Although (and I'm just being argumentative for boredom sake now...lol) it isn't really making a magical attack. It's a regular social attack using intimidation that gets a +2 from tagging a relevant aspect. For example, I could make a pure mortal kid with the non-magical aspect "super talented, good at everything" that is mechanically identical to 12 Year Old Dresden.I don't think any GM worth his salt would allow that as an aspect. For one, how do you compel it? You can't have an aspect that lets you get bonuses to everything all by itself.
I would say that invoking the aspect "untrained wizard" for effect is just as limited as a white court entering the nevernever. I wouldn't allow Harry to set a brick building on fire, but the books in the library...To be perfectly blunt, you're wrong. You provided three examples where you would invoke that kind of aspect for very potent effect. White Court entering/exiting the Nevernever is more of a flavor effect, and only one effect that's not useful in combat, physical, mental, or social.
To be perfectly blunt, you're wrong. .
So he wants to win the middle school long jump, throw down a fate point, roll athletics +3I would have him pay refresh and take a spell that lets him do a maneuver that he can tag to get +2 on his athletics roll. Since he doesn't know how to properly cast such a spell, he will probably have to take a lot of casting stress + backlash in order to make it work, which fits perfectly with Harry and Molly's description of the "2 hour long ice cream headache".
I don't think any GM worth his salt would allow that as an aspect. For one, how do you compel it? You can't have an aspect that lets you get bonuses to everything all by itself.
Personally I don't see anything wrong with what you are describing Cowboy. This is exactly the way that one uses aspects, and you aren't describing any sort of effect that mundane aspects (like your "Rampant pyromaniac" example) can't cover.He is describing someone regularly using magic without having a magic power.
I can think of several different ways to compel an aspect of "Super good at everything", can't you?Only a couple, off the top of my head, but still an aspect that can be invoked for a +2 to everything doesn't sound kosher.
He is describing someone regularly using magic without having a magic power.
Only a couple, off the top of my head, but still an aspect that can be invoked for a +2 to everything doesn't sound kosher.
Also, using aspects instead of powers takes away the ability to throw magic at will, all day long. So for example, young Molly C. is surprised by her mother before she can change her clothes. She tags her magical talent aspect for a veil (calling it a veil is just fluff) to get +2 to stealth allowing her to hide from Mom. As she just spent her only fate point, she is incapable of doing it again. If she had channeling:veils she would be able to make a veil whenever she felt like it (and also use channeling maneuvers to make veiled aspects to tag for +2 to stealth without a FP cost).Or, she has a decent Conviction score, and abysmal Discipline, meaning whenever she casts any kind of veil she's going to take backlash in addition to the extra shifts she'd need in power to actually hide. Then you don't have to monkey with the Aspect system to make it do things it's not meant to do.
Is the headache necessarily mechanically significant? It seems like that could also be a minor mental consequence that gave its +2 to have even more effect. I.E. 12 year old Dresden, uses +1 athletics, +2 tag "magical talent" aspect, +2 minor consequence "migraine" giving him a superb +5 long jump. Olympic caliber.If he's "magically talented," why not just give him a magic power? If it's part of his character that he has the ability to do magic--which is exactly what having an aspect like "magical talent" outright states--then he should have some magic power.
Is there a RAW problem with "good at everything" beyond being super cheesy? I was just trying to say that regular aspects can be rather broad in their scope.I believe that something in the guidelines on making aspects goes over what makes a good and bad aspect. I don't have the books with me, but I'm pretty sure they discourage having an aspect that applies to literally everything.
Being able to use magic--any magic at all--costs Refresh.
Do you have any actual evidence for this statement? Because I'm fairly certain that it's factually incorrect.You mean besides the fact that all the magical powers that give you a significant advantage, or let you do things differently or better than a mortal, have a refresh cost associated with them?
Then you don't have to monkey with the Aspect system to make it do things it's not meant to do.
Aspects are supposed to match up with and modify a powerset. Not make a free replacement of them.
You mean besides the fact that all the magical powers that give you a significant advantage, or let you do things differently or better than a mortal, have a refresh cost associated with them?
If you let someone cast spells without having the power and refresh cost, what's the incentive to ever actually take magic powers?
Or any power, for that matter. What's to stop me from using a fate point to declare that, while I don't have claws, my fists are Weapon:2 for a scene because I have the aspect "Lethal Weapon"? I could do it once a scene and just keep the 2 refresh I'd normally have to spend for the power.
Now that I'm thinking about it further though I think that as a GM I would ask for a specialization aspect (like Dresden's "Not so subtle", etc). I see the young talents only having access to those effects that might come naturally to them (veils or sensitive effects for Molly, fire or force for Dresden, etc).Alright, I'll just ask: Why? Why do that instead of just taking Channeling and using the aspect to modify and restrict it? What's the problem with using Channeling (aka, the beginner's magical power) to represent a beginner in magic use that makes this sort of thing preferable?
Making a veil, magically boosting your jumping ability, and setting fires without any outside tools are all things that are explicitly under the purview of the evocation system.
Alright, I'll just ask: Why? Why do that instead of just taking Channeling and using the aspect to modify and restrict it? What's the problem with using Channeling (aka, the beginner's magical power) to represent a beginner in magic use that makes this sort of thing preferable?
However, invoking an aspect to add +2 to stealth (and describing it as a veil), or invoking an aspect to add +2 to athletics (and describing it as force added magically), or invoking for effect to start a fire are all also things you can do with aspects. They are not explicitly under the purview of the evocation system, as I have just explained three RAW ways of doing those things. Casting spells is explicitly under the purview of the evocation system, but invoking aspects has absolutely nothing to do with evocation, and can achieve those effects even using a non-magical aspect (for example invoking "stealthy" to get a +2 to stealth, invoking "athletic" to get a +2 to athletics, or invoking "pyromaniac" to start a fire).The difference is that second set of aspects isn't using magic. In a setting that stresses that magic is a part of you, and changes who you are (the refresh cost sapping your free will), it seems wrong to me to let people use magic without costing them refresh.
Edit: Heck, if you really want to get technical, by RAW you can't use evocation to boost your jumping ability at all. You can use it to create an aspect that gives you a bonus, but then again you can do that mundanely as well. So I can't see how you could say that that is "explicitly under the purview of the evocation system" in the first place.If you're using magic to do it, yes. It's doing something within the setting to give yourself a boost, while a normal invoke is just "I'm good at jumping" rather than "I'm using magic to be temporarily good at jumping."
Because channeling is controlled. Channeling involves will on the part of the user and at least a little understanding of how to control this. A character with Channeling: Fire and a 0 discipline/conviction is still capable of throwing 4 shift fireballs, blocks and maneuvers. A character who only has the aspect "Innate Pyromancer" is capable of occasionally starting a fire. They can't attack, block or maneuver. There's a significant difference there.An Innate Pyromancer could certainly do all three easily under this interpretation. Maybe he starts a fire on someone's clothes (or hair)--or sets a fire to block pursuit or to create a distraction.
An Innate Pyromancer could certainly do all three easily under this interpretation. Maybe he starts a fire on someone's clothes (or hair)--or sets a fire to block pursuit or to create a distraction.
One thing I will say is that even if the GM does allow this sort of interpretation, the player making use of it should absolutely not count as a Pure Mortal at the least -- because what defines a Pure Mortal is the lack of any supernatural abilities. In addition, it seems to me that an aspect can only be used to boost a capability that you already have, not create a new capability. By this I mean that a character with a 'Pyromaniac' aspect might be very good at setting fires (bonus to rolls to do so) but can't simply create fire from thin air. So I'd probably charge at least a -1 for the ability to "perform impossible feats" through invoking the aspect.This. This is the point I've been trying to make the whole time.
Say for the sake of argument that Lil Molly can invoke her innate power for a +2 to veils.
If yes, then she's better off never casting a spell or making focus items, and instead just boosting her Stealth score if she wants to focus on veils (which, being the character's strong suit, she would). If not, then an untrained, powerless kid can be significantly better at making magical veils than someone who's training as a wizard--without ever incurring stress or consequences for it.
Maybe, if you built a Wizard Molly with very low discipline, conviction and a very high stealth it would be better to invoke an aspect for +2 stealth. Otherwise, she will cast a veil based on discipline and conviction (probably much higher than her stealth) add in her focus and specialization bonuses and then ON TOP of that she still has the option of tagging an aspect for a +2. That should be much higher than stealth +2.Yes, she could. Or, she could boost Stealth to 5, and have a 7-shift block at will without costing any stress or needing those focus items.
I think the white court opening portals example shows that non-spellcasters can invoke aspects for magical effects. Also I seem to remember in the novels that white court can make simple tracking spells, and knights of the cross can do some cool magic(ish) things that their power set doesn't coverNope. It's not an invoke, and it's Thomas using a specific spell that Harry more or less set up for him. The Knights do nothing that their template doesn't cover with its powers.
By this I mean that a character with a 'Pyromaniac' aspect might be very good at setting fires (bonus to rolls to do so) but can't simply create fire from thin air.
One thing I will say is that even if the GM does allow this sort of interpretation, the player making use of it should absolutely not count as a Pure Mortal at the least -- because what defines a Pure Mortal is the lack of any supernatural abilities.
It certainly isn't RAW.
I don't understand this statement. Are you saying it isn't RAW to gain a +2 bonus by spending a fate point with an appropriate aspect? Or that it isn't RAW to spend a fate point to gain a small narrative advantage based on an appropriate aspect? Because that's literally how the book describes the use of aspects.
The most clear use of the invoke for effect in RAW actually is a form of teleporting (mechanically speaking). It's called the Fortuitous Arrival.
I think what bugs me about all of this, is that mechanically this theoretical "Innate Wizard" isn't any different from a pure mortal. They can't cast spells, they don't have permanent bonuses (or even bonuses that last a scene), and they can't do anything that a mortal couldn't (from a mechanical perspective). However because they have a thematic difference you are making things harder for them. Because they have decided to have a magic bent instead of a skilled one. If the player chooses to describe that action in one way rather than another then your response as a GM should be in the description. As long as they are using the same mechanics as everyone else you shouldn't be arbitrarily slapping them with mechanical penalties. To take the thematics out of question, this would be like having two players choose different routes to get to the same place (for example a car and a train) and yet choosing to make one character late for no reason, or having two players decide to solve a problem in two different (equally valid) ways, and giving one character a penalty for it. That really bugs me.
