An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent

[sinker]

By this I mean that a character with a 'Pyromaniac' aspect might be very good at setting fires (bonus to rolls to do so) but can't simply create fire from thin air.

True, however there's little reason to expect that a "Pyromaniac" wouldn't have a means of starting fire on them, or know more obscure ways to start a fire (chemical reactions, or making use of electricity). The "Pyromaniac" can't create fire out of thin air, but baring the GM stating that they are naked in a featureless room, they should be able to light a fire at almost any time.

Personally I see the terminology tripping us up. Death is the fact that we're using the word Veil a problem? If the "Innate Photomancer" simply invokes that aspect to provide a +2 to stealth then what is the problem? If the "Innate Pyromancer" invokes that aspect to ignite a piece of paper (as a "Pyromaniac" would be able to invoke to have a lighter or similar) then what is the problem?

One thing I will say is that even if the GM does allow this sort of interpretation, the player making use of it should absolutely not count as a Pure Mortal at the least -- because what defines a Pure Mortal is the lack of any supernatural abilities.

I'm split on this. To a degree it seems like penalizing a thematic choice. If I play a sneaky mortal with no powers then I get two extra refresh, but if I play sneaky pre-wizard with no powers then I don't? I just don't see the potential for abuse with this (a pre-wizard is never going to be as powerful as a wizard and they're not really any more effective than a mortal) so I would probably allow them the extra refresh.

[Mr. Death]

It's not about just the word used. It's about using magic for a tangible effect, without spending points on the power. A pyromancer should have Channeling: Fire if he's going to be causing fire without any outside source. Likewise a Photomancer should have Channeling: Light (or spirit, or whatever).

If you're going to use magic and call it a magical effect, you should have to take a magic power for it. If you can set things on fire with your mind and fade from sight, you're not a pure mortal. You're using magic of some stripe. And being able to do magic like that has a refresh cost.

[Silverblaze]

I honestly don't understand how this has reached so many pages.  You either have the power or you don't.  You either spend the refresh or you don't.

Caveat: If in your game ( your table, your GM etc.) Fate points can be spent for things like powers you don't have... go nuts.  I don't really care if Fate points allow you to teleport across the globe.  I don't personally like it, but this is coming from someone who does away with rules he doesn't like.  By all means go ahead, just don't expect any answer to be positive towards it however.  It certainly isn't RAW.

[sinker]

It certainly isn't RAW.

I don't understand this statement. Are you saying it isn't RAW to gain a +2 bonus by spending a fate point with an appropriate aspect? Or that it isn't RAW to spend a fate point to gain a small narrative advantage based on an appropriate aspect? Because that's literally how the book describes the use of aspects.

The most clear use of the invoke for effect in RAW actually is a form of teleporting (mechanically speaking). It's called the Fortuitous Arrival.

[Silverblaze]

I don't understand this statement. Are you saying it isn't RAW to gain a +2 bonus by spending a fate point with an appropriate aspect? Or that it isn't RAW to spend a fate point to gain a small narrative advantage based on an appropriate aspect? Because that's literally how the book describes the use of aspects.

The most clear use of the invoke for effect in RAW actually is a form of teleporting (mechanically speaking). It's called the Fortuitous Arrival.

 Part 1: Aspects can be invoked for effect and/or for a +2 to a roll or a reroll...that isn't a power that costs refresh.

Part 2: You pay a REFRESH for it.  Also, that is not teleportation, it is as it states - a fortuitous arrival.  That's a power called Guide My Hand (costs -1 refresh)... not an aspect.

Aspects invoked for effect are not powers.  The effects they have in my opinion should be limited in scope.

Refresh buys powers.
Items of power can be loaned - which still cost someone a refresh.
Thaumaturgy (which costs refresh btw) can mimic powers.
Potions can grant powers - which cost someone an item slot and ...drum roll please - a refresh.

I'm not arguing it ( it being the Original Post mainly) shouldn't be allowed at someone's table.  I already ceded that point.  Just not mine.

[sinker]

I think what bugs me about all of this, is that mechanically this theoretical "Innate Wizard" isn't any different from a pure mortal. They can't cast spells, they don't have permanent bonuses (or even bonuses that last a scene), and they can't do anything that a mortal couldn't (from a mechanical perspective). However because they have a thematic difference you are making things harder for them. Because they have decided to have a magic bent instead of a skilled one. If the player chooses to describe that action in one way rather than another then your response as a GM should be in the description. As long as they are using the same mechanics as everyone else you shouldn't be arbitrarily slapping them with mechanical penalties. To take the thematics out of question, this would be like having two players choose different routes to get to the same place (for example a car and a train) and yet choosing to make one character late for no reason, or having two players decide to solve a problem in two different (equally valid) ways, and giving one character a penalty for it. That really bugs me.

