Evocation Blocks: Too Weak?

[Mr. Death]

The problem with that line of thought is that it goes against the reality of playing the game.  Character narration doesn't change the fact that you as the player or GM does know someone put up a block.  You can try and play to the nature of the character all you want, but what you as a player know can and does color your in-game decisions.

This typically swings in two directions.  A. play as a tactical master because you as a player have knowledge the characters don't.  B. compensate in the opposite direction and serve yourself to the opposition on a platter for the sake of narration.

My experience with most RPG battles is it's either a mook fight where the players can't possibly lose (but may get softened up a bit).  Or it's an insanely tough fight where players just barely pull through (or just lose).

I was addressing less the player and more the GM.

Put it this way: How much fun is a video game when the AI is programmed to specifically counter in the most optimal way everything you try to do? Generally speaking, the GM isn't playing against the PCs--he's providing challenge, yes, but on the balance, the PCs' tactics should work and have some tangible effect. The GM shouldn't be playing every encounter as an omniscient singular force using every possible angle to his advantage--he should play the encounters in character.

[JDK002]

I was addressing less the player and more the GM.

Put it this way: How much fun is a video game when the AI is programmed to specifically counter in the most optimal way everything you try to do? Generally speaking, the GM isn't playing against the PCs--he's providing challenge, yes, but on the balance, the PCs' tactics should work and have some tangible effect. The GM shouldn't be playing every encounter as an omniscient singular force using every possible angle to his advantage--he should play the encounters in character.

To clarify: I was speaking in more general terms for all players, pc and gm, regarding the nature of games like this.  That all players have that "god-knowledge" and that no matter how in character you try to be, it does effect your decisions while playing.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that it shouldn't be a "gm versus the pc's" deal.  That it should be about making a fun and interesting encounter.  But I just have a problem when almost the only time an ability is useful (a self targeted block as a defense) is when the GM is intentionally playing like a heel.

[Lavecki121]

Yea but say I have two guys duking it out durring a battle. One wizard one Whatever. The Whatever and wizard have been going at it and so the wizard decides to put up a block on himself (he has a rote or whatever) and is now defended. The Whatever isnt going to then leave that fight and go for another person.

Another situation is when there are two groups. The leader of the GM group (such as Grevaine) says kill that guy to his mooks, His mooks arent going to care that there is a block or that other people are killing the other mooks, they are going after the prize be that he has a block or not.

[Sanctaphrax]

I'm not sure exactly what this argument is about anymore...

Anyway, I have seen blocks be useful. If you're clever and willing to wait for the right opportunity, you can do a lot with a block.

But in your average fight, blasting is better. And the Harry Dresden-style short-duration one-person shield is almost never a good idea. Good blocks tend to be proactive, long-lasting, and group-friendly.

Totally true after the first attack...but unless they have a lot of Lore (or something else appropriate), a 4 shift Block and a 10 shift block look about the same. Add in the whole 'Wizards are really dangerous' factor noted above, and not at least probing their defenses is not the brightest move. Or serious metagaming.

Actually, I think you ought to be able to tell the difference between a 4 shift block and a 10 shift block easily. Powerful magic generally looks about as powerful as it is.

And denying characters important knowledge that players have tends to cause headaches.

Dresden Files isn't a console RPG where every fight boils down to, "Hit the other guy before he hits you." Good enemies will have goals beyond simple annihilation of the other side, and a good GM will have enemies and scenarios set up so it's not simply a contest of who can make the bigger boom.

And, as stated, a good GM who remembers that DFRPG is as much a roleplaying game as it is a blasting game is going to play those enemies in character, rather than as super-optimized, hyper-competent badasses who can calculate battlefield probability on the fly and change their actions mid-course the instant it's less than optimal for them to keep going.

I really don't like this argument.

Maybe your enemies are mortals and you're worried about the First Law.  Maybe they have hostages or bystanders.

A good GM will also make certain people react differently instead of just mechanically.  In my games, if a man walks in when people try to gun him down, holds up his hand, and bullets do nothing, they are more willing to talk.  That's exactly how it's worked a few times with Marcone.