I think what bugs me about all of this, is that mechanically this theoretical "Innate Wizard" isn't any different from a pure mortal. They can't cast spells, they don't have permanent bonuses (or even bonuses that last a scene), and they can't do anything that a mortal couldn't (from a mechanical perspective). However because they have a thematic difference you are making things harder for them. Because they have decided to have a magic bent instead of a skilled one. If the player chooses to describe that action in one way rather than another then your response as a GM should be in the description. As long as they are using the same mechanics as everyone else you shouldn't be arbitrarily slapping them with mechanical penalties. To take the thematics out of question, this would be like having two players choose different routes to get to the same place (for example a car and a train) and yet choosing to make one character late for no reason, or having two players decide to solve a problem in two different (equally valid) ways, and giving one character a penalty for it. That really bugs me.In this game, if you have a magic bent, that means you have magic. And if you have magic, that means you're not a pure mortal anymore. It means you've paid refresh to have magic.
Except here's the other thing that was bugging me last night (that I couldn't articulate). Fate points are a method for the player to manipulate the narrative. They have little to do with the character. A player with a mortal character could indeed create fire out of thin air or at a distance, by manipulating the narrative in such a way as to emulate a stroke of luck. We as human beings (characters too) can't do any of this stuff, but as players we are enabled to have candles fall over, or have something flammable sitting near the heater. I've always thought that the only difference between a wizard and a mortal in this system was justification (though I suppose the wizard is significantly more powerful, but meh). A mortal needs to come up with a reason why things happen, for a wizard "it's magic", but there's no reason why a player with a mortal character couldn't do almost anything a wizard could with sufficient creativity.I'm not disagreeing that a mortal can get a mechanical advantage out of his aspects. I'm just saying that you can't say "It's magic," without paying to use the magic. As others have pointed out, an invoke still has to make sense, and part of that making sense is having it fit with the character and his powers (or lack thereof).
PS: Sorry for the long and rambling posts.
It's not just about pure mechanics. The thematics matter.
In this game, if you have a magic bent, that means you have magic. And if you have magic, that means you're not a pure mortal anymore. It means you've paid refresh to have magic.
I'm not disagreeing that a mortal can get a mechanical advantage out of his aspects. I'm just saying that you can't say "It's magic," without paying to use the magic. As others have pointed out, an invoke still has to make sense, and part of that making sense is having it fit with the character and his powers (or lack thereof).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if it's a thematic difference, then you should deal with it thematically. It bugs the crap out of me, when we have two things that are mechanically identical (or similar) but one gets mechanically penalized because of thematics, and here's why: it stifles creativity. Have you ever, as a player, come up with something creative and interesting (even if it's just an unusual solution to a problem) and then the GM goes "Well, I guess you could do that, but it'll be at a negative [really difficult modifier]." It sucks, and it makes you not want to try it. If someone gets mechanically penalized for coming up with an interesting story then they're going to stop trying to make an interesting story, and then everyone loses out.Occasionally. But if it's something that the character literally isn't capable of, because he or she simply doesn't have the ability, I accept it. "It doesn't work that way," and "No, you can't set fires with your mind because you don't have a magic power" are plenty acceptable reasons to me, as a player or GM. Yes, it sucks, but hey, sometimes we can't do everything we want.
Also this isn't strictly true. Pure mortals have no powers. Their template has no specifics on aspects, or their use. Butters is a great example of a pure mortal with a magic bent, as he is capable of small rituals, etc.Spoilers for GS:
Here's a question. How would you make a character with a little bit of magic, but no powers at all (I.E. you didn't want constant access to spellcasting or anything else)?
The quick and dirty circle he did in Dead Beat is something, like I said before, that I'd allow once, maybe twice, as a GM before I told the player, "Look, if you wanna use magic regularly, you should take the power."
As for the question, I'd give them Ritual or Channeling, but low or no ratings in the relevant skills, and an aspect along the lines of "Don't know how to control my power". Then if they want to use the effect, they have to pay for it the regular way--for someone with 0 Conviction, even casting a rudimentary aspect (3 shifts) would already be a Consequence-worthy action just from calling up the power in the first place (that '2 hour ice cream headache') before even considering they're rolling from 0 discipline.
Then as they take milestones, they can raise their Conviction and Discipline to represent training (self or otherwise), and turn that fledgeling magic use into directed magic use (exactly like Molly and Harry did).
Actually all sorts of things disagree with you. Firstly according to thematics a circle is something any mortal can do at any time if they have sufficient knowledge and a little blood. Secondly mortals can actually perform rituals without having the ritual power. It's called "Common Ritual" and it's a trapping Lore.Common rituals, yes.
And again this bothers me, because you are forcing a severe mechanical handicap, with absolutely no mechanical upside. If you offer this solution to a character who proposes the "Wild talent" character concept, they will turn you down and find something else to play. Then you will never have a "Wild talent" character, which is a pity because they can be lots of fun.Hate to say it, but sometimes not every character concept works out. Some things just don't work in any given system.
Given that, with the right circumstances, you can 'buy' a power for a scene just from spending fate points and that channeling less it's focus item slots is about refresh, I see nothing wrong with someone sufficiently unskilled in magic that they can't reliably call up meaningful amounts of power having their unreliable access to magic represented as a few aspects that the occasionally invoke for trivial spells.True, but I got the sense from that write-up that temporary powers were meant to be along the lines of "You grab Mjolnir for a scene" or "The Demon lets you use a little bit of his juice for a while," not something that's supposed to be an inborn ability of the character.
True, but I got the sense from that write-up that temporary powers were meant to be along the lines of "You grab Mjolnir for a scene" or "The Demon lets you use a little bit of his juice for a while," not something that's supposed to be an inborn ability of the character.
I mean, under that logic, you could have a "pure mortal" wizard or sorcerer who just spends 3 fate points every time he wants to use Evocation for a scene--but otherwise keeps the +2 refresh bonus.
If you look at Dead Beat when Harry is listing off the "powers" of the people huddled at Mac's bar, some of them are very low powered ones - but they are all magic powers.
Here's the thing that I see. Everyone is looking at the pure mortal refresh bonus as a thematic thing. Which of course makes absolutely no sense because refresh isn't a function of the setting, but of the system. Pure mortals get more refresh because powers are powerful (two to three times better than equivalent refresh in stunts) and they don't get access to them. It's a balance issue. So if you have a character, which from the system's view has no powers, then they should be pure mortal and gain the refresh bonus. Thematics doesn't (or shouldn't) come into that at all. Especially as I pointed out that this character would have next to nothing over a mortal with a creative player and good aspects.Neither would someone with only Cassandra's Tears--in fact, having that power arguably makes you worse off than a pure mortal, since not only are you losing that Pure Mortal bonus, but you take a penalty to social rolls and it doesn't help you much mechanically.
Now go ahead and point to the section where Harry lists off the mechanical representations of those powers and their associated refresh costs. Because otherwise this is entirely irrelevant.
'It' is an ability to use magic. That makes it a power.
This is your conclusion, but it is not an argument.
So I was thinking about a proto-wizard, completely untrained with no magical powers, and realized that just using aspects could make a pretty cool magical character. i.e.
Name: 12 year old Dresden
Template: Pure Mortal???? (the +2 refresh is questionable)
High Concept: Council level magical talent, ZERO training
Skills: Lets just say everything at average +1 for sake of argument
Stunts/Powers: NONE
Refresh: 2 (4???) Hydrophobic
Now we have a character who for the low price of 1 fate point, can tag or invoke for affect his high concept for nearly anything. So he wants to win the middle school long jump, throw down a fate point, roll athletics +3. He wants to set the building on fire, throw down a fate point, invoke for effect. He wants another fate point, his power goes crazy and something bad happens.
If the bonus from lawbreaker stunts can stack with the +2 from tagging the high concept, we can build a frightening junior warlock like this too.
Name: Billy D. Warlock
High Concept: Talented Warlock with ZERO training
Aspect: Naturally manipulative and intimidating
Skills: good rapport and intimidation +3
Powers: Lawbreaker Third (twice) -2
Refresh: 0 (Hydrophobic)
Say billy wants to make you do something. He self compels his high concept to use black magic, and banks a fate point. He makes a social attack with rapport or intimidation, spends his fate point to tag his high concept, and gets another +2 from Lawbreaker Third (is it Kosher to use mental magic for social attacks?). This gives him a +7 social attack! Say he had another fate point saved up to use. He can tag his manipulative aspect and bring his social attack to +9! Throw down a black magic fueled social maneuver, and Billy can pretty easily pull of some +11 mindbending! That's enough to give a submerged warden nightmares.
The important difference I see between an aspect and the suggestion of "magical" aspects is in fact the magic.
No, it's the original premise that the OP was asking about.
If you think 'That makes it a power' is representative of the original premise of this thread, then I think we can safely call this debate pointless.
You could mimic the cloak of shadows power with a stunt or two, and you would not lose your pure mortal status. Take cloak of shadows for the exact same mechanical benefit, and you are a supernatural character. I see the same reasoning applying here.
If you think 'That makes it a power' is representative of the original premise of this thread, then I think we can safely call this debate pointless.The original premise of this thread was someone asking about someone who explicitly has magic. That's what I was pointing out.
Explicitly having magic means it's a magic power.
Again, this is clearly not a matter of consensus.
That said, Richard, I was trying to retain the OP's idea of having the magic provide a bonus to rolls; mundane effects aren't really useful in that sense--they're more along the lines of flavor, not much like what the OP was talking about. I believe somewhere in there it says if Harry wanted to use one of those mundane effect spells to some significant advantage, then he'd have to cast it as a real spell instead.
Again, this is clearly not a matter of consensus.So tell me. How can someone have magic power--not using common ritual, not using a magic item someone else made, but having magic power as part of their being, who and what they are as the OP suggested--and still be Pure Mortal?
So tell me. How can someone have magic power--not using common ritual, not using a magic item someone else made, but having magic power as part of their being, who and what they are as the OP suggested--and still be Pure Mortal?
The book's clear, as was said earlier. Pure Mortal is defined as people who "don’t have anything supernatural going on."
If a character's got some kind of magical nature to them, they're not Pure Mortal. If they're not Pure Mortal, it stands to reason that they have some kind of magic power to put on their sheet, even if it's a -0 refresh power that's going to be trouble as often as it's an asset.
So please, tell me where this doesn't hold up. Tell me where I'm wrong or where the point of debate is.
And Richard, I got the sense from the Mundane Effects thing that they were without cost or a roll because a caster would have no trouble with it because they know magic. That they're a trick that's only easy because the caster can do so much more. Harry can cast Flickum Bicus without any stress or a roll now, but as we see in flashback, the first time he cast it took considerable effort. What the OP was talking about was 'accidental' use of magic to direct advantage on rolls, which is more in line with a free tag of an aspect.
