House Rules I am Considering

[tymire]

I am probably going to be starting a game soon and was thinking of changing (or clarifying) a couple rules on spells and aspects and wanting to get other folk’s thoughts.  Main issue is that I don’t want to deal with optimized characters in a story based game and want to plug a couple of the gaps in the rules that can be abused or don’t really make sense (at least to me).   Typically try to do this before the game starts so people are not surprised.  Also as I am a hard follower of the rule of “whatever you can do I can do” being able to one shot things even if they are aware is typically not a good thing for the characters.  And in no particular order:

1st:  I would either eliminate focuses or increase their size requirements by 1-2 steps.  Skill + spec is fine, but when you add -in a +5/+5 focus, and only use one element, defenses really cannot cope.

2nd: Casters don't add the number of stress boxes to power when casting, unless they take a consequence.  Also if you are only invoking at a power equal to or less than 1/2 your conviction, it doesn't use a stress point.  This would typically give magic users more endurance, especially for minor cool effects.

3rd:   Targeting mental stress with magic is VERY rare and almost always breaks a law.

4th:  In regards to the first law, either will mostly remove it, or clarify it to only effects mortals with souls.  Now if’s removed the wardens will still kill you for it (bad press), but it would not be corruptive (would still let you take law breaker if you wanted).  If it’s only things with souls you may kill WCV when they are vamping out, but not if they are just walking the dog.  Main reason I would consider removing I don’t like the fact you can kill anything without an effect BUT mortals.  Imo killing anything intelligent DOES affect you regardless; heck even killing animals affects some folks quite a bit.  Now if I do mostly remove it, you will still get it if you kill directly with magic.  Directly as in pulling out their life force, curses, that type of thing, if you are at least one step removed it would be acceptable from not staining your soul type.

5th:  Anything over weapon 4 is considered a lethal attack if you don’t have at least 2 additional control.  Example:  you can make non-lethal weapon 6 attacks if you have 8 control.  

6th:  You can either attack someone’s stress or you can attack them for effect.  For example: if you hit someone with a tazor you could do weapon 2-3 damage or you could have them do an endurance check with a 4-5 difficulty.  If they fail they will be compelled to be stunned until they beat the difficulty (which incidentally will give them a fate point).  Knocking someone off a building, having a floor cave in, or whatever will be handled the same way.

7th:  Libraries will be used.  Wizards will start with a certain number of spells that they can cast off hand using thaumaturgy, most things will require a certain amount of study/reference time and special effects will require an exceptional resource for information.  Without Bob, Harry wouldn’t even be as close to as effective as he is.  

8th:   Adding in difficulty modifiers based on aspects.  For example: good luck trying to see in a pitch black room, listening to a whisper at a concert.  Some things will just not be possible.

9th:   For encounter based instances the number of stickies you can grab w/o fate points will be equal to your skill level.  You won’t be able to have your entire party do maneuvers for 3 rounds than have one  person tag them all.

10th:  Free will / Refresh --- Thinking the problem comes with trying to tie free will to a mechanical system (refresh).  Free will itself has a fairly broad definition, never mind good luck getting the definition from more than 3 different people.  Imo it probably should be part of the high concept instead being tied to refresh.

For example, imo trying to play a RCV (or BCV) isn't possible because a demon literally ate the person's soul and what is left IS NOT human anymore it just acts human when required.  More so with a fey, not only are they not human, they are fey and they follow certain rules.  I wouldn't have a problem letting someone play either one, however the consequences of not following their nature would be extremely significant.  For example if a RCV smelled blood I would force a discipline roll not to tear into what is ever bleeding regardless of where they are or who it is, and even though it's a compel they would NOT get a fate point for it.  If you where playing a fey and you broke your word or lied, you probably just lost at least 1 point of refresh as their power is based on being true to their natures.  

By the same token if you are human regardless of what your refresh was I would say that you do have free will, it's just tested much more if you are in the negative refresh and you probably won't have the fate points to buy out of compels.  Of course the more negative your refresh the worse the compels would be for your character and anyone around them.



