Author Topic: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent  (Read 77921 times)

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« Reply #90 on: April 01, 2012, 10:56:30 PM »
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.

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.

Here's the thing. What if I don't want that power? Would you force it on me? Again, it's stifling creativity because you are looking at the RAW instead of the intent behind it.

Offline Mr. Death

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 7965
  • Not all those who wander are lost
    • View Profile
    • The C-Team Podcast
Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« Reply #91 on: April 01, 2012, 11:16:14 PM »
You asked me what I would do about it, and I answered with what I thought was a fair and balanced compromise. If you don't want to have any magic powers, I'd say, well, you can't play a magic character.

What's wrong with the power? If the Lucky Mortal and the Luck God Scion get compelled and use their respective aspect (invoking for the Mortal, tagging for the Scion) at the exact same rate, the Scion's going to come out ahead in fate points in the long run.

Any system has limits, as UmbraLux pointed out. I'd argue real creativity is working with those limits, rather than pushing them aside when it seems inconvenient.

I personally get more satisfaction out of solving the question of "How do I make this work within the system?" than "What parts of the system can I put aside to make this work?"
Compels solve everything!

http://blur.by/1KgqJg6 My first book: "Brothers of the Curled Isles"

Quote from: Cozarkian
Not every word JB rights is a conspiracy. Sometimes, he's just telling a story.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_T_mld7Acnm-0FVUiaKDPA The C-Team Podcast

Offline Haru

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 5520
  • Mentally unstable like a fox.
    • View Profile
Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« Reply #92 on: April 01, 2012, 11:34:52 PM »
You could not mimic cloak of shadows with stunts, as one of it's facets is a supernatural ability with no shift value. If you could though, it would be with two stunts which would cost two refresh, because powers are almost exactly twice as powerful as equivalent stunts. This is why pure mortals get extra refresh. Because it costs them twice as much to achieve a remotely similar effect.
Ok, granted. You can however mimic the +2 part and at least partly emulate the see in the dark part (reduce penalties for seeing in the dark by 2). Which actually fits with the point I'm trying to make. Let's take Molly again, the example is quite good for this. If she invokes a regular aspect to hide, you are implying, that she is good at hiding. If she is invoking a magical aspect, you are implying, that she is using magic to hide, vanishing into thin air, as it where. Which is the same thing here. Cloak of shadows costs 1 point of refresh, 2 stunts to emulate it (even if not perfectly) would still give you 1 net refresh, if you don't take anything else. This is the cost of the supernatural component.

But let's compare 2 other things:
Intimidation (Infuriate) vs. Incite Emotion (Emotion-Touch)
Let's take anger here, since that's what infuriate is about. You can take different stunts for different emotions, so it should apply equally.

On a 1 refresh basis, they grant pretty much the same benefit, +2 on your roll to make someone really angry. The only real difference is the source. Infuriate lets you do this, because you are good at pissing people off, Emotion Touch lets you do it, because you have a supernatural affinity to that particular emotion. And precisely at that point, there is the difference: the guy with the stunt gets +2 refresh due to being a pure mortal, the one with Incite Emotion does not, because he has a supernatural power.

Or lets look at Marked by Power. It could be a presence or rapport stunt as well. Only because you know supernatural people doesn't mean you are supernatural. Yet it explicitly is a power, not a stunt, because the supernatural world is an integral part of the character.

Here's the thing. What if I don't want that power? Would you force it on me? Again, it's stifling creativity because you are looking at the RAW instead of the intent behind it.
I'm sorry, but to me it looks like a "want my cake and eat it too" thing. I am able to do (though minor) supernatural feats and take the +2 refresh for being a pure mortal. Choice is one of the big parts of the game, and to me this is one of those choices.

All of this, of course, is for a "regular" game. If you want to play a game particular around the concept of budding wizards, then the OPs concept might work. If everyone has the same benefit, nobody has a benefit really. I would probably still go the "you are no longer a pure mortal" route, and let them progress their powers as they go along or choose to set them aside to become a pure mortal with the appropriate benefit of gaining some refresh (aka free will).

