ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Mr. Death on September 10, 2012, 05:37:01 PM
-
So, I'm still trying to wrap my head around ways for Hunger stress and Feeding Dependency to make sense both in the rules, and with what we see in the canon of the story and the flavor text. This is, perhaps, veering into house-rules, but I think it's in the spirit of the system. It's in two parts.
I. Banking Hunger
This is, basically, having something with hunger stress do some prep work instead of hunger stress just being an after-the-fact, "I did this, now I have to eat" thing. In effect, this would look at your average vampire as a "baseline". Sort of like a human with an empty stomach, but who's been eating regularly. Using their powers makes them hungry, as normal, just like doing a day's worth of yard work would make you hungry.
But, prudent vampires can top up their reserves by maneuvering with their feeding skills beforehand, with each maneuver being taggable later on--either to boost a roll in combat, justified by tapping into those extra reserves, or to boost the discipline roll at the end of the conflict, justified by the conflict depleting the extra reserves, but not pushing you into hunger stress.
This would explain, for example, the fight with Lord Raith in Blood Rites--he can't feed, but he's moving quickly and healing rapidly all during the fight, probably using all the maneuvers he'd built up before he got neutered, but which he didn't want to use except as a last resort.
II. Trading in Hunger Stress for Bonuses
This one is more to deal with things like a vampire going all out, beyond their normal limits, during a fight, then being drained after (see Thomas vs. the Black Court vamps in Blood Rites). Essentially, this would be the vampire boosting some roll or another by trading in a hunger consequence--+2 for Mild, +4 for Moderate, +6 for Severe--during combat, which takes effect at the end of the conflict.
This, I think, works more in line with how we've seen White Court vampires work in the series, and allows the vampire more options in a fight. At the same time, it both makes the hunger track useful, and makes it more likely to actually cause a hindrance.
I was considering the idea of trading hunger stress for the bonuses, but that seems a little too powerful.
So, thoughts?
-
I agree with both of these concepts, both should be something you can do.
I think the Banking Hunger method you proposed is good. And also something that you can probably already do under the rules. If you maneuver/declare that you fed before the fight/during the fight, then you have a Well Fed aspect, and you could of course tag it to boost your Feeding Failure defense roll.
Vampires going all out is also something that should be an option. I think this is best modeled with the temporary powers rules. When a vampire goes all out, they take on a higher level of their Strength/Speed/Toughness/Recovery power (whichever is applicable) temporarily by drawing deeply from their reserves. Then at the end of the scene they face a attack equal to the total refresh of powers they used. This would of course have to cost something (like normal temporary powers), but I think it would be fair to not require the expenditure of a full fate point per refresh of temporary power, since you are paying something by increasing the power of the hunger attack you are going to face later. I am just not sure how much this something is worth. Maybe half a fate point per refresh (so 1 fate point per level per power on Strength/Speed/Toughness/Recovery)? I don't know. It does give you a way to "spend" hunger stress and consequences when you eat that huge attack.
My main problem with spending consequences (and especially stress) to boost a roll is that it feels a bit too much like Sacred Guardian (especially with stress). I know it is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the stress does not clear as normal, but i still think it is too strong. When you only allow consequences it is somewhat better, but still hurt by the fact that you can then go kill a person and clear all your hunger consequences. That may be a somewhat steep cost in some games, but probably less of a cost in others. I just think the potential for a +12 to a roll, and then going and killing something is a bit strong or at least abuseable (if not always strong).
I also feel the problems with Feeding Dependency and the Feeding Powers (Blood Drinker, Emotional Vampire) go further than just not modeling the cases you bring up. I think feeding dependency is extremely unclear in many other ways, and even when you sort through that does not do what I want it to.
I looked over several interpretations/re-writes when I made a White Court character for a game, and here is what I came up with (a lot of credit goes to Becq and Sancta from whom most of these ideas are adapted/copied). I would love feed back on this re-write/houserule of the power (I know Sancta has one that is very general, but I like this more for the types of feeding dependency we see in YS, namely blood and life force via emotions).
