Idea for a character and need help with one of the features

[princeearwig]

Hi all,
Just gotten into both the books and the RPG and was thinking about giving my own game a go.
One of the players has a cool idea for a character and I need some help with one of the aspects (lower case a) of the character.

She wants to play Destiny Smith, an Emissary of Power and the idea is that the PC is the mortal 'literal' Daughter of Fate, chance whatever you want to call it.
Now the emissary of power bit works quite well as her Lineage will be known and she will have to deal with the baggage that comes along with it.
Her forebears have a reputation for bringing "ill luck" with them when they arrive. Their arrival almost always heralds the fact that fate has decided to take a hand in unfolding events or at least to monitor things to make sure they unfold correctly. Bad guys hate it!
Essentially Fate's plans can be thrown awry and it is her daughter (on earth) who is charged with the sometimes machiavellian task of bringing the universe back to its correct path.

How to do this?

Well I already thought about a REALLY holistic approach and doing it all via declarations but that sounds a little cop out'y as it isn't going to give the character anything that cannot be done by everyone else already.
I liked the idea of a power that allowed the application of compellable aspects, almost always fragile, to represent the little tweaks that the PC is able to pull off on Fates loom (momma doesn't let her do anything big unless its already part of HER plan). Maybe allowing the free (ie. no roll required) assignment of one or more declarations per scene?

Any ideas? and also how much should that sort of thing cost?

Ta

John

[devonapple]

I'd say go with Sponsored Magic, with the special effect that it has to be probability based.

[wyvern]

Personally, I'd go with Devonapple's suggestion.  (Edit: in particular, the sponsor debt mechanic seems like it would be just a great fit for a follower of Fate.)  However, if you're looking for other options, there's this power from the custom powers thread.  It looks fairly balanced to me, but your mileage may vary; consider carefully before allowing it.

The other thing I'd consider for such a character is having her use 1d6-1d6 (roll two dice of different colors, one positive and one negative) instead of the normal 4dF.  It gives a much more random result - either failing or succeeding spectacularly - which seems appropriate for someone with an excess of Luck (both good and bad).

[Adin]

The first thing that comes to mind with a character concept like that is the creation of some kind of fate gambling mechanic.  In addition to the subtle and always positive fate manipulation, perhaps some kind of power would be appropriate to alter fate in a more significant way that is fully random. 

Hmm, perhaps:

call it Fate Manipulation or The Winds of Destiny or Alter the Weave.

-1 refresh

Maybe, in exchange for a full action, the player rolls 4df.  If the number is negative then something bad happens, 0 nothing happens, and positive something good happens.  The more positive and negative the effect, the more impact it will have on the situation.  For example, roll +4 and a knight of the cross leaps over a nearby fence and attacks whatever is chasing you, or your opponent gets hit by lightning if the weather is appropriate.  Likewise -4 would be a van full of your opponents minions showing up, or worse. 

[princeearwig]

Thanks for the suggestions all.
I am erring on the side of Sponsored Magic now

Any more suggestions still gratefully received though.

Regards
John

[Becq]

If you are looking for spellcaster-caliber Fate magic, then the Sponsored Magic option is likely the way to go.  However, since you mentioned the idea of a power that was largely aspect-based ... you might want to look at the "Blessed Words" stunt (example on YS378).

A possibly better/more flexible way would be to re-skin Incite Emotion (ie, Incite Fate).  At the -1 base price, I would suggest only allowing the power to govern 'negative' fate aspects to parallel the amount of utility the base power grants.  So basically, this would allow you to 'curse' someone's fate on the short term.  If you want it to be able to govern positive tweaks to fate, as well, then I'd consider upping that to -2.

Looking at the costs, you get the following:

-1 Fated Words: As Blessed Words, but lays a scene aspect relating to fate.
-1 Curse Fate: As Incite Emotion, but with fate-based curse aspects.
-2 Incite Fate: As Incite Emotion, but with positive and negative fate-based maneuvers.
-2 Channel (or Ritual) Fate: As Channeling or Ritual (pick one, or buy both) using fate as the element/theme.  (Note that while this is more flexible than Incite for the same refresh, Incite is 'free' to use.)
-4 Fate Magic: Sponsored Magic granting both Channeling and Ritual Fate, with Rituals cast as Evocation.

One other thing to consider.  Is fate-based magic Lawbreaking?  I'm not sure.  Consider:

Thaumaturgy that fundamentally, lastingly changes the target—whether it’s the target’s body, mind, emotions, or even luck—falls into the category of transformation and disruption. Often, this is dark stuff—curses, mind control, destructive shapeshifting, and death magic.
Of all the methods available through thaumaturgy, these are the ones most prone to run afoul of the Laws of Magic

Certainly not conclusive, and you might argue that you aren't changing the person so much as the universe surrounding him.  But that's something the Table should discuss.

[Vargo Teras]

The by-the-book example of fate magic is entropomancy, which is specifically cursing, and includes serious death curses.  Certainly using fate magic to give someone a destined death is a violation of the First Law.  But while they may use the transformation mechanics, I don't think that fating someone to miss their bus constitutes a violation of any of the Laws.

[devonapple]

The link between Sponsored Magic and the Laws of Magic is a contested idea on the boards, of course, so your table may handle it any number of ways.