Any system has limits, as UmbraLux pointed out. I'd argue real creativity is working with those limits, rather than pushing them aside when it seems inconvenient.

I personally get more satisfaction out of solving the question of "How do I make this work within the system?" than "What parts of the system can I put aside to make this work?"
I fully agree.
Come to think of it, you could justify a lot, if you tagged a magical aspect on an attack that takes someone out. If a budding psychomancer is taking someone out in a mental conflict and as a result he enthrals someone, it would be well within the scope of such an aspect, but could not be done by any pure mortal aspect.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2012, 11:53:31 PM by Haru »
“Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« Reply #93 on: April 01, 2012, 11:56:20 PM »
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.

Hmm, weird.

I'd say that it should cost -1 to have minor magics (the sort of things a wizard can do for free).  Yes, if this the only magic power the character has then it effectively costs -3 (1 for the power, 2 for no longer being pure mortal).

Why?

Because the game (and the books) seems to make it black and white - you either have power (which you put for) for you don't.  Some of the minor supernatural things don't seem worth a point, not when compared to the other 1 point ones, but are all grouped together.
"Pure mortals are ordinary (or mundanely extraordinary!) people who don’t have anything supernatural going on—"

Notice how it doesn't say "...who don’t have anything big...".  It's extremely clear - if you have "...anything supernatural going on..." then you're not a Pure Mortal.
It was more or less pointless before I chimed in.  Now we are discussing the mechanics and cost of the power.
But, as you said, the debate is pointless.
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". 
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. 

Personally I have never said that this discussion is pointless. I have been enjoying all of the different points of view (even if I disagree with them).

Offline Richard_Chilton

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2400
    • View Profile
Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« Reply #94 on: April 02, 2012, 04:11:33 AM »
And you are not the person I quoted.

Nor did I reply to any of your posts by reminding you that had said that the debate was pointless.  Rather I replied to the person who wanted to continue a debate after he said "I think we can safely call this debate pointless.".

I find it very ironic that, after calling the debate pointless, he still wanted to debate.  That he would continue to waste his time in a debate that he had deemed pointless, so every time he continued to debate I reminded him that he had already said the debate was pointless.  That and attempt to explain the RAW after he asked a citation from them because, as he has stated several times, citing the books the game is based on "is entirely irrelevant.".

And since we are now debating the debate, haven't we gone past the point where we should agree to disagree?

Richard

Offline Tedronai

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2343
  • Damane
    • View Profile
Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« Reply #95 on: April 02, 2012, 04:19:33 AM »
Rather I replied to the person who wanted to continue a debate after he said "I think we can safely call this debate pointless.".

Nice job tearing my words right out of any meaningful context into the realm of fairy godmother spin-doctors.

The original statement, with emphasis added:
If you think 'That makes it a power' is representative of the original premise of this thread, then I think we can safely call this debate pointless.
Even Chaotic Neutral individuals have to apologize sometimes. But at least we don't have to mean it.
Slough

Offline Richard_Chilton

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2400
    • View Profile
Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« Reply #96 on: April 02, 2012, 04:33:46 AM »
Nice job tearing my words right out of any meaningful context into the realm of fairy godmother spin-doctors.

I don't believe I did that.

<Looks at first post and see person talking about how to do something within the rules.  Someone who is talking about including lawbreaker in the equation.  Lawbreaker, which adds to magical powers.>

Lawbreaker:
Gain a +1 bonus to any spellcasting roll whenever using magic in a way which would break the specified Law of Magic. Increase this spellcasting bonus to +2 if you’ve broken this Law three or more times;

How do you add lawbreaker to a mundane attack? If the OP wanted to add lawbreaker to an attack then he would need a power.  One side of the debate feels that way and cites the RAW.  The other side of the debate feels otherwise and cites ...

But it is nice to know that you've read my most recent post - if not the previous where I quoted you or the others where I reminded you that you felt the debate was pointless.

And I have come to agree with you.  I can cite the novels, I can paste from the rules, I can talk about where I feel your logic is wrong - and the debate doesn't move forward.  Now it has moved backwards as we debate the debate.

