Question about feeding and the Hunger track.

[Mr. Death]

The main problem I have with that is two-fold. First, in the canon, we've seen relatively minor "wounds" make up for significant loss of power. In Changes, Susan recovers from having her spine broken (a Severe consequence at least) in moments (implying Supernatural Recovery), from Harry cutting his hand and dripping just a bit of blood into her mouth (at most a mild physical consequence). That's a 4-shift power being recovered by, at most, a 2-shift consequence.

And bleeding in and of itself doesn't need to be a consequence. By my read, it's only really a consequence if it somehow hinders the character--a light cut above the eye doesn't have enough bite to be a consequence, for example, unless it's bleeding bad enough to get into your eyes and obscure vision.

The second thing is, practically speaking, causing a Moderate consequence isn't really creating a 4-shift effect, since most characters aren't going to take a consequence unless the hit would've broken through their whole stress track. Ergo, with Rougarou's proposition, you'd only be able to recover 2 shifts of hunger stress by causing 7- or 8-shifts of stress.

While I'm still personally in favor of direct shift-for-shift trade-off, how about one of these:

A. Direct shift-for-shift stress swapping for boxes on the hunger track, but to recover powers or consequences, you have to cause consequences of equal strength. (Don't like this one much, honestly.)
B. Instead of halving the consequence value, halve the total shift strength of the attack--so if you cause 8 shifts of stress, you can recover up to 4 hunger stress boxes.
C. Make hunger attacks consequential contests (Don't much like this one either, because it doesn't make much sense if the defender wins and causes a consequence).

Though none of those really allows for the feeding we see in the book, where blood from a minor cut was able to recover what appears to be 4 shifts worth of powers.

[Tedronai]

The main problem I have with that is two-fold. First, in the canon, we've seen relatively minor "wounds" make up for significant loss of power. In Changes, Susan recovers from having her spine broken (a Severe consequence at least) in moments (implying Supernatural Recovery), from Harry cutting his hand and dripping just a bit of blood into her mouth (at most a mild physical consequence). That's a 4-shift power being recovered by, at most, a 2-shift consequence.

I don't recall the details on that one.  Is there evidence suggesting that her Supernatural Recovery was actually lost at any point, or is this just another example of the narrative of the novels being wholly opaque when it comes to interpreting the application of the mechanics of the game? (ex. try finding a definitive example of Harry refusing a compel, I dare you)

And bleeding in and of itself doesn't need to be a consequence. By my read, it's only really a consequence if it somehow hinders the character--a light cut above the eye doesn't have enough bite to be a consequence, for example, unless it's bleeding bad enough to get into your eyes and obscure vision.

Anything that isn't a consequence, though, doesn't necessarily hit at all.  Even inflicting a consequence with an attack doesn't necessarily mean that your attack connected.
And that's not even getting into the issue of the consequence being chosen by the victim of the attack.
'Your RCV was trying to eviscerate me and drink my blood and managed to inflict a minor consequence?  I stubbed my toe on a table as I dodged his claws.'
From a narrative perspective, allowing feeding from any consequence is extremely generous.

The second thing is, practically speaking, causing a Moderate consequence isn't really creating a 4-shift effect, since most characters aren't going to take a consequence unless the hit would've broken through their whole stress track. Ergo, with Rougarou's proposition, you'd only be able to recover 2 shifts of hunger stress by causing 7- or 8-shifts of stress.

Again.  Shifts absorbed by the stress track are not shifts of success.

While I'm still personally in favor of direct shift-for-shift trade-off, how about one of these:

A. Direct shift-for-shift stress swapping for boxes on the hunger track, but to recover powers or consequences, you have to cause consequences of equal strength. (Don't like this one much, honestly.)

Stress track hits are not narrative hits.

B. Instead of halving the consequence value, halve the total shift strength of the attack--so if you cause 8 shifts of stress, you can recover up to 4 hunger stress boxes.

Stress track hits, even halved, are not narrative hits.

C. Make hunger attacks consequential contests (Don't much like this one either, because it doesn't make much sense if the defender wins and causes a consequence).

Feeding can cause someone to be Taken Out.  It should be an attack.  And I agree, that 'defender wins' scenario doesn't make sense.

[Becq]

Stress track hits are not narrative hits.
Stress track hits, even halved, are not narrative hits.

