House Rules And Homebrew

[Sanctaphrax]

As some of you may remember, I started a player's guide for this game some time ago. It's been languishing in obscurity for a while, though, because I got caught up in other things.

I'm coming back to it now.

For this player's guide I'd like to have a compilation of house rules and homebrew bits. So I've made this thread to gather and summarize the various rules changes that this board has come up with.

For homebrew rules bits, I've got:

crusher_bob's thaumaturgy system
Devonapple's conjuration table
The summoning systems thread (summary partially done)
Vehicle rules (summary done)

For houserules and optional rules, I've got:

Spin
Rolling for Initiative
Self-inflicted harm automatically satisfies catches
Spells and mental stress have a weird relationship
Lawbreaker can boost spells that resonate thematically with a law without breaking it
Lawbreaker adds to power and complexity as well as control
No Refinement on IoP
Weapon 4+ evocations are always considered lethal force
Fate points are transferred from character to character at the end of the scene
You can take consequences to convert a failed roll into a successful one if the margin of error was less than or equal to the consequence's value.
Some weapons have AP ratings, letting them ignore (AP rating) points of armour.
Spellcasters can evoke as a reflexive defence.
Attacking beyond your maximum range imposes a -2/zone penalty rather than being impossible.
Strength adds one/two zones of range to muscle-powered weaponry per level.
Extra shifts on a sprint action made to move into someone's zone subtract from the number of zones that that person can move next turn.

I'll be summarizing the homebrew threads over the next few days.

So, does anybody have any house rules or homebrew that they want to share?

[crusher_bob]

There's my thaumaturgy declaration mod, found here.  There were also a few threads about ways to limit refinement + foci stacking for evocation that may be worth looking at, but I don't remember where they were right now.

[Sanctaphrax]

Thanks, bob. I really should have remembered that.

[crusher_bob]

There's also:

Creating several aspects at once, usually with evocation or potions (example: power 9 potion used to create 3 fragile aspects at once)

Using a maneuver to put an aspect on everyone in a zone individually, by using 2 shifts to make it have a zone wide effect (example: knocking everyone in a zone off their feet)

Both of these rules should probably get the Champions "stop!" sign, since they can seriously bork up the action economy but it looks like some people use one or both of them; so adding a section to explain the common implementation and what's dangerous about the rules would be handy.

[MijRai]

I agree with most all of it. The only problem with what you have is the hombrew of no mental stress attacks with magic. I mean, that is sort of what you do to break into a mind or enthrall them. You inflict Mental Stress until you Take them Out, and use that as the effect.

[Sanctaphrax]

Good point, MijRai.

Personally, I don't know exactly how to handle enthrallment without letting spells inflict mental stress.

Actually, I have no problem with Thaumaturgical mental attacks. But mental Evocation makes a mockery of Toughness powers.

Maybe mental evocations could just have a maximum control equal to their power and no weapon rating. That's not a carefully calculated ruling; it's just thinking out loud.

And crusher_bob's contributions have been noted.

[Tedronai]

Almost any evocation (or thaumaturgy, for that matter) mental attack is going to be an instant lawbreaker, and really is the only way to model the preferred methods of a certain Disciple of Kemmler

capping the control and removing the weapon rating seems to be a particularly harsh treatment of the practice
I could see imposing a -1 or -2 power tax to make an attack deal mental stress, though

[Sanctaphrax]

It's meant to be harsh. Even with this houserule, a 3-shift evoker can one-shot Sue the zombie T-Rex. And the Laws don't apply to nonhumans.

[Tedronai]

I think the problem there is with the statline of Sue, and similar 'creatures' (in that a zombie T-Rex, et al, really should probably have some significant resistance, if not immunity, to mental stress), not with the evocation attack mechanics when dealing with mental stress tracks

[MijRai]

A mental Take-Out doesn't have to be full incapacitation. It could be loss of control, turning into a bloodthirsty monster nothing can reason with.

[Sanctaphrax]

@MijRai: But the attacker gets to narrate the takeout.

@Tedronai: That's a good point. But I don't want to add Conviction and Discipline to the list of necessary combat skills. I like that you can make a mentally weak but physically threatening monster in this game.

[Tedronai]

Actually, what I was intending was something more along the lines of toughness powers for mental stress being handed out to things like demons, zombies, and other entities of sufficiently alien or resilient mentalities

[MijRai]

@MijRai: But the attacker gets to narrate the takeout.