You feel one way.  I disagree.  Let us agree to disagree.

Richard



Offline Richard_Chilton

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2400
    • View Profile
Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« Reply #97 on: April 02, 2012, 05:28:40 AM »
And as I read the above message I can see that I'm not helping things.  I'd deleted it, but that would be trying to unsay something and that's impossible.

How about I list the points that we are debating and see if everyone agrees that they are happy with their positions and not likely to change?

OP:
Name: Billy D. Warlock
High Concept: Talented Warlock with ZERO training
Aspect: Naturally manipulative and intimidating
Skills: good rapport and intimidation +3
Powers:  Lawbreaker Third (twice) -2
Refresh: 0 (Hydrophobic)

Positions:
1) This isn't a Pure Mortal / This is a Pure Mortal
2) the OP is talking about a power / The OP isn't talking a power
3) this is a power that fits what the OP was talking about (two versions) / An aspect will do.

which spawned:
4) Pure Mortals have no supernatural or magical anything / Pure Mortals can have magic connect or powered aspects.

I think we can agree to disagree on those points.  After 7 pages I don't see people switching their viewpoints.

The points I think we can agree on:
5) Huge threads of 'debates' where no one position changes are bad for the forum and tend to drive new users away.
6) Debating about debating doesn't really add to the discussion.
7) There's a thin line between ironic and side - which I probably crossed.  Sorry about that.

Richard

Offline GryMor

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« Reply #98 on: April 02, 2012, 02:34:26 PM »
And as I read the above message I can see that I'm not helping things.  I'd deleted it, but that would be trying to unsay something and that's impossible.

How about I list the points that we are debating and see if everyone agrees that they are happy with their positions and not likely to change?

OP:
Name: Billy D. Warlock
High Concept: Talented Warlock with ZERO training
Aspect: Naturally manipulative and intimidating
Skills: good rapport and intimidation +3
Powers:  Lawbreaker Third (twice) -2
Refresh: 0 (Hydrophobic)

Yah, no, I'm pretty sure people were talking about this (and it's spinoffs):

Name: 12 year old Dresden
Template: Pure Mortal? (the +2 refresh is questionable)
High Concept: Council level magical talent, ZERO training
Skills: Lets just say everything at average +1 for sake of argument
Stunts/Powers: NONE
Refresh: 2 (4???) Hydrophobic

rather than the warlock for the most part, I know I was, with regards to power/not power and super/pure mortal.

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« Reply #99 on: April 02, 2012, 05:58:11 PM »
I should likely apologize as well Richard. It seemed like that was directed at me since I was the only one quoted in that post. So, my apologies.

I would add one more point/clarification of a point.

That pure mortals receive their refresh bonus because they have no powers / They receive their refresh bonus because they have no supernatural connection.

Personally I would no longer argue that this is a pure mortal, however seeing the intent in giving mortals a refresh bonus, I would be on the first side of this point.

Offline Mr. Death

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 7965
  • Not all those who wander are lost
    • View Profile
    • The C-Team Podcast
Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« Reply #100 on: April 02, 2012, 06:09:32 PM »
The latter point is hard to pin down, though, because there's certainly room to argue what constitutes a "connection" to the supernatural. Murphy, for example, is certainly connected in at least a few senses of the word, and up to her ears in the supernatural, but is still considered a Pure Mortal.

So I think a clearer way to delineate whether or not someone gets the bonus is the 'what they are'/'what they can do' factor.

