Staving-Off Frenzy (Discussion)

[Justin Northwood]

(( Note:  The poll has been removed so that this topic can be used to discuss the issue among players and staff.  Please read on. ))

Mike has discussed this with some of the staff and requested that it go to a player vote to determine how we handle it in RAtC.  As a point of reference, a specific mechanic for this does NOT already exist in the published material.  The question pertains to the stacking of frenzy provocations.  Please read carefully.  The scenario is this:

A character is provoked to frenzy and fails their chop, but chooses to spend a Willpower to stave-off frenzy for ten minutes.  Having already lost their frenzy chop, if the character is again provoked to frenzy, he or she should:

(1) Be given another frenzy chop, which they must win outright (lose on ties), in order to prevent frenzy.  No additional Willpower can be spent however, and if the chop is failed, the character frenzies.

(2) Be given another frenzy chop, which they must win outright (lose on ties), or else spend another Willpower to prevent frenzy for ten minutes from that point.

(3) Automatically have the option to continue to spend Willpower to prevent frenzy for ten minutes, without a frenzy chop on the second and any subsequent provocation.

(4) The character is ready to "pop" already from the first frenzy provocation that he or she lost, which they spent Willpower on, and therefore will automatically frenzy.  No additional chop.  No additional Willpower can be spent.

What is not being debated here, is that if a character is provoked to frenzy only once and loses their chop, they CAN continue to spend Willpower every ten minutes to stave-off frenzy for the duration of the scene, until the target of their frenzy leaves the scene, or they run out of Willpower.  Whichever comes first.  Please cast your votes!  The staff will come to a final decision on this based on the poll results.

[Alexander Amarandus van Bokkelen]

Does this game follow any sort of "you must have at least four Rage to frenzy" rule?  This is true in tabletop, but only hinted at in LotW and not actually enforced by any mechanics.

[Mike]

No we don't use that rule as you said its only slightly hinted at in LotW.

[Mike]

2 and 3 are almost the same except you get an extra chop in the middle for a chance not to have to spend wp

[PEBE]

My issue with this situation is that the original test for Frenzy FAILED.. she is GOING to enter frenzy, the WP just adds a little time before it happens. When the same stimulis (Pebe in the case vs Edina) forces her to make a 2nd test for frenzy, she is already well past her breaking point and should be frenzying (if not for the WP).. that 2nd push off the cliff should be at a harder difficulty, with no allowance for WP to stave off a frenzy should she lose again -- and should she win the 2nd test, it will only negate that 2nd test, the original failure still stands.

[Justin Northwood]

What about a fifth option then, that allows the frenzy provocations to stack appropriately in the case of failure.  That way, the original failed frenzy chop is not swept under the rug:

(5) Be given another frenzy chop for the second provocation, which they must win outright (lose on ties).  If the character wins the second chop, they would still need to continue to spend Willpower every ten minutes as per normal on the first frenzy provocation.  If the chop is a loss on the second provocation, then the character either frenzies, or has the option to spend Willpower to stave-off frenzy, HOWEVER they are now having to spend TWO Willpower every ten minutes.  One for the initial provocation and one for the second.

[Torvald Magnusson]

The way I have seen it done is thus:

When provoked to a frenzy state you may

A: Accept a frenzy test
B: Spend a willpower to stave off the frenzy for 10 minutes.

Once you choose to accept the frenzy chops and you lose, you may then spend a willpower to avert your actions from a particular target for 1 combat round.

I think once you choose to accept the frenzy test you are allowing your self to almost succumb in the hopes that your natural balance will handle it.

Additionally being allowed to spend willpower AFTER the test to avert the frenzy for 10 minutes makes the raw savagery of the game diminished and reduces the overall importance of having a good willpower rating

[Justin Northwood]

Perhaps this merits a little more discussion then before the vote sticks?  The staff can come up with a new poll with different options based on the discussion?

[Owen Smith]

I voted for #3, though #2 is acceptable as well.

If a player spends a valuable resource like Willpower, it should have an effect. If a character doesn't get a chance to stave off a second frenzy, then the first Willpower gained them little benefit. If there is no way to prevent a "second frenzy", all I have to do is piss someone off, wait for them to spend their Willpower and then the very next second push them into frenzy with some well chosen words. It may make sense in genre, but it's not fair to players and not fun to be schooled so easily. But I do like the idea that once you're that pissed, only Willpower can keep you from Frenzy.

Willpower is rare, let it be powerful. And let them keep spending Willpower until they're drooling idiots.

