To the point where they're used as security by lore shops (stick 'em inside the safe; crack the safe, spirit squeals). Having to keep that up constantly isn't as hard as putting a full bore spirit in there.

They are easily summoned but at the same time, they die off pretty fast. If you have a short-term job that a watcher can do, you will summon a watcher. But are you going to summon a whole horde of them? Do you actually see a watcher at every street corner?

You do in "The Magic Kingdom".

Depends on the character. Got one mage who likes to use the wolfpack tactic with watchers, and another that uses them as runners for his ganger lookouts and a third (possession tradition) that uses them as aids around the workshop and library (not good for much beyond basic shelving/alphabetizing, but they treat the books better than some clumsy-fingered drone will, and also can't be hacked).

Ultimately, though, it's up to the individual GM's interpretation of the setting, as always.

No-Magical Security might have a Low-Level Contractor hired during difficult times to Spam Watchers as best as possible.

I'll often have them around Minimum-Magical Security in droves. A bunch of low-powered magicians spamming Watchers who are more reliable than guards.

Medium-Security will have them spammed by Low-Level Magicians, and report to a Mid-Level Spirit of some sort that a Contractor summons every Morning/Evening when security is alerted.

Maximum-Security... They're on every streetcorner and alleyway, just waiting to scream. But we're talking S-K, AZT, MCT Levels here.

Not that I'm aware of, in SR4. [Of course, there's nothing explicit that says a Jackrabbit is common, either, although it's certainly implied.] Is there a reason to assume they wouldn't be? I guess what I'm asking is, where is this headed? Is the idea that they're not common enough - or that they might not be common enough, in a given campaign - to warrant Spirit Bane?

In the older versions, IIRC, it said the Jackrabbit was the most common vehicle on the streets of most cities.

And if you want proof of that, C-N stopped making it, and knock-offs are STILL outselling other types of compact cars.

Damn, now I want to pimp one out with a guy named Pierce and have a watcher in the back seat singing '80s songs with us as we dive over pedestrians.

It did, indeed. That's why I specified "in SR4," because it would appear that's the version Toturi is asking about.


Yep, that's exactly the point I was trying to make: while nothing in SR4 explicitly says Jackrabbits are commonplace, logic would lead us to believe [because of its price, and because it's mentioned to be too popular to stop making parts for] that they must be, based on the implicit mentions of it. I'm applying the same standard to Watchers: there's no explicit mention that they're commonplace, but the rules imply they would be common, given their cost/benefit ratio.

Only one problem there. Watchers can't materialize. So no shelving duty for the watchers. With a dice pool of 0-1 I doubt it would give good results anyways.

@effectiveness of watchers: besides distracting people in combat they are not good for much anyways. Even a real Force 1 spirit is way better.

Possession tradition watchers (which is why I specified) can, optionally, have Possession, plus Artisan 1 and Perception 1 (SM, 95).

Effectiveness at what? That's like saying a Land Rover is an ineffective car: at what, driving across the desert or driving down the expressway?

On the other hand: take your pick. Watchers are bad at literally everything, including famously 'watching'.

"Bad" is an objective term, and needs an objective valuation. "Worse" is a relative term, and could be accurately used in this case: watchers are worse than most other intelligences at nearly everything, including, famously, "watching." And I'd agree: if they're to have more utility in most cases, they need some more numerical power to back them up.

Funnily enough one of my favorite usage of Watchers was in Tom Dowd's Burning Bright. I think Watchers can be fun, if you let them be in your game. It's like anything else-in how you use it.

See, there's an interpretation of that that I'm really against. Watchers shouldn't be good, and if you're making them good by 'letting them be'… that's not okay. Instead, I'd love for them to be re-ruled to be very limited, but still functional where they're meant to be (mostly just watching).

It seems pretty obvious to me, 3278, but you can use whatever value you want. Their DP and limited powers/Force are objectively the definition of bad, if you like. They're as close as you can get to zero, AFAIK. And that's fine, if they could just do what their purpose is.

I'd be okay with allow higher Force watchers, if that was part of the 'fix'; they still can't get any good Powers, still can't materialize, etc., and you'd want to give them a special set of Summoning rules to compensate, I guess. Issues to deal with there for Possession, but everything about Possession has issues.

It's okay with me, and with his other players, and with him, so it's okay.

Also, again, the term "good" is effectively meaningless in this context. I don't think Paul is saying Watchers should be capable of being good at setting the planet on fire, or at seducing Maria Mercurial: my impression is that he's saying they can be interesting, and possess utility, if you don't stick religiously to the letter of the rules, but are flexible at allowing players to do interesting and useful things. Even if those things are pretty basic, and limited.


Definitely preferable.


Okay. I compare them to hamsters. By that standard, Watchers aren't just "good," they're truly exceptional. Again, there's no absolute standard of ability [even if we've figured out what that ability is supposed to be], so we have to use relative terms, or the things we say won't possess rational meaning. I cannot say, "This rock is good," or, "The sky is bad," without context. I know it seems like I'm being pedantic, but without perspective, "Watchers are bad," is a statement devoid of meaning. [edit: Most people, I suspect, would at this point simply assume the context: they'd assume you mean in relation to other spirits, and assume you mean efficacy at aiding in criminal enterprises, or whatever. My experience, though, is that assuming what subjective valuation someone else is using generally doesn't work, and then leads to ineffective and inefficient communication, also known as "dumpshocking." ]


I think that's reasonable. The idea is to have a lower-power spirit that's easier to cast on the fly, but which can only perform limited services, and that idea has at least some utility at most of our tables. It seems like the biggest barrier is that Watchers don't have a meaningful Force anymore, which seems unnecessary to me. Can anyone explain the change?

