Defending attacks with various skills

[potestas]

Noted.  You don't feel the magic system is OP.

 This isn't really the place for a magic system debate.

"What made you think that Evocation needed to be made stronger?"
this did, so i opined

[Taran]

Sorry Potestas, my bad.  I just don't want the thread to get derailed into a magic system debate.

[Sanctaphrax]

My apologies. Didn't mean to derail.

potestas, if you'd like to discuss this elsewhere I'm game. For now I'll just say I think you're completely off-base.

My position on the actual issue is in accordance with JDK's.

[vultur]

I agree that if you're going to do this at all, it should be available to everyone, not just some special imaginary rule for wizards.  I'm kinda confounded that this whole idea apparantly stemmed from one spell example in OW that seemingly made it up out of nowhere.  It's well known and accepted that OW contradicts a lot of the explicit rules in YS, yet it seems a lot of disagreements on this forum are from cherry-picking OW.

Um, it's in YS too.

Earth Stomp, YS293. “Opposed by: Target's Might.”
Orbius (YS295) is opposed by Endurance - but that has other issues...

EDIT: Hmmm. But the actual evocation attack rules just reference the normal attack rules - “to avoid the spell, the target can roll a defense roll as per the usual options from Playing the Game (page 200).”

Weird.

[Tedronai]

Um, it's in YS too.

Earth Stomp, YS293. “Opposed by: Target's Might.”
Orbius (YS295) is opposed by Endurance - but that has other issues...

EDIT: Hmmm. But the actual evocation attack rules just reference the normal attack rules - “to avoid the spell, the target can roll a defense roll as per the usual options from Playing the Game (page 200).”

Weird.

Yeah, it's not a problem of dredging up OW in rules debates, it's one of dredging up poorly written examples in rules debates.

[Taran]

O.k
First:

Though I also think dictating what you can tag an aspect for, regardless of how it came to be can also go bad.

Could you clarify/expand on this statement?

Second,

The statements below include both mudane attacks and evocations:(they're kind of like true or false questions...if people want to provide feedback)

- So would it be fair to say that any type of attack can be described in such a way as to try to narrow down a specific skill to defend? I'm talking other than the ones stated in the book (athletics, fists, weapons). 

- Is it fair to say that a defender always has the option to go back to the default defense skills unless compelled not to?

- In fact a defender must use the skills described in YS to defend against attacks, unless they have a have a stunt that provides other options.
 
These are the conclusions I've come up with.  That although an evocation may be more flexible in the sense that it can control the narrative better than a mundane attack, it still can't force someone to defend with a skill outside the usual - barring a compel.  And likewise, while mundane weapons might have less narrative influence on what they can do, a player can still try to do the same.

I actually don't like a "battle of creativity", as Tedroni put it, because it's a game and it shouldn't be any less fun for those of us who can't come up with quick, creative answers to a problem.  Therefore, I think the compel as a reward for suckering someone in is a nice mechanical "levelling of the playing feild".

[Tedronai]

- So would it be fair to say that any type of attack can be described in such a way as to try to narrow down a specific skill to defend? I'm talking other than the ones stated in the book (athletics, fists, weapons). 

Either narratively (see: 'battle of creativity') or by compel, yes.
Both within the standard defenses and outside them, yes.

- Is it fair to say that a defender always has the option to go back to the default defense skills unless compelled not to?

Unless compelled, the defender has the option to use whatever skill they can narratively justify, with those usually featuring the 'default defense skills' at the forefront of those options.

- In fact a defender must use the skills described in YS to defend against attacks, unless they have a have a stunt that provides other options.

Not in my opinion.  See above.
It might sometimes be reasonable, after a non-standard skill has been used to defend on several ocassions, to strongly suggest that a stunt be taken to represent and expand upon that capability, but since the narrative stage for the selection of a defense skill is set by the attacker, I would be extremely wary of ever requiring this, let alone requiring it beforehand.
 

I actually don't like a "battle of creativity", as Tedroni put it, because it's a game and it shouldn't be any less fun for those of us who can't come up with quick, creative answers to a problem.  Therefore, I think the compel as a reward for suckering someone in is a nice mechanical "levelling of the playing feild".

Unfortunately, the 'battle of creativity' is a natural result of three truths:
1) that the narrative of the attack is provided by the attacker
2) that the narrative of the defense must not unduly breach suspension of disbelief
3) that the narrative of the defense is provided by the defender

If I describe my attack in such a way that it is merely difficult (but not impossible) to justify a defense with your skill of choice, you must either engage in that battle, or concede my victory by suffering an inferior defense.

[JDK002]

Taran, to clarify I mean I don't really like the idea of saying "you can't tag/invoke that effect/mechanic with that aspect because it was created via declairation.  But you can do it with this other declairation because it was created via maneuver/consequence."

Splitting aspects into different "types" can get really muddy and convoluted fast, and I don't see it doing anything but bogging down the game.

I'm starting to see why this defense skill issue is never explicitly stated in the book haha.