Feeding Dependency [+Varies]
Hunger checks are made as in the rules as written (discipline vs refresh used), except that even on a success, a minimum 1-stress hit is inflicted. Stress taken can be reduced as normal by opting to take hunger consequences; the player can also buy down the stress by disabling powers (-1 stress per refresh worth of powers 'lost'). Marking off boxes on the hunger stress track has no additional effect, though the hunger stress track is not automatically cleared as normal at the end of scenes, nor does winning the hunger check clear the stress. Stress that overflows the stress track causes the character to be taken out.
You can feed in order to offset hunger effects. Any time a consequence is inflicted by feeding, any one lesser hunger consequence or any one hunger stress box is cleared. For example, feeding that inflicts a severe consequence allows a mild or moderate hunger consequence, or any one hunger stress box to be cleared. Powers can be recovered in place of a consequence (mild consequence = 2 refresh, moderate = 4 refresh, etc). (If you are allowing partial downgrades, then powers can be partially recovered, too.)
You can also opt out of a scene to feed (you may also feed when there is enough downtime, if you have the night off you may go clubbing and feed as described here, if you have a week off assume you had the opportunity to feed gradually and clear all your problems, subject to GM approval). Describe an appropriate mini-scene and roll an appropriate skill against a difficulty determined by the GM. For example, A WCV that opts out of a scene in order to feed at a rave might test with Presence or Deceit against a mediocre difficulty, whereas a RCV who finds his reserves depleted in the middle of a wilderness might have a much harder time of it. If this check is successful, then shifts can be used to recover powers (one refresh per shift) and/or clear hunger consequences (shift for shift) and/or clear stress boxes (any one box per shift).
Killing while feeding has the same benefit as in RAW: you can immediately regain all of your lost abilities (hunger stress and consequences as well as loss of powers). Note that killing could trigger investigation by police, potentially leading to a conflict (or social consequence involving reputation for being a prime suspect).
Further, since this version adds a more significant gameplay challenge (by requiring “on screen feeding” every so often, or sitting out every few scenes, which is no fun) the rebate should likely be increased. This does depend entirely on how the campaign will be run. If the character is a full White Court Vampire, with no problem with killing, and never faces the consequences of this killing, then [+1] is fine no matter how many powers he puts on it. However, if the character won't kill, can't kill (ie. is a Virgin), or will face severe repercussions from killing (at least some of the time), it may be worth up to [+1] per 2-3 refresh attached.
I suggest [+1] for up to 5 refresh of attached powers, this bonus increases to [+2] at 6 refresh and [+3] at 10 refresh etc.
What do people think?
EDIT: Fixed a particularly egregious spelling error.
-
Vampires going all out is also something that should be an option. I think this is best modeled with the temporary powers rules. When a vampire goes all out, they take on a higher level of their Strength/Speed/Toughness/Recovery power (whichever is applicable) temporarily by drawing deeply from their reserves. Then at the end of the scene they face a attack equal to the total refresh of powers they used. This would of course have to cost something (like normal temporary powers), but I think it would be fair to not require the expenditure of a full fate point per refresh of temporary power, since you are paying something by increasing the power of the hunger attack you are going to face later. I am just not sure how much this something is worth. Maybe half a fate point per refresh (so 1 fate point per level per power on Strength/Speed/Toughness/Recovery)? I don't know. It does give you a way to "spend" hunger stress and consequences when you eat that huge attack.
This is kinda iffy to me, partly because it's not "even" I guess. Boosting Strength by one level would be a +2 to successful attacks (and doesn't help with the roll), but boosting Speed by one level is only +1 to defense, for instance. I agree that if you do go the temporary powers route, you shouldn't have to spend the fate points because then you're taking it coming and going.
My main problem with spending consequences (and especially stress) to boost a roll is that it feels a bit to much like Sacred Guardian (especially with stress). I know it is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the stress does not clear as normal, but i still think it is too strong. When you only allow consequences it is somewhat better, but still hurt by the fact that you can then go kill a person and clear all your hunger consequences. That may be a somewhat steep cost in some games, but probably less of a cost in others. I just think the potential for a +12 to a roll, and then going and killing something is a bit strong or at least abuseable (of not always strong).
