[1E] Gossamer related questions

[Persell]

Ok. Gossamer...


How much do a character start with? The Gossamer background represents how much Gossamer the character earns per story, but what if the Character doesn't have acces to any Gossamer rich regions or controls any Workers who can create it for her? She can still have Gossamer-creating Charms. How is the starting amount of Gossamer determined?


The other question is more flavour related:


How do you depict the Gossamer a character owns? Do you make it part of the Raksha's being (that is what I am going with, so far) or does it manifest in some way (as clothing, jewelry or other wealth or as the Raksha chooses to shape it)?

 

[wordman]

Ok. Gossamer... How much do a character start with?

However much makes the story interesting.


Playing with Fair Folk is all about dueling with stories. If you are looking for that level of official crunch, you are going to be disappointed.

How do you depict the Gossamer a character owns?

See previous answer.

 

[Bizar]

I would give it to them as items since it allows for a more visual representation and it enforces the idea of the Fair Folk is the material expression of concepts.

 

[Ker'ion]

I would make it similar to an object of art, but appearing to be made out of pure Essence.


Like a glowing glass vase or something similar.

 

[Persell]

Fair Folk is a great rpg, I think. I really love the freeform storytelling it provides, where every player is gamemaster and nothing limits his creativity. Problem is that this nifty and shiny concept has been crunched into the standard Storyteller rules system. Or it has been tried, at least. It just doesn't fit, in my oppinion. Again, thanks, Rebecca B., for being such a talented and visionary writer, but please steer clear of the game mechanics.


This is why I ask what you guys have done with it. I'd like to have an idea of how the book want the rules to work, before I decide what to ignore and what to keep. Something has to go for sure, but I like to have an idea of how the rules work to have a basis for improvising.


Thanks for your answers. I like the idea of gossamer manifesting as items. It rings true with the description of it as being something between pure Essence and rigid shape. I think I will go with that.


If any of you feel you have the shaping system nailed down, could you please post an answer to the other thread, considering feeding in Creation? I have posted an example of Cup shaping in relation to a ravishing attempt and I'm not sure if this is the way to do it, according to the book.

 

[Ker'ion]

I have the shaping attacker roll their relevant Virtue, then add Permanent Essence as auto-successes.  The defender rolls Willpower to defend against the attack, adding their Permanent Essence in auto-successes as well.


If the attacker wins, they Ravish a point of the Virtue, as temporary damage.  If they Ravish the Virtue's temporary score to zero, they start ravishing permanent points of the Virtue.


I can't remember how much Essence you get for ravishing a Virtue.


(This version is probably rediculously off from the rules, but so be it)

 

[Persell]

I have the shaping attacker roll their relevant Virtue, then add Permanent Essence as auto-successes.  The defender rolls Willpower to defend against the attack, adding their Permanent Essence in auto-successes as well.
If the attacker wins, they Ravish a point of the Virtue, as temporary damage.  If they Ravish the Virtue's temporary score to zero, they start ravishing permanent points of the Virtue.


I can't remember how much Essence you get for ravishing a Virtue.


(This version is probably rediculously off from the rules, but so be it)

It is, but I like it's simplicity. It seems more logical and straightforward. The book says 10 motes for every permanent point of virtue or Willpower ravished, but I think I would let that change with your version.


How do you let characters recover lost points of temporary virtue?

 

[Ker'ion]

I allow a character to heal temporary Virtue loss as Aggravated Damage.


I'd keep it at the 10 motes per point, if for no other reason than that a person usually takes years to be Ravished to the point of becoming a Dream Eaten.  That would take a while if the Fair Folk get 10 motes per point, but the time would be less for each mote that the nomber is reduced by.  So half the time at 5 motes per dot, etcetera.  And most Fair Folk try not to overfeed.

 

[wordman]

It just doesn't fit, in my oppinion. Again, thanks, Rebecca B., for being such a talented and visionary writer, but please steer clear of the game mechanics.

I disagree with nearly all of the above. If you are talking about ideas and feel, then Borgstrom may be "talented and visionary". If you are talking about actually conveying the information a writer wants to convey, then, sorry, she's horrible; however, while she is awful at describing game mechanics, she is turns out to be extremely adept at designing them, though not in way that you notice at first. She is is very good at building systems that interlock in ways that, while not at all obvious, make the whole far greater than the sum of its parts. If you take any individual mechanic (or set of similar mechanics) she writes by itself, as most who criticize her do, they can seem unbalanced and wonky. Only when you see the whole picture (which, given her complete inability -- or unwillingness -- to describe what she is doing and why, isn't easy) do you realize that, not only is the "questionable" mechanic not that bad, it is actually fairly cool. The sidereals book is the best example of this. Sidereals have powers that, in the hands of a solar, would be devastating. The thing is, though, that many of them are not in the hands of solars, but sidereals, who suffer far more severe (and much less obvious) limitations than other types of exalt.


The Fair Folk book is not much different, though the mechanics are both more obscure and, in my opinion, more solid and better designed. Unfortunately, these cool mechanics are described so badly that they are largely wasted. One of issues in the book is that the importance of a mechanic (in terms of how often it will be use) is usual inversely proportional to how much text is devoted to it. In a truly "freeform storytelling" campaign, the only mechanic that should really matter is Wyld stunting, which gets almost no mention in the book and (shock) is horribly explained, but "fits" very well. All of the rules for shaping combat are more or less a crutch for a) storytellers who can't handle freeform games and/or b) players who want to play a game about fighting with versions of reality but suck  at narration or don't play well with others (i.e. the kinds who start "I shot you!" "No you didn't" arguments). Even so, even using shaping combat, stunting is still going to matter a ton.


