New Summon Rules

[Valance]

Can we just change the summon rules to

Extending your incredible manipulative powers, you can draw others to your location. Your victim need not see you, or even be seen by you - as long as the subject is known to you, you can Summon them to your side.
To Summon someone, you may ask a narrator for assistance. If you do, inform the Narrator of the person that you wish to Summon, as well as your current number of social traits and which retest you are willing to use. Otherwise the challenge is a typical social challenge.
Once you have begun a Summons, you cannot leave the
area where you initiated the power, or the Summons will
immediately end. If you succeed, the target of your Summons
automatically realizes she has been affected by the use of a
power, as well as the identity of the individual performing
the Summons, and the location where she is to meet with
you. If your target doesn’t trust you, she can spend a brief
period of time, up to 10 minutes, taking precautions before
answering your Summons.
A summoned target will come as quickly and directly as
possible, but she also retains her survival instincts. The
target will not walk off a cliff or enter a situation that she
realizes may be an ambush.
If it is not possible for a character to present herself to
you physically without entering a dangerous situation, the
target must come as close as possible and contact you in
some other way, such as via a phone call, forcing a human
to deliver a note, or sending an animal messenger. If the
target is not aware of an overt risk to her safety, she will
respond to your Summon in person, even if you have
sinister plans.
Summoned mortals will continue following your call across
any distance, no matter how much time it takes to reach your
side, so long as you remain on the premises where you initiated
the Summon. They will eventually present themselves to you,
even if they have to travel for days. Supernatural creatures
travel as far as possible until they reach you or until the next
sunrise, whichever comes first.

It covers the typical problems with the power without making it useless.

[Guest]

I like the house rule version, it's a lot less complicated and a lot less of a wall of text. There are too many exceptions in the above post, too much that is open to interpretation. Cellphones don't exist in modern nights, so the whole getting close and contacting another way thing is silly, at that point if a note is being sent or an animal messenger, why get close at all? Why not send it from your starting point? Seems to me it should just fail if danger of death is involved, which is the house rule as written.

[Valance]

Getting as close as you can before sending a message is still better because you still have to get close before using the messenger. Contact is still possible if the summoner is not working alone.

Lets run through the loop holes in the current rule. The targets knows the summoner and the location they are being summoned to. That means it won't work on PC enemies. Ever. Every time I've seen a PC get summoned with those house rules they always claim that they know it's a trap so the summon shouldn't work. Doesn't matter if the summoner was neutral to them or even an ally. When the game is gunning for your toon, every power used on you makes that PC your enemy. Then they can't be found and the controversy around them continues to everyone's frustration. Summon brings people together so the drama can happen.

The rules are horrible. Don't try to patch them, just replace them where needed.

Diving into some game theory, what is this house rule stopping? It's stopping three guys from summoning the prince away from his allies and murdering him in a warehouse. What it shouldn't stop is the game from rolling a lone fuck up. With the above suggestion the target gets a chance to get their posy together. You've got the sharks vs the Jets, a real chance for drama, rather then little Timmy getting curb stomped.

With the new house rule, what does summon do? It lets you summon dumb NPCs that don't have the PC glow and your retainers.

[Valance]

bump

[Valance]

Bump bump bump

[Sigfried Le Danois]

I would like a final ruling on this. I have been using Summon following the new rules since last session, but Not in the way that I have in the past. I have simply been using it to prove my identity to individuals beyond the shadow of a doubt, because somehow mystically they know they are being summoned and by whom when they are summoned.

[UninvitedGuest]

My two cents, and IN NO WAY a change to our rules or SoP: I like the idea of Summon revealing the identity of the summoner and the location you are going to; although it does not make logical sense, it does make it easier for the character to invent a rationale as to why they are going to that person or place. If you just don't know either then spotting a Summon could be done by a kintergardener, let alone a full coterie.

The original summon rules say that a character will do whatever it takes short of suicide to get past obstacles like locked doors and overprotective allies. I would like it if characters were REQUIRED to try to convince anyone they want to come with them that the trip is important, up to and including using Disciplines on them to force their compliance if they stand opposed, or else to be quiet about it and slip away when no one is looking. The idea of someone getting a dazed look in their eyes and saying "I suddenly and mysteriously want to go see Sigfried" is just dumb.

