Paging Dr. Hicks, Dr. Fred Hicks please

[devonapple]

Failed rolls can result in backlash and fallout.

And I don't see that happening in the fiction. Almost all of the mortal magic in the Dresdenverse relies on willpower, with some effort to take physics and thermodynamics into account. This, by contrast, seems to be a thing which is supposed to Just Work by rote, like the way magic is mostly handled in the Potterverse.

I wonder if this is supposed to resemble in D&D games when the party's henchmen and horses get dropped into an imaginary Portable Hole outside the dungeon, where they are (hopefully) immune to the plot until the players return. Something done for narrative expedience to protect squishy mortals who happen to get stuck in magical throwdowns alongside Wizards.

[sinker]

Failed rolls can result in backlash and fallout.

Ahh, I see now. I would think that his would be a great time for people to be careful if they want the circle to succeed, however if they did fail my personal ruling on this would be that it goes one of a few ways. Either they have actually injured themselves more than was necessary (or more than they thought) and take extra physical stress but the "spell" works (ala backlash). Or the spell fails, but it doesn't really have enough power to explode and creates some really minor unintended effect (ala fallout) although I would think that the circle itself not working would be a major downside in and of itself.

[TheMouse]

And I don't see that happening in the fiction.

This is exactly my point.

I'm saying that using Thaumaturgy to model circles is problematic because using those rules occasionally results in an explosion when someone draws a chalk circle when that doesn't happen in the novels. Thus, I'd like a less problematic set of rules for circles.

I've already decided on a set of rules for my game. I'm going to have it work like this:

Roll Lore at a difficulty of +1. If you succeed, you've put up a circle with a Threshold value equal to the higher of your Lore and Conviction.

It's not perfect, but it's simple and would model how stuff works in the book a little better.

[devonapple]

I've already decided on a set of rules for my game. I'm going to have it work like this:
Roll Lore at a difficulty of +1. If you succeed, you've put up a circle with a Threshold value equal to the higher of your Lore and Conviction.
It's not perfect, but it's simple and would model how stuff works in the book a little better.

A wonderful starting point! Would spellcasters (who presumably have the tools and training to do this the right way) default to this method, or would this be solely for the under-initiated?

[TheMouse]

A wonderful starting point! Would spellcasters (who presumably have the tools and training to do this the right way) default to this method, or would this be solely for the under-initiated?

I figure that casters can do circles this way, or they can opt for Thauaturgy to make more impressive circles. If you want to hold something that isn't a mook, you really should leave it up to the professionals.

Hm. Now that I write that out, perhaps the default Threshold should be 2 for all basic circles, just like normal Thresholds. This makes Thaumaturgy a more appealing option, which I feel it should be.

Then perhaps use an application of the Spin rules. If you get Spin, it counts as one thing in favour of the Threshold, which raises it to 4. This means that people with good Lore are better with circles, even if they're not an actual caster.

Yeah. I think I like this better.

[Morfedel]

I figure that casters can do circles this way, or they can opt for Thauaturgy to make more impressive circles. If you want to hold something that isn't a mook, you really should leave it up to the professionals.

Hm. Now that I write that out, perhaps the default Threshold should be 2 for all basic circles, just like normal Thresholds. This makes Thaumaturgy a more appealing option, which I feel it should be.

Then perhaps use an application of the Spin rules. If you get Spin, it counts as one thing in favour of the Threshold, which raises it to 4. This means that people with good Lore are better with circles, even if they're not an actual caster.

Yeah. I think I like this better.

Actually, unless I missed an errata or something, RAW is starting threshold strength is 3, not 2. And, I already mentioned using this as a basis about a page ago, albeit with different rolling mechanics.

[devonapple]

Actually, unless I missed an errata or something, RAW is starting threshold strength is 3, not 2. And, I already mentioned using this as a basis about a page ago, albeit with different rolling mechanics.

You totally did!

[TheMouse]

Actually, unless I missed an errata or something, RAW is starting threshold strength is 3, not 2.

"Most thresholds or other things that ground out magical energy (like a source of running water) have a base strength of Fair (+2)" [DFRPG, YS page 231].

