An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent

[Becq]

The fundamental question as I have understood it for the majority of this thread is whether or not a supernatural aspect necessitates the loss of the Pure Mortal bonus, in its own right or by necessitating a power which then triggers the loss of the bonus.

Seems like a reasonable encapsulation of the question. 

Allow me re-pose the question in the following way to the court (that is, anyone who'd like to respond, not just Tedronai), as it were:

Let's say a player is making a character with the "Pure Mortal" template -- which technically has no requirements or restrictions on High Concept.  So he chooses as his High Concept Full White Court Vampire Dance Club Owner.  He takes several stunts but no powers, and claims the +2 refresh Pure Mortal bonus.  Which of the following best describes how your table would deal with this:
1) The character counts as a true WCV, albeit without the usual powers.  He can invoke (and be compelled by) his HC in all of the same situations as a normal WCV.  He doesn't get the Pure Mortal bonus "because he isn't technically a Pure Mortal".
2) The character counts as a true WCV, albeit without the usual powers.  He can invoke (and be compelled by) his HC in all of the same situations as a normal WCV.  He does get the Pure Mortal bonus "because he has no actual powers" (but would lose it if he ever chose to take any WCV powers, which would also shift him into the WC Virgin or WCV template, assuming you track such things).
3) The player would be asked to rephrase his HC, "because as a Pure Mortal, he can't be a supernatural creature".  One option might be to change it to "Full White Court Vampire" Dance Club Owner, in which case the character counts as a delusional crackpot who thinks he is a WCV (and perhaps other people think he is, as well), but ultimately is not (since he is a Pure Human, after all).  His HC can be invoked for things involving Dance Club Owner skills (and possibly some knowledge of WCV) and can be compelled in situations where his delusions cause him trouble.
4) Something totally different (in which case feel free to elaborate)!

So those correspond to the basic camps (at least as I see them), as applied to a somewhat less borderline case than the previous examples.  Feel free to take your pick and discuss!

[Becq]

And, heck, I'll start it off.

I'd favor (3) in this case.  Why?  Because I think that generally speaking, High Concept and Template are linked.  Even if your table doesn't really play using fully-written Templates, your High Concept in effect (more or less) defines the character's Template.  So in this example, the player would need to change either the HC or the Template, because a Pure Mortal must have a HC that is consistant with Pure Mortal-ness.

Fitting this back into earlier discussion, I would say that if a character was written up as, say an "Untrained Pyromancer" (with no actual powers), then the HC is defining the character as something other than a Pure Mortal.  In fact, I'd suggest that he is actually a Minor Talent (or possibly a Minor Talent In Training, who hasn't quite progressed to 'full' Minor Talent status by buying a power).  Such a character would not be able to claim the Pure Mortal bonus, but might be able to produce some measure of minor magical effects via invoking his HC (relating to pyromancy, of course).

Thoughts?

[Sanctaphrax]

2, because ordinary WCVs don't have any abilities that can't be faked by a mortal with good skills and some stunts. If we were talking about a wizard here, I'd go with 3.

Really, any choice is good as long is it isn't #1. If you don't have Powers, you get +2 Refresh. Period.

[Mr. Death]

I'd go with #3. If your high concept is something magical or supernatural in nature, that dictates that the character should have magic or supernatural powers. The High Concept, as I see it, is "sum up the character in a sentence," and it's incongruent if a character's high concept is as explicitly supernatural as "Full White Court Vampire" and not have them actually be a full white court vampire--the powers define the creature.

[Tedronai]

For that particular example, I, too, would suggest option 3, because the base capabilities of a White Court Vampire are clearly defined, and as more than simply 'mortal with a bonus to the rolls'.

For something that more closely resembles what's been discussed in this thread, ie. something barely beyond vanilla human and not far enough to necessitate even a -0 power, I'd go with an analogue of option 2.

[Richard_Chilton]

Really, any choice is good as long is it isn't #1. If you don't have Powers, you get +2 Refresh. Period.

Those two statements don't go together - since the choice (Concept, taking Powers) is up to the player.

Yes, I said I wouldn't look back at this thread, but like Lot's Wife, Orpheus, and Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory (the time he saw Penny naked) I couldn't resist temptation.

Looking back to the start of the thread there's mention of a PC with a High Concept of "Talented Warlock with ZERO training" - which can be tag when the character's innate magical talent could aid him.  He does not take any Powers - only using that High Concept.  By that second sentence he would get the +2 refresh because he did not take Powers (only a magical Aspect).

In the original situation that started this infernal thread, what would you do?

1) Tell him that if he wants to have that HC he will have to buy powers to back it up (see either of the two -0  Powers that are part of the thread),
2) Say "There's no room in the DV for a Pure Mortal with that sort of HC - you must change it",
3) Say "That's fine - no powers means you get the Pure Mortal refresh bonus", or
4) come up with a new answer, something that hasn't been debated to death during this thread.

Because if a player wants that a HC then those are your options.  And you might want to review the thread to see the side that you are supporting.  It has included a vocal "You can't force someone to buy powers - that's wrong" bit (arguing against option 1) and a "So I get punished for adding background to my Luck Aspect" bit (arguing against option 2).  Your answer of "any choice is good as long is it isn't #1" above makes me think that you won't go with option 3.

And after 11 pages of debate, I'd really love to hear what you come up with for option 4.

Richard
PS - that bit about Sheldon looking came up during the current season.

