Powers = Tools ?

[Viatos]

Would you please stop saying that I mislead people.

Well, don't, and I'll be nothing but sweetness and silence.

[Richard_Chilton]

Well, don't, and I'll be nothing but sweetness and silence.

I have a different opinion from you.  Giving a contrary opinion is not misleading people, it is expressing an opinion that you disagree with.

Richard

[Viatos]

I have a different opinion from you.  Giving a contrary opinion is not misleading people, it is expressing an opinion that you disagree with.

Come on, dude, we have like a thousand pages of this. You can probably type this next part FOR me. This isn't blue vs. green, this is pawns move four spaces vs. no, they move one or two spaces depending on context. Telling people a false thing is true is misleading, whether or not you believe in the false thing. That's the definition of deception. Your intentions don't enter into it, it is what it is.

[Richard_Chilton]

I gave never said any of that - nor have I changed my position.

Just because you can't dispute my logic nor even attempt to refute any of the things I've quoted does not mean you can put words into my mouth.

To recap one last time:
One last time (hopefully):
The Dresden Files RPG is an attempt to model the entire DV.
The rulebooks give a great summary of the DV.

Saying:
1) You do not need to own Ghostwalk to run D&D 3.5.
2) Ghostwalk is part of  D&D 3.5.
is akin to saying:
1) you do not need to read all the novels
2) the entire DV is part of the game

Richard

[Viatos]

I gave never said any of that - nor have I changed my position.

What exactly do you think I said that you said? Relax. You're fencing with phantoms now. The only words of yours I've used are the ones I literally just quoted.

Saying:
1) You do not need to own Ghostwalk to run D&D 3.5.
2) Ghostwalk is part of  D&D 3.5.
is akin to saying:
1) you do not need to read all the novels
2) the entire DV is part of the game

No comparison possible between Ghostwalk, a licensed gaming product for the D&D 3.5 ruleset, and Jim Butcher's novels, artistic works made for entertainment. This is a deceptive example because it equivocates unequal subjects. It's like saying "I read a book on medieval warfare, so when I play chess it's impossible for pawns to take my knights because knights were so powerful". The book on medieval warfare was not a CHESS book.

There are novels written for D&D, but they are not considered setting canon or rules information. DFRPG was written after the DF novels but it's the same thing.

[Sanctaphrax]

This bugs me. It's one thing to get a lower price for future powers like Sponsored Magic if you have Evo or Thaum (or, I guess, a refund if you start with Sponsored, but it's the same thing as a lower price for the power bought later), but (effectively) raising the cost of Strength powers just because you also have a Sword of the Cross doesn't seem quite right.

I admit, it's not exactly elegant.

Sounds better, but how would you word it to allow exceptional ... exceptions like Susan with the Sword in Changes?

Just say that you can't use the stress boost with the effect. You can use the power even if you have Strength, you just can't use it with Strength.

I mean, for the Sword of the Cross itself it can be just part of the weapon's Divine Purpose, something like...

"This item exists largely to balance the scales between mortals - for this purpose, 'mortal' includes those with True Faith supernatural powers, and perhaps (at the GM's discretion - such cases should be considered carefully) those with a minimal measure of supernatural power, such as Minor Talents or White Court Virgins. While other beings can wield a Sword under temporary and extreme circumstances - so long as they retain mortal free will - they cannot be Knights of the Cross or otherwise use the sword for a significant period of time." 

But if we're treating it as a power that can exist elsewhere, what then? Assuming it's always something that is given 'from outside' (except at uberhigh refresh where it probably is irrelevant) I suppose variations of the above would work.

No, that wouldn't work. Papering over mechanical issues with narrative stuff is almost never a good idea.

Can you expand on that? What else might be changed?

I dislike making mechanical things depend on semi-mechanical things like iron-ness and holy-ness. Also, the most of the Musts category is pointless. Powers must fit High Concepts, by the base rules for Powers.