Well, look at it this way--that +12 to one roll means that until you do feed, so much as a light breeze is going to either take you out or force an Extreme consequence. So while there's potential for massive gain, it's really easy for it to bite you in the as--especially if your enemies notice your Herculean feat and decide to gang up on you before you do it again.
I suppose you could do it both ways, though--if you really need a quick, huge boost to one roll right now, take the consequence to boost it, but if you're in for a long fight and you expect to be throwing a lot of punches, boosting to Supernatural Strength instead of Inhuman is the better bet.
(Not answering the rest of it because I'm not interested in wholesale alternate powers, just in finding better ways to work within the rules as written and intended).
-
This is kinda iffy to me, partly because it's not "even" I guess. Boosting Strength by one level would be a +2 to successful attacks (and doesn't help with the roll), but boosting Speed by one level is only +1 to defense, for instance. I agree that if you do go the temporary powers route, you shouldn't have to spend the fate points because then you're taking it coming and going.
This is true. But in my recollection of the novels, when we see Thomas or another WCV go all out, it isn't just one roll (maybe sometimes it is, but sometimes it is for whole scenes at a time). When Thomas's eyes get even more shiny, and he gets even more pale he is described as moving faster then before, or recovering from more than he could before (above what he could when he was using his powers normally). I think that while the bonuses are not the same, they are fairly even in power level (as interpreted by how building stunts work), +2 to damage is worth 1 refresh, so is +1 to a combat skill. Of course there are all the other benefits of the skills thrown in, but those powers are some of the more balanced IMO.
I think your method works also, it certainly has its dangers and downsides and mechanically it looks "fair." I just think any time you give players the option to strait boost their roll by a huge number you are asking for trouble. I can see the circumstance where an WCV and his party has taken out all of the minions and is fighting the Boss. The WCV says he is going "all in" and rolls weapon (or whatever) at Great+12 with his strength power and a weapon, this is going to be like 13-15 stress, and likely just force a take out (maybe not, depends on what the boss is, but you get the point). Then his take out narration could just be knock him unconscious, tie him up, and feed on him to death, clearing all consequences. This is of course the "magical Christmas land" scenario, but you get the point.
I also think that while temporary powers is clearly allowed in the book, taking consequences to boost rolls is not. So if you want to stay as true to the book as possible there is that consideration. I personally feel that whatever your group agrees is best is the way to go, and my groups like to house rule things significantly when they do not make sense, but I know many groups try to stay as authentic as possible.
Quick question. If you do go the temporary powers route what do you think an appropriate cost is? We agree it should not be the full cost in fate points, because as you said you would be taking it coming and going. On the other hand, the way Feeding Dependency works in the RAW (and pretty much in my re-writer as well), there would be functionally no difference between spending the 24 refresh on mythic everything and spending 8 refresh on inhuman everything and beefing it up to mythic every time you needed to. Both methods would have the same "cost" of a X shift hunger attack based on what you used, but the first clearly costs 16 more refresh.
-
I also think that while temporary powers is clearly allowed in the book, taking consequences to boost rolls is not. So if you want to stay as true to the book as possible there is that consideration. I personally feel that whatever your group agrees is best is the way to go, and my groups like to house rule things significantly when they do not make sense, but I know many groups try to stay as authentic as possible.
It's true that it's not in the book, but I recall seeing a blog post by one of the writers (either of Dresden, or of the FATE system in general) musing on the subject of using regular consequences proactively, similarly to using a mental consequence to cast more than the usual four spells per combat.
Quick question. If you do go the temporary powers route what do you think an appropriate cost is? We agree it should not be the full cost in fate points, because as you said you would be taking it coming and going. On the other hand, the way Feeding Dependency works in the RAW (and pretty much in my re-writer as well), there would be functionally no difference between spending the 24 refresh on mythic everything and spending 8 refresh on inhuman everything and beefing it up to mythic every time you needed to. Both methods would have the same "cost" of a X shift hunger attack based on what you used, but the first clearly costs 16 more refresh.
It's hard to say. Making them cost the full amount seems overly harsh, so I'd say probably half price?