Penny: All right, honey, look. We've known each other for a long time now, right? I've taken you to Disneyland, I kicked a bully in the nuts for you, I sing you "Soft Kitty" when you're sick, you've even seen me naked once.
Leonard Hofstadter: I'm sorry, what?
Penny: It's a long story. Anyway, Sheldon, I promise I know what I'm doing.

Yes, a bit off topic, but this thread needs more humour in it.

[Sanctaphrax]

3. Is there some kind of confusion? Because I thought that my position would be obvious.

I'd go with 1 if the HC was something Aspects wouldn't work well for.

[Mr. Death]

If you don't have powers, yeah, you don't lose the refresh rating.

My feeling is that if the character is supernatural in nature, he or she should have a power to reflect that nature. To me, it's incongruous to have a high concept that says/implies they've got some kind of power, and a powers/stunts sheet that says they don't.

But I think by this point we all know what everyone's position and we've each made our reasons for it clear.

[Tedronai]

There are several RAW examples of canonical supernatural capabilities being represented solely by the invocation of an appropriate aspect (a WCV's access to the Nevernever, for instance).  How do you justify forcing a character, limited to such minor supernatural feats, to purchase a power that exceeds those capabilities?

[Haru]

There are several RAW examples of canonical supernatural capabilities being represented solely by the invocation of an appropriate aspect (a WCV's access to the Nevernever, for instance).  How do you justify forcing a character, limited to such minor supernatural feats, to purchase a power that exceeds those capabilities?

That is by all means something that is reserved for supernatural character, who have both a high concept and the powers to back up their minor stuff. A wizard doesn't have to roll for mundane effects, they are free. Does that mean a pure mortal can do them?

In Becq's example, I would have the player choose between option 2 or 3, he either is supernatural, as the high concept states, or he isn't and should change his high concept. The "Other Option" in 4 would be to just make white court powers baseline and revolve a campaign around the workings of the white court.
The same goes for the OPs conundrum that Richard has refined again. I'd make the player chose between 1 or 2, have your cake or eat it, or I would center a campaign entirely around the characters transition from "the guy that strange things happen to" to "the guy that makes strange things happen", and I would allow the invoke method for this campaign alone.

Regarding Scions:
I have said multiple times, that the source rather than the strength of a bonus is the important part of the decision between pure mortal and supernatural.
Scions are part of the changeling family, and though I haven't looked at them before (and usually use templates very loosely), they exactly represent what I wanted to say the whole time. A Changeling character has a minimum refresh cost of -0, which means you can start a changeling character without any powers and he would still be required to drop the +2 pure mortal bonus. And I see that in the case of the wizard as well, only he is a "wizard changeling", if you will. He is going to have to make choices concerning his power, embracing it (which would cost him his bonus anyway) or setting it aside, gaining the pure mortal bonus one day, if he hasn't taken up something else in the meantime.
It entirely depends from which side you approach the line. On the other hand, the distant luck god scion is a tough one, but if that is just a fluffy way of saying "my character always lands on his feet, no matter what he does", then it would be fine by me to call him a pure mortal. If it is the first step in one day inheriting the powers of said god, then I'd point them to the changeling template.

[sinker]

See in Becq's case I would suggest that the player either redefine his concept (#3) or take a different template and the appropriate powers (which is actually a fourth option, that I believe Mr Death has been arguing for). In the case of the white court vampire there is an existing template for that, and that template has "musts" which would imply that in order to be a white court vampire you must have those things.

However, what we're talking about are things that have no existing template. The scion, or the mortal who eventually wishes to move into supernatural territory. These things have no "musts" because they have no template.

Regarding Scions:
I have said multiple times, that the source rather than the strength of a bonus is the important part of the decision between pure mortal and supernatural.
Scions are part of the changeling family, and though I haven't looked at them before (and usually use templates very loosely), they exactly represent what I wanted to say the whole time. A Changeling character has a minimum refresh cost of -0, which means you can start a changeling character without any powers and he would still be required to drop the +2 pure mortal bonus. And I see that in the case of the wizard as well, only he is a "wizard changeling", if you will. He is going to have to make choices concerning his power, embracing it (which would cost him his bonus anyway) or setting it aside, gaining the pure mortal bonus one day, if he hasn't taken up something else in the meantime.
It entirely depends from which side you approach the line. On the other hand, the distant luck god scion is a tough one, but if that is just a fluffy way of saying "my character always lands on his feet, no matter what he does", then it would be fine by me to call him a pure mortal. If it is the first step in one day inheriting the powers of said god, then I'd point them to the changeling template.

I both like and hate this approach. I will have to mull it over for a while. My initial (rules lawyer) reaction is that the changeling template has a "must" that does not apply to anything other than the changeling (fey parentage), so it is inappropriate for any other concept.

[Richard_Chilton]

Do we now have consensus that, under the RAW, it is possible to take an Aspect that precludes the Pure Mortal bonus?

Richard

[Tedronai]

Quite certainly not.  An aspect has no refresh value.

[lankyogre]

To me, it seems like the quote from Fred and the RAW lead towards "Pure Mortal" is the template for anything that doesn't have powers. Having powers changes the template which then changes other musts. The rules also say, "Look at the template that is closes for what you want." My summation. The bonus refresh to pure mortal could also be represented as a power [+2] You don't have any other powers. Apply as needed to any template.

[Silverblaze]

I still feel like having aspects you can invoke to come close to mimicking powers is a cheat or a sneaky way to circumvent the Pure mortal rule.  However, it is so minor...I stopped caring.  If it were at my table I can't even say how I'd rule on it.  After long debate hopefully individual tables can come to a consensus.