(Granted, that doesn't quite cover, say, Marked By Power, but it could be argued that if a major player is literally putting their mark on you, that's an extremely strong connection.)
Compels solve everything!

http://blur.by/1KgqJg6 My first book: "Brothers of the Curled Isles"

Quote from: Cozarkian
Not every word JB rights is a conspiracy. Sometimes, he's just telling a story.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_T_mld7Acnm-0FVUiaKDPA The C-Team Podcast

Offline Tedronai

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2343
  • Damane
    • View Profile
Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« Reply #101 on: April 02, 2012, 06:25:11 PM »
Death or Richard, would you care to address, in any meaningful way beyond forcing these characters to take a power, the explicit explanation of the reasoning behind the Pure Mortal bonus being that they have no supernatural Powers?  With particular emphasis on the absence of any mention of other representations of supernatural anything as a contributing factor to that compensation?
Even Chaotic Neutral individuals have to apologize sometimes. But at least we don't have to mean it.
Slough

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« Reply #102 on: April 02, 2012, 06:26:24 PM »
Yeah Death, I suppose that wasn't clearly worded, but I can't think of a better way. Perhaps that they have no personal supernaturalness?...

Anyway, that was the point that I was the most concerned over.

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« Reply #103 on: April 02, 2012, 06:35:43 PM »
And now that I'm looking at this I don't think we're so far away from each other.

Positions:
1) This isn't a Pure Mortal / This is a Pure Mortal

I think this is not a pure mortal.

2) the OP is talking about a power / The OP isn't talking a power
3) this is a power that fits what the OP was talking about (two versions) / An aspect will do.

I think both sides of this are valid, however I dislike the idea of forcing one side or the other on a player.

4) Pure Mortals have no supernatural or magical anything / Pure Mortals can have magic connect or powered aspects.

And as with the first one I think I'm on the former side of this one. Pure mortals should be mortal.

5) Huge threads of 'debates' where no one position changes are bad for the forum and tend to drive new users away.

I think that provided that we be careful to clarify, or add (as I have tried to do, and I see in both you and Death) then they can actually help new users see our inner workings, and actually understand the issue, which is great.

Edit: Though I understand when people tend to repeat things is when they feel like their point is not being addressed. I suppose the best way to deal with that would be to address them directly.

6) Debating about debating doesn't really add to the discussion.
7) There's a thin line between ironic and side - which I probably crossed.  Sorry about that.

Yeah, agreed and again, apologies.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2012, 06:40:40 PM by sinker »

Offline Mr. Death

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 7965
  • Not all those who wander are lost
    • View Profile
    • The C-Team Podcast
Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« Reply #104 on: April 02, 2012, 06:53:23 PM »
Death or Richard, would you care to address, in any meaningful way beyond forcing these characters to take a power, the explicit explanation of the reasoning behind the Pure Mortal bonus being that they have no supernatural Powers?  With particular emphasis on the absence of any mention of other representations of supernatural anything as a contributing factor to that compensation?
I'm not sure I understand quite what you're asking, but I'll try to answer as best I can. I'd also ask that you take it down a notch, because you're coming off as confrontational in a lot of these posts, particularly with that "in any meaningful way" line, implying that what I've said up to now isn't meaningful.

Powers and stunts are the mechanical representation of a character's High Concept and aspects, so in the raw math of the game, that's what it refers to as the basis for what determines Pure Mortal/Non-Pure Mortal status. But that doesn't mean you can get around losing the bonus through a supernatural aspect.

The "fluff" and "crunch," as you put it, aren't, and shouldn't be, entirely separate from one another. Your "fluff" helps to determine your "crunch," and--to the extent that the outcome of dice rolls can affect your "fluff" in the form of Extreme Consequences and the mechanics of the Lawbreaker power--the opposite is true too.

I think both sides of this are valid, however I dislike the idea of forcing one side or the other on a player.
Really, there's a lot of things that could be considered "forced" on a player because of their character concept. If you want to play a wizard, you're required to take Thaumaturgy even if you never plan on doing rituals.

Obviously I can't force anyone to use these outside of enforcing it if I'm GMing a game with such a character concept in it. But the game is about choices and their consequences for the player as much as the character--and losing that 2 refresh bonus is a consequence of choosing to play someone with a supernatural nature.
Compels solve everything!

http://blur.by/1KgqJg6 My first book: "Brothers of the Curled Isles"

Quote from: Cozarkian
Not every word JB rights is a conspiracy. Sometimes, he's just telling a story.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_T_mld7Acnm-0FVUiaKDPA The C-Team Podcast