The Dresden Files > DFRPG
An Idea: Tagging for Continuous Damage
SaintAndSinner:
--- Quote from: iago on April 08, 2010, 02:37:05 PM ---That's firmly in house rule territory -- but it does have a bit of elegance to it. I like the pressure it creates to take an action to get that damn temporary aspect off of ya!
--- End quote ---
We have a house rule to create continuing damage you reverse the block maneuver. It continues afterward until they do a maneuver to eliminate it.
SaintAndSinner:
--- Quote from: Belmonte on April 08, 2010, 05:21:27 PM ---I like it, though I might make it slightly more complicated.
Something like: For every shift you get over their roll, it'll last one round (unless they remove it). So if you roll a Superb (+5) and they roll a Good (+3), it'll last 2 rounds. Less, if they spend a maneuver trying to remove the thing.
--- End quote ---
That would work too I suppose. Does your method give you the level of continuing damage or is it always +1?
Belmonte:
I think 1 point of stress per round works well for most effects, myself.
LCDarkwood:
--- Quote from: Deadmanwalking on April 08, 2010, 06:28:32 AM ---So, I was looking on RPGnet, and they were discussing a potential problem in realism for FATE, which can be summed up as follows: You can maneuver to place the Aspect "On Fire!" on someone, and yet they will not take damage from it by default.
--- End quote ---
Okay, so, here's the problem I have with this argument - it assumes that the people at the table aren't evaluating the aspects they want to place in terms of intent and circumstance.
As a mechanic that functions primarily off of conversation, I can't honestly see how in play, the group would accept any aspect as a maneuver that didn't make sense in context. Intent precedes mechanics, right? The idea that you'd say, "Oh, I want to burn this dude up, so I'm going to place a maneuver on him that says 'On Fire!'" is kind of ridiculous on the face of it, because the clear intent of setting someone on fire is to continually inflict stress and consequences, which a maneuver by itself does not do.
On Fire! is, by contrast, a great scene aspect, because it can logically function to do all the things a scene aspect needs to do - modify and restrict certain actions and color the narrative.
So, if I wanted to set someone on fire, I would look to create a "targeted" environmental hazard using the rules in Running the Game, because that's the tool the rules have to match my intent. Asking the GM if I can do that with a maneuver instead of inflicting an aspect? That's fertile ground for an at-the-table call. (I'd allow it, but I'd prolly make it hard.) Or, I'd try to modify a grapple to apply, because that can also do stress every round. It'd depend if I had a flamethrower, or if I was just setting someone on fire.
Just sayin'. The fact that you can describe anything as an aspect doesn't mean it's always the best tool for the situation.
-L
srl51676:
--- Quote from: iago on April 08, 2010, 02:37:05 PM ---remember, generally stress tracks are still pretty short things, so successive 1-stress hits are a big deal.....I like the pressure it creates to take an action to get that damn temporary aspect off of ya!
--- End quote ---
We are talking about being ON FIRE!!!! here right? That would be more than a "big deal" and what else would you be able to do until you put it out. I like this rule however it is up to the GM to mitigate its use as a combat tactic with collateral damage by expressing the horror of what is being done.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version