs you part of your audience.

Of course, if the majority of your players threaten to quit, then that too is a commentary on your storytelling abilities, and of the tolerances of your chosen players. Perhaps you need to GM for a more flexible group--or tell a better story!

Otherwise, an Ally can and should be used to drive the story. And he doesn't have to work against the player in order to serve other masters. Heinrich Himmler was a powerful Ally of Adolf Hitler, but he also had his own retinue, and his own ambitions. And in the end, he did abandon Hitler and tried to make his own deal with the West.

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.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by BMR

Dr. Kromm and others are correct if they say that Allies are advantages, bought and paid for. But Basic Set - Characters plainly states that you can lose advantages and gain disadvantges as the adventure dictates. You get no points in compensation, and the value of your character is lowered accordingly. To quote the book edited by the Line Editor himself, "... that's just the breaks of the game!" (p. B291)

Yeah, but...usually as a consequence of play, not as a consequence of GM whim.

There's a fundamental difference between "you got your wings hacked off, so you lose Flight." and "I think it'd be cool to take away your ally and use them against you, so say goodbye to your CP!"

[BMR]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Yeah, but...usually as a consequence of play, not as a consequence of GM whim.

There's a fundamental difference between "you got your wings hacked off, so you lose Flight." and "I think it'd be cool to take away your ally and use them against you, so say goodbye to your CP!"

Of course, and that's why I think it should be part of roleplaying. I did say "as the adventure dictates". I personally oppose power-tripping on the part of the GM as much as the players. But power story telling? Bring it on!

[Pagan]

Originally Posted by BMR

Of course, and that's why I think it should be part of roleplaying. I did say "as the adventure dictates". I personally oppose power-tripping on the part of the GM as much as the players. But power story telling? Bring it on!

Wrapping up "shafting the players" in the term "story-telling" is still shafting the players. Loyal comrades, faithful sidekicks, trusted retainers, lifelong friends....it's right there in the first sentence. Third paragraph says An NPC ally is wholly reliable. That's pretty clear.

If you want to set up a betrayal storyline, and you want to do it through role-playing...role-play the friendship with an non-paid for NPC.....role-play them getting close, saving each others' lives...then throw in the betrayal. If storytelling is the point, this makes a much better story.

[lachimba]

Originally Posted by Pagan

Wrapping up "shafting the players" in the term "story-telling" is still shafting the players. Loyal comrades, faithful sidekicks, trusted retainers, lifelong friends....it's right there in the first sentence. Third paragraph says An NPC ally is wholly reliable. That's pretty clear.

If you want to set up a betrayal storyline, and you want to do it through role-playing...role-play the friendship with an non-paid for NPC.....role-play them getting close, saving each others' lives...then throw in the betrayal. If storytelling is the point, this makes a much better story.

A suggested compromise?

GURPS conspiracy X allows the player to specify the reliability of SOI patrons. It ranges from unreliable to always reliable.

You could give the same feature to allies. Completely reliable are the ones who are best buddies never betray the player unless under mind control.

reliable everyone else.

The GM who wants the potential for allies to occasionally come into conflict with PCs can just say that PCs can only buy allies as reliable and not as more or less.

[BMR]

Originally Posted by Pagan

Wrapping up "shafting the players" in the term "story-telling" is still shafting the players. Loyal comrades, faithful sidekicks, trusted retainers, lifelong friends....it's right there in the first sentence. Third paragraph says An NPC ally is wholly reliable. That's pretty clear.

I do not wrap "shafting the player" into my term, which is also pretty clear. When I say storytelling, I mean it, and I take any challenge to that seriously.

I take the description seriously, too. Allies do not always appear, they do not abusively obey the player, and they may even do things contrary to PC goals--which sounds like an open door to alternative plot paths. Also, the rules state that if players upset their ally enough, he will leave, and the PC loses points.

Ultimately, the rules permit the GM to determine the evolution of the Ally, which is consistent with the GMs duty to evolve the story.

If you want to set up a betrayal storyline, and you want to do it through role-playing...role-play the friendship with an non-paid for NPC.....role-play them getting close, saving each others' lives...then throw in the betrayal. If storytelling is the point, this makes a much better story.

A betrayal by a freebie NPC might appease the player, but poses a pale and predictable plot twist. Whereas the mere fact that people argue against treacherous Allies only confirms their value! An Ally is an investment, an attachment, that a GM generated NPC cannot match unless he knows his player very well. What is "better" thus depends upon the GM, upon the players, and upon the campaign.

Otherwise, one insults the GM by presuming that he or she cannot be trusted to originate a good story. The GM instead becomes a short-order cook, giving the players their made-to-order adventure. That's not GURPS. That's a "module", faceless interchangeability as the writer's guidelines say.

And I ask, What if I want to make an adventure out of recovering and redeeming that Ally? What if an apparent betrayal is really a subtle support--even a misdirection to lure the real enemy? If one assumes that a consequence is entirely negative, that it cannot lead to a more exciting mission or stimulating benefit, then they close an avenue of story tension and fun.

Some people want fewer options, and that's also part of being a good storyteller. I would no more have an Ally betray a PC on an inconsiderate whim than I would have of any rank-and-file NPC. Obeying the logic of the story is critical to enjoying it, and sometimes that does mean giving players exactly what they want.

Giving the players everything they think they want is a path to boredom and stagnation. The real growth comes from finding the things the audience didn't know they wanted, or were too inhibited to admit wanting. And the real challenge comes from telling it to people in a way that works. They can hate you all they want, so long as they have fun and learn.

[RedMattis]

I have never had troubles with the NPC tag-alongs being mistrusted by the players. Why? Because more often than not the NPC is either quite sincere, or they get actual hints that this NPC has some secret ambitions, good or bad.

Totally unexpected betrayal is not a plot twist I'd using more than once. It's cliché and leads to meta-thinking since the GM denies the characters an honest chance to catch on to something suspicious going on.

Being a traitor for any length of time and not getting anyone suspicious at all is darn difficult, especially if you are around friends. It is pretty much reserved for professional spies.


I have never felt the need to break the GM-player contract between of Contacts & Allies to the Player to have ...interesting NPCs along with the party, for lack of a better way to express it.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

I dont know, I think an ally and an enemy have to be mutually exclusive

IDHMBWM, but I'm sure that an Ally who is also a Dependent is RAW. I'd allow an Ally who is an enemy ONLY if the enemy had the Rival or Watcher limitations.

An Ally who helps you out but needs frequent rescuing is a Dependent.

An Ally who is on your side but reports everything you do to his CIA masters is a Watcher.

An Ally who is on your side but wants to show you up and prove his superiority at every opportunity is a Rival.

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