Playable loup-garou-cursed character?

[Nyarlathotep5150]

   I agree with the sentiment that you wouldn't play a Loup Garou unless you plan on it getting out at some point (though I disagree with anything even remotely connected with Dan Brown being cited as a resource for anything), but that is an entirely different issue from the implication that, when that happens it will be beneficial to the group.
   You make up a Loup Garou character with the understanding that, yes. at some point your precautions are going to fail, and the Loup Garou is going to run rampant for a night. However, when that occurs it will be of no benefit and massive detriment to the party (and thus a trouble compel). It has no real possibility of ever being a good thing for anyone involved that the beast gets free, and the player isn't in control of the beasts actions. So its not the players powers its really only the players trouble aspect (and maybe a story complication for the days that that player cant make it).
   The Loup Garou is a completely separate character, that brings nothing but trouble to the party. To force the character to pay for the Beasts powers is exactly the same as forcing any player with an enemy inherent to his trouble aspect to buy that enemies powers with his own refresh. Your making a player pay his own points, for how much his enemy is going to screw him over. Its double taxation, and its not fair (unless you make everyone do it for all their enemies).

[JosephKell]

Too open to abuse to be free.  Maybe the Human Form should be giving a lot more of a discount, but being able to turn into a nearly unstoppable juggernaut ("I'm the Loup-Garou, *****!"  No?  Well I laughed when they used the original meme in X3) of teeth and claws is way too good.

Really need to take out a bad guy?  Go get captured a few hours before moon rise on a full moon night.

And compels aren't supposed to kill the party or drive home values into the ground (can you imagine the insurance premium for loup-garou home owners?).

Compels are like, "You would've succeeded on that roll, but it would've just one shot the conflict, would you like a free fate point in exchange for having it not turn out right?"

[Jaroslav]

And compels aren't supposed to kill the party or drive home values into the ground (can you imagine the insurance premium for loup-garou home owners?).

But some compels can lead to this. Just look at changes. Harry took a lot of compels in that and

(click to show/hide)

ended up creating a power vacuum that could destabilize the entire world.

And not ever compel has to result in the inner beast getting loose. Maybe the character could be startled by silver jewelry during an important negotiation as the beast seeps through. Or perhaps the character could get the urge to go out for a run at the worst possible time, because they have to burn off some of the energy from the previous night's transformation. There are plenty of other options that don't result in transformation for the GM to use.

[Nyarlathotep5150]

  Actually. most compels will not end in the beast getting loose. They'll be more like, "You'd be really useful in this next scene. Too bad you have to go lock yourself up."

  And your example has the flaws that 1) that adventure would have to be taking place during the full moon (you cant exatly just wait around till the times right.) and 2) the character would have to be willing to do that, which would make him an evil character anyway and has nothing to do with the Loup Garou.

[Brodie]

Three nights out of an in-game month really aren't that many. Plus, it all depends on when, in-game, the GM's game takes place. Obviously, the GM will have to keep track, but that's a minor detail.

As for it being trouble for the other party members, look at just how early in Harry's career he encountered his first loup-garou. Fairly early. He was still wet behind the ears, despite his past. If you look at Fool Moon as a gaming session, the GM running it was rather sadistic. 

I'm in a group that puts value into player character back stories, and personal conflicts inherent to each character. We like exploring the good stuff as well as the bad stuff about our particular characters. I tried running a Dresden game using GURPS and only got a few sessions in before our wizard pc flaked and left the group. The person that played the loup-garou cursed guy in my game wants to play him again when our new Dresden game (not run by me) starts.

Also, it's not like every person with the curse would have the exact same one that plagued MacFinn's line. Some might have the chance to become free of it, thus becoming pure mortal (similar to White Court Virgins and Changelings). The way I had determined how the pc in my Dresden game was cursed was that his curse would end once he learned to control the beast. In the Dresden RPG, a character like this would hit a milestone if he comes across some hint as to how to control the beast.

The two ideas I have for my own characters in the upcoming campaign are nowhere near this complicated, since they'll be pure mortals. Clued-in, but pure mortal nonetheless. Which is odd for me, since I love Dresden and the other characters with powers, and even played a mage (who was a PI and insisted people refer to him as a wizard) in our old World of Darkness game run by the same guy that's going to run Dresden. But I firmly believe that our loup-cursed wannabe should be able to play his character without being penalized by taking powers he can't used. A high aspect and trouble should suffice.