The idea of someone passing an Awareness chop, telling their friends "I just got summoned to Sigfried, help me take him out" and then being REQUIRED to stake or kill them if those friends try to stop the character from completing the Summon is so hilarious I would love to see that implemented.

I don't see any other way to kill the Meta on Summon (yet).

[Simon Molendinarius]

My two cents, and IN NO WAY a change to our rules or SoP:  I like the idea of Summon revealing the identity of the summoner and the location you are going to; although it does not make logical sense, it does make it easier for the character to invent a rationale as to why they are going to that person or place.  If you just don't know either then spotting a Summon could be done by a kintergardener, let alone a full coterie.

I do not get the logic here. The character has no reason to create a rationale for why they want to visit someone. The player may need to make a rationale, but the character would not do so. Either the character knows they are being summoned, and then no rationale is required as you just tell a few allies that you are being summoned. Only when they don't realize they are being summoned would they need to create a rationale.

So under the book rules, you get summoned. So you decide that even though you know this guy has it out for you, you want to go down to his house and give him a piece of your mind. This is the rationalization for the summons. If you already knew you were being summoned you would not need to make up an explanation, you would already know.

We always know OOC that we are being summoned, but I don't really see the need to know IC.

All that being said I don't care and think that either reading of the power allows for interesting game possibilities. It should just be consistent. A lot of these discipline changes would have been less problematic if we knew about them when we made our characters so we could plan around how the rules would actually work.

[Simon Molendinarius]

Unintended consequences...
It should be noted that allowing people to know they are being summoned, and by who, and to where, allows for some serious cheese.
Next time you are kidnapped or running from someone through the woods, all you need to do is send a summons and even if you fail on the test your target still knows you just tried to summon them to that old abandoned mine shaft in the woods.

or you and a friend are planning a coordinated assault on the holdings of your enemy, but you are on different sides of the domain and you don't have a phone because its the darks ages. Well all one guy needs do is send a summons out to their ally and then relent on the test. Now the ally gets a psychic message letting him know its time to start.

[Sigfried Le Danois]

As I pointed out, When I approach my allies I just summon them, and one of us relents. Then they know it is me, and there is no way obfuscate or vissicitude can fake that. It becomes impossible to impersonate someone who has summon.

And you dont always know you are going to see the person when you are summoned. Sometimes you just get the urge to go out and stretch your legs in the garden, oh hey look, its Sigfried. Well its only proper that I present my self to him, etc.

[Valance]

I'm not against the summoned individual knowing who is summoning them or where they are going, but I am against a vague wording that allows a player to determine weather a summon works on them. We've played out this house rule in other games, including Dark Jyhad. The result is summon does not work on players.

I think there are still ways to fake the summon ID, but it is more challenging.

[UninvitedGuest]

My two cents, and IN NO WAY a change to our rules or SoP:  I like the idea of Summon revealing the identity of the summoner and the location you are going to; although it does not make logical sense, it does make it easier for the character to invent a rationale as to why they are going to that person or place.  If you just don't know either then spotting a Summon could be done by a kintergardener, let alone a full coterie.

I do not get the logic here. The character has no reason to create a rationale for why they want to visit someone. The player may need to make a rationale, but the character would not do so. Either the character knows they are being summoned, and then no rationale is required as you just tell a few allies that you are being summoned. Only when they don't realize they are being summoned would they need to create a rationale.

My opinion is that because this is a group game, when one person stands up other people will generally speak to them and find out if their character is actually leaving the room. Simon might be able to stand up and say "I need to go meet with an emissary, the court should all remain here" or something and expect to be obeyed. Other characters can arrange to always travel in a group and never deviate from that or from their plans for the evening short of a unanimous vote to trick out subtle mind control attempts; if one person suddenly says they are leaving and refuses to stick to the plan and cannot even tell the others where he's going or why, then the others all know a Summon just happened. If on the other hand he can explain who he's going to see and why it's important to the plan then he might be able to get away from them.

[Thomas the Bastard]

I'm not going to invent an excuse because someone used a power on me. The impetus is then on me to try my best to go do something I don't want to OOC. If anyone has a problem with how I do so, and all of a sudden I'm being accused of metagaming. Fuck that.