Pretty sure there are no hamsters in SR4, but maybe I'm the one who's being silly.

My earlier point was that you can't just arbitrarily 'let' something do things it can't, so I think we agree. (Obviously, house rules are house rules.) 'Clever' and 'interesting' are often code for 'cheating BS'.

Because there is an explicit statement about which are the most common spirits. And watchers aren't among those spirits that are being refered to in that statement.

Sadly, I've only had the time to memorize three editions so far. Help a brother out with a page reference?


Okay, sure, absolutely. Let's say Watchers aren't common. Let's say we even found an explicit statement that Watchers aren't common [unlikely as we might find that logically]. Why do we care? What I'm asking is, toward what end did you bring it up? I'm sure there's a good reason, and I'm not arguing that you're somehow wrong or whatever, I'm just trying to figure out what point you're making, where you're headed with this.

Running Wild, p.93

I refuse to go look at that, NiL. Frankly, the hamsters can't be much worse than Watchers (again, by definition: 0 is the floor). In other news, the writers need to alter their priorities.

Hamsters have 4 dice for infiltration, 3 dice für perception (smell +2), and 2 dice for climbing.

Ha! So they are *much* better. 'Objectively', 3278. Thanks for the book-work, NiL, though I'm still horrified that they're in the game.

p186 SR4A.

My point is that watchers may not be as common as people may assume they may be. Yes, they are easily summoned and each mage can have quite a few of them, but they might not be as common as thought.

well, a player or gm can make use of a hamster - eg. a camera biodrone that watches over children, or such things ^^

If you're joking, I laugh with you. If you're serious, I weep for you. Could you tell me which it is so I can decide how to react? I've got a case of Schrödinger's Emotions.


Hmm. Yeah, I can see what you're saying with that, but to me that reads like they're not even including Watchers in the types of spirits they're talking about at that point, which is the spirit "of" types, like spirits of man, spirits of earth. [For those not carrying the book, the line is: "There are six basic types of spirits presented here. While these are not the full gamut of spirits that exist in the Sixth World, they are the most common. These are the spirits summoned by followers of the hermetic and shamanic traditions: air, beasts, earth, fire, man, and water." But I don't think there's anything to rule out your interpretation, either: spirits of air, beasts, earth, fire, man, and water may well be intended by the designers to be more common than Watchers.


Hmm. Well, I read the sentence differently, but I'm not sure it matters: even if there actually were a line in the text saying, "Watchers aren't as common as you think, 3278," I think I'd still run them as being more common than the big spirits, if only for the same reason I see more notes than letters: yes, you get more done with a letter, but for little things, a note is more efficient [and easier!]. But I definitely understand your point: based on that single line, the developers may not have intended for Watchers to be as common as the main spirit "of" classes.

Maybe both, 3278, but I don't think Watchers have any DPs of 4 or 5. Again, it's a numeric game, and 0 is the minimum. Watchers get pools of 0-2, right? So they're minimal, and it's not possible to get more objective than that. But you're the one who brought up hamsters, so I blame you.

It's not just a numeric game, though. Where's the number that explains how the Watcher can move in three dimensions? Or talk to people? Where's the number that explains how much more satisfying a small pet a hamster is, compared to a ball of energy you can't touch?

My point is that you can't say, "X are good," unless you say at what. Hamsters are objectively better at smelling than watchers: watchers are objectively better at astral perception than hamsters. But you cannot meaningfully say, "Hamsters are better than Watchers," because you haven't specified the terms by which you're judging them. You certainly can't meaningfully say, "Watchers aren't good," because then you're not even comparing them to something else.

It's not a big deal. If I haven't successfully explained relative valuation and objectivity and subjectivity, that's way my fault and not yours. Please, feel free to keep making subjective statements without context as if they're objective ones with context; they're just going to result in confusion, is all I'm saying.

*shrug* I've given you the specific context three times: DP values. Everything in all languages is based on assumptions, and they tend to be extremely common and customary. I'm not going to list them. No one else seems confused, unless they just wandered onto this forum blind. And again, they're your hamsters.

A watcher actively using its Search Power with Active Looking rolls more than 2 Dice. You can attune it for even more dice. They are useful for WATCHING. Which is their primary use, after all.

I weep for the existence of Hamsters, though.

Well, I've never seen you say that clearly once, but sure, okay. Now my question would be: DP values to do what with?


Nope.


Yeah, but I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but communication on Dumpshock often suffers because people don't realize they're not understanding each other. I was trying to better understand you to avoid more pointless conflict, but clearly I fucked that up but good. I'll go back to just assuming what you mean, and if I get it wrong, we can yell at each other for 20 pages before giving up, never realizing that we were discussing two totally different things.

Well to be fair there is what 5 people active in this thread? A consensus that does not make...

How about a Quorum?

Why did everyone just look at me and pull a knife?

Are you feeling Guilty About something? Are you feeling Persecuted?

Et tu, TJ?

Heh...

Because they're all staring at the bunch of glowing red dots on your chest and forehead?

I'm really hungry. Also, I just can't stop looking at you. Baby.