Hi I had a question. So it has come up in sessions where one player were moving another players stats (based on the influence system) and they wanted to change a stat that had seemingly reached its limit. (I.e. Lower one stat and then Raise a stat that was already at 3 or raise a stat and then move down a stat that was already at -2).
Now the players in one game I’m in allowed this and had the player whose stat was changed just keep the stat at its limit while changing the one “changeable” stat and then having the player whose stats were changed mark a condition. (Ex. robin is changing Starfire’s stats He wants to raise star fires danger and lower her freak. Starfire’s freak is at 2 and her danger is already at three. So the GM says okay. Lower your freak to 1, keep danger at 3, and take a condition.) (or the reverse. Robin wants to lower her Mundane, which is already at -2, and raise her freak, which would put it at three. So the GM says to raise the freak to 3, keep Mundane at -2, and then take a condition.) now this approach does have the outcome of permanently giving or taking away a stat from a player. In the first instance Starfire suffers as she does not regain the point that was taken away from her when Robin lowered her freak. Whereas in the second scenario she gains a point by not having to lower a stat to match the raised Freak.
However, players in a recent game disagreed with this approach and dissallowed players to “change” stats past their limit. Essentially saying you can’t raise Starfires danger only lower it. Or you can’t lower her mundane, only raise it. Which essentially is partially locking the stat in my opinion, which is a benefit that you gain only from taking the advance to do it or using your moment of truth. Also it ignores the directions that if you CANNOT change a stat to mark a condition, with forcing the influencing player to choose to move the stat in the opposite direction than intended or choose a different stat completely.
So my question is which approach is right? The approach that maintains the full flexibility of stats that aren’t locked with the downside of people losing or gaining stat points permanently this way……. Or the approach that doesn’t allow this permanent yet seemingly arbitrary advantage or disadvantage to be forced on a player against their will, and errs on the side of caution with limiting the choices a player has to change another players stats. The way I see it it boils down to whether you give more power to the influencing system at the cost of the player being influenced or less power to the influencing system to try to maintain more of the power over the character to the player playing that character.
My gut says that the influencing system SHOULD maintain as much power as it can…. Power to the influencing player. That’s what it’s there for, their words are hitting you hard, they change you, and that’s what the condition statement is there for. Giving power over your character to another player…… That is always dangerous, but at times it can be beneficial, it’s all in your point of view. Also it gives a danger to having a stat at extremes without it being locked, which I don’t particularly disagree with. If someone has a stat at three that SHOULD have the ability to bite them in the ass. But ultimately, I definitely see the point of both views and I just want to know which is right.
