An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent

[Richard_Chilton]

Re: Richard - Looking from the GM's point of view when sockpuppeting the villain, I do not see why the GM should pull any punches if it suits the villain to do so. "If you will not turn, perhaps she will!"

How does the villain know anything about game mechanics?

That said, if the game leads to someone becoming a RCI then that's how the games goes.  But RCI isn't the same template as Pure More - it's its own template.

Following the logic of Pure Mortal not having supernatural Aspects, then not even temporary sticky Aspects should be exempt. If Murphy had less than 3 Refresh going into that situation, then by the RAW, she must be an NPC. It shouldn't matter that the aspect was temporary as long as it qualified as a supernatural Aspect.

This is a discussion about character creation and how much a template can be stretch at character creation.  The seven aspects that define a character define a character.  If one of them is supernatural then the player is defining the character as supernatural.  Which is fine, except one template's definition says that you cannot be supernatural and a Pure Mortal.

Temporary powers are covered in the RAW.  Transitory aspects do not permanently change a character.

Please tell me why you feel that a template defined as having nothing supernatural going on should be based on a supernatural aspect? I don't see the logic in that.

Richard

[Tedronai]

No. The RAW only says she'd be an NPC if she keeps those powers

That's because the RAW doesn't remove her template for having 'supernatural' aspects.
It also doesn't differentiate mechanically between temporary and permanent aspects beyond that temporary aspects have a shelf life.

[Richard_Chilton]

That's because the RAW doesn't remove her template for having 'supernatural' aspects.

No, it's because the RAW include rules for temporary powers

It also doesn't differentiate mechanically between temporary and permanent aspects beyond that temporary aspects have a shelf life.

One is permanent, the other temporary.  That's because mechanically they are different.

But if you continue to want to redefine the reasoning behind the Changeling Template (in spite of the reasoning being explicitly stated) then that's fine for your home game.

Richard

[toturi]

Please tell me why you feel that a template defined as having nothing supernatural going on should be based on a supernatural aspect? I don't see the logic in that.

Richard

I feel the definition of "nothing supernatural going on" is that the character has no supernatural Powers. Supernatural Aspect or not, if the character has no supernatural Powers, then as far as the the Pure Mortal template is concerned, the character does not have anything supernatural going on.

However, going by your definition of "nothing supernatural going on", I think then that the definition should it be implemented evenhandedly. No it is a "supernatural"-Aspect but it is not a permanent Aspect, so it is granted a pass. No exceptions. If Pure Mortal is to have "nothing supernatural going on", then at no time can a Pure Mortal have anything supernatural going on without losing Refresh. If you want to redefine and differentiate between temporary and permanent Aspects in other ways than their time duration, then that's fine for your home game.

[Praxidicae]

I've been following this thread for a while now and honestly can see both sides of the argument. At the start I was firmly on the "No supernatural aspects if you want to be a Pure Mortal" side, but following the discussion here have gradually altered my perspective somewhat.

Personally at the minute (and likely subject to change) my position would be that I'd allow a 'Pure Mortal' PC to take an aspect like "Uncontrolled Pyromancer" or "My great great great grandpappy was a demi-hemi-god", give them the +2 Refresh bonus (so long as they had no supernatural powers), but explicitly state to them that taking this type of aspect without applicable powers could severely restrict the usage of that aspect.

My supposition is that being 'Pure Mortals' this aspect represents some latent and/or uncontrolled 'part' of their nature, something that is primarily not under the characters control and likely not easy to utilize for their benefit (note by this I mean the characters benefit, not the player's - in fact the Uncontrolled Pyromancer aspect could make a pretty good internalised trouble).

As an example, for the Uncontrolled Pyromancer, heating up a sword to do extra damage would be fine, as would producing a light, heck with an external combustion source and some preparation, I'd even allow Pyro-like (from X-men) flame manipulation, but pulling the heat from the air to generate and throw a ball of fire at an enemy would be something I'd place beyond their ability.

As to the whole moving from Pure Mortal to another template issue. Personally I can't see any mechanical problem with this assuming that the change follows some form of natural progression (Ie. I would have a problem with a character moving straight from Pure Mortal to White Court Vampire without the intermediary of being a White Court Virgin; and might have some issues with a Character jumping to Wizard or Sorcerer, without stopping off at Focussed Practitioner).