[Tallyrand]

I think what bugs me about all of this, is that mechanically this theoretical "Innate Wizard" isn't any different from a pure mortal. They can't cast spells, they don't have permanent bonuses (or even bonuses that last a scene), and they can't do anything that a mortal couldn't (from a mechanical perspective). However because they have a thematic difference you are making things harder for them. Because they have decided to have a magic bent instead of a skilled one. If the player chooses to describe that action in one way rather than another then your response as a GM should be in the description. As long as they are using the same mechanics as everyone else you shouldn't be arbitrarily slapping them with mechanical penalties. To take the thematics out of question, this would be like having two players choose different routes to get to the same place (for example a car and a train) and yet choosing to make one character late for no reason, or having two players decide to solve a problem in two different (equally valid) ways, and giving one character a penalty for it. That really bugs me.

I think that there is a mechanical difference, albeit a small one.  Specifiically the limitation on invoking aspects that the invocation must be reasonable.  Saying that a character is a pyromaniac it is reasonable that they would know tricks to make fire in unusual circumstances or that they have matches on them.  What isn't reasonable though is saying that they can conjure fire from thin air or at a distance, but of these are well within the realm of a pyromancer. 

[sinker]

Except here's the other thing that was bugging me last night (that I couldn't articulate). Fate points are a method for the player to manipulate the narrative. They have little to do with the character. A player with a mortal character could indeed create fire out of thin air or at a distance, by manipulating the narrative in such a way as to emulate a stroke of luck. We as human beings (characters too) can't do any of this stuff, but as players we are enabled to have candles fall over, or have something flammable sitting near the heater. I've always thought that the only difference between a wizard and a mortal in this system was justification (though I suppose the wizard is significantly more powerful, but meh). A mortal needs to come up with a reason why things happen, for a wizard "it's magic", but there's no reason why a player with a mortal character couldn't do almost anything a wizard could with sufficient creativity.

PS: Sorry for the long and rambling posts.

[Mr. Death]

I think what bugs me about all of this, is that mechanically this theoretical "Innate Wizard" isn't any different from a pure mortal. They can't cast spells, they don't have permanent bonuses (or even bonuses that last a scene), and they can't do anything that a mortal couldn't (from a mechanical perspective). However because they have a thematic difference you are making things harder for them. Because they have decided to have a magic bent instead of a skilled one. If the player chooses to describe that action in one way rather than another then your response as a GM should be in the description. As long as they are using the same mechanics as everyone else you shouldn't be arbitrarily slapping them with mechanical penalties. To take the thematics out of question, this would be like having two players choose different routes to get to the same place (for example a car and a train) and yet choosing to make one character late for no reason, or having two players decide to solve a problem in two different (equally valid) ways, and giving one character a penalty for it. That really bugs me.

In this game, if you have a magic bent, that means you have magic. And if you have magic, that means you're not a pure mortal anymore. It means you've paid refresh to have magic.

As for the example, allowing invokes like this is more like having two players choose different routes, a train and a car...and then they both arrive on time despite the 'car' character not having a car, not having the resources for or regular access to a car, and not having any points in the Drive skill.

I mean, magical power isn't something like a gun where you can be carrying one in one scene, and not in another, and just handwave that you forgot/remembered to bring it. It's something intrinsic to the character's nature and who and what they are. If you can do things that are outright impossible for a non-magic, pure mortal to do, that costs refresh.

It's not just about pure mechanics. The thematics matter.

Except here's the other thing that was bugging me last night (that I couldn't articulate). Fate points are a method for the player to manipulate the narrative. They have little to do with the character. A player with a mortal character could indeed create fire out of thin air or at a distance, by manipulating the narrative in such a way as to emulate a stroke of luck. We as human beings (characters too) can't do any of this stuff, but as players we are enabled to have candles fall over, or have something flammable sitting near the heater. I've always thought that the only difference between a wizard and a mortal in this system was justification (though I suppose the wizard is significantly more powerful, but meh). A mortal needs to come up with a reason why things happen, for a wizard "it's magic", but there's no reason why a player with a mortal character couldn't do almost anything a wizard could with sufficient creativity.

PS: Sorry for the long and rambling posts.

I'm not disagreeing that a mortal can get a mechanical advantage out of his aspects. I'm just saying that you can't say "It's magic," without paying to use the magic. As others have pointed out, an invoke still has to make sense, and part of that making sense is having it fit with the character and his powers (or lack thereof).

And don't worry about the long and rambling, I've written longer and more rambly

[sinker]

It's not just about pure mechanics. The thematics matter.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if it's a thematic difference, then you should deal with it thematically. It bugs the crap out of me, when we have two things that are mechanically identical (or similar) but one gets mechanically penalized because of thematics, and here's why: it stifles creativity. Have you ever, as a player, come up with something creative and interesting (even if it's just an unusual solution to a problem) and then the GM goes "Well, I guess you could do that, but it'll be at a negative [really difficult modifier]." It sucks, and it makes you not want to try it. If someone gets mechanically penalized for coming up with an interesting story then they're going to stop trying to make an interesting story, and then everyone loses out.