Hmmm that got a bit longer than I thought it would......  

[UmbraLux]

Seems like a lot of significant changes. 

Regarding this one:

1st:  I would either eliminate focuses or increase their size requirements by 1-2 steps.  Skill + spec is fine, but when you add -in a +5/+5 focus, and only use one element, defenses really cannot cope.

Have you considered just requiring a pyramid similar to skills & refinements? 

[EdgeOfDreams]

Gonna respond to these one by one.

1st:  I would either eliminate focuses or increase their size requirements by 1-2 steps.  Skill + spec is fine, but when you add -in a +5/+5 focus, and only use one element, defenses really cannot cope.

Rather than eliminate foci, try this rule: Control bonuses from foci apply for determining backlash/fallout, but do NOT apply for targeting the attack.  So, a caster with Discipline 3, Conviction 4, and a +1 control foci summons up a 4 shift attack.  He rolls neutral on the dice for his control roll, for a total of 3.  That's boosted to 4 by his foci, so he controls the power no problem, but the opponent only has to dodge a 3.  I haven't tested this in play yet, but I think it's viable.

2nd: Casters don't add the number of stress boxes to power when casting, unless they take a consequence.  Also if you are only invoking at a power equal to or less than 1/2 your conviction, it doesn't use a stress point.  This would typically give magic users more endurance, especially for minor cool effects.

Generally I prefer not to mess with caster endurance.  There's already a rule anyway that says magic costs no stress if the effect is just flavor or too minor to worry about (e.g. fire magic lighting a candle).  I'm not sure what you mean by the first part of your rule there, but the 1/2 conviction rule seems viable. It is a significant buff to evokers, though, as they can blast away equivalent to a pistol all day long without needing to take Guns as a backup skill.

3rd:   Targeting mental stress with magic is VERY rare and almost always breaks a law.

Eh, this isn't so much a houserule as a setting interpretation.  I think a lot of groups run this way anyway.

4th:  In regards to the first law, either will mostly remove it, or clarify it to only effects mortals with souls.  Now if’s removed the wardens will still kill you for it (bad press), but it would not be corruptive (would still let you take law breaker if you wanted).  If it’s only things with souls you may kill WCV when they are vamping out, but not if they are just walking the dog.  Main reason I would consider removing I don’t like the fact you can kill anything without an effect BUT mortals.  Imo killing anything intelligent DOES affect you regardless; heck even killing animals affects some folks quite a bit.  Now if I do mostly remove it, you will still get it if you kill directly with magic.  Directly as in pulling out their life force, curses, that type of thing, if you are at least one step removed it would be acceptable from not staining your soul type.

Again, this is interpretation.  The book explicitly says to discuss the interpretation of the 7 laws and how much you want them to be part of the story with your players.

5th:  Anything over weapon 4 is considered a lethal attack if you don’t have at least 2 additional control.  Example:  you can make non-lethal weapon 6 attacks if you have 8 control.  

This is definitely a valid rule that will force players to be more careful with their attacks.  However, this also means the game may be more lethal to your players, as many monsters have Weapon:4 attacks or better, usually from Claws + Strength.

6th:  You can either attack someone’s stress or you can attack them for effect.  For example: if you hit someone with a tazor you could do weapon 2-3 damage or you could have them do an endurance check with a 4-5 difficulty.  If they fail they will be compelled to be stunned until they beat the difficulty (which incidentally will give them a fate point).  Knocking someone off a building, having a floor cave in, or whatever will be handled the same way.

I think this is effectively already part of the rules.  There's a box about 'special effect attacks' somewhere.  Also, it can be equivalent to a maneuver which is immediately tagged for effect.

7th:  Libraries will be used.  Wizards will start with a certain number of spells that they can cast off hand using thaumaturgy, most things will require a certain amount of study/reference time and special effects will require an exceptional resource for information.  Without Bob, Harry wouldn’t even be as close to as effective as he is.  

