Blood drinker interpretation

[polkaneverdies]

iirc the blood drinker power requires you to attack and draw blood, and following round you receive a +1 to your attack roll against the same target.
How do you folks interpret "draw blood"?
Is that just land a successful attack, a maneuver, or deal a consequence?

[Haru]

iirc the blood drinker power requires you to attack and draw blood, and following round you receive a +1 to your attack roll against the same target.
How do you folks interpret "draw blood"?
Is that just land a successful attack, a maneuver, or deal a consequence?

I don't have my book right now, but as far as I remember, it says something along the lines of 'you attack, but instead of dealng stress, you draw blood'. Basically a maneuver that doesn't place an aspect, but activates the power. At least that's how I always read it.

[Deadmanwalking]

It's not quite that clearly worded, but that's probably the right interpretation, yeah.

[Mr. Death]

There is no "instead of" language in there. It just says if you attack and draw blood. I think this could easily be stress as much as a consequence, and may require some moderation--because, let's face it, if you're a PC fighting against something with Blood Drinker, you're not going to take a consequence or stress that makes you bleed if you can avoid it.

[Taran]

There is no "instead of" language in there. It just says if you attack and draw blood. I think this could easily be stress as much as a consequence, and may require some moderation--because, let's face it, if you're a PC fighting against something with Blood Drinker, you're not going to take a consequence or stress that makes you bleed if you can avoid it.

GM:  the vampire lunges at your throat with his fangs
PC:  "Ahhh, oooh, my toe!  I stubbed it dodging out of the way!"

I always felt it was assumed players *should* take consequences that reflect the narrative/theme of the attack.  Otherwise it renders powers like this one and the incite lasting emotion less useful.   The latter is supposed give the vamp an opportunity to assert its influence on the target, which doesn't work if people keep gashing their heads open to avoid lustful thoughts.

In any case, I agree with Mr. Deaths interpretation of blood-drinker.
 

[Sanctaphrax]

GM:  the vampire lunges at your throat with his fangs
PC:  "Ahhh, oooh, my toe!  I stubbed it dodging out of the way!"

That stuff can be fun, actually. But not if it's an excuse to shut down Blood Drinker.

As for Lasting Emotion, it's just as useful if your opponent takes non-traditional Consequences. Because Consequences aren't for exerting narrative control over your targets. If you want to influence someone, maneuver or take them out.

Anyway, there's no right interpretation of Blood Drinker. It's clearly vague. Personally I go with "physical Consequence or an appropriate maneuver".

[Haru]

Now I read the power again, and it seems pretty clear to me, that it is an extra action to activate it. It says "Roll Fists or another appropriate skill to make your victim bleed." Not attack or stress or consequence.
Granted, it is still pretty vague, but I feel like an extra action to activate this is appropriate. It isn't the only power that requires one (though the only one that can be defended against). And it eliminates the whole "nonbleeding consequences" issue.

[Hick Jr]

I would say that "bleeding" could be a simple mild consequence. and "Roll Fists to make your target bleed" is a really vague sentence. It can be interpreted as a maneuver that you have to tag for effect to activate the power, it can be a simple stress-dealing attack, it can be a consequence that has to be invoked for effect, or it can just plain be a consequence.

It's a weird power.

[Taran]

That stuff can be fun, actually. But not if it's an excuse to shut down Blood Drinker.

As for Lasting Emotion, it's just as useful if your opponent takes non-traditional Consequences. Because Consequences aren't for exerting narrative control over your targets. If you want to influence someone, maneuver or take them out.

Anyway, there's no right interpretation of Blood Drinker. It's clearly vague. Personally I go with "physical Consequence or an appropriate maneuver".

I agree with the first statement and disagree with the second. 

Consequences can be invoked for effect just like any aspect, so it doesn't have to be a maneuver.  You are trying to exert narrative control over the target, In fact, that's why it's called lasting Emotion.  It's supposed to create emotional reactions in a target that last passed the scene.  "Lusting for vamp" can be a powerful aspect to invoke, especially if the vamp can compel it scene after scene.

Ignoring that narrative means the power is "do mental damage" which, to me, is clearly not the only intent.

[Tedronai]

Incite Emotion does not explicitly override the general rules regarding consequence selection (being that the defender can select any consequence they are capable of narratively justifying to their table), so it does not do so.
This is a fundamental rule of the game.  It does not disappear just because it inconveniences a character.

[polkaneverdies]

I agree with Tedronai about the core rule being preeminent, but for me the level of skepticism certainly raises as to what I would find "justifiable".

[Taran]

Incite Emotion does not explicitly override the general rules regarding consequence selection (being that the defender can select any consequence they are capable of narratively justifying to their table), so it does not do so.
This is a fundamental rule of the game.  It does not disappear just because it inconveniences a character.

I re-read the Consequences section and I'm satisfied with my interpretation,

YS 203, 204
The exact nature
of the consequence depends upon the conflict—
an injury might be appropriate for a physical
struggle, but an emotional state might be apt
for a social one. Whatever the consequence, it is
written down under the stress track.
Normally, the player taking the consequence
gets to describe what it is, so long as it’s compatible
with the nature of the attack that inflicted
the harm. The GM arbitrates the appropriateness
of a consequence and there may be some
back and forth conversation before settling on
one. The GM is the final authority on whether a
player’s suggested consequence is reasonable for
the circumstances and severity.

I added the bolded.  So, yeah, it has to pass muster and be appropriate to the narrative.  Anyone trying to get out of bleeding because they are fighting a Blood Drinker could do so but would have to clear it by the GM first.

[Tedronai]

I added the bolded.  So, yeah, it has to pass muster and be appropriate to the narrative.  Anyone trying to get out of bleeding because they are fighting a Blood Drinker could do so but would have to clear it by the GM first.

Sure. In precisely the same manner that they'd have to clear bleeding by the GM, and with no more or less prejudice.

[Taran]

Sure. In precisely the same manner that they'd have to clear bleeding by the GM, and with no more or less prejudice.

In which case Haru's interpretation of Blood Drinker is probably the correct one.  It would suck to have a power that never worked because people narrated their way out of it.  (pun intended)

If you buy a power that requires a roll to work and that roll succeeds, then the power should actually work.

[Tedronai]

If you want to mandate that your target be bleeding, then do it with a maneuver.
Consequences are decided by the defender (subject to reason), and if the attacker doesn't like it, they can suck it up.