Yeah, the point of the Swords is to strip away supernatural invulnerability. I don't see any reason for them to beat mundane armor. And (as above) the whole matter of them beating anything but powers with Catches (Toughness/Immunity/Recovery) is kind of weird/vaguely explained anyway. So I'd leave it out.

ACaEBG could be taken in a number of different directions. It could be a Catch-satisfying power, an anti-magic power, an all-trumping killing power, or a fairness-enforcing power. The current fluff implies the last of those options, but mechanically it's more like an all-trumping killing power.

[Mr. Death]

Well, one way to look at it is, I think, the Sword (and therefore God or the Archangels, or whoever) was on human-Susan's side.

I could definitely see powers derived from the White God (or other pious faiths) being specifically incompatible with powers derived from "evil" sources like the Black, White, and Red Courts, or even just inhuman sources in general.

Hell, that might be why we never see Susan actually hit anyone with the damn thing. For all we know, she's used to using her vampire powers for combat, and holding the sword doesn't let her tap into them, at least to the extent they're used to. I've seen similar speculation that Thomas taking up Amoracchius on a permanent basis (he is the son of a King, after all...) would turn away his demon for good.

[Sanctaphrax]

I gave never said any of that - nor have I changed my position.

Just because you can't dispute my logic nor even attempt to refute any of the things I've quoted does not mean you can put words into my mouth.

Your logic has been disputed and refuted. If you don't think it's been done well, that's one thing, but people are at least trying it. This seems ruder than Viatos's analogy comments by far. (Not going to report it though, it's well within my tolerance for vitriol.)

To recap one last time:
One last time (hopefully):
The Dresden Files RPG is an attempt to model the entire DV.
The rulebooks give a great summary of the DV.

This is true, but what does it have to do with anything?

The rules do provide everything you need to play in the DV, but then again I hear that GURPS does the same. And Evil Hat seems to think that Fiasco does as well.

Anyway, Richard, there three main things left over in your posts that bug me.

1. The calls to end the argument. If you want the argument to end, don't participate in it. Seriously. I'm still here because I'm fine with seeing this continue.
2. The nonsense about opinions. Hardly anyone here is giving opinions, most of this is beliefs. The difference between an opinion and a belief is, some beliefs are wrong. You clearly understand this, given your attempts to prove other people wrong. Treating a belief as an opinion will lead to nonsense.
3. The statement that everything in a rulebook is a rule. That's not just wrong, that's obviously wrong. Are the page numbers rules? Is "Shut up, Bob" a rule? Please, be more careful with the blanket statements.

PS: The biggest problem with narrative-mechanical conflation is probably the uncertainty that it introduces into discussions of variations. If I want to play a Nightside game with DFRPG, what do I have to change? If you can't tell a rule from setting info, that's very hard to answer.
PPS: SEC and SER are okay, but I think I'd prefer SAW for Setting As Written. I've never really felt the need for the extra level of explanation.

[Becq]

Is this still the argument about whether or not the Dresden Files Roleplaying Game was designed to play games based on the world portrayed by the Dresden Files series?

The math seems simple to me:
Fate + SAW = DFRPG
DFRPG - SAW = Fate
where
SAW ~= DF

Of course you can adapt DFRPG to any number of different settings, just by subtracting out the SAW part of DFRPG (the stuff that makes the DFRPG the DFRPG instead of Fate) and adding in a setting of your choice:

DFRPG - SAW + Nightlife_setting = Fate + Nightlife_setting = ... well, NRPG maybe?  Or Fate Nightlife?  Or a DFRPG-based Nightlife homebrew?

I think you are redefining DFRPG to be just the Fate mechanics without the setting information/mechanics.  ("Wait -- did you say 'setting mechanics'?"  Well, the Lawbreaker feat, for example, is pretty solidly derived from setting, as opposed to being a generic mechanic.  Many settings would also benefit from a major re-write of the magic systems, too, because they are heavily designed around the setting.)

