So, first session of my game last night, and we had a slight hitch when the Rioter decided she wanted to get the group into a more partying mood.
I've since gone over the rules again, and I *think* this is how things should be handled, please let me know if I'm right:"Passive" allomancy:
The party is searching an abandoned manor and has just found the wine cellar and partaken of an excellent vintage. The Rioter decides to riot the party's sense of fun and enjoyment.
At this point the Rioter rolls her Zinc rating. This is a Challenge because the rest of the group has no idea she's doing anything, with a Difficulty appropriate for the emotion.
The narrator decides that creeping through a manor that's been empty for a century isn't really conducive to a genial mood even after finding the wine cellar, and assign a Difficulty of 3
The player has five dice for rioting (I'm ignoring traits & circumstances in this example), and gets 1, 2, 5 and two nudges. With a result of 0 and a Difficulty of 3, this is an Outcome of -3, mitigated by two nudges to -1. If she'd only gotten one nudge then everyone would now be aware that someone was trying to mess with their emotions.
However, this doesn't prevent her from trying again one Beat later.
So on the next Beat she tries again, this time getting 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, a Success with an outcome of one. Everyone starts loosening up a bit, cracking the occasional joke, and talking about returning to the wine cellar. The Rioter also gets one extra Dice for all Charm & Influence rolls against them as long as she keeps burning.
However, unbeknown to the rioter, the party fixer is also a Seeker and has been burning the whole time. He's aware that she's burning Zinc and so gets to oppose her roll. Deciding to roll Wits to figure out what's happening, he gets a monumental 3, 4, 5, 5 and a nudge. Not only is he aware enough of his emotions to not be affected, but he knows exactly what emotion she was trying to Riot, and decides to spend the nudge on his next roll to resist her Rioting (if necessary).
Does that all sound accurate for "Passive" emotional allomancy?
Next up:Combative Allomancy:
Walking off from the party back to the wine cellar later in the session, the Rioter comes across a group of thieves who are looting the mansion. Deciding that this just won't do, the Rioter decides to Flare her Zinc and try to completely screw with the mind of the one with the biggest weapons, flaring his mistrust, fear and anger.
This is a Contest of Zinc vs Spirit targeting Willpower (The narrator decides that the thief is too small fry to turn this into a Conflict).
The Ritoer gets a pair of fours and a nudge, the thief gets nothing.
Given the high roll and that the thieves are little more than Extras, the narrator decides the thief quickly goes from eyeing his colleagues suspiciously to yelling to starting a fight with them, and the Rioter sneaks off to tell the party about them. The player spends her nudge to make the thief not realise that his emotions are being manipulated.
Had she not gotten the nudge, after the fight he might have realised that someone played him, and gone seeking revenge. Likewise had he been a more prominent character this might have called for a proper Mental Conflict, taking several rounds and giving him a chance to counterattack with Spirit vs Zinc.
How about that example? Does that sound about right?
Trying to make sure I've got a handle on these things before next session