Again, this is clearly not a matter of consensus.
I think if you're charging a whole refresh for it, it should have a solid mechanical benefit. Like this:
Minor Magic [-1]: You are either a budding apprentice, a late bloomer, or otherwise have a very minor talent for magic. While not capable of true Evocation or Thaumaturgy, you can tag your high concept for effect, a reroll, or a +2 to any one roll per scene justified by your wild, untrained, but potentially potent magical talent. You may also be subject to compels when your magical talent gets out of your control. With time, effort, and / or instruction, you may be able to upgrade to Channeling, Rituals, Evocation, or Thaumaturgy (spending the appropriate refresh). If so whichever full spell casting power you take replaces this power.
Ex: Here are just a few.
Underdeveloped Third Eye (spend a fate point to use Sight)
Uncontrolled Were-Form (only gets furry and claws when angry)
Latent mutant ability: (spend a fate point for a creature feature? etc)
(sanitized for greater clarity)I don't think that added clarity. It did show bias by choice of terms...which doesn't help clarity much. :/
All of which are explicitly not what is being discussed in the OP, unless 'gets furry and claws' is just a fluff change with no mechanical backing beyond a +2 bonus to a single roll.Nobody is denying that you can invoke an aspect for a +2 to a roll.
As I understand it, the vocal argument, here, goes something like this (sanitized for greater clarity):
Fluff Concept X demands that you not receive Crunch Y.
Crunch Y is denied only if you posses a Crunch from group Z.
Thus Fluff Concept X must possess a Crunch from group Z even though no such Crunch currently exists that supports the Concept, and the entire Concept can be mechanically represented using existing Crunch.
Since no such Crunch currently exists, we must design one and force it on Fluff Concept X.
My, and apparently others', objections to this stem from using Fluff to dictate Crunch (and then, for bonus points) to dictate Fluff.
So, please, tell me, if the character clearly and explicitly has a magical power, as per the OP's original post, why is it so objectionable to have them take a magical power to represent it?
...a proto-wizard...magical character...Council level magical talent...his power...use black magic...black magic......then they're not eligible for this...
Pure mortals are ordinary (or mundanely extraordinary!) people who don’t have anything supernatural going on...they don’t bring any supernatural oomph to the table...If this character ever takes a supernatural power, this refresh bonus goes away immediately...
What's the reason for the extra two fate points on refresh?
As I understand it, the vocal argument, here, goes something like this (sanitized for greater clarity):
Fluff Concept X demands that you not receive Crunch Y.
Crunch Y is denied only if you posses a Crunch from group Z.
Thus Fluff Concept X must possess a Crunch from group Z even though no such Crunch currently exists that supports the Concept, and the entire Concept can be mechanically represented using existing Crunch.
Since no such Crunch currently exists, we must design one and force it on Fluff Concept X.
Musts: Pure mortals may not take any supernatural
powers. In exchange for this restriction,
pure mortal characters get a +2 bonus to their
starting refresh. If this character ever takes a
supernatural power, this refresh bonus goes
away immediately (which may be mitigated by
dropping one or two mortal stunts).
Except for the "make magical effects" part.
Tell me where, in the books, it says you can make magical effects--without an outside tool--and remain a Pure Mortal.
That's why I suggested that -0 refresh power a few pages ago, which lets the character get the effect with a free tag, rather than a fate point, as a compromise. It's a no-cost power, with a tangible benefit (not having to spend a fate point for the effect once per scene).
Now it looks as though the designers of the game gave mortals a bonus to refresh because they can't have powers. My character can't have powers, so I will give him two extra refresh. Am I wrong?
And that is what I have a problem with. Because I came up with a cool story for this character, I get penalized. If I described this character as merely a lucky mortal (or simply never explained where the luck comes from) I would have been capable of all of the same things but with no penalty. It's discouraging creativity in preference of RAW over intent and I hate it when my GM or players stick to the RAW even when it is impractical or even (in this case) harmful.
And that is what I have a problem with. Because I came up with a cool story for this character, I get penalized. If I described this character as merely a lucky mortal (or simply never explained where the luck comes from) I would have been capable of all of the same things but with no penalty. It's discouraging creativity in preference of RAW over intent and I hate it when my GM or players stick to the RAW even when it is impractical or even (in this case) harmful.Isn't this an issue with almost every game system? System mechanics create limits - that's part of their function. Trying to do something outside of those limits is difficult / against the rules intentionally.
PS: I also hate it when people say that the discussion is pointless. They said that four pages ago, and in the intervening space we have several interesting powers (which may not work for myself or the OP, but may have use for others) as well as lots of good analysis of the issue. If someone has this same question and comes here in the future they will be able to look at it from several angles and see the points laid out (which are not the same thing over and over). Discussion is good.
And that is what I have a problem with. Because I came up with a cool story for this character, I get penalized. If I described this character as merely a lucky mortal (or simply never explained where the luck comes from) I would have been capable of all of the same things but with no penalty. It's discouraging creativity in preference of RAW over intent and I hate it when my GM or players stick to the RAW even when it is impractical or even (in this case) harmful.
I'd say his supernatural good luck is a power, similar to "Guide My Hand"'s trapping of being able to be in the right place at the right time without having to spend a fate point for it.
The difference I see is that a Lucky Pure Mortal would have the +2 refresh bonus, but would have to spend one of those fate points every time he wants an advantage from it. A Luck Scion would have a -0 refresh power, and be able to take advantage of the ability without spending that fate point (once a scene, or whatever). If they use that power more than once between refreshes (and if it's the basis of the character, it's a safe bet they will), then they're already breaking even. More than that, and you're coming out ahead. And if you and the mortal both have no fate points, then you've got the advantage.
You could not mimic cloak of shadows with stunts, as one of it's facets is a supernatural ability with no shift value. If you could though, it would be with two stunts which would cost two refresh, because powers are almost exactly twice as powerful as equivalent stunts. This is why pure mortals get extra refresh. Because it costs them twice as much to achieve a remotely similar effect.Ok, granted. You can however mimic the +2 part and at least partly emulate the see in the dark part (reduce penalties for seeing in the dark by 2). Which actually fits with the point I'm trying to make. Let's take Molly again, the example is quite good for this. If she invokes a regular aspect to hide, you are implying, that she is good at hiding. If she is invoking a magical aspect, you are implying, that she is using magic to hide, vanishing into thin air, as it where. Which is the same thing here. Cloak of shadows costs 1 point of refresh, 2 stunts to emulate it (even if not perfectly) would still give you 1 net refresh, if you don't take anything else. This is the cost of the supernatural component.
Here's the thing. What if I don't want that power? Would you force it on me? Again, it's stifling creativity because you are looking at the RAW instead of the intent behind it.I'm sorry, but to me it looks like a "want my cake and eat it too" thing. I am able to do (though minor) supernatural feats and take the +2 refresh for being a pure mortal. Choice is one of the big parts of the game, and to me this is one of those choices.
Any system has limits, as UmbraLux pointed out. I'd argue real creativity is working with those limits, rather than pushing them aside when it seems inconvenient.I fully agree.
I personally get more satisfaction out of solving the question of "How do I make this work within the system?" than "What parts of the system can I put aside to make this work?"
And I hate it when people say "I think we can safely call this debate pointless" then continue to echo the same point over and over again.
I'd say that it should cost -1 to have minor magics (the sort of things a wizard can do for free). Yes, if this the only magic power the character has then it effectively costs -3 (1 for the power, 2 for no longer being pure mortal).
Why?
Because the game (and the books) seems to make it black and white - you either have power (which you put for) for you don't. Some of the minor supernatural things don't seem worth a point, not when compared to the other 1 point ones, but are all grouped together.
"Pure mortals are ordinary (or mundanely extraordinary!) people who don’t have anything supernatural going on—"
Notice how it doesn't say "...who don’t have anything big...". It's extremely clear - if you have "...anything supernatural going on..." then you're not a Pure Mortal.
It was more or less pointless before I chimed in. Now we are discussing the mechanics and cost of the power.
But, as you said, the debate is pointless.
Pure Human is not fluff and its Crunch overrides Fluff. If you are adding fluffy supernatural anything to a character then you have lost the crunchy bits of Pure Human. Saying "my PC has an ill defined supernatural ability that is defined by this aspect" is saying that "My PC has a supernatural ability" which is that same as saying "My PC isn't Pure Human".
To quote the Pure Mortal template again:
"Pure mortals are ordinary (or mundanely extraordinary!) people who don’t have anything supernatural going on—"
If you have something supernatural going on, you're not a pure mortal.
Rather I replied to the person who wanted to continue a debate after he said "I think we can safely call this debate pointless.".
If you think 'That makes it a power' is representative of the original premise of this thread, then I think we can safely call this debate pointless.
Nice job tearing my words right out of any meaningful context into the realm of fairy godmother spin-doctors.
And as I read the above message I can see that I'm not helping things. I'd deleted it, but that would be trying to unsay something and that's impossible.
How about I list the points that we are debating and see if everyone agrees that they are happy with their positions and not likely to change?
OP:
Name: Billy D. Warlock
High Concept: Talented Warlock with ZERO training
Aspect: Naturally manipulative and intimidating
Skills: good rapport and intimidation +3
Powers: Lawbreaker Third (twice) -2
Refresh: 0 (Hydrophobic)
Positions:
1) This isn't a Pure Mortal / This is a Pure Mortal
2) the OP is talking about a power / The OP isn't talking a power
3) this is a power that fits what the OP was talking about (two versions) / An aspect will do.
4) Pure Mortals have no supernatural or magical anything / Pure Mortals can have magic connect or powered aspects.
5) Huge threads of 'debates' where no one position changes are bad for the forum and tend to drive new users away.
6) Debating about debating doesn't really add to the discussion.
7) There's a thin line between ironic and side - which I probably crossed. Sorry about that.
Death or Richard, would you care to address, in any meaningful way beyond forcing these characters to take a power, the explicit explanation of the reasoning behind the Pure Mortal bonus being that they have no supernatural Powers? With particular emphasis on the absence of any mention of other representations of supernatural anything as a contributing factor to that compensation?I'm not sure I understand quite what you're asking, but I'll try to answer as best I can. I'd also ask that you take it down a notch, because you're coming off as confrontational in a lot of these posts, particularly with that "in any meaningful way" line, implying that what I've said up to now isn't meaningful.
I think both sides of this are valid, however I dislike the idea of forcing one side or the other on a player.Really, there's a lot of things that could be considered "forced" on a player because of their character concept. If you want to play a wizard, you're required to take Thaumaturgy even if you never plan on doing rituals.
