Playing a true, Pure Fae

[sinker]

Yeah, straight RAW is that pure Fey are a no-no. We've passed into house rule territory (or perhaps house setting) long ago.

[Dust Bunny]

Acronym check: RAW?

[Ellipsis]

Acronym check: RAW?

Rules-As-Written.

[Sanctaphrax]

Again, I wouldn't call this a violation of RAW. It's more like a violation of SAW - Setting As Written. That is, it works only if you go beyond the default setting. But no numbers-jiggering is required.

[Richard_Chilton]

No, it's against the RAW as the restriction is  mentioned in Your World several times.

Richard

[william722w]

The main reason for looking into playing a true or pure fae was to beable to have a Pc with greater glamor. the rules i have say you must be pure fae to have this power. which suchs mainly the power looks fun but does not really look to over the top on power scale.

[sinker]

It's not necessarily overpowered, it just requires a lot of GM fiat (which is why it's primarily a NPC thing). Which is why you should definitely make sure your GM is up to it.

[Sanctaphrax]

No, it's against the RAW as the restriction is  mentioned in Your World several times.

Not everything in Your Story and Our World is a rule, you know. Both books are full of stories and setting bits.

(Incidentally, which one did you mean?)

The main reason for looking into playing a true or pure fae was to beable to have a Pc with greater glamor. the rules i have say you must be pure fae to have this power. which suchs mainly the power looks fun but does not really look to over the top on power scale.

Pretty sure that's backwards reasoning.

I strongly suspect that the Power was restricted to true fae purely to prevent PCs from having it. If you want to take it, make it suitable for PC use and forget about the restriction.

Powers can only be taken by characters with suitable High Concepts anyway, so if you believe that Greater Glamours isn't suitable for dream spirits or whatever then the restriction is redundant.

Making the Power suitable for PC use pretty much just requires a ten minute chat with your GM on the topic of what exactly Greater Glamours does. (Can I make a super-tough True Seeming and have it beat you up? Should I roll dice to see?) The solution you come up with will probably be vague and in no way suitable for mass use, but at your table that doesn't have to matter.

[Thrakkesh]

The main reason for looking into playing a true or pure fae was to beable to have a Pc with greater glamor. the rules i have say you must be pure fae to have this power. which suchs mainly the power looks fun but does not really look to over the top on power scale.

I'd ask your GM to make an exception before I'd ask to play  Pure Fae.  You're paying for either a lot more limitations or stretching the definition of a Pure Fae for an ability that is really trickier. (Alternatively, you could just ask for a more limited custom version of Greater Glamours, since the ability technically lets you make nearly anything--unless you want to summon motor vehicles (or horse and carriages if you're feeling classical, I guess).  In some ways playing a Pure Fae would be pretty limiting and fairly complicated to pull off 'well'.  But yeah--RAW, you can't.  If you want to, or want something like it, talk to your GM. 

[Richard_Chilton]

Not everything in Your Story and Our World is a rule, you know. Both books are full of stories and setting bits.

We differ on that.  I believe that when the rule book explicitly says something then it's in the rules - but you differ.  And I don't think another huge exchange of posts on that issue will change anyone's opinions.

But if you want a cite:
Monsters have Nature, Mortals have Choice - that's a good place to start.

Richard

[Sanctaphrax]

Again, which book were you referring to?

PS: Remember, if your name is Bob the rules say you have to shut up.

[Mr. Death]

We differ on that.  I believe that when the rule book explicitly says something then it's in the rules - but you differ.  And I don't think another huge exchange of posts on that issue will change anyone's opinions.

But if you want a cite:
Monsters have Nature, Mortals have Choice - that's a good place to start.

Richard

The same book has Harry going, "So I could play a ghoul?" and Billy going, "Sure!" with the only caveat being that he'd enforce Hunger rules.

As for dealing with Greater Glamours, my game has a pixie with such a power. Mostly I balance it by having the pixie still roll different skills depending on what the player wants to do with it--if it's just to fool something into thinking the Seeming is real, then it's with Deceit. But if the player wants to, say, make a seeming of confetti to distract someone, then they have to roll Weapons as a maneuver. Making a seeming of a weapon might require a Craftsmanship roll to determine its quality.

[Richard_Chilton]

Again, which book were you referring to?

No, it's against the RAW as the restriction is  mentioned in Your World several times.

"Monsters have Nature, Mortals have Choice" is one of the section headings.

Richard

[sinker]

Um, guys? It really is fairly irrelevant what term you use to describe it, and this argument has nothing to do with the original question. Do you have anything more to say to the original poster?

[Sanctaphrax]

@sinker: No, I can't add anything meaningful to what's already been said on the actual topic.

@Richard_Chilton: When you say Your World, do you mean Your Story or Our World? I'm guessing Your Story, from your last post.

Also, did you post a new thread to the Spoiler board? The "newest post" function of that board shows a new thread, but clicking it leads nowhere.

@Mr. Death: Sounds like a good way to manage Greater Glamours to me.