What do you consider a 'narrative hit'?  Because under RAW, every time you record stress on your track (as opposed to buying the stress down to zero through consequences), you also lose access to powers.  And while the stress track can recover completely simply by succeeding on a later hunger roll, the powers don't come back until you either kill someone while feeding or sit out scenes.  (All of which I consider to be very poorly designed rules.)

Seems to me that losing access to powers is pretty significant.

[Becq]

Three things I don't like about the feeding dependency rules (RAW):
1)  The results of taking hunger stress are huge, unlike any other stress type.  Any time you take hunger stress you lose powers, and if you don't have powers left to lose then you're taken out regardless of the normal rules for take-outs.  Not only that, but even when you do recover from the stress, you don't recover from the associated loss of powers.
2)  Taking stress seems very random, and with extremely significant consequences based on that random result.  Imagine we have a vamp with discipline 0.  He uses Inhuman Speed only to gain initiative, ensuring getting the drop on an opponent, who he one-shots, ending the combat.  He makes a feed check, rolling a nat-zero, as it were.  Boom, he takes a moderate consequence and marks of the 2-box on his hunger track, further resulting in the loss of a power (Inhuman Recovery, say).  Later, he gets into a tough fight, and relies on Inhuman Speed and Inhuman Strength full-time throughout a long fight.  At the end of the fight, he rolls extremely well -- apparently the exertion actually refreshed him, and he clears the previous stress (though he doesn't get back the lost power).
3)  Recovering from hunger effects carries an unreasonably high cost (for some).  Having to either kill someone via feeding or sit out a scene per stress taken in order to get any lost powers back is just brutal.

[Becq]

I had taken a stab at re-writing the hunger rules a while back.  They went something like this:

Hunger checks are made as in the RAW (discipline vs refresh used), except that even on a success, a minimum 1-stress hit is inflicted.  Stress taken can be bought down as normal by opting to take hunger consequences; the player can also buy down the stress by disabling powers (-1 stress per refresh worth of powers 'lost').  Marking off boxes on the hunger stress track has no additional effect, though the hunger stress track is not automatically cleared as normal at the end of scenes.  Stress that overflows the stress track causes the charcater to be taken out.

You can feed in order to offset hunger effects.  Any time a consequence is inflicted by feeding, any one lesser hunger consequence or any one hunger stress box is cleared.  For example, feeding that inflicts a severe consequence allows a mild or moderate hunger consequence, or any one hunger stress box to be cleared.  Powers can be recovered in place of a consequence (mild consequence = 2 refresh, moderate = 4 refresh, etc).  (If you are allowing partial downgrades, then powers can be partially recovered, too.)

You can also opt out of a scene to feed; describe an appropriate mini-scene and roll an appropriate skill against a difficulty determined by the GM.  (For example, A WCV that opts out of a scene in order to feed at a rave might test with Presence or Deceit against a mediocre difficulty, whereas a RCV who finds his reserves depleted in the middle of a wilderness might have a much harder time of it.)  If this check is successful, then shifts can be uses to recover powers (one refresh per shift) and/or clear hunger consequences (shift for shift) and/or clear stress boxes (any one box per shift).

Killing while feeding has the same benefit as in RAW: you can immediately regain all of your lost abilities (hunger stress and consequences as well as loss of powers).

[Mr. Death]

I don't recall the details on that one.  Is there evidence suggesting that her Supernatural Recovery was actually lost at any point, or is this just another example of the narrative of the novels being wholly opaque when it comes to interpreting the application of the mechanics of the game? (ex. try finding a definitive example of Harry refusing a compel, I dare you)

It's after their duel with the vampires in the Erlking's hall. Susan takes a bad hit, and is lying there unconscious with her back twisted the wrong way around. She doesn't stir or heal at all until Harry feeds her some of his blood (implying that she's too hungry for the power to work, i.e. she failed her hunger check and had to buy out with a power). Once she's fed, she immediately, automatically twists back into shape without conscious effort (implying that Harry's feeding her was enough to restore the power).

And finding an example of Harry refusing a compel is pointless. It's saying, "Find an example of something that didn't happen."

That said, you could probably point to the times Harry narrates something along the lines of, "It would normally be difficult to do this, but..." or he otherwise handwaves something that should be an issue but isn't.

Anything that isn't a consequence, though, doesn't necessarily hit at all.  Even inflicting a consequence with an attack doesn't necessarily mean that your attack connected.
And that's not even getting into the issue of the consequence being chosen by the victim of the attack.
'Your RCV was trying to eviscerate me and drink my blood and managed to inflict a minor consequence?  I stubbed my toe on a table as I dodged his claws.'
From a narrative perspective, allowing feeding from any consequence is extremely generous.