Death or Richard, would you care to address, in any meaningful way beyond forcing these characters to take a power, the explicit explanation of the reasoning behind the Pure Mortal bonus being that they have no supernatural Powers? With particular emphasis on the absence of any mention of other representations of supernatural anything as a contributing factor to that compensation?
As for forcing a player to take something - I'm not writing the background or the character sheet. The player chooses what he wants to play. If he decides on something that doesn't fit the Pure Human template then he decides on something that doesn't fit the Pure Human template.
I'm not sure I understand quite what you're asking, but I'll try to answer as best I can. I'd also ask that you take it down a notch, because you're coming off as confrontational in a lot of these posts, particularly with that "in any meaningful way" line, implying that what I've said up to now isn't meaningful.
Powers and stunts are the mechanical representation of a character's High Concept and aspects, so in the raw math of the game, that's what it refers to as the basis for what determines Pure Mortal/Non-Pure Mortal status. But that doesn't mean you can get around losing the bonus through a supernatural aspect.
The "fluff" and "crunch," as you put it, aren't, and shouldn't be, entirely separate from one another. Your "fluff" helps to determine your "crunch," and--to the extent that the outcome of dice rolls can affect your "fluff" in the form of Extreme Consequences and the mechanics of the Lawbreaker power--the opposite is true too.
Really, there's a lot of things that could be considered "forced" on a player because of their character concept. If you want to play a wizard, you're required to take Thaumaturgy even if you never plan on doing rituals.
Here is a fundamental point of disagreement. You appear to be looking only at the "musts" part of that template while I look at the description as well. The description has the "no supernatural stuff" line I've quoted several times and that is the bases for my "no supernatural stuff" position.
Personally I would ask you a question in response. What if he decides on something that doesn't fit any template at all? What would you do then? (And I'm totally not trying to be snide, or lure you into something here, I would actually like to know your answer to this question, I think it will clarify a few things)
I am suggesting that the same reasoning used to give the Pure Mortal template their iconic bonus could and should apply to this prospective character as well, and that since the same reasoning applies, the same result should, as well, namely that a character that has been voluntarily denied the benefits of supernatural Powers gains two additional refresh unless and until that character permanently gains supernatural Powers by any means.
So that's where we differ so strongly. We can all agree that a pure mortal is a pure mortal because they don't have anything supernatural, but when Tedronai and I look at the place in the template where it talks about the refresh bonus we see that it says "Pure mortals may not take any supernatural powers. In exchange for this restriction, pure mortal characters get a +2 bonus to their starting refresh." And we assume then that any other template that may not take powers should gain a +2 bonus to their starting refresh.
Personally I would ask you a question in response. What if he decides on something that doesn't fit any template at all? What would you do then? (And I'm totally not trying to be snide, or lure you into something here, I would actually like to know your answer to this question, I think it will clarify a few things)
I think I see where you are coming from (not sure I agree though) ...but... I still require some clarification.
Pure Mortals can't grow into something supernatural without losing that +2 refresh. Would you also agree that any concept without powers would lose the +2 refresh as soon as it acquires a power?
I'd lay out what the upper limits of the template were going to be without deviating from the high concept (via story events). I'd still allow them to perhaps gain items of power, gain sponsored magic, become a vampire (infected) or a wereform, etc. However, I'd create a template-like layout for the character in question. I'd work out what I expected the character to have to buy initially. I'd likely barter back and forth for game balance issues.
It would be a custom creation...not a PC without limits or requirements.
Personally I would ask you a question in response. What if he decides on something that doesn't fit any template at all? What would you do then? (And I'm totally not trying to be snide, or lure you into something here, I would actually like to know your answer to this question, I think it will clarify a few things)Eh, like I said before, templates are more like guidelines, and you can certainly have a PC that doesn't fit one found in the book--I play a valkyrie in one game, and there's no template for that, for example, and the Scion template reads a lot like the book shrugging and going, "Do whatever you can sell to your GM." I remember hearing that one of the original tester groups came out with a character that was some kind of sentient whip.
If a player came to me with a character idea that didn't readily fit a template, I'd do my best to get it to work mechanically to their satisfaction--while reminding them that there are some things that just don't work in the system (had a prospective player asking me about turning people into toads with evocation once, for instance).To be honest, for me there are only 2 templates, really: pure mortal and supernatural. I see the templates in YS more as guidelines along the lines of "this is how your character could look like". Then you can just go and fit your powers to the character you have in mind.
To be honest, for me there are only 2 templates, really: pure mortal and supernatural.
The reasoning for the existence of the Pure Mortal bonus is explicitly stated.Becq isn't wrong, though. Do a quick Ctrl+F search for "free will" in Your Story, and you'll see that nearly every time, it's equated with Refresh, and mentioned in tandem with supernatural abilities and nature reducing both refresh and free will. Free will = refresh = supernatural nature = supernatural powers. You can't just point to the crunch and ignore the fluff. They're meant to go together, like a s'more. Sure, you could just have the graham cracker and chocolate, but you need the marshmallow to make it really work.
This is fact. It is not up for debate.
Attempting to posit new reasoning for its existence to support a conclusion denied by the existing, official, explicit statement, is fallacy.
Not necessarily a deeper backstory. Just a different one.
If you think the -0 refresh power that I've suggested (a free +2 on pretty much anything once a scene) isn't enough, what would you suggest? What power would make it worth it?
The reasoning for the existence of the Pure Mortal bonus is explicitly stated.
This is fact. It is not up for debate.
Attempting to posit new reasoning for its existence to support a conclusion denied by the existing, official, explicit statement, is fallacy.
the Pure Mortal bonus almost acts as a "positive" version of a Lawbreaker stunt. A Pure Mortal is someone who has not made magic or the supernatural a part of who they are. This is not to say that they can't come in contact with magic -- they can still have access to the temporary powers rules on YS92, for example. They might be able to draw a magic circle now and then as Butters did, or drink a potion made by their wizard boyfriend. The supernatural hasn't become part of who they are, so they are still Pure Mortal.
I'm simply talking about two characters who desire a "Lucky" aspect. Neither wants a power, because they want their refresh to go to specific stunts that benefit their specific area of expertise (this is better than your power because it provides a constant bonus). One chooses the aspect "Lucky" and the other chooses the aspect "Blessed by the goddess of fate" or "My great, great, great, great, etc, etc, grandmother Clotho." The second aspect is "hotter", creates a better story, and gives more to the GM and the game, and yet he would lose his refresh bonus. That's unequal and discourages better aspect/story.I wouldn't think that either character would lose the Pure Mortal on the basis of that aspect. After all, it represents an outside influence, not an internal supernatural capability. (Note that the player, not the character, is able to manipulate the aspect.) If, on the other hand, you chose something like "Luckomancer" -- as in the ability for the character to use magic to manipulate luck, then the situation is different.
Sorry, Sinker, I thought we were still on the 'untrained magical talent' subject.
I know that you don't like being asked for "official rules calls", but this has more to do with the reason behind a small part of the game. The why behind the Pure Mortal refresh bonus and how much it can be stretched. With the ultimate rules authority (the table) unable to reach a consensus I thought I'd ask you about the reasoning behind its design.
1) Does the Pure Mortal refresh bonus represent a sort of "negative lawbreaker" bit? I.E. does someone with no supernatural powers have more freewill than a character with any supernatural elements?
1a) If not, is it just a game balance thing without any underlying philosophy?
2) Can a Pure Mortal have a High Concept that mentions supernatural ability?
EG 1: "Untrained Wizard with White Council Potential" - to be tagged when the character's innate powers might save him?
EG 2: "Distant Descendant of the Luck God" - to be tagged when luck is needed.
3) Could a Pure Mortal have a non-High Concept Aspect that references the supernatural?
EG: A Background Aspect: "Distant Descendant of the Luck God"
We tried to build unity between the mechanical incentive (game balance, if you want to call it that) and the world philosophy, that pure mortals are potent because they have the benefit of so much free will. Mortals who get entangled in the affairs of the supernatural can turn into food, yes, but they can also screw it all up right proper (hello, Murphy).
It's also a representation that they have a lot of open potential in there, which locks down fast once they start heading a particular supernatural direction.
But, from a mechanical standpoint, the pure mortal bonus makes sense up until you start buying supernatural powers. Once you do, it goes away, full stop. Before then, you are, mechanically, a pure mortal without any supernatural powers, so I'd stick with keeping it.
Fred
Hopefully I'm not late to the party, but...A simple, "I agree with sinker and Tedronai" would have sufficed without being outright insulting. Particularly considering people on both sides have been able to see and understand where the others are coming from and agree respectfully to disagree.
sinker and Tedronai are completely correct about this. The arguments presented against them are, by and large, laughably bad. Reading them caused me to lose some respect for the people making them.
That would have implied that this is a matter of opinion. Which isn't really true.Insofar as "bad" is a value judgement, it is a matter of opinion.
Hopefully I'm not late to the party, but...
laughably bad. Reading them caused me to lose some respect for the people making them.
That would have implied that this is a matter of opinion. Which isn't really true.That, in itself, is a matter of opinion.
-Generally speaking, powers in this game are clearly defined in mechanical terms. What they do inside the game world is left to the group's imagination.
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.
Really, any choice is good as long is it isn't #1. If you don't have Powers, you get +2 Refresh. Period.
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.Yes, a bit off topic, but this thread needs more humour in it.
Leonard Hofstadter: I'm sorry, what?
Penny: It's a long story. Anyway, Sheldon, I promise I know what I'm doing.
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?
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.
Do we now have consensus that, under the RAW, it is possible to take an Aspect that precludes the Pure Mortal bonus?
The question is two fold. Firstly can one invoke an aspect to create supernatural effects (within the realm of invocation) without having powers of any kind,
Quite certainly not. An aspect has no refresh value.Nobody said that it had a refresh value, the question was, if an aspect (and mostly a high concept aspect at that) could disqualify a character from being granted the +2 pure mortal bonus. The changeling template makes that perfectly clear. You have potential powers, things you might take up in the course of an adventure, but you can start out without any powers and still not qualify as a pure mortal. The only requirement in this case is the high concept, linking you to your fay heritage, which is
an Aspect that precludes the Pure Mortal bonus.
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.That's been my position the whole time. Only that I don't think it is something minor, since the distinction between supernatural nature and mortal free will is a core theme of the game. Which also means, that an aspect like that should be compelled often enough, so you shouldn't need the 2 refresh for fate points. And if you want the bonus refresh to put it into stunts, then I definitely see it as cheating your way out of the penalty for taking powers.
you can start out without any powers and still not qualify as a pure mortal.
