1. The Allies in ADRP have been fun to have, though I often forget about them as a GM simply because I have to run them, meaning more NPCs on my plate than originally planned. Besides that there is a desire for Players to buy useful Allies and as the rules stand in SW, they can buy Friends (and enemies), but not Devotees. But Devotees are by default more powerful, so is there a way to allow the Players a way to "buy" Devotees and know who they are in SW?
2. Once play begins and PCs make connections during play, how should they choose them/"buy" the NPCs? Are Elders by default a Devotee class given their potential influence on the game and what if any restrictions should be placed on acquiring them?
Proposed Solution 1: Buying an Ally is a two-way (or even three-way) street, meaning that when you buy an Ally (or Enemy) of any kind, you also agree to take on some of that Ally's "baggage." That means if others learn of your connection you are target for the good and bad by association. If you buy a Devotee and it is known, you are confronted with solicitors, revenge, debt collectors, groupies, hanger-ons, etc. You are not just buying that NPC's occasional help, but rather buying into, and with more points/influence/power, a piece of that NPC's life experience. Not unlike buying a personal artifact that reflects a kind of mythology about the PC rather than spending Republic Credits at a shop for a throw away blaster.
What does anyone else think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
i'm liking the ideal. it does make NPC's of any sort much more...personal. supposing you took Random (pre-king, pre-disapperance) as an ally, or a devotee (if he dug your grooves on a standup bass). someone he owes money shows up and decides to put pressure on you because Random occasionally shows up at your performances. instant plot twist. yes it sounds like brownnosing but i still like the idea.
That is exactly what I was referring to. It may or may not require more work on the GM and the Players but I think ultimately it could pay off from time to time storywise.
Thanks!
*eyes glazing* game... system... analysis...
actually, I like the idea. it can help create a lot of story ideas and drama, and instant hooks if someone like me gets adrift.
This has me thinking about the whole NPC relationship. If I were to rename Allies I would call them Connections--I think that's what Castle Falkenstein calls them? But I would handle it differently in that I would say that a Player can choose whatever viable NPCs, and even other PCs if all are willing, as Connections with the cost based on relative "power" within the game. I would let Players choose enemies and rivals as a Connection... all with the idea of somehow enriching the stories in the game and opening up plots and hooks for as many PCs as possible.
For some Amber campaigns I might adopt a similar approach to "Allies" that Dana Bayer (sp?) uses in his Best Intentions game where the Players have some say in the choice of which one Elder they get along with best and which one they always have issues.
Thanks!
Post a Comment