Not so much a houserule as reminding your players of the enforcement of a rule already in place.  Note however, for thaumaturgy, the 'limited number of easy spells I know offhand' is covered by the player's lore score already.  The caster's lore determines the most complex ritual they can cast with no prep.  And the prep rules already allow for things like rolling lore to declare you've researched the spell, boosting the complexity by 2.

8th:   Adding in difficulty modifiers based on aspects.  For example: good luck trying to see in a pitch black room, listening to a whisper at a concert.  Some things will just not be possible.

Another rule that effectively already exists.  The book specifically states the GM may apply +1 or -1 modifiers to any role due to circumstances that aren't big enough to be aspects.  Difficulty for non-opposed rolls is always set relative to circumstances anyway.

9th:   For encounter based instances the number of stickies you can grab w/o fate points will be equal to your skill level.  You won’t be able to have your entire party do maneuvers for 3 rounds than have one  person tag them all.

This is... interesting.  Especially because "everyone maneuvers for a couple rounds, then BOOM" is one of the only strategies that can win against certain opponents.  Remember that in that time, the opponent should be acting too.  Also, the maneuver is only sticky/lasts more than a round if the player wins by an extra shift.  Also also, you have to justify how you're tagging all those aspects narratively.  I do agree that aspect stacking can be an issue for ambushes, so putting a limit on navel-gazing-maneuvers makes some sense.

10th:  Free will / Refresh --- Thinking the problem comes with trying to tie free will to a mechanical system (refresh).  Free will itself has a fairly broad definition, never mind good luck getting the definition from more than 3 different people.  Imo it probably should be part of the high concept instead being tied to refresh.


For example, imo trying to play a RCV (or BCV) isn't possible because a demon literally ate the person's soul and what is left IS NOT human anymore it just acts human when required.  More so with a fey, not only are they not human, they are fey and they follow certain rules.  I wouldn't have a problem letting someone play either one, however the consequences of not following their nature would be extremely significant.  For example if a RCV smelled blood I would force a discipline roll not to tear into what is ever bleeding regardless of where they are or who it is, and even though it's a compel they would NOT get a fate point for it.  If you where playing a fey and you broke your word or lied, you probably just lost at least 1 point of refresh as their power is based on being true to their natures.  

By the same token if you are human regardless of what your refresh was I would say that you do have free will, it's just tested much more if you are in the negative refresh and you probably won't have the fate points to buy out of compels.  Of course the more negative your refresh the worse the compels would be for your character and anyone around them.

Eh, another matter of interpretation.  Do what makes sense for the stories you and your players want to tell.

[sinker]

I figure I'll preface this. Here's what I think. As always though it's your game and your table. Do what you think is best.

2nd: Casters don't add the number of stress boxes to power when casting, unless they take a consequence.  Also if you are only invoking at a power equal to or less than 1/2 your conviction, it doesn't use a stress point.  This would typically give magic users more endurance, especially for minor cool effects.

Are you talking about just channeling more power than your conviction here (I.E. every additional point of stress taken increases the power by one)? If so I'm not so much a fan. Consider that channeling power like that does have a limit of it's own (one can only do it so many times and at specific amounts) and one also has to control that power. More than that it makes casters a little boring. If they're only capable of casting x spells every time then there's no point for half of the magic system and everything essentially becomes rote... I know for some taking the casters down a notch wouldn't be bad but it's almost always bad to make something less interesting. Makes the game less fun for everyone involved.

3rd:   Targeting mental stress with magic is VERY rare and almost always breaks a law.

I can agree with you on the last part (it breaks the laws), but canon seems to indicate that it's just not that hard to do. A completely untrained wizard pulled it off, and that whole book seems to indicate that it's not remotely uncommon for warlocks to just pick up on their own.

4th:  In regards to the first law, either will mostly remove it, or clarify it to only effects mortals with souls.

This is actually the way most people run it. Monsters just don't count, but if it's human (or humanish) then you've got to worry.