Quite certainly not. An aspect has no refresh value.
I'd say no - even though he has no Powers one of his aspects (his High Concept) precludes him from claiming the Pure Mortal template.
Here's this for an example - legal or no?
Name: William Flowerbane
HC: Evil Son Of Toot-Toot.
Trouble: No one takes me seriously.
Template: Changeling
Background
(To be filled in later)
Power Level: Choose one
Refresh: Consult Power Level, then add +2 (Not taking any powers so claiming the Pure Mortal bonus).
It's just the outline - but would that PC get the bonus? I'd say no - even though he has no Powers one of his aspects (his High Concept) precludes him from claiming the Pure Mortal bonus.
If we can't agree on that example - then we should agree to disagree.
Richard
For me, the pure mortal template and bonus are one and the same, if you are not eligible for the pure mortal template, you are not eligible for the pure mortal bonus, since taking that template is what grants you the bonus and nothing else. If you want to make the pure mortal bonus a +2 power, go for it, but I don't like that solution one bit.
Like I said, to me it is not that you start with (at submerged) 12 refresh and loose 2 of them when you choose a power, you start with 10 and gain 2, if you choose the pure mortal template.
Not : I don't have powers.
This is explicitly what it is.
YS73:
"Pure mortals may not take any supernatural
powers. In exchange for this restriction,
pure mortal characters get a +2 bonus to their
starting refresh."
If it was a bonus for being a Pure Mortal, there would be no 'In exchange for this restriction' in that passage.
It would read:
'Pure mortals may not take any supernatural powers. Pure mortal characters get a +2 bonus to their starting refresh.'
Do you see the difference?
i feel i'm just reasserting my point over aned over to little or no avail.
I don't believe that an aspect can, without the presence of Powers, make a character not get a Refresh bonus. But some aspects might not be appropriate on a character without Powers.
PS: The son of Toot-toot is a really bad example for this, because he could well have Chosen mortality.
Death or Richard, would you care to address, in any meaningful way beyond forcing these characters to take a power, the explicit explanation of the reasoning behind the Pure Mortal bonus being that they have no supernatural Powers? With particular emphasis on the absence of any mention of other representations of supernatural anything as a contributing factor to that compensation?
The reasoning for the existence of the Pure Mortal bonus is explicitly stated.
This is fact. It is not up for debate.
Attempting to posit new reasoning for its existence to support a conclusion denied by the existing, official, explicit statement, is fallacy.
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.
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.
They both have natural predispositions for trickery, they would both be small and quick (though not supernaturally so), they both have a relationship with the Fey, and could call on that for help. I would make them both "Pure Mortal"
Why would they both have a "natural predispositions for trickery" - when a character chooses mortality he gives up his Fae nature.
Why would they both be small? If embracing part of your Fae nature made you small (or turned your hair a watery green) then choosing mortality would revert it to its natural colour.
Why would both have relations to the Fey Courts? From Summer Knight:
"And until then I'm under the rule of the Court of my fae father. "
it is clear that once you choose mortality your ties to the court are broken - unless you (as a mortal) decide to reestablish them.
Please point out any part of the Pure Mortal Template that says "can, at any time, tap into supernatural powers".
If this character ever takes a
supernatural power, this refresh bonus goes
away immediately (which may be mitigated by
dropping one or two mortal stunts)
I don't believe that an aspect can, without the presence of Powers, make a character not get a Refresh bonus.The Changeling template seems to imply otherwise, as has been pointed out.
But some aspects might not be appropriate on a character without Powers.This I agree with 100%. And I feel that aspects stating existing magical or supernatural ability are such aspects.
My position on this is a logical extension of the separation between mechanics and narrative. Refresh does not exist inside the game world. It only exists within the mechanical framework. So removing it based on something that doesn't exist within the mechanical framework is just silly.You're right that nobody in the Dresden narrative is going to talk about their refresh rating. But they do talk quite a bit about Free Will, which is explicitly what the Refresh rate represents.
You're right that nobody in the Dresden narrative is going to talk about their refresh rating. But they do talk quite a bit about Free Will, which is explicitly what the Refresh rate represents.
@Sinker: There's a whole lot of nature vs. nurture in there--I've known meathead guys who've sired scrawny geeks and vice verse.
But not their parentage. A child gains something from their parent, regardless of whether they are supernaturally connected. Additionally if someone has a certain upbringing, their adult self is shaped by that, and that's not going to change drastically simply because they say so. It's simple genetics and environmental development.
Again, the child is always going to retain a bit of their parent. They would both be a little on the short side, because their parent was a little on the short side. Why would they suddenly grow a foot regardless of age and development stage?
This is of course going to vary from table to table, but the mortal is still related to the Fey. Nothing is going to change that. Toot-Toot was your dad. He always will be.
My major point though is to look at those two aspects. They could be invoked or compelled in exactly the same ways to create exactly the same effects (and additionally I would argue that if the mortal still has Toot-Toot in his High Concept, then he still has an ongoing relationship that is important to the core of his character). Neither has powers. Both have a supernatural aspect (which would preclude the "Pure Mortal" template according to you). So why should they be different?
And if the Changeling son Toot-Toot makes the decision to become the Pure Mortal son of Toot-toot, he grows to his old height, or the height determined solely by his human gene - whichever is higher.
PS: The son of Toot Toot is an awesome idea and someone should stat it out. All of a sudden, this kid shows up at Harry's door and offers his services as Squire to Za Lord.
I don't think Fix (literally the only example we have of a changeling choosing mortality) bears this out. Fix did not change significantly when he chose mortal.
Hmm, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't much like your changeling. He seems to have no accountability and little realism.
And as he rejects half of his life, he does so in a way that science can't explain. I'm drawing from the Carpenter family for this - and since I'll be referencing WoJs I'll use the spoiler tag.(click to show/hide)
Richard
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.
devonapple, or silverblaze for that matter, how would you define 'close to mimicking a power'?
What level of granularity do you require to consider anything I suggest to be a meaningful and persuasive definition?
I'm not sure precisely what you're asking, here, but preferably something for which I cannot, off the top of my head, provide an equivalent result for through the use of a properly worded and invoked mundane aspect.
I'm asking, simply, for the rules. You see, people have shifted the rules, assumptions, and goals of this debate countless times during the discussion, and I would prefer to have a baseline from which to work, rather than have the rhetorical focus shifted mid-discussion.I can't in good conscience provide the 'rules' for defining the boundaries a concept that I did not introduce and have only a single line of text to base my understanding on, when the one who provided that line and the accompanying concept, as well as another who claims to support it, is available to do so themselves.
So, what do you mean by "something"?By 'something' I mean 'whatever it is you provide to clarify your intent'.
Do you want an effect? Or the rationalization for that effect?See, that's the problem. I don't know whether 'mimicking powers' is a reference to effect, rationalization, narrative result, or narrative logic. That's part of what I was inquiring about.
The narrative result of an Invoke? Or the narrative logic which makes that Invoke acceptable?
I see most of this argument being derived from a stubborn refusal to include "Template" as a character trait. With that, this becomes easy -- either the character sheet has "Template: Pure Mortal" on it, in which case the character is wholely non-supernatural but does get the +2 refresh bonus that is built into the Template, or the character has "Template: <anything else>" on it, in which case there's no +2 refresh bonus.Umm, On the Character Phases Worksheet, there is, explicitly, a "Template" entry, which must be defined. Does that help decide things?
Even without having an explict "Template:" entry, though, every character does in fact have a Template defined on his sheet in the form of a High Concept, which is linked to Template.
IThat's basically the point I was indirectly trying to make in my little survey. If you want to have a supernatural aspect, that's cool. If your table wants to let such aspects grant aspect to minor supernatural capabilities, that's great, too. But having a supernatural aspect is exactly the same thing as choosing a supernatural Template, which means that you are something other than a Pure Mortal. And anything that is not Pure Mortal should not get the Pure Mortal refresh bonus.What and how broad is your definition of a supernatural Aspect?
devonapple, or silverblaze for that matter, how would you define 'close to mimicking a power'?
The RAW on Templates:
Pg 41 High Concept "...usually reflecting the character template in some way."
Pg 52 "Because picking a template, high concept, and trouble are all linked, they’re grouped together."
Pg 53 the entire "Choose a Template" section. Especially "The template is crucial to creating your character[; even with Quick Character Creation (page 68), this step is necessary."
I could go on, but why? If the above doesn't show that all characters have templates then nothing else would.
Richard
Interesting then, that not a single thing in Our World has one. Additionally this would completely disallow characters like Kincaid or Macfinn. Unless of course we decide that a custom template functions in that respect.I thought that was previously established in several threads regarding Scions.
Interesting then, that not a single thing in Our World has one. Additionally this would completely disallow characters like Kincaid or Macfinn. Unless of course we decide that a custom template functions in that respect.
I believe an Invocation of a Supernatural-themed Aspect counts as skirting a power if it satisfies one or more of the following criteria:
- bends reality (for or against the character) in a way that it wouldn't for another, Pure Mortal character with similar Skills and experience
- results in an effect (for or against the character) in a way that wouldn't or couldn't happen for another, Pure Mortal character with similar Skills and experience
- represents the character asserting a change in the world in a way that wouldn't be appropriate for another, Pure Mortal character with similar Skills and experience
- relies on an inherent quality in the character that couldn't be similarly accomplished by another, Pure Mortal character with similar Skills and experience
- relies on an a supernatural justification of any sort to accomplish something that could or couldn't be similarly accomplished by another, Pure Mortal character with similar Skills and experience
- emulates or replicates Evocation, Channeling, Thaumaturgy, Rituals, or any other Supernatural Power, in a way which couldn't be similarly accomplished by another, Pure Mortal character with similar Skills and experience
I think when it comes down to it, a lot of things which can be accomplished by Skill and experience *could* be replicated supernaturally. Heck, lots of Thaumaturgy spells are simply supercharged Skill rolls taken to implausible levels of effect and scope. But there will always be things which *no* amount of Skill or experience could plausible replicate, and that is the realm of the Supernatural.
"Luck" is one of those gray areas: in some systems, it is an inherent attribute of a character; in others, it is a power that can be purchased (though in those cases, it can usually be purchased even in low-power or non-superhero settings, because it is considered a gray area even in fiction). As such, I don't feel it to be an adequate gauge for something like this. That said, one may be able to invoke "Lucky" and "Luck Scion" for similar effects, but only "Luck Scion" will be able to justify being able to pass into the Nevernever through a casino or underground gambling den: the "Lucky" guy will just have to find another, more statistically plausible way.
