A More Codified Take on Hexing

[InFerrumVeritas]

One of my issues with hexing in the game is that my players want to know what kinds of technology they can and can’t use.  So, I’ve decided to write out some more rigid guidelines.  These may be helpful to others.

Compare your Conviction with the table on YS258. 

You do not receive a fate point for hexing technology three steps lower than your Conviction score.  As a practitioner, you should simply expect this.

Technology two steps lower than your Conviction is likely to hex at your very presence.  Use and prolonged exposure will almost always cause malfunction and failure very quickly.

Technology one step lower than your Conviction is tech that you can use for short periods of time, but prolonged use will start to cause hexing.  Regular use will cause total failure rather reliably.

Technology at the level equal to your Conviction is tech that you can use relatively frequently, but prolonged use may cause functional quirks or frustrating failures.

Technology one step greater than your Conviction is tech that you can use relatively safely, but casting spells near it may still cause problems (see below).

Technology two steps higher than your Conviction will virtually never hex around you, but powerful spells may still cause failure (see below).

If situations of emotional stress, treat your Conviction as one step higher.

If you’re casting a spell, the spell may hex certain tech immediately.  Use the following formulae:

(Shifts-Control)/2[round up]=Hex OR
(Shifts+Backlash)/2[round up]=Hex OR
(Shifts/2)[round up]+Fallout=Hex

Compare the “Hex” value with the table on YS258.  Fallout will always hex, in addition to the normal effect (and you probably won't get a fate point for it).

You’re unlikely to accidentally hex enemy weaponry and other technology that would be advantageous for you to fail.  That would be a function of deliberate hexing (although some GMs may allow you to spend a fate point to declare that you got lucky and something within these guidelines failed “accidentally”).

[Sanctaphrax]

Not really a fan. This makes hexing into a mechanical drawback where it was once a narrative one.

Which would be a decent way to nerf magic, if only hexing applied to all magic users.

[Harboe]

You do not receive a fate point for hexing technology three steps lower than your Conviction score.  As a practitioner, you should simply expect this.

Technology two steps lower than your Conviction is likely to hex at your very presence.  Use and prolonged exposure will almost always cause malfunction and failure very quickly.

Technology one step lower than your Conviction is tech that you can use for short periods of time, but prolonged use will start to cause hexing.  Regular use will cause total failure rather reliably.

Technology at the level equal to your Conviction is tech that you can use relatively frequently, but prolonged use may cause functional quirks or frustrating failures.

Technology one step greater than your Conviction is tech that you can use relatively safely, but casting spells near it may still cause problems (see below).

Technology two steps higher than your Conviction will virtually never hex around you, but powerful spells may still cause failure (see below).

If situations of emotional stress, treat your Conviction as one step higher.

I will definitely use this if it ever becomes relevant for my campaign (one wereform, one changeling, one Sponsored Spellcaster). Of course, as all other FATE rules, this too will be ignored if I get a better idea

If you’re casting a spell, the spell may hex certain tech immediately.  Use the following formulae:

(Shifts-Control)/2[round up]=Hex OR
(Shifts+Backlash)/2[round up]=Hex OR
(Shifts/2)[round up]+Fallout=Hex

Compare the “Hex” value with the table on YS258.  Fallout will always hex, in addition to the normal effect (and you probably won't get a fate point for it).

I will however not use this.
First, there's equations, which is something I try to avoid whenever I can
Second, I'd think this was covered by your note that when stressed, Conviction was considered one higher.

Still, if your group is spellcaster-heavy, I can see the point in codifying things a bit more.

[Mr. Death]

Doesn't that ignore the whole bit about how older wizards hex more stuff than younger wizards?

I'm with Sanctaphrax, accidental hexing is supposed to be a narrative thing, and give you compels when it goes wrong for you.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Not really a fan. This makes hexing into a mechanical drawback where it was once a narrative one.

Which would be a decent way to nerf magic, if only hexing applied to all magic users.