Let people know someone is Summoning them. Summon doesn't need to be subtle. The purpose of Summon is:
1) Ensure someone has actually left the domain.
2) Arranging ambushes. No matter how you have to obfuscate it, getting someone in a location you choose is for rolling them.
3) Making sure you know you are better then them. If I can interrupt your night and make you come to me insread of tracking you down, AND I can get away with it? I'm better then you.

I'd prefer rules that know the identity of the summoner but still force them to come then allowing Summon to not work. If you're rolling someone, you're assuming they'll show up with their crew anyways, unless you can persuade (not compel) them to go where you want, so that's not exactly a sacrifice.

[Sigfried Le Danois]

My concern is how it ruins the subtle use it summon to annoy someone, or to force a political point. If I summon the Prince right before he starts picking in people to talk he had to present himself to me which lets me talk and pisses of other people, but if he knows I summoned him that entire subtle use is lost.

I have never in all my time larping summoned someone to kill them. I understand I may be km the minority though

[Guest]

You are in the minority. The fact is that a power that lets you make someone come to you is powerful enough as it is, it doesn't need to also be so subtle that the person being summoned doesn't know they're being summoned, and Bacon's point about the power putting the onus on the other player to justify it is also totally valid. That just isn't cool.

All game balance aside, in all honesty my biggest objection is personal. I have a power that is supposed to allow spying on people without them knowing. The house rules for this game nerfed that power allowing anyone with a single ability who can win a test to spot it's use. Now, here is summon, an obscenely powerful discipline which is equally subtle as the power of mine which was nerfed. Why should summon remain subtle and basically undetectable when mine, written to be equally subtle and undetectable, doesn't get to?

I think nerfing Way of Spirit and certain other powers in the house rules have established the policy for this game that if your power is going to effect someone else, they at least get an option to spot it. If we're going to allow any powers to affect any other PC without them being given an option to detect it, then I think we should allow all powers that are supposed to do that to do so.

Personally, I think the question shouldn't just be Summon, but all of Presence. If Way of Spirit lets people with awareness test to notice it, I feel ALL levels of Presence should too. Entrancement? I want my awareness test to notice my sudden change in attitude. Majesty? Mass awareness test. Etc.

[Sigfried Le Danois]

Doesn't awareness do that anyway by the rules? I never said awareness couldn't be used.

And in end I'm fine with what we pick, I just would like a final confirmation and rules that aren't changing all the time.

[Guest]

No, per book awareness only allows the chop if the user of the power fails to use it. There isn't really a way to detect any use of presence save dread gaze which is obvious and majesty which *might* be detectable. Just as Way of Spirit can't.

I agree about seeking final confirmation, and I agree that consistency would be nice. I'd go a step further though and ask for consistency in house rules. If we're saying "using powers on PCs gives the PC a chance to spot the use", then I think we should say that for all powers, including Presence and Dementation. If we're letting some subtle powers stay subtle, I think all powers clearly written to be subtle should be. Either way seems fair, but saying "this subtle power isn't subtle anymore, but this one is" seems unfair.

[Simon Molendinarius]

Ug.  This is why I don't ever invest in presence.  We have to have tons of arguments because people refuse to let their character walk into a bad situation.  I have played for 18 years and I have performed 1 summon slay.  It has never been done to me or anyone who was allied with me, ever.  So maybe Garrett and the exception, but I certainly don't see an epidemic of summon slaying.

Seriously Bacon?  You don't think its metagaming to specifically say I don't want to do this from an OOC point of view so I refuse to rationalize a reason IC?  That's the definition of metagaming.  You are taking the OOC knowledge that someone is messing with you and letting that effect how you play your character IC.  Thats not ok.  By that logic you could ignore the emotion changing aspect of presence 3 and 5.  You could ignore the heightening or lowering of emotions from Passion.  You could ignore having your memories erased because OOC you know that it would be bad for you not to remember.  That's not an excuse.  Yes, the impetus is on you, and that's how the game is played.  Maybe you meant to say you prefer not to have to do that, but if you are really saying that you just refuse to follow the rules....

I don't even see what the big deal is.  Who gives a shit?  I have never had a problem killing someone when the time finally came.  And other than that 1 time, I never needed summons to do it.  Hell, I didn't NEED it that time either.  Even then I wasn't the one to actually do it.  I actually had someone else summon my target and then I killed the target and the summoner both. 
Summons allows too many possible outcomes.  I would rather control the whole situation and ambush them at a time and place of my choosing.

