The Dresden Files > DFRPG

Clarifications requested for Feeding Dependency

(1/3) > >>

Codrus:
I'd like to see some examples of Feeding Dependency.  It affects a few character types, but lacks a detailed example.  Also, some of the effects seem odd or unintended.

After reading it, I'm not quite sure the intent behind the rules for the stress track actually is.  The stress track seems primarily about figuring out whether the character has been taken out by hunger. Based on searching the pdf for the word hunger, you only take stress after a scene is finished, not during the fight itself. That doesn't completely track with the books, where we often see Susan, Thomas, or Lara feeling their hunger mid-scene.

Here's my thoughts on how the rules-as-written might be used, but I'd really like to see clarifications and examples:

1. Mid-scene problems are going to come from Discipline checks or compels on a high concept. Nothing actually causes hunger stress during a scene.

2. Post-scene, I roll discipline vs a target based on the powers I used during the scene. So hunger stress is really about the NEXT scene, not the current one.

If I win the roll, I WIPE OUT my hunger stress track. Because the only thing that causes stress on this track is FAILING an earlier post-scene hunger check, I'm using my discipline now to eliminate hunger incurred in an earlier scene.  That seems REALLY weird. :)  Also, it might be manipulated by the player. Come up with a scene with minimal use of powers and you can easily make that discipine check.

3. If I take hunger stress, I lose powers based on the stress taken. 2 stress = -2 powers.  If I take stress over two consecutive fights, the results will be cumulative.  2 stress + 3 stress = 5 points lost.

I suspect the intent here is to encourage players to go for a consequence instead. ("insatiable hunger").

One possible continuity problem is that some of the vampire powers they can lose are things we've never seen them lose in the books. It is more common that their powers become harder to control. For example, in the rules as written, white court vampires could lose their ability to incite emotions. The reverse is always what happens in the book -- Lara or Thomas is not someone you want to be around when they are hungry. They lose the ability to control themselves.  That *could* be modeled as a consequence that immediately gets compellled...and compelled...and compelled...

4. Once I've lost powers, they recover at a rate of 1 point per scene I miss, or all of them after a kill. However, the stress track clears completely after missing a single scene. Cumulative stress on the track is more about avoiding being taken out by hunger than about recovering powers. Realistically, before being taken out by hunger, most vampires are going to be out of commission because they've lost their powers, which seems odd.  Also, losing powers means they have less powers to use, which means they'll make the discipline check more often. So, actually getting taken out by hunger is hard. :)

LCDarkwood:
I'd look at it this way:

Losing a power means you can't use it willfully anymore. That doesn't mean you don't have it, that means if you use it, you lose control. From the player's point of view, that's the same as losing it. Either the Hunger spirit inside you simply doesn't have the mojo to let you do what you want to do, or it does, but if it grants it to you, it's taking over. So that's how it matches up to the books - vamps in a hunger frenzy going balls out with powers are explicitly not being PCs at that point, and Thomas in a near-frenzy doesn't call upon his powers because he's afraid of that consequence.

I don't have a problem with hunger checks being manipulated by the player, because it means they've willfully made the choice not to use powers to keep their hunger in check. That means you can coast through a whole session with only a small potential fraction of your effectiveness - sounds like a fine tradeoff to me. Especially when I, as the GM, throw opposition at you that will make you need your powers.

Also, I'd interpret "heavily exerted" very tightly - if you use your Inhuman Speed to beat someone in a race to a door, or declare you get somewhere first, and then don't use any other powers... eh, I probably wouldn't even give you the chance to roll hunger against that. That's not heavy exertion, right? So no healing for you. I'm happy leaving that to group interpretation, because it allows people to set their own standards for how nasty they want hunger to be. (I'd be really mean about it.)


-L

Codrus:

--- Quote from: LCDarkwood on April 08, 2010, 05:46:35 PM ---I'd look at it this way:

Losing a power means you can't use it willfully anymore. That doesn't mean you don't have it, that means if you use it, you lose control. From the player's point of view, that's the same as losing it. Either the Hunger spirit inside you simply doesn't have the mojo to let you do what you want to do, or it does, but if it grants it to you, it's taking over. So that's how it matches up to the books - vamps in a hunger frenzy going balls out with powers are explicitly not being PCs at that point, and Thomas in a near-frenzy doesn't call upon his powers because he's afraid of that consequence.


--- End quote ---

That seems like a reasonable way to interpret it. They are on the edge, and if they call on that power, they fall to the beast inside. :)


--- Quote from: LCDarkwood on April 08, 2010, 05:46:35 PM ---I don't have a problem with hunger checks being manipulated by the player, because it means they've willfully made the choice not to use powers to keep their hunger in check. That means you can coast through a whole session with only a small potential fraction of your effectiveness - sounds like a fine tradeoff to me. Especially when I, as the GM, throw opposition at you that will make you need your powers.

--- End quote ---

Yeah, it does depend on how tough the opposition is, and I'd do much the same thing if someone was actively abusing it.  It still feels weird to me that beating the roll there solves the problem of being hungry from a previous scene.  But I can live with it or work around it.


--- Quote from: LCDarkwood on April 08, 2010, 05:46:35 PM ---Also, I'd interpret "heavily exerted" very tightly - if you use your Inhuman Speed to beat someone in a race to a door, or declare you get somewhere first, and then don't use any other powers... eh, I probably wouldn't even give you the chance to roll hunger against that. That's not heavy exertion, right? So no healing for you. I'm happy leaving that to group interpretation, because it allows people to set their own standards for how nasty they want hunger to be. (I'd be really mean about it.)


-L

--- End quote ---

Not sure I understand what you are saying.  "not getting a chance to roll hunger" means that you automatically suffer stress or that this exertion isn't enough to cause any hunger at all?

I like the idea that only heavy exertions trigger the hunger -- I'd thought about that after I posted. In play I'd want to see a difference between a casual use of a power and going completely to the wall using the same power.  That's why I was a little surprised to see hunger only take effect after the scene ends.  But, as I suggested in my original post, I've got tools to use on a player, in the form of compels.  "You've been going all out so far and are starting to get hungry....."

Anyway, the main reason I posted is because it was one of the few places in the rules where it didn't immediately seem clear to me what the intent of the rule was.

Deadmanwalking:
While I agree that the rest needs clarification, Incite Emotion isn't effected by Feeding Dependency for the White Court. Check p. 84, it only effects their physical capabilities. Like Human Form, it only applies to a specific, listed, set of powers.

Codrus:

--- Quote from: Deadmanwalking on April 08, 2010, 08:06:05 PM ---While I agree that the rest needs clarification, Incite Emotion isn't effected by Feeding Dependency for the White Court. Check p. 84, it only effects their physical capabilities. Like Human Form, it only applies to a specific, listed, set of powers.

--- End quote ---

Oh, I'd missed that, thanks.  I was going by the text of Feeding Dependency's first paragraph, which says it attaches to "most if not all" of the supernatural powers outside this category. I didn't go back to the template and check it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page