Or, alternatively, combine the ideas. Going from Inhuman to Supernatural is a mild hunger consequence. Boosting to Mythic, or boosting two of them one level each, is a moderate consequence, etc. It covers the cost, and provides a hard limit to how much of a boost you can give yourself.
-
Centarion said what I was going to say.
I like his Feeding Dependency rewrite too.
I can't find the link right now, but devonapple once proposed a pretty good house rule where you could turn a failed roll into a successful one by taking a consequence with a value bigger than the margin of failure.
-
I can't find the link right now, but devonapple once proposed a pretty good house rule where you could turn a failed roll into a successful one by taking a consequence with a value bigger than the margin of failure.
One of Fred's blog posts (http://www.faterpg.com/2011/consequences-as-positive-currency/) was where I first saw the proposal.
-
Huh, cool. I didn't know the idea had "official" status.
-
One of Fred's blog posts (http://www.faterpg.com/2011/consequences-as-positive-currency/) was where I first saw the proposal.
Yeah, that's the blog post I was thinking of. Thanks.
-
I like his Feeding Dependency rewrite too.
Thanks, coming from someone with your experience with this sort of thing I will take that as high praise indeed.
I also really like the concept of the blog post. Sounds fun. I especially like it in concert with the idea of taking hunger consequences to upgrade powers, seems like a reasonable cost that is in some cases better and some cases worse than just doing it with fate points (I think 1 fate point per upgrade would be reasonable as well). It is especially good if you don't take them till after the scene, which is what I would assume, though if you take more consequences during the scene and rack up a big hunger attack you could be in a lot of trouble (I assume if the consequence isn't available you just add its value to the attack).
-
I also really like the concept of the blog post. Sounds fun. I especially like it in concert with the idea of taking hunger consequences to upgrade powers, seems like a reasonable cost that is in some cases better and some cases worse than just doing it with fate points (I think 1 fate point per upgrade would be reasonable as well). It is especially good if you don't take them till after the scene, which is what I would assume, though if you take more consequences during the scene and rack up a big hunger attack you could be in a lot of trouble (I assume if the consequence isn't available you just add its value to the attack).
Temporary Powers have their own reasonably well defined rules in YS. Assuming by 'upgrade' you're referencing a jump from, say, Inhuman [X] to Supernatural [X], the cost would be 2 FPs.
Additionally, I would assume that you take the consequence at the time that you spend the shifts it provides.
-
I know the rules in YS for temporary powers. The question I was asking is more along the lines of what if anything is the fact that you are going to take a larger hunger attack worth?
I assume if you upgrade from Inhuman Strength to Supernatural Strength, and also use Speed and Toughness in the fight you would take an 8 shift hunger attack (4 for strength, 2 for the others). So as Mr. Death said, you would be paying twice, once to upgrade the power, and then again when you eat a hunger attack. I am well aware that if the initial upgrade costs nothing that having inhuman everything and upgrading when needed is just as good as having mythic everything and using only what is needed (at 1/3 the price). But it still does not feel right that the initial upgrade would be full price (or maybe it is, just because the justification comes so easily in this case, at the cost of more hunger).
The reason I assume the consequence applies later (at the time of the applicable hunger attack) is that when Thomas draws deeply upon his reserves (which is what I, at least, am trying to model here) he kicks serious butt for the scene, but is really hurting afterwords. It just feels like the price is delayed. This may not be balanced, but it does not seem like too OP or too much of a hassle to track. And if you do use the consequence during the scene (before you pay with it) then you are going to be paying for the temporary upgrade by loosing an equal refresh worth of powers, which I think is at least as bad if not much worse than the consequence.
If you are just using consequences to normally boost a roll of course you take it when you spend the shifts, and I know it is awkward to have different rules for different uses, but this one just seemed so flavorfully correct.
Another question, if you pay for extra powers by taking a hunger consequence of appropriate value, would you still take the hunger attack for the upgrade at the end (in the above example a 4 instead of a 2)? I would say you clearly do with fate points (why again, I think you should get some discount), but it is less clear if you are already going to be taking a hunger consequence for it.