I personally favor abuse of Sponsored Magic being a Sponsor-correcting issue, with the reasoning that most Sponsored Magic sources would not want their pawns to mentally dwindle to cackling Evil for pursuing the Sponsor's agenda, but would certainly step in if their pawns actively opposed said agenda.

[Becq]

The link between Sponsored Magic and the Laws of Magic is a contested idea on the boards, of course, so your table may handle it any number of ways.

Depending on how official you consider the WoFH (Word of Fred Hicks) to be, you might want to check out his thoughts on the subject:

Q: How do you run sponsored magic users when it comes to lawbreaking? Since it's not their magic does it still taint them somehow?

Fred: Lawbreaking is still a cost of casting certain kinds of nature-violating magic. (But maybe the sponsor would be willing to shoulder that cost in exchange for some particularly vicious debt.)

Q: I think you've said something like this in the past. Can you be a little more specific as to what you mean by that? Are you saying that you might simply ignore the event in exchange for debt, or is there a way of mechanically representing this (like the temporary powers rules or something)?

Fred: I mean the player wouldn't take the stunt at all, nor get its benefits, but its sponsor would absorb the 'hit' and consider the player to be constantly in at least 1-2 points of debt each session (since that lines up with the cost of the stunt).

Or, to paraphrase, yes Sponsored Magic counts as 'magic' for purposes of the Laws, however, the Sponsor might soak the hit for a price.  He later states that he considers powers like Domination to be less clear cut, but that he would play them as potentially Lawbreaking as well (in the hands of a mortal).

You can find the complete post (by Sinker, reposting Fred's responses to his questions) here: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,30067.msg1292407.html#msg1292407

[Vargo Teras]

There seems to be an emphasis on mortal usage.  It seems to me like a changeling or scion, using magic which is in line with their basic nature, isn't breaking any Laws as far as the mechanics are concerned.  Certainly, White Court Vampires don't pick up the Lawbreaker stunt for compelling mortals with Incite Emotion, which would in the hands of a mortal mage be a thing that seems Fourth Lawbreaking (if not at the base value, certainly at the Weapon:4 strength which ensures consequences).  Now, a mortal who picks up Sponsored Magic should take the stunt if they break a Law, because that represents their sponsorship changing them from normal human nature to something more in line with the supernatural source, whether that be evil (as in the case of an infernalist killing people with Hellfire) or simply otherworldly (as in the case of a Summer Knight resurrecting the technically-dead with Seelie biomancy).

[Becq]

There seems to be an emphasis on mortal usage.

Agreed.  The Laws of Magic are only (metaphysically and Warden-swordly) enforced on mortals.  Mortals who use their Will to perform monstrous acts become a little bit more monstrous, because they are acting against what nature says they should be.  Monsters performing monstrous acts are only doing what comes naturally to them.  White Court are not mortals, and while some of them can seem almost human ... they aren't.  Knights of the Fae Courts may seem almost Fae ... but they are, technically, still human -- and the Fae Courts recruit Knights specifically to exploit that mortality and Free Will.  I'm not sure about Scions, though I suspect that until they make their Choice they count as mortal.

[Vargo Teras]

I'd argue that Scions and Changelings shouldn't accumulate Lawbreaker stunts from using Sponsored Magic for the things it tends to do; a half-demon using Hellfire to kill a mortal assailant isn't twisting her nature towards warlock status, but rather towards her demonic side.  A Summer Court Changeling should gain the stunt if he calls the blistering heat of summer to melt a mortal enemy, but not if he fills their heart with an all-consuming passion, though that would step on Fourth Law territory for a mortal.

The White Council, on the other hand, probably draws its lines based on jurisdiction and what it can enforce.  Changelings, whether violating their fey natures or acting in accord with them, are outside their authority; scions of non-Accord groups, on the other hand, are likely to be executed before the Warden considers whether someone else ought to have been consulted.

Caveat: I'm coming at this from a perspective that says that PCs should never be forcibly relegated to NPC status without their explicit consent, and such should be extremely rare cases motivated by specific story needs, not a general rule that fully embracing the power of their character concept leads to confiscation.  In a game where it's more likely that a PC will be pushed out of the game by picking up Lawbreaker stunts or Choosing their immortal side, different rules might apply.

[Sanctaphrax]

I have mixed feelings about this thread.

On one hand, I like the character idea. And someone linked to a power I (mostly) wrote.

On the other hand, precisely no-one mentioned the power I wrote specifically for characters like this one.

On a mutant third hand, I really like it when something I wrote ages ago turns out to be useful.

PS: Neither Probability Manipulation nor Reality Warper is a finished product. Both are due for a round of editing, and the version of Reality Warper linked to is not the most recent one. If you're interested in using either, I can explain further.
PPS: Welcome to the boards.

[wyvern]

I did actually consider linking to that one, too - but it seemed to not actually do what the OP was looking for.  It can make someone succeed or fail at what they're doing - but it doesn't let you bring in improbable coincidences and declarations the way reality warper or sponsored magic could be used for.  (Well, aside from boosting declaration rolls for the hand-wave-y do-it-all-with-aspects approach, but the OP already said he wasn't interested in that.)

Still, it's not a bad secondary power for such a character to have.  Maybe I should have linked it.  Oh, well; you seem to have taken care of that quite adequately.

[Sanctaphrax]

Yeah, that's going to be fixed in the next edit. Says so later on in the Custom Powers thread.