What and how broad is your definition of a supernatural Aspect?To steal from Justice Potter Stewart,
If a Pure Mortal were to have a supernatural aspect, for example, "Very minor magical talent" that is not his High Concept, would he lose his Pure Mortal status?
Edit: In other words, if a Pure Mortal has a you-know-it-when-you-saw-it supernatural aspect (but without gaining any Powers), would he lose the Pure Mortal status?
To steal from Justice Potter Stewart,
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["supernatural aspect"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the aspect involved in this discussion is not that."
It's perfectly fine for a Pure Mortal's aspects to refer to external magical influences. For example, Murphy has the High Concept "Special Investigations Lead Detective", which could be argued puts her frequently into the position of having supernatural stuff happen to her (nah, really?!). And she has an additional aspect "I Don’t Know if I Trust Dresden, But He Gets Results" which gives her indirect access to Wizardry, which she frequently uses to gain information that another equally skilled investigator would never uncover. Yet she's Pure Mortal because they represent access to or a connection with the supernatural, without having any personal capabilities. Marcone is a "Freeholding Lord", making him a "supernatural player", and he has access to Gard's magic ... but has no inherent supernatural abilities.
by canon, if they [...] will eventually display) Wizard-level talent, they will also be found to have always had [-0] Wizard's Constitution.
Can you please provide a definitive reference for this?
Charity probably would have lost it when she let her magic atrophy.
There's also some Word Of Jim somewhere that a wizard's longevity has a lot to do with them actually using magic--so someone who hasn't used magic yet wouldn't necessarily have it. So Kid Harry wouldn't have always had it, and Charity probably would have lost it when she let her magic atrophy.
If a Pure Mortal were to have a supernatural aspect, for example, "Very minor magical talent" that is not his High Concept, would he lose his Pure Mortal status?My answer would be that a Pure Mortal is someone without anything supernatural going on -- at least internally. If the character is a Minor Talent (or Very Minor Talent, or Really Extremely Minor But Still Talented Talent) then he is that, rather than Pure Mortal. Think of the description "a little bit supernatural" as working a lot like the description "a little bit pregnant".
Edit: In other words, if a Pure Mortal has a you-know-it-when-you-saw-it supernatural aspect (but without gaining any Powers), would he lose the Pure Mortal status?
What happens if a vanilla mortal (Pure Mortal) loses all of their powers or IoP? Would they get back, even if only temporarily, their +2 Refresh?Well, first off a Pure Mortal doesn't have any powers or IoP to begin with. But if, say, a Bearer of the Almighty Doodad (a custom template featuring an IoP and nothing else) were to lose that item for good, then they would have a good argument for changing their Template from Bearer of the Almighty Doodad to Pure Mortal, which would involve changing their HC (and also the IoP-linked aspect, if different from the HC), removing the IoP from the sheet, and gaining the +2 refresh for being a Pure Mortal. This assumes a permanent loss; if the loss is temporary, then the character is going to be raking in Fate from the compels against the IoP-linked aspect, instead.
Depends on what "losing" them means. If they just misplace the IoP but can take it up again in short order, no. If they lose it in the sense that it doesn't belong to them anymore, I'd say yes.
Basically, Michael didn't get the refresh back when Harry lost the sword for him in Grave Peril; but he did when he put it in Harry's care following Small favor.
I'm curious now, if people are ok with custom templates, and we can all agree that the refresh bonus is a function of the pure mortal template, would people be ok with other custom templates that included the refresh bonus?
Yes;with a large caveat.This.
Caveat: I don't see a point in other templates that don't have powers. I'd just call it Pure Mortal. If the Pure Mortal wanted a plot where it turned out they had a secret parentage and were willing to change High Concept and template to acquire powers I'd be ok with that.
I'm fairly easy going about stuff if a good reason is presented. I'm also all about keeping stuff simple...so most custom templates would just be Pure Mortals...most likely.
Devon/Becq: So would you apply this definition and limitation of no supernatural Aspects for Pure Mortals to any and all Aspects that a Pure Mortal PC has?
Then we move on to how people believe that we determine whether a template deserves a bonus or not. Personally I believe that a template should award a bonus if you can't buy powers without changing templates.Which, really, only applies to the Pure Mortal template. I really fail to see how you would make a different template that gets the bonus (via not having any powers) but is not the Pure Mortal template.
Which, really, only applies to the Pure Mortal template. I really fail to see how you would make a different template that gets the bonus (via not having any powers) but is not the Pure Mortal template.
Which, really, only applies to the Pure Mortal template. I really fail to see how you would make a different template that gets the bonus (via not having any powers) but is not the Pure Mortal template.Not strictly true. Every template should have powers that are appropriate and (many) powers that aren't. For example, you can't buy Inhuman Strength as a Wizard without either changing your template or adding a second template. The difference is that the Pure Mortal template has no powers on the 'allowed' list and has no personal access to supernatural power of any sort -- and because of this gets the refresh bonus to compensate for the lack of flexibility.
I believe that several options have already been presented.
has no personal access to supernatural power of any sort -- and because of this gets the refresh bonus to compensate for the lack of flexibility.
This part, here, is deceptive, and not supported by the text.
The reasons for the bonus are explicitly presented. They do not include the ban on supernatural power beyond the ban on supernatural Powers.
The post I quoted was not truly discussing Pure Mortal characters, though, but characters of custom templates and whether the Pure Mortal bonus might ever be appropriate outside its original template.
As for your hypothetical list...
effects indistinguishable to the character from 'spontaneous combustion' is available for Pure Mortals thanks to the metagame nature of invokes. this has been previously established in this thread. this is not even a matter of flavour vs mechanics. there is no need for the character to even understand the source or nature of the effects of an invoke, let alone be the cause of them.
'tracking by scent' would generally be best represented by a bonus to the roll, or an off-setting of penalties to the roll (which amounts to the same thing, ultimately), and as such is generally an effect available to pure mortals given a different flavour
Just because you land on your feat doesn't mean you suffer no injury from your fall. This is a case of an over-reaching invoke, not of an over-powerful, or even Powered, aspect.
'just about any other holy power'? really? again, an issue of the GM not policing the power of invokes, not of a problematic aspect. I'd run that aspect about as leniently as I'd run 'Devoted Man of God', and not a whit looser
then we have yet more overreaching invokes followed by...
a bonus to the relevant roll no different from 'I guess I just have one of those faces', or 'Easily Forgettable', or 'A Cosmetics Department in My Handbag'
These effects, save only, possibly, 'I see dead people', are ALL effects available, with, at most, minor flavour substitutions, to RAW Pure Mortals
One of the things that bugs me when I look at a list like that is you are looking at the means and not the end.
So when invoking "Budding Pyromancer" what are you trying to achieve? A distraction? Easily done with mundane aspects. A fire? Easily done with mundane aspects. Etc.
Also I call shenanigans on "I lived through a gamma bomb". It has no justification, no reason why you lived through a gamma bomb, so it can't be invoked or compelled. It could just as easily be "I lived through a gamma bomb (by being very far away from it)" which would never be invoked for immunity, but for knowing where to be and where not to be.
I was going to say that there's only one thing I can think of that can only be achieved with supernatural aspects (that would be transferring to the NeverNever) but while I was sitting here I thought of a way to achieve that through mortal aspects.
you did not name the aspects I did.I named the effects you called out as problematically available by way of the aspects you named.
You also had no real rebuttal for "I see dead people".
I was going to say that there's only one thing I can think of that can only be achieved with supernatural aspects (that would be transferring to the NeverNever) but while I was sitting here I thought of a way to achieve that through mortal aspects.
You'd say that isn't supernatural?
Also, traversing the nevernever as a pure mortal?
And what I and others have repeatedly suggested is that you shouldn't separate the mechanics from the reasons for those mechanics.I'm not. The reasons for the mechanics are explicitly stated in the text of the bonus itself.
I'm not. The reasons for the mechanics are explicitly stated in the text of the bonus itself.You're separating the 'no supernatural powers' from 'nothing supernatural going on.' Supernatural powers are the mechanical representation of a supernatural nature. If you don't have a supernatural nature, you don't have supernatural powers, and vice verse. The two, fluff and mechanics, are linked directly to one another, and this hypothetical template has one without the other.
Time to flip the question. Other than character concept... if talking purely about efficiency or usefulness, why play a Pure Mortal? Other things can get the +2 bonus at you table, so why have the Pure Mortal Template?
You're separating the 'no supernatural powers' from 'nothing supernatural going on.'And you're equating them when the text does not do so.
Supernatural powers are the mechanical representation of a supernatural nature.'the', singular, implying 'only', a demonstrable error
If you don't have a supernatural nature, you don't have supernatural powers, and vice verse.And now we're no longer implying.
And you're equating them when the text does not do so.Putting both in the same section--the write-up of the Pure Mortal template--doesn't link them? The section has the description, then the mechanics that represent the description, just as any other template does. It basically says, "This is what the template means," followed by, "And here are the mechanics for everything we just said."
would it be more accurate to say that the lack of the Pure Mortal bonus is the mechanical representation of a supernatural nature, based on the fact that the Changeling template allows a character with no supernatural powers, but without the Pure Mortal bonus?It would be less inaccurate (so as to say that it's accuracy would still be found notably wanting to the point where conclusions drawn as a result would be unacceptably likely be faulty).
Time to flip the question. Other than character concept... if talking purely about efficiency or usefulness, why play a Pure Mortal? Other things can get the +2 bonus at you table, so why have the Pure Mortal Template?
It would be less inaccurate (so as to say that it's accuracy would still be found notably wanting to the point where conclusions drawn as a result would be unacceptably likely be faulty).EDIT: Removed unnecessarily confrontational line.
If one wants accuracy, the Pure Mortal bonus is the mechanical compensation for a template barred from supernatural Powers.
One of the things that bugs me when I look at a list like that is you are looking at the means and not the end.
The Pure Mortal bonus being associated solely with the Pure Mortal template within the RAW is thus easily explained by the Pure Mortal template being the only template existing in the RAW that is barred from supernatural Powers.
If that is the case, then that's wonderful for your homebrew game.
It easily meshes. A changeling with no powers is a pure mortal with a Fey parent. Just because you fit the musts for a template (in the case of changelings having a Fey parent) does not mean you must take that template.
No, a Changeling with no powers is a half mortal who has the powers of fairy running through their veins. Their powers can increase in a heartbeat. As the template says, that's the point.