But ... whatever.  I'm not really sure why I even jumped back in.  Maybe I'm just amazed at the amount of passion behind the argument that really -- when it comes down to it -- the Dresden Files Roleplaying Game has little if anything to do with the Dresden Files...

[Tedronai]

No, this is an argument as to whether setting=rules, novels=rulebooks, and many other absurdities.
The 'purpose' argument that you put forth was, as I understand it, merely a poor attempt to come to the above by way of fallacy.

[Becq]

No, this is an argument as to whether setting=rules, novels=rulebooks, and many other absurdities.
The 'purpose' argument that you put forth was, as I understand it, merely a poor attempt to come to the above by way of fallacy.

Ok, I'll bite.  Which fallacy would that be?  And what 'purpose' argument are you attributing to me?

[vultur]

Just say that you can't use the stress boost with the effect. You can use the power even if you have Strength, you just can't use it with Strength.

Ah, yeah, that would work too.

No, that wouldn't work. Papering over mechanical issues with narrative stuff is almost never a good idea.

I don't understand ... what I listed would mean that nobody with Strength powers could ever wield the Sword long-term, since Minor Talents etc. don't get Strength powers.

ACaEBG could be taken in a number of different directions. It could be a Catch-satisfying power, an anti-magic power, an all-trumping killing power, or a fairness-enforcing power. The current fluff implies the last of those options, but mechanically it's more like an all-trumping killing power.

Well, I think it can do most of what it *should* do if all it does is satisfy Catches, period. No effect on spells, mundane armor, etc. Though I can certainly see it slicing through magical defenses like they weren't there, too. I really don't see any good justification for it ignoring mundane armor, however.

In the books, I think the way it's supposed to work is that it gives you pretty much a level playing field against anything - but everything it's ever been said to do can be explained by "satisfy all Catches".

[Tedronai]

Ok, I'll bite.  Which fallacy would that be?  And what 'purpose' argument are you attributing to me?

I'm not attributing an argument to you, but to Richard.
You asked if it was still the same argument as to [purpose of DFRPG].  That argument, as I understand it, was used by Richard as a fallacious support for his position of 'novels are RAW'.  It's fallacious because the undisputed purpose of the DFRPG in representing the DV does not indicate in any way that DV canon is DFRPG RAW.

edit: I apologize if that was not made clear in my previous post.

[UmbraLux]

Is this still the argument about...

It's the full argument.  Way past ten minutes.

[Sanctaphrax]

Is this still the argument about whether or not the Dresden Files Roleplaying Game was designed to play games based on the world portrayed by the Dresden Files series?

Not entirely, it's drifted onto a number of topics.

As for what you said, DFRPG is a specific variant of FATE. And while the narrative material of DFRPG is pretty setting-tied, the mechanics are quite generic.

If you wanted to make DFRPG's rules setting-free, you'd just have to throw out Lawbreaker and a few examples of magical things. (If I remember correctly.)

I don't understand ... what I listed would mean that nobody with Strength powers could ever wield the Sword long-term, since Minor Talents etc. don't get Strength powers.

Actually, White Court Virgins can have Inhuman Strength.

But that's beside the point. The point is that you shouldn't design powers to become unbalanced as soon as people decide to refluff them or use them as inspiration for something else.

Well, I think it can do most of what it *should* do if all it does is satisfy Catches, period. No effect on spells, mundane armor, etc. Though I can certainly see it slicing through magical defenses like they weren't there, too. I really don't see any good justification for it ignoring mundane armor, however.

In the books, I think the way it's supposed to work is that it gives you pretty much a level playing field against anything - but everything it's ever been said to do can be explained by "satisfy all Catches".

"Satisfy all Catches" is a valid way to go about it, certainly. I've got to admit that I prefer it as an all-trumping killing power, but that's just personal taste.

Just make sure you know what you're aiming for when you write. /obvious advice.