-
I know the rules in YS for temporary powers. The question I was asking is more along the lines of what if anything is the fact that you are going to take a larger hunger attack worth?
...
Another question, if you pay for extra powers by taking a hunger consequence of appropriate value, would you still take the hunger attack for the upgrade at the end (in the above example a 4 instead of a 2)? I would say you clearly do with fate points (why again, I think you should get some discount), but it is less clear if you are already going to be taking a hunger consequence for it.
A bigger hunger attack is certainly worth something, but it's not worth enough that I'd be comfortable with reducing the FP cost.
I think mechanics for hunger overclocking would be best handled with a new Power or a Feeding Dependency rewrite.
As for the latter question, it's up to the GM or the guy writing the new Power. We're in house rules territory here anyway.
-
We are indeed in house rule territory.
Say I wanted to make a -1 or minus 0 addon to feeding dependency that allows you to take a hunger consequence after the scene or pay some (reduced?) amount of fate points now, to supercharge your powers. What limmitations would this need? Would it be fair?
I'll take a stab at it when I am not on my phone.
-
If it's not part of Feeding Dependency and has no drawbacks, it should cost something. Choosing not to take an upgrade should always be viable.
Looking forward to seeing what you come up with.
PS: Fred writes a bit about possible problems with spending consequences in the comments section of his post. If you haven't read his comment already, you should.
-
I have not read the comments of the post, thanks for bringing that up I will take a look.
In therms of the power I guess it would be either a -1 upgrade to feeding dependency or just an addition to the power. Your point about not taking upgrades always being viable is a good one.
When I get a spare minute I will look over Fred's comments and throw something together.
-
If you're allowing Consequence expenditure on non-defense rolls, then allowing essentially the same for Hunger Consequences would not, in my opinion, qualify as an 'upgrade'.
-
What do people think?
I like the look of them... (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,20726.msg908782.html#msg908782) :)
-
Yes, as I said it was heavily influenced by your and sancta's suggestions. Some of it is copy paste, some of it was updated.
-
As for Fred's comment under the blog, at the least something using Hunger consequences instead of regular consequences will curb that particular kind of abuse.
Though personally, I wouldn't have much problem with something that has a Recovery power taking consequences for a boost so that they can heal quickly afterward. "I'll take this risk because I can heal afterward" is a trope old enough in itself, after all. How many times does, say, Wolverine walk through gunfire to get something accomplished because he knows he'll heal from it when others won't?
I could see it becoming a favored strategy for someone of sufficient healing ability, in fact, which I think works fine and encourages creativity in using your resources.
Also note that taking any consequence carries an element of risk. Even if you're assured to heal from a Severe consequence at the end of a scene, you still have to make it to the end of that scene. If you're constantly blowing your consequences on your own actions, it doesn't leave you with much of a safety net for when your defense fails. It's a gamble even with a recovery power.
Also it adds room for compels. Recovery powers typically come with a Catch, after all--so maybe that White Court Vampire who's jumping on a sword in order to land that last extra punch finds out a second too late that the sword was an anniversary gift given out of True Love.
-
As for Fred's comment under the blog, at the least something using Hunger consequences instead of regular consequences will curb that particular kind of abuse.
I'd expect it to make such abuse easier, actually, given that everyone capable of taking Hunger Consequences can recover 'em all instantly by eating someone.
Though personally, I wouldn't have much problem with something that has a Recovery power taking consequences for a boost so that they can heal quickly afterward.
I wouldn't have a problem with it either, in theory.
But Recovery Powers are already powerful. Stacking an extra benefit onto them at no cost seems like a bad idea.
There's also an issue with non-conflict scenes, where consequences matter less.
-
I'd expect it to make such abuse easier, actually, given that everyone capable of taking Hunger Consequences can recover 'em all instantly by eating someone.
That presumes there's someone around to be eaten, however, or that the person using those consequences wants to kill. What I meant, though, is that Hunger Consequences aren't subject to the benefits of a recovery power.
I wouldn't have a problem with it either, in theory.
But Recovery Powers are already powerful. Stacking an extra benefit onto them at no cost seems like a bad idea.
Eh, I look at it less like an extra benefit and more like a natural progression if you're going to let everyone use these consequences.
There's also an issue with non-conflict scenes, where consequences matter less.
They matter less, and they also have to be justified in some way. If it's a non-conflict, how is the consequence being generated in the narrative? And for the purposes of the conversation, I'm presuming we're talking physical consequences, which means mental and social conflicts aren't going to be affected by the recovery power.
-
-Point is that the eating-people effect is similar to the effect of a Recovery Power and much more universal.
-Extra benefit or natural progression, it still makes Recovery better without increasing its cost.
-I pull my eye out and throw it at you to pump up an Intimidation roll. I climb the cliff, but slash open my leg on a sharp rock as I do so. I stab myself, blocking out the lust incited by the WCV with pain. I delve into the deepest and most dangerous parts of the Great Library, emerging with the knowledge I need and several nasty book-bite wounds.
It's narratively appropriate to take physical consequences during some non-conflict actions. If disallowing such things is necessary for balance, then that's a real shame.
Hm. Maybe an upgrade to Recovery that let you use it with consequences spent to boost rolls.
Still, that leaves the unfortunate issue where sometimes you can avoid a hit entirely by taking a consequence smaller than the one that being hit would have forced you to take.
-
Hm. Maybe an upgrade to Recovery that let you use it with consequences spent to boost rolls.
That wouldn't be an upgrade. That would be a nerf.
-
How so?
-
Still, that leaves the unfortunate issue where sometimes you can avoid a hit entirely by taking a consequence smaller than the one that being hit would have forced you to take.
Actually, that I simply wouldn't allow. As far as avoiding punishment, I'd have it that that use of consequences would be right out.
-
How so?
Recovery as written affects all physical consequences.
The suggested change is in three parts:
Formalize the 'spending' of consequences as an option, presumeably available to all.
Remove the ability of standard Recovery powers to affect otherwise-physical 'spent' consequences.
Reintroduce the above removed ability as an upgrade with additional costs.
-
Still, that leaves the unfortunate issue where sometimes you can avoid a hit entirely by taking a consequence smaller than the one that being hit would have forced you to take.
Actually, that I simply wouldn't allow. As far as avoiding punishment, I'd have it that that use of consequences would be right out.
This issue is actually quite readily resolved with a tweak in the mechanical definition of weapon ratings.
In a system where consequences can be spent to boost the defense roll, weapon ratings, instead of simply adding stress on a successful hit, also increase the cost of boosting defense rolls against the attack that bears them.
-
Recovery as written affects all physical consequences.
The suggested change is in three parts:
Formalize the 'spending' of consequences as an option, presumeably available to all.
Remove the ability of standard Recovery powers to affect otherwise-physical 'spent' consequences.
Reintroduce the above removed ability as an upgrade with additional costs.
What would be the justification for someone's recovery power healing up in minutes a Knife Wound to the Stomach they got as a consequence after blowing their dodge roll but that same recovery power not working on the Knife Wound to the Stomach they got as a consequence by boosting a roll to finish off their opponent?
-
What would be the justification for someone's recovery power healing up in minutes a Knife Wound to the Stomach they got as a consequence after blowing their dodge roll but that same recovery power not working on the Knife Wound to the Stomach they got as a consequence by boosting a roll to finish off their opponent?
I really don't know.
Then again, I'm not really in favour of that change, I was just clarifying it so that it could be discussed more clearly.
Presumeably, though, it would necessitate (in addition to and as a consequence of the three basic points I spelled out above) that 'spent' Consequences be of a type that would satisfy the Catch.
-
Actually, that I simply wouldn't allow. As far as avoiding punishment, I'd have it that that use of consequences would be right out.
So would you not let them be used on defense rolls at all?
Because if not, the problem's still there. You're just papering over it.
What would be the justification for someone's recovery power healing up in minutes a Knife Wound to the Stomach they got as a consequence after blowing their dodge roll but that same recovery power not working on the Knife Wound to the Stomach they got as a consequence by boosting a roll to finish off their opponent?
The knife wound he got finishing off his opponent is bigger.
Recovery as written affects all physical consequences.
The suggested change is in three parts:
Formalize the 'spending' of consequences as an option, presumeably available to all.
Remove the ability of standard Recovery powers to affect otherwise-physical 'spent' consequences.
Reintroduce the above removed ability as an upgrade with additional costs.
Yes, exactly.
I was confused because I thought you meant the third bit was a nerf.
This issue is actually quite readily resolved with a tweak in the mechanical definition of weapon ratings.
In a system where consequences can be spent to boost the defense roll, weapon ratings, instead of simply adding stress on a successful hit, also increase the cost of boosting defense rolls against the attack that bears them.
Mechanically, that sounds an awful lot like prohibiting the use of consequences on defense rolls.
-
Mechanically, that sounds an awful lot like prohibiting the use of consequences on defense rolls.
It's either that, or further devalue weapon ratings to the point of nigh obsolescence.
If you need narrative justification, the mere need to avoid getting hit by a grenade launcher is more stressful than the need to avoid a pocket knife.
-
So would you not let them be used on defense rolls at all?
Because if not, the problem's still there. You're just papering over it.
Eh, I think we're at an impasse. What you see as a problem, I see as a feature.
The knife wound he got finishing off his opponent is bigger.
Despite being made with the same weapon, and having the same value of consequence? Eh, I don't like that solution.
-
It's either that, or further devalue weapon ratings to the point of nigh obsolescence.
If you need narrative justification, the mere need to avoid getting hit by a grenade launcher is more stressful than the need to avoid a pocket knife.
It's not a bad idea, I just thought your way of putting it seemed unnecessarily complex.
Unless, of course, you really want to retain the possibility of taking mental/social consequences against physical attacks. But even then, I think it might be better to just let people absorb stress with inappropriate consequences.
Eh, I think we're at an impasse. What you see as a problem, I see as a feature.
Didn't you just say you wouldn't allow it?
Despite being made with the same weapon, and having the same value of consequence? Eh, I don't like that solution.
My point is that talking about realism and other such things tends to be a bit quixotic when the thing in question is as abstract as consequences.
STAB WOUND could be anything from a mild to an extreme. And here's the funny thing: an extreme STAB WOUND could be smaller and less damaging than a mild one. But the guy who takes the extreme one is a mild-mannered accountant who receives a lasting scar, while the guy who takes the mild one is a action hero operating under action movie physics.
-
Didn't you just say you wouldn't allow it?
Sorry, I meant the "problem" of allowing people with recovery powers get the consequences bonuses in general, not the problem of allowing consequences to boost defense rolls.
My point is that talking about realism and other such things tends to be a bit quixotic when the thing in question is as abstract as consequences.
STAB WOUND could be anything from a mild to an extreme. And here's the funny thing: an extreme STAB WOUND could be smaller and less damaging than a mild one. But the guy who takes the extreme one is a mild-mannered accountant who receives a lasting scar, while the guy who takes the mild one is a action hero operating under action movie physics.
Fair enough.
-
I actually like the solution Tedronai proposed because it makes consequences spent defensively the same as they are normally, this is fine. Under that solution, I see no reason why recovery powers would not automatically effect consequences spent to boost rolls. Sure it makes them slightly better (someone with Mythic Recovery could get a +2 a +4 and a +6 in every combat), but it also comes with risks since after you use those bonuses you are a sitting duck and the enemy gets to tag your consequences (I am assuming that the person you use the bonus on "owns" the tag for your consequence). Plus how often do GMs allow PCs to have mythic level powers outside of super high level campaigns? I could see a +6 every scene being absurd in a 7-10 refresh game where Mythic Recovery has turned into a type of "Super Sacred Guardian," but since it requires justification for the character to have the power I would not allow it to start with (I have never played a game over 10 refresh, and never seen a PC with higher than Supernatural anything). On the other hand, in high level games, where the justification is something like "I have had these powers for years and have now mastered them" (AKA I have played N million sessions with this power and want to upgrade it), it probably would not be so bad (when compared with the 10+ refinement wizard).