Isn't necessarily =/= never is the case. If the victim is solely choosing all the results of an attack, then no vampire will ever be able to feed on a PC's blood.

Again.  Shifts absorbed by the stress track are not shifts of success.

...Are they shifts of failure, then? They're not meaningless, because they can have a tangible outcome on events. If I cause stress on someone, that means the attack was successful. A Fists attack that causes 4 stress means it was a Great success.

Stress track hits are not narrative hits.
Stress track hits, even halved, are not narrative hits.

I can read very well, thank you. Bolding an entire line is entirely unnecessary and a little rude. You may not intend it at such, but putting something in bold like that strikes me as the equivalent of going, "Hey, stupid!"

And, anyway, this isn't accurate. They're not necessarily narrative hits--but they can be. A shallow, bleeding cut that doesn't actually debilitate the character in any way is a perfectly fine example of stress. Hell, the rulebook even mentions that getting punched in the face is stress.

@Becq: I always interpreted it the way you did for your revision, that hunger stress was just stress, and you could buy out of the stress with powers or consequences. I do like that opt out of a scene houserule you have as well.

[Jimmy]

Three things I don't like about the feeding dependency rules (RAW):
1)  The results of taking hunger stress are huge, unlike any other stress type.  Any time you take hunger stress you lose powers, and if you don't have powers left to lose then you're taken out regardless of the normal rules for take-outs.  Not only that, but even when you do recover from the stress, you don't recover from the associated loss of powers.

Did you perhaps mean to say this differently? Because anytime you take Hunger stress you do not need to lose powers. You may OPT to lose powers to pay off the stress hit, much like taking a consequence.

The mechanical process for feeding in combat makes sense when you consider it a matter of perspective. When a vampire feeds out of combat he is taking the time to pull in enough life force or blood to nourish himself. When in combat, he is attempting to cause damage by the forceful removal of life energy (either by blood or otherwise). The time and method for both uses are far different. The time to exsanguinate someone to the point of dying from bloodloss takes quite a bit of time, even when the flow is rather fast (such as an artery). We're talking minutes. An exchange is usually only a few seconds of time, during which the removal of life force is the cause of stress. I see this in an example as brutally ripping away the life force as opposed to 'drinking' it in. A lot of the potency of the feed is lost because of the method of feeding.

This is my take on justifying the RAW.

Now, as a houserule, I would advocate the option of allowing shifts in the difficulty of feeding (say, 2 shifts) to gain nourishment from feeding during combat, but limit it to 1 or 2 hunger stresses, or alternatively allow an aspect of Fed During Combat and tag it for the Hunger Roll at the conclusion of the conflict. This method is almost implied in the RAW, since you could consider it a Declaration or Assessment.

Does this method stand up to anyone's scrutiny? It's a lot easier than working out stress points inflicted vs refresh of powers (more book keeping, which i think is detrimental to the spirit of the game).

[Tedronai]

What do you consider a 'narrative hit'? 

If you're firing a gun, a 'narrative hit' would include the bullet striking its target in a meaningful way.  If you're swinging a sword, then the sword connects in some meaningful way with your target.
Mechanically, the above is not likely the case for an attack that is limited to affecting the stress track.  It's not even necessarily the case for an attack that inflicts consequences.

Because under RAW, every time you record stress on your track (as opposed to buying the stress down to zero through consequences), you also lose access to powers.  And while the stress track can recover completely simply by succeeding on a later hunger roll, the powers don't come back until you either kill someone while feeding or sit out scenes.  (All of which I consider to be very poorly designed rules.)

Seems to me that losing access to powers is pretty significant.

That is one way to read the RAW.  It's also one of the first things I'd fix with any houserule to Feeding Dependency.

It's after their duel with the vampires in the Erlking's hall. Susan takes a bad hit, and is lying there unconscious with her back twisted the wrong way around. She doesn't stir or heal at all until Harry feeds her some of his blood (implying that she's too hungry for the power to work, i.e. she failed her hunger check and had to buy out with a power). Once she's fed, she immediately, automatically twists back into shape without conscious effort (implying that Harry's feeding her was enough to restore the power).

Had enough time actually passed since the initially injury that it can reasonably be said that it definitely would have been healed if the power had not been lost, though?
Because otherwise, I could just as easily see that as simply a well-roleplayed bit of fluff.

