An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent

[Tedronai]

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

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.

[sinker]

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.

[devonapple]

I don't see the potential for abuse because in the end an invoke is an invoke, regardless of the aspect.

"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?"

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.

[Richard_Chilton]

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.

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.

And that's fine - do what you and your table wants to do.   If your table want changelings to choose mortality and retain traces of their old powers - that's fine too.  It's not the RAW but if you enjoy it then where's the harm?

The RAW and setting as written give us a baseline.  If you want to discuss how a homebrew works for you we can do that - but the OP was looking for something that meshed with the RAW.

Richard

[Tedronai]

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.

X is strongly correlated with Y.  Y causes Z.  X does not cause Z.
In detailed descriptions, it is the feeding and killing that triggers the change.  The vast majority of WCvs do not have the self control to engage in intercourse without feeding, thus, for general descriptions and cautionary tales, intercourse itself is a suitable stand-in, since it's more obviously apparent.

[Tallyrand]

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.

The choice of whether to allow the +2 Pure Mortal/No Powers bonus IS NOT the choice of limiting creativity or investment.  It's simply the choice of do I want this game to reinforce the values of the Dresden setting or do I want to take it my own direction.  I choose the former because I believe that limitations enhance creativity and investment, not limit it.

[ways and means]

From what I have read the pure mortal refresh bonus was designed for balance reasons rather than setting ones. As powers are all nearly twice as good as mortal stunt it made sense to give pure mortals a bonus so they could keep up. So allowing characters who don't have powers to get the pure mortal bonus regardless of origins makes sense that is what the bonus is there for.   

[Tedronai]

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'?

[Silverblaze]

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?

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?

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.

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. 

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.)

[Tedronai]

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.
The rest was a sincere inquiry.
How would you answer that player, who wants a supernaturally-flavoured character without any powers so overt as to be reasonably represented by Powers, or more impactful than would be available to a mortal, but averse to what they perceive as punishment from the game mechanics for their choices?

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. 

If you have another means of addressing this problem, please bring it forward.

After 'two significant events go by', they'll be expected to be able to overcome substantially more challenging problems.  That's not a solution, either.

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'.

[Richard_Chilton]

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'.

But here's the thing.  The game designer never said that all Aspects were appropriate for all templates.

Actually, here are a few more things:
You ignore the part of the RAW that says no supernatural stuff at all.
You disregard the bulk of the changeling template with your "a changeling can enter play with the +2 refresh bonus" position.
Ditto with the Scion template.

Looking at the RAW and the setting it models, changelings and WCVs have their initial "I'm not human?" bit at adolescence - which means that unless you are playing adolescent or preadolescence characters the PC cannot go through that phrase.  You do not feel that a supernatural heritage or any other intrinsic supernatural Aspect is "something".

And those are the problems I have with your side of this discussion.

Richard

[devonapple]

What terminology would you use to condense 'Being denied mechanical advantage meant to provide game balance solely on the basis of narrative flavour'?

See my earlier response to sinker's assertion that "in the end an invoke is an invoke, regardless of the aspect":

"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?"

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.

As Haru explains:

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

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.

[ways and means]

"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 invoke is no-more effective than a pure mortal pc invoking his "President of the United States" aspect to call in an air strike, the strength of invokes are entirely dependent on what the GM will allow.

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.

Refresh is one of the most valuable things in the game it not only alongside skill points determine how potent a character is it also through fate points determines how much narrative agency a character/player has. More Stunts make for a more potent character and more fate points can be used to have more control over the world.

Take for example two characters

Mouse the Phantom Thief and Brian the Scion, if you assume they both have the same refresh and skill points (invested in thieving, stealth and intelligence gathering) and Brian the Scion doesn't use his supernatural heritage to his advantage (so no groovy powers) then Mouse will be fundamentally better because he will either be better trained than Brian (stunts) or more lucky (fate points). So you make supernatural characters who don't go all out supernatural inferior to both their more power savy kins and pure mortals. I suppose if players don't want to be mechanically powerful (stunts, powers) or narrative powerful (fate points) then losing the +2 isn't a punishment but for all who do it is.

[Tedronai]

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.

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.
The Luck Scion's Aspect above could just as easily be compared to 'I'm a Lucky SOB, like my dad before me, and his before him'.

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.
Ditto with the Scion template.

When blatant mis-characterizations are the best you can do, it's time to stop trying.

You ignore the part of the RAW that says no supernatural stuff at all.
[...]
You do not feel that a supernatural heritage or any other intrinsic supernatural Aspect is "something".

(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.

[Tallyrand]

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'?

Well, I think first I'd say that you really should take a look at the rule book, having two less stunts or two less free refresh really isn't going to make that big a difference on your characters effectiveness.  Also, I think you're characters background is awesome, and I promise I'm going to make sure it pays off in the story.  But yeah, +2 Refresh comes from being Pure Mortal, not from not having powers, so if that's not what you're looking for then you may want to re-jigger your character.

Of course by your logic, if I come into your game and say, "Hey, I've got this great character concept that I love.  His name is Steve and he's an 80 Foot Fire-breathing dinosaur, I'll buy all the large size stuff and all the powers appropriate.  But here's the awesome thing, he also runs the local coffee shop. ... Oh, no, he's always an 80 food monster, the locals call him tiny because they think it's a funny nick name for such a big monster."  That would be cool with you right?  Because I mean you don't want to limit at all the types of characters you allow so long as they're in RAW.