So, I was discussing Vampire: The Masquerade as Sorcerer fodder, when my friend pointed out something I'd missed entirely, which is that Sorcerer lacks an explicit way to mimic the genre-specific weaknesses, such as the WW Vampires' response to sunlight.

Now, I know this isn't a Narrative issue, and my reflex is to just rule that since all Sorcerers are Vampires, it's just part of the setting, and something to be exploited for role-playing bonuses, e.g. shoving the maguffin into a sunlight beam to keep it inaccessible or crossing running water for advantage in a chase scene. 

Then it occurred to me that since the 'weaknesses' are a result of the Parasite demon, it might be more characterful to have it be a result of the demon.  So, when you expose yourself to sunlight, the demon makes an attack action against you.  When you try to cross running water, the demon opposes you with a Will roll. 

This isn't well-supported in the present rules without adding new text to the demons, things like Hate: Sunlight and such, things which the demon is has phobia-like irrational responses to, that they will risk anything to express their displeasure about.

Or will they?  Will a demon abort his Hate-fed attack to defend against a Punish?  Or a Banish?  Or a direct attack?  Are there stories where this sort of thing is supported?

I'd like to hear thoughts on the whole of this post, if y'all'd be so generous, since I'm sure my perspective on the matter is far from complete.

It seems to me that this is just a Need, albeit a pretty strong one. You'd have to set as a rule of the setting that parasite demons in Need tend to attack their hosts, which isn't too farfetched. So, vampire demons just need to stay out of sunlight and fire.

Clinton wrote:
It seems to me that this is just a Need, albeit a pretty strong one. You'd have to set as a rule of the setting that parasite demons in Need tend to attack their hosts, which isn't too farfetched. So, vampire demons just need to stay out of sunlight and fire.

I think you guys are making it all way too hard, and it all comes down to that business about "explicit rules" - which is a pseudonym for "thou cannot" as an in-game action.

Sorcerer is pretty light on such "thou cannots," whereas Vampire as a game is constructed almost entirely of them. Different philosophies of game design.

The rule in Sorcerer is that any limitations as conceived, as part of the look & feel of sorcery/demons in the game, simply apply to all narration (announced actions, resolutions, whatever).

So if I decide my character has one leg, then I simply refrain from announcing actions involving sprinting. I don't have to have "gained 10 points" by choosing from a list of such limitations, and finding that "missing a leg" is worth 10 points.

It's still a rule. It's no different a rule from any of the "explicit rules" your friend is talking about. It's just not the same trajectory, mentally speaking, as those rules.

To take it to sorcery and (yawn) vampires, put it this way: a person who is a vampire (whether that's simply a feature of being a sorcerer, or whether it's due to a demon, I don't care) cannot cross running water and is killed by sunlight. Period.

Oh, too harsh? We want damage, do we? Which is basically a wussy way to do the sunlight and so on without losing characters. In that case just treat crossing running water or being in sunlight as a roll of some kind, of however many dice the group thinks is appropriate for the game, and treat the effect as being shot by a big gun.

See, it's easy as pie. In the kind of game we're talking about, to vampires, these things are simply weapons. There are very good rules in Sorcerer for weapons.

Best,
Ron

Ron, I agree with almost everything you've said, and in general I find the lack of explicitness an excellent opportunity to creatively exercise the flexibility of the system(rather than perceiving it as a lack).

I am, however, going to try out the 'vigorous opposition' interpretation, just because it seems to me to be a more elegant application of the currency than the consensual 'however many dice' method.