5th:  Anything over weapon 4 is considered a lethal attack if you don’t have at least 2 additional control.  Example:  you can make non-lethal weapon 6 attacks if you have 8 control.

As long as everyone knows that beforehand I think that's actually a decent way of doing that.

7th:  Libraries will be used.  Wizards will start with a certain number of spells that they can cast off hand using thaumaturgy, most things will require a certain amount of study/reference time and special effects will require an exceptional resource for information.  Without Bob, Harry wouldn’t even be as close to as effective as he is.

I agree with edge on this one mostly, but consider that having a certain number of spells is going to require a bit more paperwork on the front end. Additionally how do you determine what that number is? Most wizards have access to resources that aren't their own, so only going off of their own resources wouldn't be very accurate. Hell, all white council wizards have access to Edinburgh and you better believe that there's a kick a** library in there. My thought is that generally the lore limit (and the research limit) is plenty, but if you really want to limit them further then I would go with anything that fits their specializations (obviously areas that they have spent time studying) and other stuff as fits their aspects. Aspects are a great way for the players to tell you what they want, so I figure they work pretty well for that.

8th:   Adding in difficulty modifiers based on aspects.  For example: good luck trying to see in a pitch black room, listening to a whisper at a concert.  Some things will just not be possible.

To be honest that just sounds like a compel to me. Like edge said, if you want to add a +/- 1 or 2 go for it, but if you're going to go much more then just compel them.

9th:   For encounter based instances the number of stickies you can grab w/o fate points will be equal to your skill level.  You won’t be able to have your entire party do maneuvers for 3 rounds than have one  person tag them all.

There's actually a RAW way of dealing with that.

A tag is subject to one key limitation: it must
occur almost immediately after the aspect has
been brought into play. Some minor delay is
acceptable, but should be avoided when possible.

So unless the tags are used quick they go away. I like to think of the tags as a "Surprise now you're in a disadvantageous position" sort of thing. After a bit everyone gets used to the situation and it's no longer as much of an advantage. Still something someone could exploit (by spending a fate point) but not something that automatically effects things. I'll usually give someone an exchange to use their tags, maybe two if I feel like things haven't changed much.

10th:  Free will / Refresh --- Thinking the problem comes with trying to tie free will to a mechanical system (refresh).  Free will itself has a fairly broad definition, never mind good luck getting the definition from more than 3 different people.  Imo it probably should be part of the high concept instead being tied to refresh.

For example, imo trying to play a RCV (or BCV) isn't possible because a demon literally ate the person's soul and what is left IS NOT human anymore it just acts human when required.  More so with a fey, not only are they not human, they are fey and they follow certain rules.  I wouldn't have a problem letting someone play either one, however the consequences of not following their nature would be extremely significant.  For example if a RCV smelled blood I would force a discipline roll not to tear into what is ever bleeding regardless of where they are or who it is, and even though it's a compel they would NOT get a fate point for it.  If you where playing a fey and you broke your word or lied, you probably just lost at least 1 point of refresh as their power is based on being true to their natures.  

By the same token if you are human regardless of what your refresh was I would say that you do have free will, it's just tested much more if you are in the negative refresh and you probably won't have the fate points to buy out of compels.  Of course the more negative your refresh the worse the compels would be for your character and anyone around them.

This is not so much something I like. Being human has nothing to do with whether you choose to do something or blindly follow your nature. I've seen many a human who really doesn't exercise their free will, that just blindly goes along with whatever happens. On the other hand it seems like most monsters don't have much in the way of free will either, so maybe you're right about that half.

Personally I don't think I would ever allow someone to play a fey because in my opinion they simply can't act against their natures. They can't lie or break their word at all. It's just not possible, and that just doesn't make for a good character (not the not lying bit but the doing everything one way all of the time bit). There is some wiggle room in the linguistics of it, and I'm sure a really good player could make a character there, but I don't think I've met anyone yet who could successfully pull it off.