And the attacker is in all likelyhood an NPC. Unless you are letting mind-rapists run arouund in your game. Besides, the character/NPC itself has some say in the take out as well.

[Eunomiac]

Metagaming solutions aside, it does seem to cast light on an apparent oversight in the rules: If evoking for mental/social stress was such an easy way of side-stepping physical immunities, then we'd have seen many more examples of this in the books.

There are a few ways to house rule this that might make thematic sense:

• But They Don't HAVE Minds! Rule that the lack of Free Will from negative refresh, or perhaps just a creature's alien nature, makes them resistant to mental attacks. You could make this work like a block or Threshold; add "Alien Mind" as a supernatural power akin to the Toughness powers; or even strip the truly mindless of their mental stress track entirely, and have mental attacks work on them the same way they'd work on a brick wall.
• Mental Attacks = Physical Stress: This is perhaps just a softer way of wording your ban, keeping mental attacks in the game, but precluding them from causing mental stress: Rule that such attacks must either deal physical stress instead (leaving mental stress to long-term conflicts like torture), or maneuver for an aspect (e.g. "needs a new pair of XXXXXXXL dino-panties").  Social attacks should be even less relevant to combat, perhaps taking effect only at the end of the scene -- Sue the Tyrannosaur's savaged reputation won't stop her from eating you first.

But there are plenty of ways to work within the rules, too (though I agree that some changes need to be made to prevent a Minor Talent from being able to drop Sue with a wave of the hand, even in theory):

• Minds Are Risky Playthings: Attackers may narrate take-outs, but they don't narrate Consequences: Let Sue take "rabidly enraged at the itch in her brain" as a consequence, neatly absorbing that mental stress while turning herself on your pesky mentalist (ouch). Or, give some of your NPC baddies some mental defenses with nasty paybacks for the PC mind-mancer.
• Shift Trappings With Stunts: "Brawn Over Brains", to set the mental stress track by Endurance instead. "Dead Men Tell No Tales" could do the same for Might/Fists/Weapons/Guns and the social track.
• Masterminds Aren't Stupid: If you have a mentalist in your group, the brains behind the evil will learn of this eventually.  When they do, they won't keep sending wave after wave of weak-minded thugs, that's for sure. Consider thaumaturgical warding amulets, misdirections and distractions, or make the mentalist a priority target for long-range sniper fire (snipers: both the best and worst tool in any GM's toolbox).
• THE STAREDOWN: I just thought of this, but damn do I love it.  Have your mastermind send an evil mentalist to tackle yours, with a stunt/power allowing the grappling rules to be used for mind-to-mind combat as an extended contest.  Make your player know that this villain is playing for KEEPS (i.e. hint that a take-out will mean thralldom, insanity, loss of mentalism powers, or worse).  If you're familiar with The Wheel of Time series, you know how effective this sort of locked-in stare-down between competing minds amidst a heated battle can be -- the whole battle could become an arena centered around the two mentalists, as their respective allies fight to break/defend one or the other's concentration! What an awesome showcase for all the different rule mechanics -- blocks, maneuvers, attacks, aspects; all could come into play here, whirling about the central mentalist v. mentalist roll-offs.

[sinker]

I think it's really important to remember that different types of stress aren't always appropriate in all types of conflict. Mental stress is most often used to reflect your emotional well-being. Social stress is intended to represent your reputation and status. To use sue as an example, sue is an animal. Sure animals have emotions. Anyone who has owned a pet knows that they get depressed, or stressed or afraid. If an animal is depressed it's less likely to start a fight. If an animal gets depressed in the middle of a fight it's not going to stop defending itself or run against it's predatory nature. For that matter Sue could care less about her reputation. Neither of these tracks are going to effect her in physical conflict.

Fear is the one thing I could see effecting physical combat (just as intimidation is the only applicable way for a mortal to deal mental stress in combat) but even then something's fear response is not always flight. As has been pointed out the person/thing that gets taken out does have some say in how they are taken out by the clause that it has to be within their nature. If it's not within sue's nature to run in fear then she's not going to, though I suppose that just means she get's to retreat in a different way.

To get back to the original post though, I use SotC's spin rules (add an aspect instead of just a +1 to the next action).