An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent

[Tedronai]

You truly believe that a character's high concept "is of no more or less important to that character" than the fact that he has a Stubbed Toe or was Knocked Ass Over Teakettle?

I disagree.  Aspects can refer to all sorts of things, starting with who/what you are, continuing on through things you've done and people you know or knew, and ending with stuff that's happened to you, however recently.  If an aspect defines you as something that's incompatible with your template (which also defines who you are), this is Bad.

The degree of effect that an aspect can have on the narrative of a given game (for the duration that aspect remains a factor) is EXACTLY the same in all but a few specifically called-out cases.

If you have evidence against this being fact, please present it.

[sinker]

One problem we are having is that "fluff" and "crunch" are loaded terms with presupposed value judgements. It is much easier to discount something labelled "fluff" and cleave unto "crunch" as the ultimate arbiter of what to choose when there is a conflict.

Indeed, I had a hard time with the term when I wrote that, but it was the term we were using. I suppose I like story best.

So yeah, what do we do when the story creates mechanical imbalance?

[toturi]

I agree, the terms are loaded.

No more loaded than the terms oft used to describe people who favor crunch over fluff and vice versa.

For some reason, munchkin or even rules lawyer often have negative connotations. Whereas roleplayer is held up as a paragon to aspire to.

[Richard_Chilton]

Hey Richard, I understand the importance of fluff to a game, I really do, but what do you do when the fluff causes mechanical imbalances?

In many ways that comes down to the design of the game.  Some are system hard while others are setting hard.  I see White Wolf's Vampire the Masquerade as one of the "it's the setting" type games while in my mind Rolemaster tops the list of "it's the system" type games.

I see the DFRPG as leaning towards the setting side of the scale because it's a generic system (FATE) that has been adapted to a specific setting.  While it is possible to adapt the DRRPG rules to non-DV settings, doing so usually involves a complete redesign of Templates and creatures.

With that in mind, I don't see a fluff section in the Templates.  I see a "what is this template" section - which describes a part of the DV - followed by rules to show how the template works within the system.  If the rules don't mesh with the definition then it is the rules that need to be tweaked to fit the setting.

If you feel that the crunch on the Pure Mortal template contradicts what you see as "fluff", why do you feel that it is the descriptive element that must change? Which character in a story do you see as Pure Mortal with intrinsic supernatural aspects - which would make it part of the world that the DFRPG tries to emulate?

Look at Abby (OW, page 97).  Doesn't her ability fit the minor magical thing we are talking about? Doesn't her low level ability seem like what some people are trying to cover with Aspects like "I Can See the (Very Near) Future"?  It has almost zero effect in game - but it is a minor supernatural ability, making her a hedge wizard rather than a Pure Mortal.

Richard

[Serack]

Hi guys,

I know this is some stuff that you feel pretty strongly about, but take a moment to reread your posts out of context and consider if the post is conducive to a fun, community environment like you want your games to be. 

Things seem to have gotten a little overly heated

[sinker]

I think you misunderstand the question Richard (mostly because I shifted context a bit without telling you). What I see here isn't the 'fluff' and the 'crunch' contradicting, and as I said, I too dislike the term 'fluff'.

What I see here is the potential to create two characters that are functionally identical but are treated differently because of 'fluff', story, description, etc. What is the best thing to do in this circumstance? Is it better to honor the intent of the player and bend the rules or stick to your guns and stifle the player? Or is there another option that I'm not seeing?

[Silverblaze]

I think you misunderstand the question Richard (mostly because you're viewing it through the context of the thread). What I see here isn't the 'fluff' and the 'crunch' contradicting, and as I said, I too dislike the term 'fluff'.

What I see here is the potential to create two characters that are functionally identical but are treated differently. What is the best thing to do in this circumstance? Is it better to honor the intent of the player and bend the rules or stick to your guns and stifle the player? Or is there another option that I'm not seeing?

I know this was posed to Richard, but if I may ...

If I got to make the call, I'd rule in favor of the player, bend the rules etc.

 However.

I would only do this if I knew the player and trusted him/her to not abuse the opportunity to have the rules bent for them.  If I need to clarify I can/will.  For now, I'll simply add that some players I would not bend the rules for in that fashion and advise people to be careful about bending the rules in this fashion.

I also realize it sounds like I'd be playing favorites... not so.  I know plenty of players i have run games for that I do not like much.  They however can handle sticking to their guns and not being cheesy in game, when rules are bent for them.  I have best friends I very well may not bend rules for, for the opposite reason.

[Richard_Chilton]

What I see here is the potential to create two characters that are functionally identical but are treated differently because of 'fluff', story, description, etc. What is the best thing to do in this circumstance? Is it better to honor the intent of the player and bend the rules or stick to your guns and stifle the player? Or is there another option that I'm not seeing?

Okay.  So, to be clear, we're back to the difference between "Lucky SOB" and "Great-Grandson of the Luck God".  Both Aspects have identical mechanic benefits while one is intrinsically linked to a supernatural heritage - right?

If Aspects are meant to be interchangeable, then why not just have one big list? Say a couple of pages in the RPG or a PDF you can download (or both - a base list plus the expanded one in a PDF).  It could have a format like:
Name      Invoke                         Compel
Lucky     When Luck is involved     When luck would distract the PC (eg - chase the bad guy or pick up a $50 dollar bill from the ground).

