Summons and Events (Question/proposal)

[Roy Mustang]

Hello everybody! Got a rules question/proposal/situation that I'm seeing coming up in a bit. I greatly appreciate how much everyone here is chill about discussions of rules and the general positivity of this community, so I'm really hoping people come to this discussion with that sort of open-mindedness. Rule discussions can frequently lead to arguing, which is not my intent here.

I've been relatively confident after the fun I had with Armstrong in DG that the next of the FMA military squad I wanted to give a chance to spotlight was Hawkeye. She's been a lot of fun in Mustang's threads, but I've been writing too slowly to give her a chance to do as much solo as I'd like to flesh out her character and perspective when she's not in "Roy stop being stupid." mode. Add into that Mustang being QUITE done with Karl Jak and quite against the idea of a third DA run, Having Hawkeye be personally requested to go instead felt like the perfect way to sweep the rug out from under him for being the stubborn stick in the mud he is at times.

Altogether, I was/am quite excited to use Hawkeye for this year's DA. However, I do have a problem. Since Mustang frequently operates alongside his team of subordinates, Hawkeye in particular, I have had her as a Summon since shortly before the Siege of Markov.

Per the rules page:
"Summons cannot be killed or destroyed by an opponent without your consent. Additionally, Summons cannot be entered in competitive site events solo. That is, your account character must be accompanying them and be a primary actor in the event."

Ah. Well, that pretty decisively puts the nail in that idea.

I don't remember if this was always part of the summoning description, but I do think there's a lot of validity to wanting to make sure that summons are your back-up, not your main character. If you're playing Cloud, it seems kinda weird to enter an event as Bahumaut instead of the character you're ostensibly writing. Similarly, I don't think anyone wants to someone playing the Lone Ranger's horse, Silver in a DA. (wow, was that really the best example of a mount I could come up with on the spot?)

That being said, as it stands the Summoning ability is being used for a far broader spectrum of things. As it states in the ability, they're a "Friend, Ally, Minion, Summon or other autonomous companion that can act on their own." I don't believe I'm the only one doing so either as it fits quite naturally for characters that behave and act almost exclusively as part of a team.

To summarize my particular situation, I find myself in the weird place where I can enter a competitive event as Armstrong, a character who is more independent an actor from my Account character, and who I've not paid any essence for. But I am unable to enter a competitive event as Hawkeye, a character that is quite tied to my Account character to the point that operating either of them wholly independently would feel off, and that I've been allotting a portion of Mustang's essence to outfitting. In fact, I would have been able to utilize Hawkeye for more if I did not spend the essence to outfit and define her, but had left her as a named but undefined NPC that Mustang worked with.

(It's possible I should also point out that technically, if I hadn't purchased Hawkeye as a summon I wouldn't have been "allowed" to use her as part of other events, like Markov or Nausicaa, as a counterargument for why It was still the 'right' move to purchase her as a summon? But I believe we didn't enforce a "no npcs" rule for either of those events, nor do I think that we should have.)

If the desire is to keep Summoning as a "Autonomous but not actually independent" descriptor, (which I would agree there is validity to do so.) Is it possible there could be an alternative option for Characters who have an integral supporting cast of characters? A different Effect called "Trusted Ally" or some other similar name, presumably with less protected status to accompany this greater level of autonomy. Honestly, I see it as a way to codify the NPCs that all characters have a tendency to accumulate over the course of a story, if you want those NPCs to be able to act in more "significant" situations.

I'm happy to discuss and workshop with anyone, and I'm curious whether this is something I'm kinda out in the weeds by myself on or not. I know a lot of people prefer their NPCs to just be wholly disconnected from their account character, but I'm not entirely sure how to navigate my upcoming situation if I want to play Hawkeye in the upcoming DA.

Thoughts? Confusion? Outrage? (hopefully not that last one)

 

[Toga Voorhees]

I'm pretty sure the idea behind that rule was to keep people from sending Summons in to remove any risk to the main character (especially since Summons don't need any Quest or item to come back to life), in the case where they have Relics and the like. I think you could probably discuss this with an event runner and get the go ahead.

 

[Roy Mustang]

Ooo, I didn't even consider the idea of relics. That is absolutely a thing!

 

[Chara Dreemurr]

we could probably just make a different variant of summons for 'allies' that don't get the free death insurance, in all honesty, to allow for a good bridge between an NPC or summon, so people could have a fully functioning supporting cast member.

 

[Android XVII]

Ooo, I didn't even consider the idea of relics. That is absolutely a thing!

So, yes, that notation in the descriptor is moderately recent (months? longer? please don't hurt me, I try but RL never stops). While I can't personally speak for the other two members of the admin team, I'll essentially say we wanted avoid the fact that for whatever reason, summons seem to be increasingly seen as surrogates for a 'main account character' in the context of Relic-giving events (which seems to be all of our events). I personally didn't want people sending summons, winning said prizes, and then trying to 'figure out' some way to transfer or exchange them (which, to me and likely them, felt like trying to game more open-ended elements of the system, which is something we outline in the ole MT mission statement as something we abhor). It's much easier to just say 'leave the summons at home' as a blanket statement.

*THAT SAID* I think 'who enters' can be left to the whims of the Event Host, but only with the caveat that Summons won't be winning Relics regardless of where they place.

Also, as a personal aside... since Summons are abilities/effects, you could always just have your summon WITH your character during the event. Jak has famously done this at most events, using her Terminator summons as integral parts of her event storylines.