You asked how the changeling fits with my view. I told you and you responded with "No that's wrong." If you ask for my opinion don't get uppity when I tell you.
Richard, in games you run, do you have players who want characters other than their own to be compelled invoke an aspect for effect to trigger a compel from you (as the GM), which is then funded and negotiated by you?
The handling of compels induced by player action on any character, player- or otherwise, that is not controlled by that player, is adjudicated based on a clarification of the RAI posted on these forums by Fred some time ago. The RAW itself, interpreted strictly, does not make that ruling clear.
And yet, after having yourself been the cause of this clarification, you have ignored it in your further discussions of this issue, even, at times, when confronted with it directly by others on this thread.
Merge the understanding of what a tag is (a free invoke) with the language about compelling other aspects on I believe YS107 and I believe the findings are clear.
Attempting to posit new reasoning for its existence to support a conclusion denied by the existing, official, explicit statement, is fallacy.
If a Pure Mortal PC were to acquire a "supernatural" Aspect (in the sense that counts for whatever definition of such an Aspect you have), would he lose his Refresh
If a Pure Mortal PC were to acquire a "supernatural" Aspect (in the sense that counts for whatever definition of such an Aspect you have), would he lose his Refresh and if such a loss result in a Refresh of 0 or negative Refresh, make him an NPC?
How would he "acquire" an Aspect?Are you asking mechanically how did he acquire the Aspect or are you asking more along the lines of story/fluff?
Richard
Are you asking mechanically how did he acquire the Aspect or are you asking more along the lines of story/fluff?
During our discussions I have always responded to your direct questions - while you have not done the same with mine. Please respond to the yes / no question in http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,31641.msg1381429.html#msg1381429 (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,31641.msg1381429.html#msg1381429).
Entirely aside from the referenced question being a trap. Any acceptable answer (being limited to 'yes' or 'no') concedes a point of contention in favour of Richard's position.
The question itself is the heart of a fallacy.
If the answer to all of those questions is "yes", then why are you bothering to play with the DV as a setting for your game?And this is what your argument has devolved into. 'If you don't like my interpretation of the rules, go play a different game.'
Other than choosing to change at a milestone, the only other way I can think of one of those Aspects changes is through an extreme consequence - and I don't see how one of those could force a supernatural aspect.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.
Richard
The character become a changeling when he/she is born.Yes...and maybe no. (I have commitment issues. ;) )
But Pure Mortals can't acquire every template.Why not? Couldn't your past have been hidden, even from yourself? If I go through life thinking I'm a pure mortal and never using power does it matter whether or not both parents were pure mortal?
Why not? Couldn't your past have been hidden, even from yourself? If I go through life thinking I'm a pure mortal and never using power does it matter whether or not both parents were pure mortal?
I'm sorry, but what part of the setting would allow an adult PC to discover that he was a White Court Vampire?Doesn't it do exactly that? It's been a while but I seem to remember one or more of the Raiths being manipulated until they killed accidentally.
Doesn't it do exactly that? It's been a while but I seem to remember one or more of the Raiths being manipulated until they killed accidentally.
Mechanically, if they never use powers hunger doesn't apply. So not an issue.
Shrug. It's an area I think can be fairly gray. The section you quoted even states "...the condition doesn’t truly take hold until the “virgin” White Court vampire has killed for the first time with his emotion-feeding abilities." What doe the phrase "truly take hold" signify?
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".
If they wouldn't do that, then why would they want to make him eligible for his chosen template?
The 'dick move', there, is on the part of the GM interpreting the Pure Mortal template in such a (-n unjustifiably) strict manner while simultaneously adopting a (possibly unintentional) house rule that opens up characters to such jackassery.
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!"
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.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?
There is no mechanically-backed 'heirarchy' of aspects.
I think those different choices in balance are behind many of the more heated discussions here.
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.
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.
I agree, the terms are loaded.No more loaded than the terms oft used to describe people who favor crunch over fluff and vice versa.
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?
I think you misunderstand the question Richard (mostly because you're viewing it through the context of the thread). What I see here isn't the 'fluff' and the 'crunch' contradicting, and as I said, I too dislike the term 'fluff'.
What I see here is the potential to create two characters that are functionally identical but are treated differently. What is the best thing to do in this circumstance? Is it better to honor the intent of the player and bend the rules or stick to your guns and stifle the player? Or is there another option that I'm not seeing?
What I see here is the potential to create two characters that are functionally identical but are treated differently because of 'fluff', story, description, etc. What is the best thing to do in this circumstance? Is it better to honor the intent of the player and bend the rules or stick to your guns and stifle the player? Or is there another option that I'm not seeing?
The question is what do we do when we have an imbalance like this. When two characters are functionally identical but the system singles one out.I guess that's where intention comes in. It is the part about choice that I have said earlier.
Talk to the player involved. Point out that he isn't playing a Scion of a Luck God. Point out that "The Luck God Winks At Me" has the same mechanical effect but is extrinsic to the PC (i.e. falls under the 'you've met supernaturals' part of that sentence - paraphrasing because I don't have the book open).
Looking at it from another angle - two characters go out to a bar and make subduction rolls. Both get Epic results and walk away with supermodels (or at least the best looking girls in the bar). Glossing over the next scene, both leave it at "I had intercourse, using protection". If one of the characters is a White Court Virgin and the other isn't, then you have two characters who have mechanically done the same thing (gone to the same location, made the same rolls, chosen the same results) and yet the system has singled one of them out for a radically different outcome. The character who wasn't a White Court Virgin had a good time while the White Court Virgin has killed his date and is now a White Court Vampire. Maybe one without the refresh to pay the difference in powers - going into negative refresh.
And all he did was what the other character did.
But that's the game we are playing. It is tied to a setting where Pure Mortals are Pure Mortals and if a White Court Virgin has sex for the first time without love then he becomes a White Court Vampire.
Richard
I don't see the potential for abuse because in the end an invoke is an invoke, regardless of the aspect.
Is is a HORRENDOUS example.
The characters you describe have NOT done the same things. One of them KILLED. The other DIDN'T.
Or, alternatively, they DID do the same things, and thus the WCv did NOT kill, and thus did not complete their transformation.
The transformation from WCv to WCV is not triggered upon 'having sex for the first time', but upon 'killing by means of feeding for the first time', and the two are leagues apart.
Ok, I guess that's just a place where we differ.
I'd rather encourage the player to be creative and invested in the world (setting be damned), and I don't see the potential for abuse because in the end an invoke is an invoke, regardless of the aspect.
Okay, we'll disagree about it being a good example of two characters doing the same actions (going to a bar, making a roll, having sex) with two different outcomes. As for when a White Court Virgin stops being a virgin and becomes a vampire - please re-read the explanation of the process given in Blood Rites. That's the process that the rules are attempting to simulate.
Ok, I guess that's just a place where we differ.
I'd rather encourage the player to be creative and invested in the world (setting be damned), and I don't see the potential for abuse because in the end an invoke is an invoke, regardless of the aspect.
I've been following the conversation for a while and this is a point I'd like to address briefly. If you want to say 'setting be damned' then by all means go for it. It's your table, your game, your world. But if you want to play a Dresden Files game, one set in the universe of the stories and the rules, then part of being invested in the world is accepting that there is a cost to being a supernatural thing. If one of my players (I actually don't have a game at the moment but hypothetically) said "I'm willing to give up the +2 refresh because I want to be directly descended from Zeus but I'm not going to take any powers" I would be thrilled because that guy is buying into the setting and saying 'My personal power be damned". And you know what, I would let him get away with murder (metaphorically) with that aspect because of it.
And if you instead had a player come to you and say, 'I would like to play this really interesting character that I've worked out, but I don't want to be overly punished for it mechanically, do you think we can come up with a way to work around the rules to keep the game satisfying? I only ask because I get kind of bummed out when the story says I'm this awesomely skilled exemplar of mostly-mortal kind, and yet end up failing at everything I do because of some technicality that says I have to suck, especially in comparison to the other player's characters...'
What would you say then?
'Screw game balance and player satisfaction'?
That wasn't meant to sound as antagonistic as it came across was it?That last bit was meant to be a sarcastic reference to the earlier 'setting be damned' polar alternative.
losing the +2 isn't a punishment. It really isn't. Is there anything anyone can say or any sort of proof that could ever change your mind on that?What terminology would you use to condense 'Being denied mechanical advantage meant to provide game balance solely on the basis of narrative flavour'?
Also, 2 refresh shouldn't hold someone back as much as that fictional player made it sound. I'll be honest, if a little blunt. I'd tell them there are likely ways to make the character just as good...or just wait for two significant events to go by.The ways to make the character 'just as good' are exactly what that hypothetical player was inquiring about. So long as they don't infringe on the core of the character, because changing the character is not a solution to the perceived mechanical punishment of that character concept.
Also, a more personal question. Please note; this isn't a "trap" this isn't an attempt to make you look foolish, I just want a few answers. I'm not trying to be rude or antagonistic. I'm genuinely curious if this conversation can yield anything more for me. After this many pages - Do you feel the arguement will ever resolve? Can I or Richard or those of like mind; ever change your mind? It is frustrating arguing/debating with someone who can't see my point of view at all. Is it frustrating for you? I would think it would be.So long as we have no clear resolution within the RAW, but what seems to be a direct statement from the game designer, the only resolution I can see would be either an acceptance of that statement, a pointed rejection of the same, or endless frustration that, hopefully, trails off into silence on the issue.
Though, really, I can even see your point of view and think it is fine for your group - I just don't agree with it in 99% of cases.
To be honest, you seem unreasonable in this regard. You seem to think we can't possibly be serious or have our groups we game with use our approach to the issue.
I value your opinion and ideas in most everything else. I don't want this to seem like an attack. At this point I feel the horse has been beaten, killed, beaten to much, zombified, then beaten more. Obviously many disagree. (Hell, I like beating dead horses, but I prefer to see someone gaining ground in the debate. I really don't here.)
I don't particularly feel offended by being called 'unreasonable' for my opposition to disregarding direct, explicit statements, both in the RAW and from the game designer.
I understand and can sympathize with the goal that you seem to be attempting to reach with your interpretations. I just think that your methods are unnecessary and open up the possibility of significant 'collateral damage'.
What terminology would you use to condense 'Being denied mechanical advantage meant to provide game balance solely on the basis of narrative flavour'?
"I spend a Fate Point to Invoke my "Lucky SOB" Aspect: something shakes loose from the ceiling and hits the demon on the head, giving me a round to run for the door."
"I spend a Fate Point to Invoke my "Grandson of a Luck God" Aspect: This demon lost a bet with my Grandfather, and still owes him a debt. I'm calling it in. Can I get him to tell me who summoned him?"