Isn't necessarily =/= never is the case.

Attaching feeding benefits logically imposes that it often, or possibly always, depending on the benefits provided, would have to be the case, though.

If the victim is solely choosing all the results of an attack, then no vampire will ever be able to feed on a PC's blood....

And yet, with the exception of limitations on the basis of 'reasonableness', the victim IS solely choosing all the results of any attack that stops short of taking that character out.

Are they shifts of failure, then? They're not meaningless, because they can have a tangible outcome on events. If I cause stress on someone, that means the attack was successful. A Fists attack that causes 4 stress means it was a Great success.

Mechanically, they contribute to eventual success.  Narratively, they could just as easily represent failure.  It would just be a failure that cost the target something to ensure.

I can read very well, thank you. Bolding an entire line is entirely unnecessary and a little rude. You may not intend it at such, but putting something in bold like that strikes me as the equivalent of going, "Hey, stupid!"

That was not my intent, and I apologize.
I get frustrated repeatedly pointing out this issue, and related issues, on these boards.  Especially when I've pointed it out previously on the same page of this very thread.

And, anyway, this isn't accurate. They're not necessarily narrative hits--but they can be. A shallow, bleeding cut that doesn't actually debilitate the character in any way is a perfectly fine example of stress. Hell, the rulebook even mentions that getting punched in the face is stress.

Getting punched in the face can be stress.  So can ducking that same punch.
And attaching feeding benefits to that stress logically mandates that there be some sort of connection that allows feeding.  I find this to be inappropriate.




The only revision I can see that I would likely make before playtesting Becq's houserule is to retain the value of a given stress box relative to the rest of the track and to require commensurate feeding (it should be a lot easier to clear the first stress box than it would be to clear the fourth)

[Sanctaphrax]

Did you perhaps mean to say this differently? Because anytime you take Hunger stress you do not need to lose powers. You may OPT to lose powers to pay off the stress hit, much like taking a consequence.

This is an old argument. Because of not-very-good writing, it's not clear how it works. If you think your interpretation is definitively correct, you are fooling yourself.

Part of the reason I wrote my own version.

If anyone has any opinions on my version, I'd love to hear them. I plan to add it to the list next update, so I want to make it better.

[Jimmy]

This is an old argument. Because of not-very-good writing, it's not clear how it works. If you think your interpretation is definitively correct, you are fooling yourself.

Are you refering to the Feeding Dependency power in general or my statement/question that you quoted? If the latter I'm not sure where the confusion lies in interpreting the rules, it clearly states in YS that when you fail your Hunger roll you get hunger stress, which can be soaked up as consequences or loss of powers or just taken as stress. It doesn't state anywhere that you MUST lose powers, its just an option if you can't or are unwilling to take consequences or stress. That's pretty clear to me.

If you meant the former, fair nuff, but why quote me? I'm confused...no wait...maybe I'm not...

[Sanctaphrax]

It's the latter.

If you have physical or mental consequence slots open, you may use them to buy off the stress as per the normal rules (page 203). If you cannot or do not wish to spare consequences, then you must lose access to a number of your powers, up to a refresh cost equal to the amount of stress taken.

This pretty clearly contradicts your interpretation. It actually uses the word must.

But the next bit implies that your interpretation is correct, and frankly I like your way better.

That being said, you are not clearly right. The people who disagree with your interpretation are not delusional, not stupid, not illiterate, and not wrong.

[Mr. Death]

Had enough time actually passed since the initially injury that it can reasonably be said that it definitely would have been healed if the power had not been lost, though?
Because otherwise, I could just as easily see that as simply a well-roleplayed bit of fluff.

Admittedly, the way feeding dependency works in the canon doesn't typically match up with how it works in the game--the canon seems to treat it more along the lines of a fuel tank. A vampire has a finite reserve of energy, and uses some of it up with each power usage, and has to top up afterward.

That said, even if it's fluff, the fluff should match the mechanics, and what we have is a small, non-debilitating cut being inflicted that is enough for someone to recover from serious injury in seconds. It wouldn't make sense to fluff that, then have it so that in-game you would have to cripple Harry for life in order for that same amount of hunger recovery to occur.

Attaching feeding benefits logically imposes that it often, or possibly always, depending on the benefits provided, would have to be the case, though.
And yet, with the exception of limitations on the basis of 'reasonableness', the victim IS solely choosing all the results of any attack that stops short of taking that character out.