Where the issues might arise is in the 'fluff', as mentioned by Mr Death, being a White Court Vamp or White Court Virgin means that you are a member of one of the White Court Houses, with the requisite familial ties that this implies. For a character to move into one of these templates I'd want some kind of in character background justification (e.g. "I was adopted" or "Mom had a wild fling with member of House Raith back in the day").

One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread (at least I don't think it has) is the fact that a characters remaining Refresh after character creation is the in game representation of their 'Humanity' and 'Free Will', and the corresponding implication that the +2 Refresh bonus from the Pure Mortal template represents the fact that 'Pure Mortals' are more human than those who have sacrificed a part of their free will for more power.
Personally I'd allow a character one (or possibly two) supernatural aspects before saying anything, but a character who has all 7, or even the majority of their aspects flavoured in such a way as to imply that they are slowly moving away from Humanity should probably have the +2 bonus removed, regardless as to whether they have any actual powers.
Thoughts?

[devonapple]

I find that my views are moderating on this issue, too.

I certainly discount temporary Aspects/Maneuvers/Consequences/temporary Powers as sufficient to invalidate the Pure Mortal bonus. Points to that side for using that tactic to try to bring the opposition closer to center, though - it reminded me of the scene in the "I, Robot" story, when the robot's legal team put out a campaign to have it made law that any prosthetics or artificial organs would render their bearers robots, and therefore no longer human, which of course tilted the argument back towards "where is the line?" rather than "dirty robots shouldn't have rights!"

I also feel that several of the Templates just aren't appropriate territory after someone starts as a Pure Mortal. I just don't.

White Court Virgins *are* the proto-form of the White Court Vampire - not Pure Mortal. Even if the Virgin was raised outside of the White Court (adopted, abandoned, secretly fostered for later political reasons), that just means there is a Virgin out there with White Court Virgin powers, but less chance of knowing his heritage (or maybe more, especially if he was stolen away by a Vampire Hunter to train as an ally). But the player still knows what he opted to play, and choosing White Court Virgin means one is either planning to go full White Court later, or explore the possibility of breaking the cycle and joining the ranks of Pure Mortals later, in-game.

I think Changelings (and by extension, Scions) *are* the gray area in this discussion, and no other template. It's not very gray, mind you - it is almost guaranteed that they are going to not qualify as Pure Mortal - but hypothetically, I can see someone opting to take no powers, and leave The Choice as a purely philosophical one, with no experience using Fairy powers.

But governing all of this is intent. If an Aspect with an intrinsic supernatural theme is going to (by intent and design) skirt a Supernatural Power (in the way I laid out however many pages ago), I think that the player needs an appropriate Power to go with it, and if not, they need to sacrifice that Pure Mortal bonus voluntarily.

If that Aspect with an intrinsic supernatural theme is a placeholder for later supernatural stuff, but the player is fine with keeping it to mundane Invokes for the time being (though Compels can still be of any type, mundane or supernatural), I would consider retaining Pure Mortal until such time as the player puts into action whatever Supernatural plan is in mind.

And if an Aspect is clearly supernatural in nature, but the implication is that the weirdness is happening TO the character (extrinsic) rather than under the character's control (Favored Singer of the Summer Court; Family Debt to Odin), and/or that weirdness is facilitated by a PC or NPC proxy (My Wizard Buddy; Pet Troll; Followed by the Butterfly of Chaos), then I think Pure Mortal is preserved.

[Richard_Chilton]

I feel the definition of "nothing supernatural going on" is that the character has no supernatural Powers. Supernatural Aspect or not, if the character has no supernatural Powers, then as far as the the Pure Mortal template is concerned, the character does not have anything supernatural going on.

Which is where we differ.  I feel that an Aspect is something.

However, going by your definition of "nothing supernatural going on", I think then that the definition should it be implemented evenhandedly. No it is a "supernatural"-Aspect but it is not a permanent Aspect, so it is granted a pass. No exceptions. If Pure Mortal is to have "nothing supernatural going on", then at no time can a Pure Mortal have anything supernatural going on without losing Refresh. If you want to redefine and differentiate between temporary and permanent Aspects in other ways than their time duration, then that's fine for your home game.

The RAW cover temporary powers.

If you don't see a difference between the seven aspects that make up the core of a character and a transitory one, then I'm not sure if I can explain that difference - but I'll try.