Then again I suppose there are often exceptions, and if anyone could come up with a decent story I might be willing to change my mind. This is why I think refresh is a good way to show one's ability to make choices freely. Because it's not based on anything at all. It's arbitrary. Something can have as little or as much refresh as it needs to be as free or as not as it needs to be. It's based only on how much free will something has.

Just my own random thoughts on refresh. Feel free to ignore them entirely.

Random side note I don't believe in compels that don't net a fate point, however since you included a skill roll to resist I wouldn't really call it a compel anyway.

[Sanctaphrax]

Not a fan. Here's why:

3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are not houserules.

5 would work better as a policy on how you handle compels, I think.

1 and 2 seem aimed at nerfing wizards. I don't see the need for this, since a character who spends 5 refresh on attacking with a sword is almost as lethal as a character who spends 5 refresh on Evocation + Refinement, and he does it with a smaller skill investment. Also, defences can cope. Superb Athletics and Supernatural Toughness will let you take 7 shift evocations without consequences. For bigger evocations, use bigger defences.

9 seems rather pointless. If players want to put all that effort into a single massive attack, why should they not be rewarded?

10 is incomprehensible to me. I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Also, the Discipline roll to avoid feeding is part of the canonical effect of Blood Drinker and Emotional Vampire.

In my opinion, the best way to prevent optimization is to ask players not to optimize.

PS: If you're worried about optimization, Crafting probably deserves more attention from you than Evocation.

[Khalis231]

I'm gonna have to weigh in with Sanctaphrax on this one. I'll second all of his comments with regard to the houserules. As he said, the best way to prevent optimization is to ask the players not to. Adding in these house rules (most of which are not actually houserules) just seems to generate needless complication. I'd advise giving your players a general "please don't optimize" guideline and then dealing individual issues as they come up ("oh, your character stacked Crafting and seven Refinements for flavor reasons? Mmmkay, we're gonna need to talk about that.")

[dger]

+1 Agree point to the above two.
Even in a game as collaborative as DFRPG (which I adore btw), you are still the GM/ST/whatever.  I've already burst a PC bubble about ammo (he wanted to start making different types of ammo for different critters.  I told him the point of the game was mystery/drama/etc, NOT munitions obsession).  The players have a lot more influence than in WoD or DnD, but that also comes with responsibility, ie not to twink.  I don't give a darn about bonuses or what not, not one is EVER gonna hear a whisper in a night club in my game.
As for wizards and nerfing them, EVERYTHING nerfs wizards.  Magic is powerful, its supposed to be, otherwise why bother ("I have spent years learning to properly pronounce this spell that will allow me to communicate with any one I want", "Wow, that's so cool, wish I could do that.  Hold on, my mom's calling in from Singapore...").  Wizards will be more powerful, but they also have drawbacks (like being human).  just make sure that you have responsible players running them.   
Anyway, just my two cents (plus a rant free of charge).

[UmbraLux]

Even in a game as collaborative as DFRPG (which I adore btw), you are still the GM/ST/whatever. 

Do remember the advice on YS306. 

I've already burst a PC bubble about ammo (he wanted to start making different types of ammo for different critters.  I told him the point of the game was mystery/drama/etc, NOT munitions obsession).  The players have a lot more influence than in WoD or DnD, but that also comes with responsibility, ie not to twink. 

While I agree with what you've said, I'm not sure I understand.  Is the player trying to track each type?  All it should require is an appropriate Declaration (probably Resources limited by Lore).

[dger]

Do remember the advice on YS306

Not sure what you're directing me to. 

While I agree with what you've said, I'm not sure I understand.  Is the player trying to track each type?  All it should require is an appropriate Declaration (probably Resources limited by Lore).

Exactly.  For example, he said he wanted to make exploding bullets to use against RCV bellies.  Hes a bit o' the gun monkey, so I had to nip it in the bud.  I don't care if his PC is a gun guy, that's fine, as long as the focus is on the story and character rather than on quoting munitions catalogues.