Do any of you use this rule?

(Liber Mutatis p18/ P.54 GM's guide ):

GM Invocation [Corruption]
Over the course of play, the GM has the option to “manifest” or
“invoke” a character’s corruption, weaving into the story that the
exposure to corruption or taint is rearing its head. The GM narrates
how the corruption is manifesting, which makes the upcoming
task more challenging. The corruption might manifest as an
overwhelming sense of temptation, painful cramps, or whispered
daemonic voices only the character can hear.
Mechanically speaking, before a player performs an action, the GM
may take one of the character’s corruption points and replace it
with a purple challenge die that gets added to the task’s dice pool.
The corruption token is returned to the general supply [lowering the character's current corruption point total]. No more
than one corruption may be invoked in this manner per check.

oops - must have speed read this and simply use it every now and then to make tasks more difficult. May have to re-think this.

No, but then in my game the players are chaos worshippers who WANT to get mutations

This mechanic seems to obviously be there so the GM can use the threat of corruption, but can stave off or avoid characters becoming unplayable. If I was going to run a campaign with "good" characters again I would use this:

Converting Corruption to Difficulty Dice should, according to the rules, come with an explenation. You can obviously manage to come up with something for any situation, but I feel the mechanic becomes a bit less thematic if it is not used in the context of "fighting for your soul".

So, I would only employ this rule whenever the character attempts to do something "spiritually pure". Tests to do with aiding or giving aid to one of the "good" gods for example. Or trying to resist temptation or similar.

For example: After stopping the cult from completing their sacrifice, the character prays at a nearby shrine to Sigmar. The prayers do not bring him the revigoration of spirit he is used to. He feels sullied and unworthy of setting foot in the temple or even addressing Sigmar. But perhaps, in time, he will feel worthy again.

(Mechanically, he just lost a corruption point, which caused him to fail his Willpower roll, however he actually is "cleaner" now as he has one less corruption.)

It can also be used when trying to resist doing sinful activities, where there is a little voice in the back of his head going "just this once won't hurt."

Yes I have. At times when it was fitting that "chaos" (or me?) really wanted the acting character to fail. It has only happend a handfull of times during our close to 100 sessions though. Mostly, I want the corruption to stack up and become mutations, way more fun.

here and there. I tend to end up with a lot of dwarfs, so opportunities for mutations aren't always present. Don't get me wrong, I love some insane Dwarfs, but I have several ways to accomplish that should the need arise

Yes I invoke it when there is a Chaos Power which doesn't want you succeeding. The "energy" building up in you that might have mutated you at some critical mass is instead used to make your action more difficult. Imagine it as a "temporary mini mutation" etc. though I have used "whispering voice speaks of futility of your actions" etc. as well.

As a GM it becomes a nice safety buffer if you have a villain who is doing the Ruinous Powers' will and you want to make it harder to "take them out with lucky shot".

IIRC, I spent 1 Corruption point penalizing each of 5 different rolls yesterday (and then followed that up with a Tzeentchian spell that used up 3 more Corruption points to give someone 3 Crits). Normally, I almost never spend it this way. Basically, I reserve the Corruption Penalties for when the Ruinous Powers have a vested interest in the PC's failure. The PCs were facing off against a pack of Mutants and Cultists and foiling a major component of Tzeentch's big plan, so it seemed like an appropriate time.

The PCs survived the day anyway because Flamestorm did 5 batches of 12 damage (each) to each of the two targets on the turn it was cast... but that is a topic for another thread.

Edit: Fixed my error. It wasn't 4, it was to 5 batches of damage. It was ugly.

I'm thinking of only allowing the reduction in points if the "Succeed" in the task. Afterall, corruption should be holding you down right?

I'm thinking of only allowing the reduction in points if the "Succeed" in the task. Afterall, corruption should be holding you down right?

that would at least reflect the player "overcoming" the corruption as opposed to "Chaos thrives, you fail, yet somehow have less corruption."

I have pondered the same thing as in "do you ignore that whispering voice and succeed?" though never used that approach.

Oh, I should mention - on a related point, I have often invoked corruption (remember though you can only spend 1 at a time) when a PC was exposed to a source of more corruption and making check to resist. Because if there's one thing Chaos wants, it's you . This means failure does create more corruption (since there's no such thing as a 1D corruption check) and passing means that "you pass the test and drive out even some of what was there already".

I make tasks more difficult, but don't reduce corruption. So the players fear corruption.

I weave this into dreams of promises and opportunities. So at the same time a task is more challenging the players could also reduce the difficulty by somehow "giving in". Guess I was socialized by Star Wars, eh?

I make tasks more difficult, but don't reduce corruption. So the players fear corruption.

I weave this into dreams of promises and opportunities. So at the same time a task is more challenging the players could also reduce the difficulty by somehow "giving in". Guess I was socialized by Star Wars, eh?

How does that work from a rules perspective? If it does not reduce corruption, how do you determine how much it raises difficulty and when it applies?

I love to use a corruption point on a corruption check - adds more thrill to it.

Chaos is whispering in the back of your head to let go and embrace more corruption

I make tasks more difficult, but don't reduce corruption. So the players fear corruption.

I weave this into dreams of promises and opportunities. So at the same time a task is more challenging the players could also reduce the difficulty by somehow "giving in". Guess I was socialized by Star Wars, eh?

How does that work from a rules perspective? If it does not reduce corruption, how do you determine how much it raises difficulty and when it applies?

As to when: when the story fits. So the bloodthirsty priest of Sigmar in my group has had some taint of Khorne and when situations arise, where bloodshed could be achieved, I make it harder for him to restrain himself (killing helpless orks or such). Or I give him options, where actions of his become easier, if he "lets loose".

As for accurate rules: I don't use em. Ever since I became corrupted by Paranoia I rule dicerolls on the fly. But I of course adjust them according to what I did before or what other players had to roll. So the more corruption you have, the harder it is to withstand opportunities to do things the way a chaos-god likes and the easier tasks become, that involve favouribale aspects to a Chaos-god. And I keep the theme to what caused the corruption and how former conflicts played out.