[sinker]

In this game, if you have a magic bent, that means you have magic. And if you have magic, that means you're not a pure mortal anymore. It means you've paid refresh to have magic.

Also this isn't strictly true. Pure mortals have no powers. Their template has no specifics on aspects, or their use. Butters is a great example of a pure mortal with a magic bent, as he is capable of small rituals, etc.

Here's a question. How would you make a character with a little bit of magic, but no powers at all (I.E. you didn't want constant access to spellcasting or anything else)?

[sinker]

I'm not disagreeing that a mortal can get a mechanical advantage out of his aspects. I'm just saying that you can't say "It's magic," without paying to use the magic. As others have pointed out, an invoke still has to make sense, and part of that making sense is having it fit with the character and his powers (or lack thereof).

Also I'm not arguing that, per se, I'm arguing that there's no mechanical difference between, "I invoke the aspect 'Candlelight' to start a fire" and "I invoke the aspect 'Innate Pyromancer' to start a fire."

(sorry for the rapid-fire posts)

[Mr. Death]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if it's a thematic difference, then you should deal with it thematically. It bugs the crap out of me, when we have two things that are mechanically identical (or similar) but one gets mechanically penalized because of thematics, and here's why: it stifles creativity. Have you ever, as a player, come up with something creative and interesting (even if it's just an unusual solution to a problem) and then the GM goes "Well, I guess you could do that, but it'll be at a negative [really difficult modifier]." It sucks, and it makes you not want to try it. If someone gets mechanically penalized for coming up with an interesting story then they're going to stop trying to make an interesting story, and then everyone loses out.

Occasionally. But if it's something that the character literally isn't capable of, because he or she simply doesn't have the ability, I accept it. "It doesn't work that way," and "No, you can't set fires with your mind because you don't have a magic power" are plenty acceptable reasons to me, as a player or GM. Yes, it sucks, but hey, sometimes we can't do everything we want.

Also this isn't strictly true. Pure mortals have no powers. Their template has no specifics on aspects, or their use. Butters is a great example of a pure mortal with a magic bent, as he is capable of small rituals, etc.

Here's a question. How would you make a character with a little bit of magic, but no powers at all (I.E. you didn't want constant access to spellcasting or anything else)?

Spoilers for GS:

(click to show/hide)

I'd argue that Butters probably picked up Ritual, at least by the time of the latest books, given what he's able to do with Bob's instruction is beyond "basic rituals".

The quick and dirty circle he did in Dead Beat is something, like I said before, that I'd allow once, maybe twice, as a GM before I told the player, "Look, if you wanna use magic regularly, you should take the power."

As for the question, I'd give them Ritual or Channeling, but low or no ratings in the relevant skills, and an aspect along the lines of "Don't know how to control my power". Then if they want to use the effect, they have to pay for it the regular way--for someone with 0 Conviction, even casting a rudimentary aspect (3 shifts) would already be a Consequence-worthy action just from calling up the power in the first place (that '2 hour ice cream headache') before even considering they're rolling from 0 discipline.

Then as they take milestones, they can raise their Conviction and Discipline to represent training (self or otherwise), and turn that fledgeling magic use into directed magic use (exactly like Molly and Harry did).

[GryMor]

Given that, with the right circumstances, you can 'buy' a power for a scene just from spending fate points and that channeling less it's focus item slots is about refresh, I see nothing wrong with someone sufficiently unskilled in magic that they can't reliably call up meaningful amounts of power having their unreliable access to magic represented as a few aspects that the occasionally invoke for trivial spells.

[sinker]

The quick and dirty circle he did in Dead Beat is something, like I said before, that I'd allow once, maybe twice, as a GM before I told the player, "Look, if you wanna use magic regularly, you should take the power."

Actually all sorts of things disagree with you. Firstly according to thematics a circle is something any mortal can do at any time if they have sufficient knowledge and a little blood. Secondly mortals can actually perform rituals without having the ritual power. It's called "Common Ritual" and it's a trapping Lore.

As for the question, I'd give them Ritual or Channeling, but low or no ratings in the relevant skills, and an aspect along the lines of "Don't know how to control my power". Then if they want to use the effect, they have to pay for it the regular way--for someone with 0 Conviction, even casting a rudimentary aspect (3 shifts) would already be a Consequence-worthy action just from calling up the power in the first place (that '2 hour ice cream headache') before even considering they're rolling from 0 discipline.

Then as they take milestones, they can raise their Conviction and Discipline to represent training (self or otherwise), and turn that fledgeling magic use into directed magic use (exactly like Molly and Harry did).

And again this bothers me, because you are forcing a severe mechanical handicap, with absolutely no mechanical upside. If you offer this solution to a character who proposes the "Wild talent" character concept, they will turn you down and find something else to play. Then you will never have a "Wild talent" character, which is a pity because they can be lots of fun.