[Thomas the Bastard]

I am not saying that. I am saying that Summon as a "subtle" power is effectively impossible to play in a situation where the target needs to excuse themselves to leave, and wouldn't normally. It screams that Summon is being used, every time, and if they're expecting it to happen, it leads to people getting angry when their allies don't let them, or follow them. If their allies don't let them leave, is the target supposed to turn on their allies because they *have to* go to their destination? It's a headache we can just avoid, and should.

You also seem to be accusing me of ignoring the rules. If so, we can take the accusation up with the staff.

[Giric]

First, Don't finger point, it's rude, uncalled for, and unproductive.  If you have something specific about someone bring it up to the staff or with that person and the staff.

Okay, about rationalizing summon.  It's really easy to leave a situation with your friends.  Assuming your hated enemy isn't summoning you, then you can easily think of a reason to bring your friends or quickly wrap up what you are doing.  Remember it isn't dominate, so if it would make your friends suspicious for you to leave instantly, you can wrap up the conversation in 5 minutes and then head there.  Or you tell your friends that you need to go to this location, and you can continue the conversation on the way there.  You don't have to tell them why, or what you are doing there if you think they won't like it.  

And this goes a long way with how the STs introduce the situation.  If they walk into your coterie and say, So'n'so, give me a summon chop then that makes everything more difficult.  But if they whisper something to you and then do a chop there are a lot more things it could be.  And as a player/ST if you don't act on it immediately people will tend to dismiss it.  2 minutes later you roleplay having to go somewhere and you can easily escape the situation in most cases.

So I guess personally I don't see it as a hard mechanic to follow, it adds something to the roleplaying part.  And while it is powerful, it is also something that isn't used that much in the way people think is misuse.  I don't see a need for a change, but I am not upset about the change that was done.

[Simon Molendinarius]

Says not to call people out publicly while calling someone out publicly...

[Guest]

I read it as a blanket statement that everyone should avoid finger pointing, not calling anyone in specific out for doing so prior to the statement.

[Giric]

Not my intent, and thanks.

As I think about this, another important part of this is that when people use powers on you, it means generally that they are seeking to gain some sort of advantage.  And, well, that generally isn't great for your character.  But the point of roleplaying is that we play through both the good and bad things that happen to our character.  

Pretty much all of the presence powers require roleplaying.  Entrancement, summon, majesty, passion, father knows best.  These all require the target to act in a manner that is different that they did before.  Acting differently is part of good roleplaying, and even if it is difficult, and may have bad outcomes for your character, that is what makes this fun.  Failing with grace can make some of the best stories and scenes.

[Player One]

I posted my thoughts on the facebook group.

Summarized for the people who don't facebook: RAW Faith and Fire Summon is hilariously OP. If we're going with that writing, we should probably reset the presence tags, since the meta on use changes wildly.

Suddenly, using the awe retest is grounds for murder, because now and forevermore you can be essentially telenuked without recourse. Majesty becomes the threat of wiping an entire room of Kindred within thirty IC seconds. I assume people who have presence do not want to be murdered for the high crime of using their power.

If there's a separate SOP(as implied on the FB group), then that should be noted in the HR section.

I'd like to close with this: Summon has always been problematic. I very distinctly recall The Bad Times, when Summon-Slays were academic, inescapable affairs. The circles I most frequently play with stopped doing it, partially because we stopped killing each other so frequently, partially because the games allowed for other means to accomplish the same end, and partially because we'd agreed that SS is played out.

Within a tabletop mindset, it's fine, or at least not as egregious. There has never been a good larp writeup, merely less bad ones.

[Player One]

in re: "Requires Roleplaying" - You aren't wrong, but that was beaten out of me a long time ago. I've watched players attempt to monkeypaw "Requires Roleplaying" effects so often that I don't even think of them as existing. Dementation, Dominate, PoC, Presence, etc...it's why BNS made the decision to apply hard mechanical effects to most of them.

Unless it's well and truly egregious, it can't even be called into question due to the subjective nature of those powers. This is the bed that we, specifically, have made for ourselves.

[Sponsored content]