An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent

[UmbraLux]

(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.  :/

Personally, I think it's an argument between "you are magic" and "you do magic".  If you "are" magic you've spent choice / refresh on it and it becomes part of you.  If you "do" magic, it's simply a matter of knowledge and skill or luck and chutzpah.  In other words, you may be occasionally capable of magical feats but it hasn't changed you.

My preference is a bit of both - slower weak thaumaturgy based effects require little more than knowledge, a bit of luck, or a diagram to copy by rote.  You're going to be limited by knowledge though - a ritualist who knows what he's doing can achieve more powerful results than someone copying a circle from a diagram / idea / memory.  On the other hand, doing things fast (evocation) or more powerfully requires specific training and knowledge.  Those change you. 

Just my two cents.  Back to your regularly scheduled argument now! 

[Mr. Death]

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.


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.

Nobody is denying that you can invoke an aspect for a +2 to a roll.

But the invoke has to make sense with the aspect and with who and what the character is. What we're denying is that you can be magical, while still being Pure Mortal.

If your "Fluff" is "I have magic," then in this system, yes, that's represented by having a magic power and not being a Pure Mortal.

If a pre-existing power doesn't exist, we definitely can make them up. As I understand it, there are entire threads dedicated to doing exactly that for a wide variety of powers of all kinds of utility and strength.

The extra refresh for a Pure Mortal isn't a right that we're trying to cheat someone out of. It's a bonus that you get for not taking any magic powers. The OP is explicitly talking about having a magical power.

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?

[Tedronai]

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?

The fact that the power in question can be perfectly represented wholly in the absence of any Power.


But if you absolutely insist, here's a Power that I think would suitably replicate the desired effect without undue side effects:

Miniscule Talent [-0]:
You may invoke your existing aspects to create magical effects in accordance both with those aspects and with the general rules for invoking aspects.  If you have no Powers beyond this one, you gain two additional Fate Points whenever you reach a Refresh point.

[Mr. Death]

What's the reason for the extra two fate points on refresh?

Why should someone get to make what is explicitly magic effects without having a magic power?

It doesn't work that way. If the character concept contains things like this...

...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...

Pure Mortal = No magic. Causing magical effects on your own = magic. Therefore, Causing magical effects on your own =/= Pure Mortal.

It may not be the "desired" effect, but the tough truth of life, the universe, and everything (including this game) is that you don't always get everything you want for free.

[Tedronai]

What's the reason for the extra two fate points on refresh?

Because the only thing that the rest of the power does is to let you do what everyone else can already do without needing a power.

[Mr. Death]

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.

As I put in the last post, it doesn't work that way. If you're making magical effects, you're not a Pure Mortal. The rulebook is clear on that, can we not agree?

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).

[Richard_Chilton]

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.

I see where you've made your mistake.

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". 

The reason we are working on crunch from group Z is that while there is no predefined element of column Z that allows concept X, the rules are clear that group Z is not an exhaustive list.  That the table should work together to build new powers.  We are treating the same as if someone wanted sponsored magic from being D (say a dragon) when currently there are no rules for it.

But, as you have said, this debate is pointless.  Most of us have moved on.  Why not make a final post that encapsulates your position and then move onto other threads? Agreeing to disagree?

Richard

[sinker]

Hey Death, I just got an idea that might clarify my stance on the matter. What if I want to make a scion of... a luck god, but so far removed as to be almost completely mortal. This character will never have powers, as he is too diluted, but occasionally he gets a stroke of luck (represented by an aspect). This luck aspect would be usable in almost any circumstance to do all sorts of weird things, but may also be compelled for strokes of bad luck as well. Now, I'll go with your assumption that the Pure Mortal template is not for this character because he does have supernatural aspects, however no other template works, as every one of them requires a power (and as previously stated this character will never have powers of his own). So at this point we're making our own template. We look at the intent of the various templates, and we see this:

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).

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?

[Tedronai]

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.

Sinker's post neatly covers this.

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).

Which is great if you think that one free tag/scene is worth two refresh to a concept that may only use this capability in the most urgent circumstances, and then likely on several actions within the same scene.


Even my proposed version ends up coming at a cost: while it preserves the FP supply of a Pure Mortal, it does not preserve their 'Free Choice' as represented by the actual Refresh value.

[Richard_Chilton]

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?

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.  Looking at the scion proto-template:
The problem with offering a solid scion template is one of variety. Since there are so many possibilities out there, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to offer a formal template for the type (the Nevernever really wants to breed with us, it seems). So scions are a classic “grow your own” kind of character.

Ergo, you're a scion who's not marked by a power or has any actual powers but still has that supernatural heritage thing happening.  It's an interesting sort of 'grow your own' and you're free to do it - but not as a pure mortal.

Richard

[Tedronai]

Right.  Not a Pure Mortal.
A 'Scion' who's only Power is a re-skinning of the Pure Mortal refresh bonus.

[sinker]

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.

That is my problem. I've said my piece.

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.

[Mr. Death]

@Sinker: The templates are good guidelines, but they're not hard and fast rules, or the only types of characters you can play--in fact, the Scion "template" is a lot like the Pure Mortal "template" in the sense that it isn't a template at all so much as a very broad category if disparate character types that happen to have a basis in common.

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.

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.

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.

@Tedronai: It's not worth 2 refresh; it's worth 0.

The +2 refresh is not the standard. That 2 refresh is a bonus for not having any supernatural-ness at all. It's not something that any player is entitled to. It's something that a player is given for deliberately avoiding the the most potent abilities available in the game.

It doesn't matter if the power you've taken is only going to be useful once a scene. It doesn't matter if the one power you've taken is actively detrimental to you, as is the case with Cassandra's Tears. It doesn't matter if the power didn't already exist in the rulebook.

If you have a supernatural ability, you are not a Pure Mortal, and don't get that 2 refresh bonus.

[UmbraLux]

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. 

Even a system as simple as Wushu creates limits.  Imagine trying to play a thoughtfully silent and stoic type who thinks before acting - it'd really reduce the details you can add to the game...reducing success as well. 

The limits are part of what shapes game play and gives the game specific flavor.  If this weren't true, I suspect there'd be far fewer edition wars...and probably far less variety in game systems.

[Richard_Chilton]

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 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.

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.

As always, just because there are people posting on this board it doesn't mean that any one has to listen.  The ultimate rules authority is the group at the table and if they feel one way then those are the officials rules.  All we really do on this board is to present the logic behind our position and try to defend it.

Richard