But instead of genetic Aspects, they went with a system where you define your own aspects - and in doing so define your character the way you want it defined.

DFRPG characters aren't defined by having Str 18, Wis 10, etc - they are defined by their Aspects.  Each PC is uniquely defined by its player.  Those in many ways those 7 phrases are the core of the character.

Which is why I don't see wording as fluff.  Aspects with slightly different wording might have the same mechanical effect but they conjure up different mental pictures.  Since I also see Aspects as "something" as opposed to "nothing" (as in "nothing supernatural going on").

But let me give you an example.  Let's say you want a PC who can make great trick shots.  I see a difference between a PC who takes the Aspect "I'm The King Of The Rodeo Cowboys" and one takes the Aspect "Other Snipers Call Me Sgt Death".  I wouldn't expect the two of them to be played the same way or to have similar outlooks, would you? Both of those Aspects could be tagged for almost any shot but they both refer to completely different characters.

Looking at another part of the issue, Pure Mortal says that you can't have anything that is intrinsically supernatural and a half human heritage is an intrinsic part of the character - at least until a White Court Virgin slays his demon or a Changeling makes his choice to become mortal.  Or a Scion makes his "choice" (as worked out between the player and GM).  Which is why I don't see Pure Mortals transitioning to those Templates.

Richard

[sinker]

You didn't answer the question. Which sucks, because I'm not trying to trap you or anything, I just see a problem and am interested in a solution.

I agree that the word fluff is poor for this circumstance (I like story or description better) and that fluff has weight in this case. That's not at all the issue.

Heck, I don't even like the terms mechanics or crunch either, which is why I said functionally up there (as in works exactly the same in play).

[Richard_Chilton]

I thought I had.  If the question is:
Since "Lucky SOB" and "Great-Grandson of the Luck God" give the same mechanical benefit, why can't my Pure Mortal take the latter?
Then the answer is:
An supernatural heritage is an intrinsically supernatural thing.  It introduces a different flavour to the character, defining him as something other than a Pure Mortal.  Moreover, the wording of the Aspect isn't fluff but the player's definition of his PC.

And if that's not the question, then could you please rephrase it?

Richard

[sinker]

The question is what do we do when we have an imbalance like this. When two characters are functionally identical but the system singles one out.

[Mr. Death]

I'm not sure they're identical. Yes, they can, for the most part, invoke them for the same things, but compels are going to be different, and just being generically lucky is different from having a familial relationship to a deity. The latter is going to come with plot hooks and all the other goodies that come from being part of a god's family. Look at Greek Myth, even if you were only a distant relative of a god, you were gonna be compelled up and down Mt. Olympus.

[Richard_Chilton]

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

[Haru]

The question is what do we do when we have an imbalance like this. When two characters are functionally identical but the system singles one out.

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

1 is a pure mortal, no question about it.

3, at least to me, would be a changeling, no questions asked, but I got the feeling that there might be debate about that already. For me, the easy access to powers would be the reason for that. A pure mortal might be able to pick up powers along the way, but he would need a good reason why he can do it. A changeling can take up any power that has been agreed upon at creation, so it is a totally different animal.

2 is definitely up for debate, and here is where intent comes in. If the player just wants it to be the reason for his strange luck, but he wants to be a pure mortal otherwise, then yes, I can live with that, as long as the player can live with the consequence as well. If he suddenly points at his aspects and wants to take up a power, because his greatgranddaddy was a god, then I will point back to his template and tell him, that he agreed to wave that possibility at character creation. Of course he can change his template at a milestone, if he has enough justification to do so, but he would not be able to power up out of thin air.


I left out "is a pure mortal with the intent of taking up powers" deliberately. A character like that would be able to gather up powers of course, but only via milestones and solid justification from the story. And if he is a "pure mortal who gathered powers" at creation, he is no longer a pure mortal anyway.

[devonapple]

I don't feel that they are actually identical. One isn't being singled out and punished for having a different justification. It's not about punishment. It's about intent.

Someone who chose "Lucky SOB" intends (in general) to have things work out in their favor, in strange, possibly improbable, but nevertheless mundane statistical ways.

Someone who chose "Great-Grandson of the Luck God" has bought a whole set of supernatural plot baggage. They invented a Luck God. That Luck God sired a line of mortals. That Luck God presumably is watching over his heirs and making things happen to/for them, with both mundane and, if necessary, supernatural ways. And that character may opt to exercise that heritage in direct, intrinsic ways. "There is a finite, non-zero chance I can walk through this door" said a wild mage once in a game, and it is this level of improbability that is possible when you have a Luck God in your family tree. We're talking auras, supernatural people recognizing you for what you are, direct control of a gambling roll, that sort of thing: this sort of Aspect gives a lot of latitude for Invokes (and also, for Compels).

Now if a player takes "Great-Grandson of the Luck God" intending for it to only work as a flavored version of "Lucky SOB" - in that they have a supernatural background, but the only Invokes they will ever do will be for things that are strange, possibly improbable, but nevertheless statistically mundane - then (like Silverblaze said), I might be inclined to give it a pass, depending on the intent.

Edit: so, basically, what Haru said.