Jump to content



Photo

Possession


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Deynomeas

Deynomeas

    Member

  • Members
  • 22 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 04:15 AM

Hello everybody. I've been in the position as GM for a few weeks now and so far having a blast.

 

Last game there was the delight of perils of the warp in the form of a mass possession and 2 of the PC's got possessed so I just told the players to go berserk till the daemons were cast back to the warp. Fun was had.

The problem started with  "the effects of possession" and "surviving possession" and the respective stat increase/decrease of those two. There was the argument that the toughness and strength increase should be permanent as the flesh has been mutated/twisted by the daemon. And that the stat decrease from surviving possession shouldn't apply because this wasn't true possession because the daemon's time from the warp was limited and there wasn't any forceful exorcism used.

At the moment I'm not sure what to make of this so I was hoping for some input from other GM's.

 

Thanks in advance, Deynomeas.

 

 



#2 Gurkhal

Gurkhal

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,079 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 05:49 AM

Deynomeas said:

Hello everybody. I've been in the position as GM for a few weeks now and so far having a blast.

 

Last game there was the delight of perils of the warp in the form of a mass possession and 2 of the PC's got possessed so I just told the players to go berserk till the daemons were cast back to the warp. Fun was had.

The problem started with  "the effects of possession" and "surviving possession" and the respective stat increase/decrease of those two. There was the argument that the toughness and strength increase should be permanent as the flesh has been mutated/twisted by the daemon. And that the stat decrease from surviving possession shouldn't apply because this wasn't true possession because the daemon's time from the warp was limited and there wasn't any forceful exorcism used.

At the moment I'm not sure what to make of this so I was hoping for some input from other GM's.

 

Thanks in advance, Deynomeas.

 

 

 

I personally would like to play it hard and say that the extra stats came from the unnatural vigor of the daemon which infused the character with Warp-energy and that when it left, so did the extra energy. But to keep things fun I can see the benefit of giving in although they MIGHT lead them to start whining again to get free stuff in the future. Possession is after all considered a negative thing so I would think that it shouldn't end with some extra stuff, and most certainly not without some kind of loss. If you give in to give them extra stuff be damn sure that you take away some as a penalty as well.

For a reference to possession you can cheak out how the Black Legion went down after the Heresy when they were all into becoming possessed - a clue is that they stopped with it for a very good reason.



#3 Reverend mort

Reverend mort

    Member

  • Members
  • 398 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 05:58 AM

As for the loss of stats and the corruption points: There is no doubt that should happen. The Mass Possession peril specifically references the Possession trait, which in turn makes it clear that if the daemon is cast out by exorcism OR ANY OTHER MEANS, they get the 2d10 permanent strength and toughness damage.

As for keeping the stat increases (and/or wounds), well, it could go both ways. While I do believe some if it indeed comes from the psychic energy infusing the flesh, it also states it does feature physical warping of features and flesh. It's your own judgement call, really, but I'd probably provide a choice: keep it, and the daemon-warped flesh that grants it, or get it reversed and stop looking like you're still possessed by a warp entity.

From a purely "rules lawyer" perspective however, they would get to keep it. The rules state the victim increases it's strength and toughness, and gains more wounds. Nowhere is it mentioned that it goes away if the possession ends, nor even implied. So going by rules as written alone, they would indeed get to keep both the wounds, the stat increases (but also suffer the 2d10 decreases) and any mutations you decided to give them. However, by that same token, nowhere does it say the horrible, daemon warped visage of the possessed goes away either.

@Gurkhal. I'm not really sure I can agree with the sentiment "If they get something free, take something away" mentality. If players provide a clear, logical reason for why they ought to get something as a consequence of something else, they ought to get it. Likewise, if there's a clear, logical reason they ought to lose something, they ought to lose it.  In this case, they have the logically sound argument "We got stronger because a daemon warped our flesh to it's liking", which holds water. They also had the not so sound argument "it was temporary, therefore we should only get the bonuses, not the penalties", which doesn't hold water and thus they ought to get the penalties.

The fact that they presented their argument is certainly not grounds to ignore it.



#4 Gurkhal

Gurkhal

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,079 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 08:52 AM

Reverend mort said:

@Gurkhal. I'm not really sure I can agree with the sentiment "If they get something free, take something away" mentality. If players provide a clear, logical reason for why they ought to get something as a consequence of something else, they ought to get it. Likewise, if there's a clear, logical reason they ought to lose something, they ought to lose it.  In this case, they have the logically sound argument "We got stronger because a daemon warped our flesh to it's liking", which holds water. They also had the not so sound argument "it was temporary, therefore we should only get the bonuses, not the penalties", which doesn't hold water and thus they ought to get the penalties.

The fact that they presented their argument is certainly not grounds to ignore it.

Well yes when you put it that way, of course they shouldn't be punished just for the sake of it. The thing I wanted to adress was that the players should not be allowed to bully over whine themselves to a constant supply of freebies. As I understood it the situation was something like this: "The players tries to use an argument to say that since the daemon came into them they should get permanent bonus from it. But they still shouldn't get the permanenet loss that comes from possession due to the fact that the daemon was only there a short time and therefore wouldn't be able to affect them much."

And this is where I think that they should be punished if they get the free stuff. Either the daemon's temporary presence was not enough to warrant any loss for them and therefore likely not enough to grant them any bonus form it. Or the daemon's presence was strong enough to leave a permanent mark on them, but in that case I think it should go both ways with both gaining some stuff from the possession but also lose the stuff they would lose from the possession. As I see it its either one or the other. Either the possession was strong enough to mark them or is wasn't. I would be hesitating to let them cherrypick what they want from a situation like that. Maybe if it was some kind of controlled possession with the proper rites and prep and all that, but not from a Peril of the Warp roll.