In the first few books, one of the elements that made up who Dresden was is that he was "Dead Broke".  Summer Knight has a wonderful example of that aspect being compelled, but even when it wasn't compelled was a core of how Harry operated.  He didn't take cabs (at least not lightly) and going to Burger King was splurging.  Then something happened that changed Harry in a fundamental way - he became a Warden.  When he did he also gained the Warden's stipend - meaning he was no longer living hand to mouth.

In short, a core part of the character changed at that milestone - which shifted one his permanent aspects.

Harry has been Tipsy, Wanted For Questioning, and had scores and scores of other Temporary aspects assigned to him, but none of that changed who Harry is.

I think that, in this matter, you are focusing so much on pure semantics that you've lost the contextual meaning of words.

I think Changelings (and by extension, Scions) *are* the gray area in this discussion, and no other template. It's not very gray, mind you - it is almost guaranteed that they are going to not qualify as Pure Mortal - but hypothetically, I can see someone opting to take no powers, and leave The Choice as a purely philosophical one, with no experience using Fairy powers.

Here is where we differ.  I don't see the character making the conscious choice to use Fae power - at least not the first time.  I also see that realisation of "I'm not entirely human?" happening in the "What Shaped You / Rising Conflict" phrase of character creation.

For example, I don't see Meryl deciding to tap into her troll powers.  Rather I see Meryl's player saying:
"I want her to be strong... Hey, I've got an idea.  When she was 12 her brother's tractor flip and she needed to pull it off him - and the next day her hair changed colour!"

That is I see the Character not knowing about his background while the Player does.

And if an Aspect is clearly supernatural in nature, but the implication is that the weirdness is happening TO the character (extrinsic) rather than under the character's control (Favored Singer of the Summer Court; Family Debt to Odin), and/or that weirdness is facilitated by a PC or NPC proxy (My Wizard Buddy; Pet Troll; Followed by the Butterfly of Chaos), then I think Pure Mortal is preserved.

Agreed.  Extrinsic things are even mentioned in the rules under the "save perhaps for the company they keep or the things they’ve seen" line.  But I still don't see someone being intrinsically supernatural meshing with the "nothing supernatural going on" bit.

As for "placeholders" - I see milestones working better for that.  A player redefining one of the PC's Aspects to get access to a different (non-hereditary) Template - that sort of thing.

Richard

[Tedronai]

The RAW cover temporary powers.

If you don't see a difference between the seven aspects that make up the core of a character and a transitory one, then I'm not sure if I can explain that difference - but I'll try.

In the first few books, one of the elements that made up who Dresden was is that he was "Dead Broke".  Summer Knight has a wonderful example of that aspect being compelled, but even when it wasn't compelled was a core of how Harry operated.  He didn't take cabs (at least not lightly) and going to Burger King was splurging.  Then something happened that changed Harry in a fundamental way - he became a Warden.  When he did he also gained the Warden's stipend - meaning he was no longer living hand to mouth.

In short, a core part of the character changed at that milestone - which shifted one his permanent aspects.

Harry has been Tipsy, Wanted For Questioning, and had scores and scores of other Temporary aspects assigned to him, but none of that changed who Harry is.

I think that, in this matter, you are focusing so much on pure semantics that you've lost the contextual meaning of words.

For the duration that a temporary aspect remains on a character, it is of no more or less import to that character than any other aspect, permanent or otherwise, except as indicated by the frequency that the aspect invoked and/or compelled.
There is no mechanically-backed 'heirarchy' of aspects.

[Silverblaze]

Seems to me High Concept (template related) and Trouble should get some priority.

Also maneuvers put aspects on people.  Seems sticky vs non sticky aspects have a hierarchy also.



I've been meaning to press this point home also.

Some aspects simply cannot go on some characters nad have them fir their template or chracter or "race" as in fae, vampire, mortal etc.

This leads me to believe all aspects are not created equal.

[devonapple]

Even if you do not write down any supernatural Aspects for your PC as one of the 7 character sheet Aspects, you can still have a supernatural Aspect given to you by your guest stars.

I was under the impression that your Guest star Aspects were assigned to you by the other players. It is how we did it locally. So even if you didn't have a "supernatural" Aspect as part of your self-assigned Aspects, you could still get one from your "Guests".

