Clarifications requested for Feeding Dependency

[Codrus]

I'd like to see some examples of Feeding Dependency.  It affects a few character types, but lacks a detailed example.  Also, some of the effects seem odd or unintended.

After reading it, I'm not quite sure the intent behind the rules for the stress track actually is.  The stress track seems primarily about figuring out whether the character has been taken out by hunger. Based on searching the pdf for the word hunger, you only take stress after a scene is finished, not during the fight itself. That doesn't completely track with the books, where we often see Susan, Thomas, or Lara feeling their hunger mid-scene.

Here's my thoughts on how the rules-as-written might be used, but I'd really like to see clarifications and examples:

1. Mid-scene problems are going to come from Discipline checks or compels on a high concept. Nothing actually causes hunger stress during a scene.

2. Post-scene, I roll discipline vs a target based on the powers I used during the scene. So hunger stress is really about the NEXT scene, not the current one.

If I win the roll, I WIPE OUT my hunger stress track. Because the only thing that causes stress on this track is FAILING an earlier post-scene hunger check, I'm using my discipline now to eliminate hunger incurred in an earlier scene.  That seems REALLY weird.   Also, it might be manipulated by the player. Come up with a scene with minimal use of powers and you can easily make that discipine check.

3. If I take hunger stress, I lose powers based on the stress taken. 2 stress = -2 powers.  If I take stress over two consecutive fights, the results will be cumulative.  2 stress + 3 stress = 5 points lost.

I suspect the intent here is to encourage players to go for a consequence instead. ("insatiable hunger").

One possible continuity problem is that some of the vampire powers they can lose are things we've never seen them lose in the books. It is more common that their powers become harder to control. For example, in the rules as written, white court vampires could lose their ability to incite emotions. The reverse is always what happens in the book -- Lara or Thomas is not someone you want to be around when they are hungry. They lose the ability to control themselves.  That *could* be modeled as a consequence that immediately gets compellled...and compelled...and compelled...

4. Once I've lost powers, they recover at a rate of 1 point per scene I miss, or all of them after a kill. However, the stress track clears completely after missing a single scene. Cumulative stress on the track is more about avoiding being taken out by hunger than about recovering powers. Realistically, before being taken out by hunger, most vampires are going to be out of commission because they've lost their powers, which seems odd.  Also, losing powers means they have less powers to use, which means they'll make the discipline check more often. So, actually getting taken out by hunger is hard.

[LCDarkwood]

I'd look at it this way:

Losing a power means you can't use it willfully anymore. That doesn't mean you don't have it, that means if you use it, you lose control. From the player's point of view, that's the same as losing it. Either the Hunger spirit inside you simply doesn't have the mojo to let you do what you want to do, or it does, but if it grants it to you, it's taking over. So that's how it matches up to the books - vamps in a hunger frenzy going balls out with powers are explicitly not being PCs at that point, and Thomas in a near-frenzy doesn't call upon his powers because he's afraid of that consequence.

I don't have a problem with hunger checks being manipulated by the player, because it means they've willfully made the choice not to use powers to keep their hunger in check. That means you can coast through a whole session with only a small potential fraction of your effectiveness - sounds like a fine tradeoff to me. Especially when I, as the GM, throw opposition at you that will make you need your powers.

Also, I'd interpret "heavily exerted" very tightly - if you use your Inhuman Speed to beat someone in a race to a door, or declare you get somewhere first, and then don't use any other powers... eh, I probably wouldn't even give you the chance to roll hunger against that. That's not heavy exertion, right? So no healing for you. I'm happy leaving that to group interpretation, because it allows people to set their own standards for how nasty they want hunger to be. (I'd be really mean about it.)


-L

[Codrus]

I'd look at it this way:

Losing a power means you can't use it willfully anymore. That doesn't mean you don't have it, that means if you use it, you lose control. From the player's point of view, that's the same as losing it. Either the Hunger spirit inside you simply doesn't have the mojo to let you do what you want to do, or it does, but if it grants it to you, it's taking over. So that's how it matches up to the books - vamps in a hunger frenzy going balls out with powers are explicitly not being PCs at that point, and Thomas in a near-frenzy doesn't call upon his powers because he's afraid of that consequence.

That seems like a reasonable way to interpret it. They are on the edge, and if they call on that power, they fall to the beast inside.