[Torvald Magnusson]

I think that would be ok if you guys let us chat about it. Quite kind:)

[Owen Smith]

I like Vance's solution as well. We could use some more primal savagery in the game. This from the player of the least primal and savage character, but hey, dare to be a stereotype.

[Alexander Amarandus van Bokkelen]

If Garou frenzied as often as I've seen in most larp games, they'd all have killed each other by now.  Tabletop mechanics say frenzy is four successes on a rage roll - which means that even an Ahroun has to go out of their way to become angrier in order to make frenzy a significant possibility, or make Thrall vaguely possible at all.  In larp, a 1-rage Ragabash has to lose one frenzy chop and two simples in order for the Wyrm, the avatar of all that is evilest, to get a grip on his (or her) soul.  That's a one-in-thirty chance for something that's supposed to be flat out impossible.

I'm all about anything that makes frenzy less likely.

[PEBE]

Yes, Conner, but as werewolves, rage is within us all.. and though from an OOC perspective we'd all go for the option that lets us keep control of our PCs, we need to evaluate this from an objective perspective..

Yes, the amount of rage is 1 part of the equation, but think about it this way: Any vampire has the Beast, regardless of path.. they ALL have the chance to frenzy, even the obscure Humanity 9... All werewolves have Rage, they are ALL prone to frenzy..

[Alexander Amarandus van Bokkelen]

...except that Ragabash and Theurge explicitly *aren't* prone to frenzy.

[Andreiko Eferiev]

I voted for #3, though #2 is acceptable as well.

If a player spends a valuable resource like Willpower, it should have an effect. If a character doesn't get a chance to stave off a second frenzy, then the first Willpower gained them little benefit. If there is no way to prevent a "second frenzy", all I have to do is piss someone off, wait for them to spend their Willpower and then the very next second push them into frenzy with some well chosen words. It may make sense in genre, but it's not fair to players and not fun to be schooled so easily. But I do like the idea that once you're that pissed, only Willpower can keep you from Frenzy.

Willpower is rare, let it be powerful. And let them keep spending Willpower until they're drooling idiots.

Seconded.

[Justin Northwood]

(( The vote has been canceled for the time being to allow for further discussion before a new poll with new options is introduced or the staff reaches a conclusion based on this discussion.  Stay tuned and keep discussing ))

[Eset]

I think that there should be a new rule... no frenzying... only cupcakes... lots and lots of cupcakes!!!! *grin*

[Soothing Rain]

I second this cupcake notion.

[Eset]

We have two votes for cupcakes... any more? Mike we need the cupcake option on the next poll.....

[Mass Trauma NPC]

No cupcakes, only frenzying!

[Eset]

I demand a cupcake coalition! ::Starts making cup cake shaped picket signs::

[Mass Trauma NPC]

You're just saying this because stricter frenzy rules mean you're more likely to be raged upon.

...


In a completely unrelated point I support the rules making it more likely to frenzy.

[Carter Heyward]

As a note, the book explicitly, for a change, states you may spend the Willpower to abort the Frenzy after losing the challenge to enter Frenzy. You of course lose all actions for the rest of the turn, and could only defend should your opponent(s) choose to attack you.

I much prefer this way since the characters for who it is in tabletop next to impossible to frenzy (anyone with less than 3 Rage), have a much easier time in LARP, having only to lose the challenge. That being said, I think we should also apply the tabletop rule that if you Thrall Frenzy, Willpower will not get you out of it.

[Owen Smith]

I've always seent he Willpower spent before determing Wyrm Thrall. In my mind, at that point, you're either frenzing or you're not. I don't think there's anything about that split second between consciousness and Frenzy that would let most Garou know if it was Wyrm Thrall or not.

[Amie Norwood]

What about a fifth option then, that allows the frenzy provocations to stack appropriately in the case of failure.  That way, the original failed frenzy chop is not swept under the rug:

(5) Be given another frenzy chop for the second provocation, which they must win outright (lose on ties).  If the character wins the second chop, they would still need to continue to spend Willpower every ten minutes as per normal on the first frenzy provocation.  If the chop is a loss on the second provocation, then the character either frenzies, or has the option to spend Willpower to stave-off frenzy, HOWEVER they are now having to spend TWO Willpower every ten minutes.  One for the initial provocation and one for the second.

I like this idea a lot.  It makes having a high Willpower really worth something, but also increases the likelihood that if you don't have that much will, you're going to frenzy.  It makes Will a precious, precious resource, which it should be.

[Justin Northwood]

After a bit of studying, I actually came across the exact material to cover this issue in LotW...  It's pretty cut and dry, really.  A new House Rule topic has been posted:

Uses of Willpower