I guess that's where intention comes in. It is the part about choice that I have said earlier.
Sticking with the luck character, I can see 3 possible ways for this to work:
1. The character is just lucky, the player intents for the character to not take up any powers for now
2. The character is a distant son of a luck god, the player intents to not take up any powers from that
3. The character is a distant son of a luck god, the player wants to play out that part along the road, taking powers as they fit, but takes no powers at creation
"I spend a Fate Point to Invoke my "Grandson of a Luck God" Aspect: This demon lost a bet with my Grandfather, and still owes him a debt. I'm calling it in. Can I get him to tell me who summoned him?"
Edit: if that's a completely ludicrous example, my apologies. But this is what I'm thinking of when I draw a difference between mundane and intrinsic supernatural Aspects.
That wasn't meant to sound as antagonistic as it came across was it?
losing the +2 isn't a punishment. It really isn't. Is there anything anyone can say or any sort of proof that could ever change your mind on that.
See my earlier response to sinker's assertion that "in the end an invoke is an invoke, regardless of the aspect":
How do you reconcile *this* Invoke situation? Because if "Grandson of a Luck God" is only going to make Invokes on par with "Lucky SOB" then it's functionally the same.
If the player intends that "Grandson of a Luck God" is only going to fulfill items 1 or 2, then that's grounds to retain the Pure Mortal bonus. But so long as the idea persists that all Aspects are equal and all Invokes are equal, then this will remain a point of contention.So long as you do not contest that intent at start of play does not irrevocably bind the future options of even a Pure Mortal, then I'd suggest our positions would be better described as violent agreement.
But here's the thing. The game designer never said that all Aspects were appropriate for all templates.No, he did not. Would you like to list all of the other unnecessary statements that he didn't make?
You disregard the bulk of the changeling template with your "a changeling can enter play with the +2 refresh bonus" position.When blatant mis-characterizations are the best you can do, it's time to stop trying.
Ditto with the Scion template.
You ignore the part of the RAW that says no supernatural stuff at all.(condensed here because the two are ultimately restatements of the same objection)
[...]
You do not feel that a supernatural heritage or any other intrinsic supernatural Aspect is "something".
And if you instead had a player come to you and say, 'I would like to play this really interesting character that I've worked out, but I don't want to be overly punished for it mechanically, do you think we can come up with a way to work around the rules to keep the game satisfying? I only ask because I get kind of bummed out when the story says I'm this awesomely skilled exemplar of mostly-mortal kind, and yet end up failing at everything I do because of some technicality that says I have to suck, especially in comparison to the other player's characters...'
What would you say then?
'Screw game balance and player satisfaction'?
And here I was thinking that one of the few points of consensus reached in this thread was that aspects referencing supernatural power were acceptable on Pure Mortals where that power originates external to the character.
A familial relationship with an entity of power, even one that allows the character to 'call in debt' does not necessitate the character themself having power.
So one place I would draw the line on the Luck-based aspect requiring the supernatural is if Luck just happens to favor the character, or if the character is actively influencing Luck himself.
So, going by that example, if the player invokes his Luck aspect for things like, "My character is the scion of a Luck god, so the rafters just happen to fall right now, on the demon's head, because I'm that lucky and/or Dad is looking out for me," that wouldn't be something supernatural on the part of the character, and could be done without losing the bonus.
But if the action is, "My character is a scion of a Luck god, so he fiddles with luck and makes the rafter fail at just the right moment to crack the demon on the skull," that would be a supernatural nature and action on the part of the character, and would be reason to lose the bonus (in favor of taking a power to represent the conscious/willing/just plain increased manipulation of luck).
When blatant mis-characterizations are the best you can do, it's time to stop trying.
Quite simply, I am not positing new reasoning, rather citing existing reasoning, thus not engaging in the
It is my position that they do not BECOME Changelings until such a time as they take their first power (which does not contradict their minimum refresh cost due to the existence of -0 powers).
(condensed here because the two are ultimately restatements of the same objection)
You'll find the solution to this nagging obsession of yours in my ACTUAL position. Don't call them Pure Mortals. Heck, it's even a softer stance than that you received from the game designer. But I can see quite clearly that arguing against anything other than a straw man makes you uncomfortable.
At this point, my only concern is with the scope of potential Invocations, and using an Aspect as a dodge to get access to supernatural effects (specifically, effects which could not be mundanely replicated with a similar investment of mundane time and effort, or more overtly mimic existing Powers) by Invoking the supernatural Aspect in question.
Finally I would like to say that everybody who keeps saying that to create something other than the templates in the book is to create something outside of the setting, and that doing that is "Not playing the Dresden Files game" should really stop. You do not know the setting so intimately as to exclude anything. Period. We are presented with a very narrow view of the Dresdenverse, and things that we "know" have been proven wrong before. For all you know, all of this is included in the setting. So stop.
The first party keeps insisting it's not RAW, which is technically correct, but seems like a slight at the second party's concerns ("not RAW" translating to not acceptable or ideal). The second party keeps insisting that when we have problems like this it is best to look at the intent of the RAW to try to find a solution that works.
These two views aren't irreconcilable. I am willing to admit that if you go by strict RAW that you can't create the characters who have come up in the course of this discussion (of course you also can't make a scion at all). Others should be willing to admit that RAW is not always ideal. That is how we could come to a peaceful resolution.
Another thing I would mention is that "That works for your home game" or "Sounds like a houserule" is being seen (and I think used) as a slight here.
Because the mechanics from are a generic system (FATE) that has been adapted to the DV setting.
Fred has pretty much stated that the pure mortal bonus was designed for game balance as powers> stunts. So If someone decides not to take powers they should get the bonus from a game balance perspective.
Pie, I think.Yay! \o/
(2) Add the following verbage to any template (including custom templates, but not the pure mortal template) that has a sufficiently low minimum refresh:
If a character with this template has no more than a single power costing at most -1 refresh, then the character is considered a {choose one: Minor Talent, Freshly Emerged, Rookie, etc} and gets a +1 bonus to their starting refresh. If such a character ever gains a second power or any single power costing more than -1 refresh, then this refresh bonus goes away immediately (which may be mitigated by dropping one or two mortal stunts).
I'd give the +1 bonus for -0 cost powers, personally, rather than -1 cost ones.That would work, too.
I actually love this idea, because it makes the minor talent a much more tractable template. I had a great idea a long time ago for a minor talent journalist with the soulgaze power, but I realized that even as a journalist that one power just wasn't worth three refresh.Hooray! I have support from two opposing camps! And I agree, it seems as though minor talents have a lot of potential for being fun characters, but the existence of the Pure Mortal bonus one one side and powered characters on the other just squashes them.
spoiler]+2 refresh on a character who can have no powers...does not make them equal to supernatural creatures in the long run. We're seeing that in our current game. That however, is off topic and I apologize.[/spoiler]
One answer to this (for Pure Mortal, at least) is to just accept that mortals, regardless of skill, cannot and should not compete on even ground with powerful supernatural creatures. Of course, this basically means that the players of such characters need to (a) build new characters, or (b) switch to supernatural templates, both of which would mean they don't get to play the character they chose.I agree with this, mostly, except I'd add that while a Pure Mortal might not be able to compete on even ground with powerful supernatural creatures, a group of Pure Mortals could manage it (one BCV vs. one Pure Mortal = Lunch; one BCV vs. a half-dozen Pure Mortals will play out quite differently), and there are lots of ways a Pure Mortal in a group of Supernaturals could hold his own and make valuable contributions without having to take up a power.
Another possible way to deal with this (through house rules) might be to scale the pure mortal bonus. Instead of treating it as a straight +2, treat it as (for example) a +1 bonus per 4 base refresh. So once the game's base refresh hits 12, the pure mortals would increase their bonus to +3, and so on. On the other end of the spectrum, a pure mortal in a "Feet in the Water" game might only get +1 refresh, increasing to +2 once the game reaches 8 refresh.
I agree with this, mostly, except I'd add that while a Pure Mortal might not be able to compete on even ground with powerful supernatural creatures, a group of Pure Mortals could manage it (one BCV vs. one Pure Mortal = Lunch; one BCV vs. a half-dozen Pure Mortals will play out quite differently), and there are lots of ways a Pure Mortal in a group of Supernaturals could hold his own and make valuable contributions without having to take up a power.I agree entirely with the first part of your statement, and it gives the GM room to maneuver in terms of balancing encounters. I'm talking more about the effect you mention in the second half of your comment; that is the balance between two player's contibution to the group. And while it's technically true that a particularly specialized pure mortal might be able to shine within his particular specialty (a social mortal is likely to outshine a combat-monster troll at a dinner party, regardless of refresh), I feel this is highly situational, and that the player of such a character will feel largely irrelevant the rest of the time. This is probably not too big of an issue at low refresh, but it grows bigger as refresh scales (at 10 refresh, mortals have 20% more refresh/stunts than supernaturals do, but at 20 refresh that bonus drops to 10% -- meanwhile, each stunt the mortal acquires remains weaker than an equivalent refresh worth of powers the other characters pick up).
Honestly, though, that fits with the setting--Pure Mortals, individually, are really vulnerable and weak compared to strong supernatural entities. Murphy might be as badass as they come, but she has finite limits that her supernatural opponents don't. It's very consistent with the setting that a Pure Mortal is going to have a tougher time as the power level scales up, and that they are much more effective in groups than individually.
That said, I would also be interested to see how the bonus scaling works out.
I, likewise, haven't had a Pure Mortal in a high refresh game (the highest refresh any game I've been in has reached is 12), so I can't speak to how much fun it'd be, but personally I'd take it as a challenge. If you can't get stronger, get creative.
It sure as hell worked wonders for Tavi, after all.
If you can't get stronger, get creative.Creativity works, but creativity works better if you are stronger. Tavi sure as hell was much better when he combined more power with creativity. Think about how much more powerful a high Refresh supernatural could be if he was creative as well.
It sure as hell worked wonders for Tavi, after all.
Creativity works, but creativity works better if you are stronger. Tavi sure as hell was much better when he combined more power with creativity. Think about how much more powerful a high Refresh supernatural could be if he was creative as well.Tavi's "player" had also planned all along to swap out the pure mortal template with something more ... "interesting" at a later point in the campaign. With the GM's approval, of course. :)
Tavi's "player" had also planned all along to swap out the pure mortal template with something more ... "interesting" at a later point in the campaign. With the GM's approval, of course. :)
Who knows? Perhaps Murphy might do likewise?
Knight Murphy!