The +3 strength you're thinking of is holy ground. It's in the same paragraph as the line I just quoted.

And I saw your suggestion. I just felt that it was too effective, because it added your shifts to the base. Mine outputs two possible blocks that are useful without being nuts.

[Morfedel]

"Most thresholds or other things that ground out magical energy (like a source of running water) have a base strength of Fair (+2)" [DFRPG, YS page 231].

The +3 strength you're thinking of is holy ground. It's in the same paragraph as the line I just quoted.

And I saw your suggestion. I just felt that it was too effective, because it added your shifts to the base. Mine outputs two possible blocks that are useful without being nuts.

Oops, you're right! That was holy ground!

Ack! That's what I get for reading the book while driving.

Uh... at least I'm not texting?

Anyway. I don't think there's anything wrong at all with it being all that effective, because Circles have proven to be devastatingly effective every single time we've seen it used. Thus, it seems to reflect their usefulness as seen in the novels.

However, as a side note:

And I don't see that happening in the fiction. Almost all of the mortal magic in the Dresdenverse relies on willpower, with some effort to take physics and thermodynamics into account. This, by contrast, seems to be a thing which is supposed to Just Work by rote, like the way magic is mostly handled in the Potterverse.

The more I think about this, the more it occurs to me how right this is. Harry was constantly being drained out of his mind by expending his power... and recharging himself with flares of emotion and passion. He never was worried about things like explosive energy backlashes.

So why is this in the rulebook? Or, like with the holy ground / threshold thing, did I miss something else? Seems to be par for the course with me lately....

[devonapple]

So why is this in the rulebook? Or, like with the holy ground / threshold thing, did I miss something else? Seems to be par for the course with me lately....

To be clear, I meant this about Normals using Circles. I'm fine with Backlash and Fallout. I meant to observe that worrying about normals blowing themselves up. I am by no means advocating the suspension of Backlash/Fallout - I think they add to the drama of the game.

[TheMouse]

I am by no means advocating the suspension of Backlash/Fallout - I think they add to the drama of the game.

But those things aren't present in the fiction upon which the game is based. Ergo they are problematic.

[Morfedel]

But those things aren't present in the fiction upon which the game is based. Ergo they are problematic.

And that's the point. One gripe I originally had was that some things we saw in the books wasn't being represented, but enough people successfully argued that they didn't have to be, that the rules and "fudging it" was perfectly ok.

But then we turn around and have rules that flat out are not represented by the fiction... as far as I can recall. Dresden was drained when he cast magic, but he wasn't releasing explosive bursts of energy....

Hm, before I commit myself to something like this again, let's go back and read the section on backlash and fallout....

*returns a few minutes later*

So, backlash effects the caster. This COULD represent the exhaustion caused by massive spells that Harry sometimes experienced.

Fallout effects the environment. Have we seen anything like this in the fiction? I do recall a couple times where discussion of losing control of magic was really bad. For example, when Cowl was trying to become a God at the end, racing against the other necromancers. Losing control of the ritual was a bad thing.

That can easily compare to backlash. But what about fallout? I think maybe it might actually be appropriate. It doesn't have to represent blasts of power detonating from your body. It could be your spell being broader than intended, for instance, thus hitting more than just your intended target.

What do you guys think? Is Fallout and Backlash represented well in the canon fiction the game is based on? I didn't think so at first, but now I'm thinking that maybe, yeah, it does.

[devonapple]

The building's on fire. And it was my fault.

[noclue]

Fallout effects the environment. Have we seen anything like this in the fiction? I do recall a couple times where discussion of losing control of magic was really bad. For example, when Cowl was trying to become a God at the end, racing against the other necromancers. Losing control of the ritual was a bad thing.

Yeah, Harry totally set that building on fire and started a war with the RCV. Talk about losing control.

[Smith]

What about using Fallout from your own spells to your benefit?

I recall in Proven Guilty

(click to show/hide)

when Harry and Thomas are being chased by The Scarecrow, Harry tosses a case of bottled water into the street and using his blasting rod to throw a gout of flame skyward, has it draw the heat basically having the fallout freeze the water and trip up the Scarecrow.

How would one go about something like that, in-game? Would that have been considered "Fallout"?