I don't have a problem with hunger checks being manipulated by the player, because it means they've willfully made the choice not to use powers to keep their hunger in check. That means you can coast through a whole session with only a small potential fraction of your effectiveness - sounds like a fine tradeoff to me. Especially when I, as the GM, throw opposition at you that will make you need your powers.

Yeah, it does depend on how tough the opposition is, and I'd do much the same thing if someone was actively abusing it.  It still feels weird to me that beating the roll there solves the problem of being hungry from a previous scene.  But I can live with it or work around it.

Also, I'd interpret "heavily exerted" very tightly - if you use your Inhuman Speed to beat someone in a race to a door, or declare you get somewhere first, and then don't use any other powers... eh, I probably wouldn't even give you the chance to roll hunger against that. That's not heavy exertion, right? So no healing for you. I'm happy leaving that to group interpretation, because it allows people to set their own standards for how nasty they want hunger to be. (I'd be really mean about it.)


-L

Not sure I understand what you are saying.  "not getting a chance to roll hunger" means that you automatically suffer stress or that this exertion isn't enough to cause any hunger at all?

I like the idea that only heavy exertions trigger the hunger -- I'd thought about that after I posted. In play I'd want to see a difference between a casual use of a power and going completely to the wall using the same power.  That's why I was a little surprised to see hunger only take effect after the scene ends.  But, as I suggested in my original post, I've got tools to use on a player, in the form of compels.  "You've been going all out so far and are starting to get hungry....."

Anyway, the main reason I posted is because it was one of the few places in the rules where it didn't immediately seem clear to me what the intent of the rule was.

[Deadmanwalking]

While I agree that the rest needs clarification, Incite Emotion isn't effected by Feeding Dependency for the White Court. Check p. 84, it only effects their physical capabilities. Like Human Form, it only applies to a specific, listed, set of powers.

[Codrus]

While I agree that the rest needs clarification, Incite Emotion isn't effected by Feeding Dependency for the White Court. Check p. 84, it only effects their physical capabilities. Like Human Form, it only applies to a specific, listed, set of powers.

Oh, I'd missed that, thanks.  I was going by the text of Feeding Dependency's first paragraph, which says it attaches to "most if not all" of the supernatural powers outside this category. I didn't go back to the template and check it.

[Deadmanwalking]

No worries, it happens to all of us at times.

And I've been thinking about your point #4:

Shouldn't getting Taken Out by hunger be hard? I think the only time we've seen it happen was in Turn Coat, and that was under some truly extreme circumstances.

[LCDarkwood]

Not sure I understand what you are saying.  "not getting a chance to roll hunger" means that you automatically suffer stress or that this exertion isn't enough to cause any hunger at all?

My bad. I meant that if you don't get the opportunity to make a Hunger check in a scene, you don't get an opportunity to remove the stress - you've still participated in the scene, and only a successful check makes the stress go away.

So, basically, "casual exertion" just maintains the status quo.


-Lenny

[iago]

Shouldn't getting Taken Out by hunger be hard? I think the only time we've seen it happen was in Turn Coat, and that was under some truly extreme circumstances.

Yeah, it should. And Thomas has some really impressive self-control (that's why we rated him with Good Discipline), which I think backs that up.

[Codrus]

No worries, it happens to all of us at times.

And I've been thinking about your point #4:

Shouldn't getting Taken Out by hunger be hard? I think the only time we've seen it happen was in Turn Coat, and that was under some truly extreme circumstances.

I have some thoughts on that.  I'll spoiler tag this though since we're getting into book specifics.

(click to show/hide)

Thomas's loss of control in Turn Coat feels like he was already taken out and the Skinwalker chose to give him an extreme consequence rather than killing him. (Extreme consequences: Absolutely great implementation, by the way!)  That's not about Thomas being so strong minded that he can go multiple scenes without feeding. He was already taken out, and the Skinwalker could choose what happened to him.

I think a better situation to look at is Blood Rites, when they head back to the Raith estate. He'd fed earlier in the adventure, so as far as we know, he's not suffering any stress. Yet, we see him come within a hair of killing Justine after a single fight. Assuming Taken Out means he would have killed Justine, then clearly he wasn't taken out here. But stress on the track never forces a character to feed. To model that, in the system as written I'd assume that he applied a severe or moderate consequence and had it and his high concept compelled.

Lara, in Turn Coat, also feels like someone whose hunger reached the 'taken out' stage. Harry didn't want to stay anywhere near her.

I suppose it all comes down to what Taken Out means.  If we think of it as the equivalent of dying (he's permanently a mindless creature), then yeah, it should be hard.  If it means "lost control until he's fed and killed" then I'd argue it should be a little easier to get there on a hunger check, because we've seen Thomas come close a number of times. And by close, I interpret that in game terms as having bought out of it with fate points or by invoking aspects to succeed on the discipline check.

When it comes down to it, I'm just fine with modeling hunger temptation as a compel against high concept or a feeding related consequence. But if I'm doing that, then the hunger stress track doesn't feel interesting to me. It has very little in-game effect other than forcing the loss of powers -- but the very lack of those powers makes the next hunger check easier to make, which resets the stress track. If stress had an effect on discipline checks, or if there were more mid-fight causes of hunger stress, then I could see it as more interesting or useful. If the amount of stress had an effect on whether a character could stop feeding (that is, it influenced discipline checks), that's interesting too.

In fact, I think I see what's bugging me:  typically, the stress->consequences->taken out pattern is something that happens in as part of a conflict. Stress is supposed to be the stuff that disappears between scenes. Hunger is implemented as stress, but is special cased to be persistent...and it gets added after the scene finishes. Which means, to a great extent, that the reaction to a bad hunger check is going to become the scene that follows any fight.....and since this should happen immediately, no one else has had a chance to recover. Effectively, it becomes an extension of the previous scene, rather than part of that scene.  If you constantly incurred stress during a conflict, it might look and feel too much like spellcasting.  But those parallels are there.  Harry incurs stress each time he casts a spell, getting closer to exhaustion. Thomas, Lara and Susan incur stress mid-fight and lose more and more control.

An idea I'm considering as a house rule: If you have a feeding dependency and you use both a power AND invoke an aspect on the same roll, incur 1 hunger stress.

The shorter version: Compels are more interesting to me than the hunger stress mechanic, because compels happen as a scene is played out, while hunger seems like a mechanical thing that's applied after the scene is over. That implies to me that there's something wrong with the hunger stress track, because in building stories, the scene is the interesting part, not the bookkeeping.  It should matter whether Thomas/Lara/Susan is hungry during the scene, not after it.

[Deadmanwalking]

Mostly, as I understand it, Hunger Stress isn't to reflect the extremes of hunger (that's compels and such), just the immediate aftereffects of fighting. Don't think your examples, which might be compels on either a hunger based Aspect or a High-Concept Aspect. Don't think the scene with Justine in Blood Rights (that was a use of Emotional Vampire's healing effects on a dying man, not Hunger Stress at all. Ditto for Laura's actions in Turn Coat, actually*), think the immediate post-big fight scene in White Night where Thomas has gone cold and is holding himself together by sheer willpower, and needs to feed, that or Susan being locked in with Harry in Death Masks. It IS post fight stuff.


*Actually, a lot of this stuff is Emotional Vampire, not Feeding Dependency. I'd advise reading over Emotional Vampire.

[Codrus]

I looked again at Emotional Vampire, not sure I see anything that changes my thinking.  Feeding Frenzy is the only thing that stands out, and it doesn't specifically speak to losing control when Hungry -- it is about being in the right emotional situation with a WILLING target.

(click to show/hide)

The healing section doesn't seem relevant to Blood Rites -- he's not dying, he's consumed by the hunger.

Page references are the paperback.
p. 137 "He's breathing but he's emptied his reserves."
p. 146 "The bullets aren't going to kill him. He'd have died already. The Hunger may finish him though"
p. 147 "Right now Thomas is too hungry that he can't think. Can't move. He'll be all right once he feeds."
and  "He's too hungry," Lara said. "He won't be able to control himself."

Arguably, all of these are statements from Lara, who is not impartial. And while this sounds like very much like the poster child for being "taken out" from hunger, clearly, Thomas is able to come back from the edge to avoid killing Justine. So is that tagging a Justine aspect to just barely avoid killing her, or was he just barely not "taken out" ?

I could see an argument that what Justine did in Blood Rites IS to act as a willing target.

I can live with the explanation that the stress track takes out powers because to use them would cause the vamp to lose control. It'd be nice to see it described a little better in the rules. I'd love to see a billy/harry sidebar or something.