The reasonableness would have to cut both ways, then. If it's reasonable that the attack could make someone bleed and the vampire's making a deliberate effort to feed, then the GM has to moderate it. But again, it's still a possibility, so there's no reason to rule it out.

Also, the attack doesn't have to cause the bleeding to be feeding. If there's a pre-existing consequence of a Cut Arm, a subsequent feeding attack could easily be causing stress as the vampire latches on and sucks at the wound--not causing any additional damage or consequences, but taking sustenance all the same.

Limiting feeding to only attacks that cause a consequence means that if a vampire came across someone who was already bleeding from all four of his consequences being taken up, he couldn't gain any sustenance short of causing enough stress to finish him off, even though logically the vampire ought to be able to just lick the poor bastard clean.

Mechanically, they contribute to eventual success.  Narratively, they could just as easily represent failure.  It would just be a failure that cost the target something to ensure.

Again, since it can go either way, I see no reason to exclude them. The feeding power just says, "If you cause your target to bleed" after all--it says nothing about it being a consequence.

Getting punched in the face can be stress.  So can ducking that same punch.
And attaching feeding benefits to that stress logically mandates that there be some sort of connection that allows feeding.  I find this to be inappropriate.

And I disagree.

[Radecliffe]

Again, since it can go either way, I see no reason to exclude them. The feeding power just says, "If you cause your target to bleed" after all--it says nothing about it being a consequence.

Where does it say that?  As far as the RAW it appears to me that if you have lost powers it is because you have failed a hunger check.  The following paragraph appears to outline the only ways to get your powers back again:

Failure Recovery. You can recover your lost abilities at the rate of up to one point per scene so long as you opt out of the scene, essentially because you are spending it feeding. You can regain all of your lost abilities in one scene if you feed so forcefully as to kill a victim outright. In either case, your hunger stress clears out completely, and any consequences that resulted from feeding failure vanish

Feeding safely takes time OR you can feed fast and kill someone.  Now I can see doing a house rule that does it differently so long as your group doesn't care but that does seem to trivialize the feeding dependency to me. 

As far as how the books work vs. the RAW... well that is a problem for every game system I've every played that has fiction to go along with it.  It generally works a little better when the rules come first but regardless there will be times when author fiat trumps rules no matter what. 

[Mr. Death]

Where does it say that?  As far as the RAW it appears to me that if you have lost powers it is because you have failed a hunger check.  The following paragraph appears to outline the only ways to get your powers back again:

I'm referring to the Blood Drinker power, not the Feeding Dependency power.

Feeding safely takes time OR you can feed fast and kill someone.  Now I can see doing a house rule that does it differently so long as your group doesn't care but that does seem to trivialize the feeding dependency to me.

Yes, but there should be degrees between "get miniscule recovery over a period lasting up to an hour" and "kill and recover totally."

As far as how the books work vs. the RAW... well that is a problem for every game system I've every played that has fiction to go along with it.  It generally works a little better when the rules come first but regardless there will be times when author fiat trumps rules no matter what.

Yes, but the rules should come as close as they can to what's seen in the narrative if we're talking about a game based directly on said narrative.

[Radecliffe]

I'm referring to the Blood Drinker power, not the Feeding Dependency power.

Even there Drink Blood does not reference anything about power recovery.  It is just "getting a taste" that gives you a little bonus in combat.  Anything additional is something you are reading into it that I don't believe was intended.  And Taste of Death is pretty much the same as what it talked about in Failed Recovery.  You kill someone and you can "top off."  As I said before I don't see why you couldn't house rule a more generous method that does not require death to get a benefit but that is not my take on the RAW. 

Yes, but there should be degrees between "get miniscule recovery over a period lasting up to an hour" and "kill and recover totally."

That would be a matter of opinion.  I don't think the RAW supports this but YMMV.  For me I believe that the Feeding Dependency should be a significant challenge for the character and it becomes much less so if the character can just "take a bite" right in the middle of combat with no downside and that's why I believe the rules make it an all or nothing proposition (at least in scene, anyway.) 

Yes, but the rules should come as close as they can to what's seen in the narrative if we're talking about a game based directly on said narrative.

True, but remember that this particular narrative occurs well after the period where the rules for formulated in the Dresdenverse.  You can hardly blame the rules when the author whips out the fiat hammer after the fact.  Besides, building rules on fiction is like building a good statistical model.  Sometimes you have the occasional data point that just won't fit without screwing everything else up.