Max number of people in a zone?

[Belial666]

How many combatants could fit in a medium-sized zone? How many of them could actually fight in it?

If, for example, you got a scenario of 200 black court vamps versus a melee character, can all 200 of them mob her at once? And should she survive and have a zone-wide-attack, can she hit all 200 of them?

[Tallyrand]

Dresden Files isn't really designed well for tactical questions like that, it works better when you're using more general ideas.  For example, if I were running a combat with 200 vampires I would place an aspect on the scene VAMPIRES EVERYWHERE and have no more than 4 or so attack any individual in a given round, compelling the aspect whenever it seems dramatically appropriate to throw in an extra attack or in some other way mess with the players.  So far as how many can fit in a zone, about as many as the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

[Sanctaphrax]

I dunno, I like using this game for tactical encounters.

I'd say 8-20 would be the limit. Depending on zone size, circumstances, etc.

I have no solid justification for those numbers, I just picked what seemed reasonable.

Things might be a little different for creatures with Hulking/Diminutive Size.

[BumblingBear]

I think you could fit 200 bcv in a zone... depending on how big the zone is.

But only about 4 at a time would be able to actually attack.

If you're in a fight with a lot of people, only so many can actually reach you at once. 

I would probably model it like Tallyrand - unless some of the BCV have guns or throwing weapons.

For instance, if 20 BCV burst into a school gym and all throw something at you, that is 20 individual attacks.

[Kraken]

Heh, of course, all of them busting into a place is a logistic nightmare. There's only so much space for them to run in through doors.

I echo the sentiment that it depends on the zone. For most zones, since it's generally speaking enough space for a couple of people to swing a dead feline in.

For the school gym, home bleachers, away bleachers, and then 2 zones for the court sides maybe. That would still seem large. maybe 3 zones, with the ends, and then center court...

Lit "As a rule of thumb, characters in
the same zone can touch each other, characters
one zone away can throw things at each other,
and characters two zones away can shoot at
each other"

[Kraken]

Also, beyond that, your normal person needs about 10 square feet to fight in, if they're fist fighting and normal sized. About a yard on a side, and that's really pushing it if you're close and ON someone. Swinging a sword without hitting your friends, tougher.

[Belial666]

If we're talking the parking lot example that could be about 30x15 yards, which is 2 zones. With a vamp taking up a square yard, you could theoretically have 225 of them per zone. That's how much space troops take up in tight formation.

But the main problem is with fighting. How much space do you need for fistfighting/knifefighting? How much for two-handed weapons? How much for shooting?

[Tsunami]

I have to say, i don't really see the need for such precise definitions.

Does it really matter if there are 120 or 200 vamps in a zone ? Once that kind of opposition appears the characters won't count them in any case. It's just lots and lots of vamps.

As for how many can attack at once... if i want a group of characters to face 200 Vamps i obviously want them dead, or force into submission or whatever, in any case Conflict rules don't really apply now do they ?
I think what matters most here is the question: How many attacks do you wan't to roll and resolve per round ?
Because as a GM i sure as hell wouldn't want to roll 200 attacks... or as a player wait for my GM to resolve 200 vamps attacking me.

I say as many can fit and fight in a zone as is dramatically appropriate and common sense allows for. No rules needed.
And like i said, at some point true numbers really become unimportant.

As for how much space a single person needs to fight.
I'd once again keep it simple. Unarmed, Handguns, Knives, Short swords and similarly sized weapons have little to no trouble in close quarters.
Long-Arms, Swords, two Handed swords and the like might have problems when used in close quarters, provided it's interesting from a story perspective.

"It's really cramped in here so you cant use your M16, you'll have to use your sidearm instead. Here's a fate point"
"You're running around in a tight group, you're afraid to injure your friends with your Claymore. Use your Dagger instead. Here's a fate point"

[Haru]

I'm with Tsunami on this one. If the Players are outnumbered like that, I see 2 options:
1. the enemies are canon fodder. In that case, the real numbers wouldn't matter for the fight, just give the pack one attack roll per character (I wouldn't go any higher than Fair, maybe Good for this) they attack and be done with it, while the characters mow them down with very little consequences on their side.
2. They are the real deal. If the characters fight, make it very clear, that they will most certainly die. Compel them with a "drastically outnumbered" aspect and give them the opportunity for a concession to end the scene in a different way. If they do want to fight, I wouldn't even roll, except if the players have something up their sleeves that might actually give them a chance.

[Belial666]

Well, black court vampires seem to be rather unskilled compared to other supernaturals of their level - maybe it's the recent turning. Shiro's defense and attack for example are 4 whole points greater than theirs; they are going to hit only once per eighty attacks or so and he is going to hit almost every time. Now consider some character with more or less Shiro's skill that is a tough supernatural rather than a frail old man. For said character, a full-blown blampire scourge might be a really tough challenge but still survivable.

[Team8Mum]

It does strike me that there comes a point where the opposition are getting in each others way as much as the players. From my live action days (decades ago now) I recall the chaos of trying to do a battle in a dark corridor where every one was getting hit by every one else and three of the 'monsters' went down to friendly fire.

- or indeed the fateful day during a randomly generated dungeon using the rules at the back of the old AD&D DMG when I heard. You open the door onto a 10 by 10 by 10 room containing ... ten Hill giants... yeah... role for surprise." - We just declared we were surprised they could fit and closed the door and walked away.

-or games of 'Cry Havoc' where the battle had to stop long enough to clear all the dead horses off the bridge before it could start again, because it now classified as 'Impassible terrain' and no one could reach the opposition.

So I'd go with the 'utterly Outnumbered' Aspect - or may be let a Player get away with "Wide selection of targets" if they were quick enough to declare first, and just keep the attacks coming until they realised the futility and gave up.
It's like picking a fight with a GOD. the moment you give god stats there is some fool out there who thinks they can take him down.

However for

And should she survive and have a zone-wide-attack, can she hit all 200 of them?

I'd say yes... but if she is doing that, the rest of her side should also take the hit (including herself unless for some reason she is immune)

[Tedronai]

The minute you give God stats, there IS someone who can take him down.

[Samael]

It's like picking a fight with a GOD. the moment you give god stats there is some fool out there who thinks they can take him down.

This is a table-top game. We are roleplayers. We belong to a group of people with the mentality, if its an NPC (or PC depending on the gamers in question) with known stats, it can be killed. So unless the write up says something to th effect of "You Lose" (the GMs write up, not the books inherently) of course we are going to try and kill it. Its how we think.

[BumblingBear]

This is a table-top game. We are roleplayers. We belong to a group of people with the mentality, if its an NPC (or PC depending on the gamers in question) with known stats, it can be killed. So unless the write up says something to th effect of "You Lose" (the GMs write up, not the books inherently) of course we are going to try and kill it. Its how we think.

Belial, if you are looking for an arbitrary number of the most beings that can attack at once, the number is 3.

In melee or a fist fight, 3 is really the max amount of opponents who can fit into a 360 degree zone around a victim.  4 is really pushing it.

Ranged attacks are totally different, but not possible if there are melee fighters because any miss or complete penetration in the target will hit an ally.

[ways and means]

This is a table-top game. We are roleplayers. We belong to a group of people with the mentality, if its an NPC (or PC depending on the gamers in question) with known stats, it can be killed. So unless the write up says something to th effect of "You Lose" (the GMs write up, not the books inherently) of course we are going to try and kill it. Its how we think.

Maab freezes D10 enemies each turn