A Subtle Feeding?

[sprainogre]

One of my players is running a White Court vampire, but is trying to keep that little tidbit secret from the rest of the party, both in and out of character. A Skavis in particular. The group has just come on a group of kidnapped children, who are about to be offered up as a sacrifice to raise up a (or the) Headless Horseman.  He's put himself forward as a social character, and I've compelled him to go and feed on the children's despair, spiced with fear (delicious!).

After glaring daggers at me, he want's to attempt to resist (the rest of the group is RIGHT THERE after all, and don't know his true nature) and failing that, try to feed all subtle-like.  Now, is this the case where he better present an aspect and offer up a fate point to make that roll, or is it simply a deception sort of moment.  Since this has the potential to set the tone for how this will be handled, I thought I'd get some more opinions on it.

[Papa Gruff]

Need a bit more input please. Apart from your group not knowing that he's a WCV and you compelling him to feed on the tasty despair I have a little trouble to grasp the situation.

Now to answer as I understood it:

If he has a FP he can resist by buying out of the compel. If he gives you a FP the situation is settled without a roll. As I understand it, he refused to buy out and has tried to haggle about the compel reasoning that he doesn't want to blow his cover and feed carefully. Now it is up to you as a GM to accept the changed compel or add something to it. For example: you can take his change to the compel but state that in case of subtle feeding he'll only regenerate a single point of hunger stress or not fully regain his abilities...

No roll or declaration or spending of FP needed IMO. All depends on the fullness of the hunger stress...

[sinker]

Don't see any reason why a WCV can't feed subtly. Hell, Thomas does it for years in several different ways. Seems to me they only get white and scary when they are drawing on/reveling in their demonic side.

You could always play some subtle hints if you want. Maybe the temperature in the room drops a little or his eyes brighten a bit. Something that real attentive characters might catch on to but most are unlikely.

[Wolfwood2]

After glaring daggers at me, he want's to attempt to resist (the rest of the group is RIGHT THERE after all, and don't know his true nature) and failing that, try to feed all subtle-like.  Now, is this the case where he better present an aspect and offer up a fate point to make that roll, or is it simply a deception sort of moment.  Since this has the potential to set the tone for how this will be handled, I thought I'd get some more opinions on it.

If he wants to resist the Compel straight-up, he can hand over a Fate point and that's it.  As long as you have a Fate Point left to buy it off, you can always resist a Compel.

If he wants to go along with the Compel but try to disguise his feeding, that's a Deception sort of moment.  An opposed roll so that nobody else notices what he's doing, opposed by whatever skill the other PCs want to justify.

Remember, you as the GM can "blow his cover" any time you want through the power of plot.  That's not interesting.  What's interesting is seeing him to to wriggle out of situations like this.

[sprainogre]

An excellent point Papa Gruff, thanks for the input. Still trying to get the hang of compels.  

Thanks also for the input Sinker. I'll see how he wants to play this one out.

I agree fully Wolfwood.  I was thinking the opposed deception roll myself, but wanted to see if there was a rule, precedent, or fan opinion on the issue at hand.

My big question is the Subtle Feeding issue. What sort of roles, compels, or maybe stunts might he need to present to feed right under a party member's nose.

[Wolfwood2]

I agree fully Wolfwood.  I was thinking the opposed deception roll myself, but wanted to see if there was a rule, precedent, or fan opinion on the issue at hand.

My big question is the Subtle Feeding issue. What sort of roles, compels, or maybe stunts might he need to present to feed right under a party member's nose.

A straight Deception roll, modified by Discipline (not that I expect a WC PC is going to have low Discipline) ought to do it.  I don't think it needs to go to the realm of Stunts or being forced to use Aspects.

I think his biggest problem is that there is a wide variety of skills the other PCs can justify using to oppose, and they're naturally going to use their best skill out of the selection.  Empathy, to notice there's something happening to the children.  Alertness, to notice the subtle physical cues of the feeding.  Lore, for straight-up detection of a magical thing happening in front of them.  Deception, to notice he's trying to hide something.

There are a lot of opportunities for someone to outdo his roll, unless he gets lucky.  Though if you're very fortunate as a GM, the players may get into a Fate point "bidding war" where they go back and forth using Aspects to enhance their rolls and to see who wants to win the exchange more.  I'm seen a situration where 7 fate points were blown on each side trying to win a single contested roll.

[sprainogre]

None of the other players know about his character. He has a false sheet as a decoy, several duplicitous aspects, and a pack of "mortal stunts" for his Monster Psychologist fake High Concept (he volunteers at the local high schools as a councilor, and feeds heavily from all the depressed high school students he "helps").

So the other half of the issue is making the rest of the party roll when he does dren like this to see if they notice.