 

[Chara Dreemurr]

So, yes, that notation in the descriptor is moderately recent (months? longer? please don't hurt me, I try but RL never stops). While I can't personally speak for the other two members of the admin team, I'll essentially say we wanted avoid the fact that for whatever reason, summons seem to be increasingly seen as surrogates for a 'main account character' in the context of Relic-giving events (which seems to be all of our events). I personally didn't want people sending summons, winning said prizes, and then trying to 'figure out' some way to transfer or exchange them (which, to me and likely them, felt like trying to game more open-ended elements of the system, which is something we outline in the ole MT mission statement as something we abhor). It's much easier to just say 'leave the summons at home' as a blanket statement.

*THAT SAID* I think 'who enters' can be left to the whims of the Event Host, but only with the caveat that Summons won't be winning Relics regardless of where they place.

Also, as a personal aside... since Summons are abilities/effects, you could always just have your summon WITH your character during the event. Jak has famously done this at most events, using her Terminator summons as integral parts of her event storylines.

Wouldn't the simpler way to handle that specifically just be making it so you can't transfer/exchange the relics in that fashion to handle the issue directly?

 

[Anders Nazret]

I'm of the opinion that these events (particularly the more dangerous/gamey ones like DA and DG) should carry some meta-level risk to them. I'm in agreeance that sending a Summons/NPC should not be without risk. If I were to send my main account character I'd either be on the hook for death insurance or writing a death quest. Whereas an NPC provides only benefits with no real drawbacks as you still get essence/coin payout to your main account. That said I wouldn't want to outright ban them from entering as I think it is a nice chance to write something outside of your comfort zone.

I'd propose having an entry fee of at least 3000 Coin for NPCS (Maybe even an additional 300 essence for non-summon NPCs, as tricky as that would be to keep track of). That way the player is at least investing something for participation while still allowing people that enter with their main characters the opportunity to buy insurance or write a death quest.

As far as relics are concerned I feel that if an NPC makes it to the end and wins it feels kind of lame for the Grand Prize of a DA/DG to not be a relic or something special like that. I do agree that Relics should largely be relegated to Site NPCs and Player Characters. Perhaps this isn't the discussion for it, but personally I believe relic rules should be changed to allow people to hunt and initiate PvP on those that are holding relics. This might just be my PvP goblin brain speaking, but having the option to hunt an NPC for their relic would add another level of risk to entering with an NPC while also not outright banning them from entry.

At the end of the day I don't think that allowing player characters to reap the fruits of their NPCs is that big of a deal. The player still won whatever event they were in and should be rewarded as such. I just think they should also be exposed to a similar level of risk as entering with a PC has.

 

[Chara Dreemurr]

I'm of the opinion that these events (particularly the more dangerous/gamey ones like DA and DG) should carry some meta-level risk to them. I'm in agreeance that sending a Summons/NPC should not be without risk. If I were to send my main account character I'd either be on the hook for death insurance or writing a death quest. Whereas an NPC provides only benefits with no real drawbacks as you still get essence/coin payout to your main account. That said I wouldn't want to outright ban them from entering as I think it is a nice chance to write something outside of your comfort zone.

I'd propose having an entry fee of at least 3000 Coin for NPCS (Maybe even an additional 300 essence for non-summon NPCs, as tricky as that would be to keep track of). That way the player is at least investing something for participation while still allowing people that enter with their main characters the opportunity to buy insurance or write a death quest.

As far as relics are concerned I feel that if an NPC makes it to the end and wins it feels kind of lame for the Grand Prize of a DA/DG to not be a relic or something special like that. I do agree that Relics should largely be relegated to Site NPCs and Player Characters. Perhaps this isn't the discussion for it, but personally I believe relic rules should be changed to allow people to hunt and initiate PvP on those that are holding relics. This might just be my PvP goblin brain speaking, but having the option to hunt an NPC for their relic would add another level of risk to entering with an NPC while also not outright banning them from entry.

At the end of the day I don't think that allowing player characters to reap the fruits of their NPCs is that big of a deal. The player still won whatever event they were in and should be rewarded as such. I just think they should also be exposed to a similar level of risk as entering with a PC has.

You can actually initiate PvP on PC's and NPC's who have relics by current rules, actually, and they're meant to allow it for those who hold them. people simply haven't so far.

 

[Android XVII]

For the record, I personally am trying to consider rewards for the events I run that aren't necessarily 'flood the website with more things that sit on shelves but still present issues'. (aside from the original event, the grand champion prizes for the following DAs have been either a recycled relic or story ones with no function at the moment).

I don't know if it's been an issue, but I would say that people joining events with prizes en mass as 'characters that revive for free (summons)' would likely warrant a re-assessment of that 'for free' aspect. But it hasn't really been an issue.

 

[Chara Dreemurr]

For the record, I personally am trying to consider rewards for the events I run that aren't necessarily 'flood the website with more things that sit on shelves but still present issues'. (aside from the original event, the grand champion prizes for the following DAs have been either a recycled relic or story ones with no function at the moment).

I don't know if it's been an issue, but I would say that people joining events with prizes en mass as 'characters that revive for free (summons)' would likely warrant a re-assessment of that 'for free' aspect. But it hasn't really been an issue.

one thought I'd propose, if we want to avoid just making a 'summon that pays for death insurance' - if you join with a summon for a specific character, make it so said summon has to jump in like they were said character - bring relics that belong to the PC they're summoned by, and bring death insurance like they were that PC in particular. since we tend to rule the summon as part of the character, that makes it so the same mechanical risk is present at that point.

 

[Anders Nazret]

You can actually initiate PvP on PC's and NPC's who have relics by current rules, actually, and they're meant to allow it for those who hold them. people simply haven't so far.

Unless there is a caveat somewhere Relic holders are bound by the same PvP rules which means they don't gotta fight unless they want to.