Honestly, using any rules at all in a "freeform storytelling" game shouldn't really be necessary. The numbers are only needed when the players and ST can't agree on who controls the story. For groups like that, the FF rules work rather nicely.

 

[Sherwood]

I would like to see some examples of how some of the Fair Folk combat works in actual game play.  Their shaping combat makes smoke come out of my ears, and for some reason I'm just having trouble picking up on it.

 

[wordman]

I would like to see some examples of how some of the Fair Folk combat works in actual game play.  Their shaping combat makes smoke come out of my ears, and for some reason I'm just having trouble picking up on it.

This might help, though it is unfinshed. You might want to read this first.

 

[Sherwood]

Thanks.  I'll check it out.

 

[Persell]

I would like to see some examples of how some of the Fair Folk combat works in actual game play.  Their shaping combat makes smoke come out of my ears, and for some reason I'm just having trouble picking up on it.

Check out the "...feeding in Creation" thread. I have added an example of how I think a shaping attempt could work out. Maybe you could comment?

 

[Persell]

If you are talking about ideas and feel, then Borgstrom may be "talented and visionary". If you are talking about actually conveying the information a writer wants to convey, then, sorry, she's horrible;

That was what I meant, I think. Though I hadn't considered if the mechanics actually work, once you understand them.

however, while she is awful at describing game mechanics, she is turns out to be extremely adept at designing them, though not in way that you notice at first. She is is very good at building systems that interlock in ways that, while not at all obvious, make the whole far greater than the sum of its parts.

A thing I really like about Exalted, and ecpecially Fair Folk (and Sidereals) is that the mechanics and the setting is integrated in each other. For example: FF describes the Virtues as referring to each other through the Graces (the Cup refers to the Ring, because it undermines Temperance and is, in turn, supported by Conviction, because the Entertainer always works in a social environment... something like that). Is this what you mean, when you talk of "interlocking systems?" If it is, we agree.

The Fair Folk book is not much different, though the mechanics are both more obscure and, in my opinion, more solid and better designed. Unfortunately, these cool mechanics are described so badly that they are largely wasted. One of issues in the book is that the importance of a mechanic (in terms of how often it will be use) is usual inversely proportional to how much text is devoted to it.

That would explain my confusion. She presents a lot of mechanics, but it can sometimes be really hard to find the reasons for the specific rules. She often hints at some concept, that make perfect sense, but doesn't present a hard mechanic for it.


I have two examples that maybe you can explain:


1) Conviction is the base stat for Cup shaping (which makes very much sense to me). The other three Graces uses Attributes instead. Why? Why not all Virtues, when she has established that the Graces interlock and work together already?


2) Several places she hints that Fair Folk can feed without destroying Virtues, but the only way for this to happen (that I can find) is with a Charm, that is rather hard to get (Banquet of Crumbs). Can this be true? Or is there some mechanic, that I have overlooked?

Honestly, using any rules at all in a "freeform storytelling" game shouldn't really be necessary. The numbers are only needed when the players and ST can't agree on who controls the story. For groups like that, the FF rules work rather nicely.

I find the numbers a nice basis for storytelling. Of course we haven't played any pure Fair Folk campaigns based in the Wyld and therefore no "freeform storytelling." But even though I seldom let my players roll dice I like to know their stats to base my rulings on. It's the same I want, now, with Fair Folk. We have one Raksha visiting the characters in Creation and it would be so much easier, if we knew what she could do and what not. If we had a set of hard and fast rules to form the borders for her abilities. You see what I mean?


But I will defenately try to look the system over again in a new light. I had almost given up on it. Maybe it is not so bad after all?

 

[wordman]

2) Several places she hints that Fair Folk can feed without destroying Virtues, but the only way for this to happen (that I can find) is with a Charm, that is rather hard to get (Banquet of Crumbs). Can this be true? Or is there some mechanic, that I have overlooked?

I (hopefully) answered your first question in the other thread.


The part you are overlooking here, I think, is the Birth background, which makes Banquet of Crumbs rather easy to get.


Also, I think you are overlooking that idea that Fair Folk feeding without destroying Virtues is supposed to be the exception, not the rule. Mortals fear the fae for a reason.

 

[wordman]

FF describes the Virtues as referring to each other through the Graces (the Cup refers to the Ring, because it undermines Temperance and is, in turn, supported by Conviction, because the Entertainer always works in a social environment... something like that). Is this what you mean, when you talk of "interlocking systems?"

I was actually thinking more of how the drawbacks of being a sidereal scattered through the book (arcane fate, low essence pools, Paradox, heaven's politics) offset their clear advantages.


It occurred to me after I posted my rant above that people who get all riled up about Borgstrom making sidereals "overpowered" should really be bitching that Borgstrom made Eclipse solars and Moonshadow abyssals "overpowered", not sidereals. They can (theoretically) get many of the sidereal advantages with few of the limitations.

 

[Bizar]

Wordman those 2 sites were very nice. I won't start playing Fair Folk very soon, but I am going to try this Saturday when playing Vampire. I have a very experienced set of players who are all excellent storytellers in their own right and this is so unusual that I am sure they are going to apprieciate it.


THNX