[sinker]

Firstly I'd rule straight up Alertness for non magical players, lore for magical and I'd be the one telling them what to roll and not why. As the players don't know he's a WCV I don't think it's an issue what the other players do. They roll what you tell em to roll, modify it however they want and then I'll tell em what they find out.

[Becq]

I agree with Wolfwood in that the player has the option of simply spending a Fate to ignore the compel -- this would represent excercising his willpower to supress his hunger.

As to going alone with the compel, I think that WCVs seem to have several levels of feeding.  Thomas shows that very light feeding can be done subtly enough that casual observers wouldn't suspect.  On the other end of the spectrum is deep feeding, which results in death -- how obvious is this?  Well, in the case of a Raith, its going to be obvious that something was going on, but it might just look like porn-grade sex, with one participant suffering what could easily look like a heart attack.  The Raith can't conceal that he was interacting with the subject, but can disguise the nature of what he was doing.  This sounds like Deception vs. Lore, possibly with Alertness modifying (Alertness reduced by Lore, but Lore should be involved to have some inkling that it might have been more than sex; without Lore the onlooker might see the situation as odd somehow but not understand how).  In between those two extremes would be, for example, feeding off the emotions in a Rave, which would be handled similarly (attempting deception to make it look like dirty dancing).

I suspect that the other WCV flavors should be handled similarly.  In the example given, the character could rush forward, and try to make it appear as though they were comforting the victim -- holding them, stroking their hair, whispering gently, etc -- and all the while the victim would be panicking more and more "until his/her heart gave out", at which point the character feigns distress, etc.  Or perhaps they might not feed so deeply (this might require a Discipline roll, see the 'feeding frenzy' rules for Emotional Vampire), leaving the child alive but with years of nightmares ahead of them.  In either case, it would be obvious that the character is doing something, but could conceal the exact nature unless the onlooker was very perceptive and/or very clued in.

Note specifically, though, that Emotional Vampire requires touch to feed.

[WillH]

None of the other players know about his character. He has a false sheet as a decoy, several duplicitous aspects, and a pack of "mortal stunts" for his Monster Psychologist fake High Concept (he volunteers at the local high schools as a councilor, and feeds heavily from all the depressed high school students he "helps").

This here is the real source of all your problems. The players should know about the WCV character regardless of whether or not their characters do.

[MyNinjaH8sU]

This here is the real source of all your problems. The players should know about the WCV character regardless of whether or not their characters do.

That's your play style though. I've seen this done both ways, and seen it succeed and fail both ways. The GM and players should play in a way that makes it fun for them. He probably knows his group better than any of us do.

[Wolfwood2]

That's your play style though. I've seen this done both ways, and seen it succeed and fail both ways. The GM and players should play in a way that makes it fun for them. He probably knows his group better than any of us do.

Still, the FATE system is largely built around transparency because a lot of it is deciding when you want to use your plot points to affect narrative outcomes.  How can you do that if you don't know what the options are?

Right here we've stumbled across a problem.  The players might well decide they want to spend Fate points to have their characters succeed in knowing what's going on.  How can they decide whether or not to do that if they don't know the stakes of the conflict?

[tymire]

This here is the real source of all your problems. The players should know about the WCV character regardless of whether or not their characters do.

Very true.  Why play a WCV that feeds on despair and not have multiple things like this already planned out if you are trying to keep it secret from the rest of the party.  He had to realize things like this will be happening, as it's not very often where a party gets involved with happy bunny sunshiny situations.

Also if the players don't know about it, and it is extremely possible where their characters think that all vamps are worse than hellspawn... well hope you don't mind some player death at the table.  The feeling of betrayal can be an extremely strong motivator.

[sprainogre]

I agree that it is dicey to let a player pull a stunt like this. However, we were careful in his character creation to still integrate his aspects into the rest of the group. And I wouldn't do this with some of the people I play with (groups or players).  However, double blinds and duplicity is a part of my games. I like to play shell games with characters, and plot points. I just do so fairly and don't play dirty tricks with it. Which is why my players don't lynch me.

And both the WCV player and myself expect his character to be utterly murdered when he's found out. He knows how he's going to present himself, and the lies about his feeding to tell the rest of the group. It really depends on HOW he's found out.

[Haru]

Does he have to answer your compel right away? Like instantly start feeding on the children? If not, he can certainly play a scene like this to his advantage. I mean if I had a character in a group like that, I would not think twice about who should look after the kids: the guy who works as a counsellor of course. So the only thing he would have to do is convince the rest of the group to get the car, check the area, etc. and he would have a few minutes alone with the children. He can then feed on them without anyone the wiser. The only noticeable thing would be the children being a lot more afraid when the rest of the group returns. But the children are scared anyway, so who would suspect anything?

After all, the Whamps are masters of manipulation, why should your PC be any different?