#5 Reverend mort

Reverend mort

    Member

  • Members
  • 398 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 09:13 AM

Gurkhal said:

Reverend mort said:

@Gurkhal. I'm not really sure I can agree with the sentiment "If they get something free, take something away" mentality. If players provide a clear, logical reason for why they ought to get something as a consequence of something else, they ought to get it. Likewise, if there's a clear, logical reason they ought to lose something, they ought to lose it.  In this case, they have the logically sound argument "We got stronger because a daemon warped our flesh to it's liking", which holds water. They also had the not so sound argument "it was temporary, therefore we should only get the bonuses, not the penalties", which doesn't hold water and thus they ought to get the penalties.

The fact that they presented their argument is certainly not grounds to ignore it.

 

Well yes when you put it that way, of course they shouldn't be punished just for the sake of it. The thing I wanted to adress was that the players should not be allowed to bully over whine themselves to a constant supply of freebies. As I understood it the situation was something like this: "The players tries to use an argument to say that since the daemon came into them they should get permanent bonus from it. But they still shouldn't get the permanenet loss that comes from possession due to the fact that the daemon was only there a short time and therefore wouldn't be able to affect them much."

And this is where I think that they should be punished if they get the free stuff. Either the daemon's temporary presence was not enough to warrant any loss for them and therefore likely not enough to grant them any bonus form it. Or the daemon's presence was strong enough to leave a permanent mark on them, but in that case I think it should go both ways with both gaining some stuff from the possession but also lose the stuff they would lose from the possession. As I see it its either one or the other. Either the possession was strong enough to mark them or is wasn't. I would be hesitating to let them cherrypick what they want from a situation like that. Maybe if it was some kind of controlled possession with the proper rites and prep and all that, but not from a Peril of the Warp roll.



I agree with the outcome, and I do agree "none of the bad stuff" part of their argument was flimsy at best. However, I just feel that, regardless of how weak or self serving their argument is, as a GM you should stick to the "facts" as it were. Leveling IC punishment for OOC behavior is not something I condone. It reeks of being passive-aggressive to me, which is something I deeply loathe.

Also, I didn't get the impression that they were whining, merely that they presented an argument for what they thought should happen.



#6 Gurkhal

Gurkhal

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,079 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 10:03 AM

Reverend mort said:



I agree with the outcome, and I do agree "none of the bad stuff" part of their argument was flimsy at best. However, I just feel that, regardless of how weak or self serving their argument is, as a GM you should stick to the "facts" as it were. Leveling IC punishment for OOC behavior is not something I condone. It reeks of being passive-aggressive to me, which is something I deeply loathe.

Also, I didn't get the impression that they were whining, merely that they presented an argument for what they thought should happen.

 

It wasn't my intention to punish anyone and even less so IC for OOC actions and if I came off like that I am very sorry for that was in no way my intention. What I wanted to say is that I think their arguments were very bad and that they shouldn't be allowed to have both ways when there's no reasonable reason for them to have it and they can't motivate it well.

If they can bring an argument then sure, why no. But a GM that's to liberal with handing things out for free should be aware that the players may start to take it for granted. I guess that perhaps the word "punish" was a very poor choice of word on my part which didn't give the meaning that I was trying to communicate. 



#7 Reverend mort

Reverend mort

    Member

  • Members
  • 398 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 02:48 AM

Gurkhal said:

 

Reverend mort said:



I agree with the outcome, and I do agree "none of the bad stuff" part of their argument was flimsy at best. However, I just feel that, regardless of how weak or self serving their argument is, as a GM you should stick to the "facts" as it were. Leveling IC punishment for OOC behavior is not something I condone. It reeks of being passive-aggressive to me, which is something I deeply loathe.

Also, I didn't get the impression that they were whining, merely that they presented an argument for what they thought should happen.

 

 

 

 

It wasn't my intention to punish anyone and even less so IC for OOC actions and if I came off like that I am very sorry for that was in no way my intention. What I wanted to say is that I think their arguments were very bad and that they shouldn't be allowed to have both ways when there's no reasonable reason for them to have it and they can't motivate it well.

If they can bring an argument then sure, why no. But a GM that's to liberal with handing things out for free should be aware that the players may start to take it for granted. I guess that perhaps the word "punish" was a very poor choice of word on my part which didn't give the meaning that I was trying to communicate. 

 



Then my issue with your statement was pure miscommunication, and we are more or less on the same page! Eeexcellent! Now go, original poster, and inflict horrible daemonic visages upon your players!

 



#8 Deynomeas

Deynomeas

    Member

  • Members
  • 22 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 08:34 AM

I will give them the option to stay normal at the expense of the stat increases. Otherwise the horrific twisting of flesh will commence!

You both have my thanks for your input on this.



#9 Noctus

Noctus

    Member

  • Members
  • 110 posts

Posted 22 February 2012 - 04:51 AM

There are two options:

Only temporary --> then after the effect all goes back to what it was before.

It has a permanent effect --> You get the boni, but also the mali from the end of the possession.

 

Either or. Either it was too weak & short to permenently leave a bodily mark, or it was strong enough for permenet repercussions, but then you get them all, and not just those that you like.



#10 Maldaron

Maldaron

    Member

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 11:35 PM

When in doubt, RNG. Works especially well when dealing with chaos.

 

What I'd probably do, is have the players start rolling for random stat decreases with results being possibly slightly increased stats from pre-possession or reduced ones, depending on how the characters' bodies happen to react to the daemonic entity first empowering and quite likely mutating them and then vanishing, along with the power that most likely was sustaining the alterations, leaving the bodies to recover via natural (term used loosely) means.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS