House Rules And Homebrew

[devonapple]

I know this method is more complex than the one step methods of Sanctaphrax but it seems closer to the actual method of summoning in dresden files books, I would not let a pc design what they were summoning beyond a name and their best research to keep thing balanced.

That's why this is a houserule system!

[Sanctaphrax]

Reasonable system. I'll add it to the list.

However, I don't really like it. It's not crunchy enough for me.

To each their own, I suppose.

By the way: I agree that letting players design creatures for summoning is a recipe for balance problems. This system was originally intended as a set of vague guidelines to help GMs choose a complexity for a summoning ritual. But it morphed into a real system somehow.

You'd be better off treating these as guidelines than as rules. And not letting players design their summons is totally reasonable.

[UmbraLux]

We may need UmbraLux to weigh in.

Hmm, it's been a while and my access is limited at the moment but I think I've been given more credit than is deserved.   Here's what I had posted in the original thread: 

...how does this look:

• + max shifts to take out entity
• + one shift per power / stunt point
• + shifts equal to entity's skill cap
• + shifts for duration
• +/- three shifts per quality or defect (one free tag)
• +/- nine shifts per sticky quality or defect (always in effect)

Some things, such as demons, should probably automatically get a Dark Powers are Always Willing to 'Help'...for a Price or an Interprets Everything to fit it's Own Agenda sticky defect...or even both.

That keeps it simple and allows for cheap summoning - at a price.

Not sure I'd dignify it by calling it a full summoning system but it took feedback from Sanctaphrax, devonapple, and others to get it this far.  (Thanks all!  :) ) 

It is worth emphasizing this came out of discussion - I never play tested it!  The qualities & defects in particular are open to abuse if not applied with reason.  Perhaps someday I'll play again instead of GM...then see how much of it works.  :)

[Sanctaphrax]

Most of this thread is untested. That will hopefully change sooner or later.

Anyway, I mostly just want to know what you envision for the use of sticky qualities and defects. An example would be great.

[ways and means]

Does anyone have any house rules on how white court feeding works ? and on what touch means in gameplay mechanics? 

[Sanctaphrax]

Not me.

I'm kinda torn on whether I should require a Fists roll for Incite Emotion without At Range. And I'm not sure whether you can touch people freely in social combat.

Also, I'm curious whether people apply the +2 bonus for Incite Emotion maneuvers to mental attacks. I don't, but I think that the rules can be read either way.

[devonapple]

I'm kinda torn on whether I should require a Fists roll for Incite Emotion without At Range. And I'm not sure whether you can touch people freely in social combat.

That rule is phrased in what could be a *very* equivocal manner (the way it specifies "if you can touch" not "you must touch"). If it was a Fairy bargain, I'd be very suspicious of the terminology. I waver between interpreting the rule as requiring either simple proximity, or an actual commitment to touch. The RAW may implicitly assume that WCVs can easily achieve physical contact without it meriting a Fists check, focusing instead on the mental fortitude of the target rather than their dexterity. Note that in RPGs like D&D, a "touch attack" can be easier than a full attack. That said, physical Aspects and Maneuvers can maybe help the target defend against what is ostensibly a Mental attack that happens to use a physical special effect.

For example, someone who was suspicious of a WCV touching them could spend an action to use an Athletics-based Navel-Gazing Maneuver to arm themselves with the Aspect "Don't Touch Me," and then tag it on the defense roll against the WCV's otherwise "Mental" touch attack.

I might even allow that Aspect to work against a Ranged (non-touch) Incite Emotion attack, ruling that the Aspect reflect's the target's awareness of the danger and resistance to the threat of mental compromise.

[Sanctaphrax]

Maybe we could let people use Athletics instead of Discipline to defend against emotion-touches.

[devonapple]

Maybe we could let people use Athletics instead of Discipline to defend against emotion-touches.

One could theoretically argue back that Discipline accurately reflects a target's ability to keep from getting lulled into allowing the sort of touching a WCV needs to do the job. It all depends on how we are abstracting the power and its functioning.

Say you have a Great-Discipline Mediocre-Athletics bookworm alongside a Great-Athletics Mediocre-Discipline boxer, facing off against a pair of WCVs. Would you let each freely choose which skill they roll to defend?

Edit: What I'm trying to say is that the RAW may intentionally assume that *touching* a target isn't any challenge at all for a WCV.

[Sanctaphrax]

I think I'd probably let them pick their best skill.

But you're right. It might be intentionally ignored.

Judgement call, in the end. We're in the right place for that.

[devonapple]

I think I'd probably let them pick their best skill.

But you're right. It might be intentionally ignored.

Judgement call, in the end. We're in the right place for that.

I emailed Fred Hicks/iago with my question:

Incite Emotion (at least the basic power) mentions needing to be able
to touch an opponent. Some folks are interpreting that as requiring a
Fists roll to succeed against a target before making an
Intimidation/Deceit roll against the opponent's Discipline (per the
Incite Emotion power). Others have ruled that any contact - such as a
target hitting the WCV - can create the circumstances necessary for
using the Incite Emotion power. In one example, a wary opponent in a
physical conflict interpreted an Incite Emotion attempt as a physical
attack and so was allowed to dodge.

I'm interpreting the RAW as taking for granted that *touching* a
target isn't any challenge at all for a WCV, and that the requirement
simply exists to specify that WCV and target must be in the same Zone,
and close enough that a physical touch would be possible, but that a
Fists check isn't required, even in combat (though I would let wary
opponents use Athletics/etc. to create Aspects they could tag to
defend against the Incite Emotion attack).

His response:

Intent:

- WCV must deliberately touch opponent
- some opponents are willing or unaware; those circumstances likely
justify a no-roll touch
- some wish to avoid it; there, some kind of contested skill roll is appropriate

The nature of that skill roll might change based on context. Combat,
fists vs athletics might do it.  Or maybe it's social, and we're
looking at Deceit or Stealth vs Lore-as-sixth-sense or Alertness. Etc

So context does determine whether it is a contested roll or not. This means that effective WCVs probably want to have high Fists skills (and in the book, most seem to)!

Where was that thread where we planned to compile these rules explanations?

[ways and means]

wrong thread

[devonapple]

wrong thread

Nope, right thread. I went to the source because we were disagreeing on how to answer your question:

Does anyone have any house rules on how white court feeding works ? and on what touch means in gameplay mechanics? 

[Sanctaphrax]

I think he meant, "I posted this to the wrong thread, so I'll edit it away and write "wrong thread"".

[devonapple]

I think he meant, "I posted this to the wrong thread, so I'll edit it away and write "wrong thread"".

I can buy that. But yes, it appears we were both right, as Ben Kenobi would say, "from a certain point of view."