BTW, I overlooked this earlier: this sounds like a clear misunderstanding of the rules. A gaming table could *opt* to do this, but the rules and examples in no way indicate that other players WRITE the Guest Star Aspects for a character. They collaboratively determine the story and outcome, but at the end of the day, it is the player (in the example below, "Jim") who determines the Aspect which comes out of a guest starring role (in this case, he gives "Harry Dresden" the Aspect "Epic Wiseass" for participating in the Karrin Murphy story "Restoration of Faith"):

YS 58: "Each phase is a section of your character’s background—the key events in his past that form who he is. There are five in total, and each gives you an opportunity to define a new aspect for your character." Not another player.

YS 61: "Whose Path Have You Crossed? (Guest Starring): In this phase, you tie the group together by having each character contribute a minor, supporting role in another character’s first adventure." Emphasis on "role" not "Aspect".

YS 62: "Example: Jim ends up with the card for Shannon’s character, Karrin Murphy. They talk about what he might contribute to the story, and Jim advocates for the direct route—Harry comes in with a display of power and helps save the day. Shannon agrees. The card for Murphy’s “Restoration of Faith” story says: “When a child is missing, beat-cop Karrin Murphy goes looking for her. But will she succeed when a troll comes into the picture?” Jim adds, “Harry Dresden gets right up in the troll’s face, trades some quips with it, and unloads on it—using its own weapon to smash it!” Jim decides to take Epic Wiseass for Harry, as befits both the quips and the nature of his achievements."

So, yeah: a lot of gray area in this discussion, but having another player determine your Guest Star Aspect is not gray area: it is contrary to the rules.

[Becq]

For the duration that a temporary aspect remains on a character, it is of no more or less import to that character than any other aspect, permanent or otherwise, except as indicated by the frequency that the aspect invoked and/or compelled.
There is no mechanically-backed 'heirarchy' of aspects.

You truly believe that a character's high concept "is of no more or less important to that character" than the fact that he has a Stubbed Toe or was Knocked Ass Over Teakettle?

I disagree.  Aspects can refer to all sorts of things, starting with who/what you are, continuing on through things you've done and people you know or knew, and ending with stuff that's happened to you, however recently.  If an aspect defines you as something that's incompatible with your template (which also defines who you are), this is Bad.

[sinker]

Hey Richard, I understand the importance of fluff to a game, I really do, but what do you do when the fluff causes mechanical imbalances?

[devonapple]

One problem we are having is that "fluff" and "crunch" are loaded terms with presupposed value judgements. It is much easier to discount something labelled "fluff" and cleave unto "crunch" as the ultimate arbiter of what to choose when there is a conflict.

Check out this article by Robin laws:
http://robin-d-laws.blogspot.ca/2012/04/crunch-v-fluff-unstackening.html

He concludes that maybe we should refer to it as "sizzle" and "crunch" (and DFRPG does favor fire-related imagery: "FUEGO!!!"). Another option discussed was calling it "story" and "crunch" (though maybe "story" and "system" would be more appropriate).

So, depending on what kind of game is being run, it may be that "system" will trump "story" at a given gaming table. But if the goal is to tell a good story, well, that changes things.

[UmbraLux]

I agree, the terms are loaded.  Sadly, many terms are loaded these days.  GNS redefinitions killed several for me. 

Re: Aspects - Other than High Concept, I don't worry too much about initial aspect creation.  They can and should change regularly as the character changes and grows.  Even minor milestones let you change an aspect.  The High Concept is usually a bit more static - and it's what your powers (or lack thereof) stem from.  (High Concept is what I initially thought Richard was referring to when discussing aspects - and, in many ways, I agreed.  I simply don't draw as hard a line.) 

Re:  Fluff / Sizzle / Story / Narrative or whatever term is used - FATE has mechanics allowing direct modification of the narrative.  In every case I can think of, it calls for a judgement by the group.  Set difficulties for declarations, negotiate a compel, choose consequences, etc.  The group is the arbiter - they decide limits and balance. 

I think those different choices in balance are behind many of the more heated discussions here. 

[devonapple]

I think those different choices in balance are behind many of the more heated discussions here.

Indeed. I feel that the economy of an Invoke for Effect (and the narrative exchange rate for a Fate Point) is probably the aspect (ha HA!) which causes me the most uncertainty.