I always felt that it was/should be.  Still, these are mostly guidelines for me to follow while I'm GMing.  Specifically, it lets characters know what's safe. 

@Harboe, I'm not sure I like the formulae myself, actually.  I'll probably just change it to "Backlash/Fallout always hexes."

[Sanctaphrax]

It was/should be what?

[InFerrumVeritas]

It was/should be what?

A mechanical drawback/complication.

[Mr. Death]

A mechanical drawback/complication.

It's a narrative drawback more than a mechanical one. In the books, it doesn't influence any kind of dice rolls or power you can call up. It causes complications via compels.

[CottbusFiles]

You do not receive a fate point for hexing technology three steps lower than your Conviction score.  As a practitioner, you should simply expect this.

This is still a compel to your high-concept when it comes up in game. !

Also, how do i know what "level" a piece of technology has?

[Sanctaphrax]

The table InFerrumVeritas mentioned on page 258 of YS tells you what level technology is.

Making hexing into a mechanical drawback isn't a terrible idea if you're out to nerf magic, but it does demand you introduce something similarly bad into non-mortal magic in order to maintain balance. What do you propose to do about that?

[InFerrumVeritas]

The table InFerrumVeritas mentioned on page 258 of YS tells you what level technology is.

Making hexing into a mechanical drawback isn't a terrible idea if you're out to nerf magic, but it does demand you introduce something similarly bad into non-mortal magic in order to maintain balance. What do you propose to do about that?

Compels to have the magic fail because your sponsor is fickle, etc.  I know compels aren't bad, but my hexing stuff is still all compels anyway.

[Sanctaphrax]

But some of your hexing compels are bad, because they give no FP. What compels do non-mortal mages not get FP for?

Remember that not every non-mortal mage has a sponsor.

[Mr. Death]

The rulebook is pretty clear that any time the hexing causes any actual trouble for the wizard, that's a compel and worth a fate point.

[Becq]

My first reaction is that (as others have indicated) it doesn't seem right that some wizards should be subject to automatic, free compels.  If Harry walks into Murphy's office and blows up her computer, then that is a complication and he deserves Fate for it.  Note that if a wizard accidentally blows out the radio in a passing car but it doesn't actually complicate the wizard's life in any meaningful way, then that's just fluff and doesn't deserve a Fate point.

As to the remaining mechanics, I see value in creating such mechanics (as guidelines, if not hard/fast rules), but I have doubts about the specific ones you suggest.  For example, it seems as though Discipline should be a key factor (in making hexing less likely) rather than Conviction playing a role in making it more likely.

So perhaps my take on the mechanics would look more like this:
* First, create a mechanic to 'measure' emotional stress.  For lack of a better term, I'll use "emotion points" for now.
* The player gains emotion points whenever it seems appropriate.  Examples of triggers might include: taking a consequence, either invoking an emotion-based aspect or having it evoked/compelled by others (ie, Harry's "Still Quick to Anger", or similar temporary aspects), being subject to Incite Emotion (or having your emotions manipulated mundanely), suffering a failure of some significance, or any number of other options.
* Any time the wizard gains an emotion point or casts a spell, there's an opportunity for accidental hexing, the GM chooses whether or not this occurs.  If it does, the player makes a Discipline roll against the number of emotion points he's accumulated.  Failure means an accidental hex based on the shifts by which the roll failed.  (Note that this still counts as a compel, complete with a Fate point.)  Success means no hex, and the wizard discards one emotion point due to successfully controlling his emotions.
* The wizard can make a deliberate attempt to reduce emotion points by engaging in some form of relaxation.  Make a Discipline roll (against emotion points) after a full scene of uninterrupted relaxation, and reduce emotion points by the number of shifts earned.  Even if the roll fails, the wizard discards one emotion point regardless.

I guess this ends up kind of looking a bit like the Hunger rules.  And of course I've not playtested it in any way (or even though about it all that much), so I might be missing something important.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't think that's a good system. It's complex and arbitrary, and those are both bad things for rules to be.