Well, yeah, there's always Compels. But resorting to Aspect stuff generally isn't a good idea when discussing balance.

[Mr. Death]

I really don't like this argument.

The game isn't just mechanics and math--it's also the motivations of the characters involved and how they will each individually act. And in a fight, characters don't all act at maximum efficiency to do the most optimal action at any given time--they go after someone they have a grudge against, or who they think is the biggest threat, or just the first person they come across.

The players, well, you can't do much about that outside of compels, but the GM has a responsibility to keep the opposition believable and in character.

[Sanctaphrax]

I know.

But when someone says "this isn't a video game" it implies that the people on the other end of the argument believe what they believe because they think this is a video game.

Same goes for "there's more to it than numbers".

People don't need to be told that.

[Mr. Death]

I know.

But when someone says "this isn't a video game" it implies that the people on the other end of the argument believe what they believe because they think this is a video game.

Same goes for "there's more to it than numbers".

People don't need to be told that.

No, I'm implying that they're applying the same type of thinking toward this game as you would find in a video game. Just like I had to remind one of my own players that it wasn't DnD when he took someone out with a Guns roll then lamented that he didn't want to kill him.

But yes, sometimes people do need to be reminded of it, because it's easy to forget in a discussion like this, where one side of the argument appears to read as, "It doesn't work very well if the other side is doing everything to the utmost optimization," when that's not how most encounters are supposed to work. Against high-level named NPCs? Sure, you can reasonably expect them to do things efficiently as a challenge--but at the same time, named NPCs are going to have motivations driving them that will conflict with that. Low-level mooks, however, are reasonably expected to do things pretty dumbly, from a gameplay perspective.

[noclue]

Is a horde of pixies an evocation block?

No, it was a horde of pixies hopped up on Cinnabons and Orange Julius. But I did opt to throw that block rather than an evocation.

[Mrmdubois]

I just want the story behind this.

No, it was a horde of pixies hopped up on Cinnabons and Orange Julius. But I did opt to throw that block rather than an evocation.

[Dr.FunLove]

I concur.

[noclue]

I think I've talked about it a little, but it was a great game. I played a powerful but undisciplined sorcerer from a privileged upbringing and Morgan played a by-the-book Wizard from the other side of the tracks. Game started off with our Mentor being killed by an RCV attack and our being framed for the murder by the Warden of Los Angeles. By the ultimate battle we had added a plain vanilla mortal with a score to settle with the Red Court and the emissary from the Egyptian or Etruscan god of death and bureaucracy. The showdown was set in a cemetery with The turncoat warden weilding massive earth magic, another Warden gun mage, a third attacker five zones away with a sniper rifle and our one friendly Warden who my character had grown fond of. She'd been mind controlled into carrying a satchel bomb.

In an earlier session I summoned a pixie known as Lilly much like Harry calls on toot-toot, only she's all about THE CINNABON and THE ORANGE JULIUS. So as we roll out of the car and the battle commences, I spend a fate point for effect and as the door opens there's a little avalanche of cinnabon wrappers and Orange Julius cups. I'd asked Lilly to bring her friends, all of them (I hadn't read very far in the series yet, so I can't be accused of plagiarism).

[Dr.FunLove]

I like the Wee Folk meself!

[Sanctaphrax]

No, I'm implying that they're applying the same type of thinking toward this game as you would find in a video game. Just like I had to remind one of my own players that it wasn't DnD when he took someone out with a Guns roll then lamented that he didn't want to kill him.

But yes, sometimes people do need to be reminded of it, because it's easy to forget in a discussion like this, where one side of the argument appears to read as, "It doesn't work very well if the other side is doing everything to the utmost optimization," when that's not how most encounters are supposed to work. Against high-level named NPCs? Sure, you can reasonably expect them to do things efficiently as a challenge--but at the same time, named NPCs are going to have motivations driving them that will conflict with that. Low-level mooks, however, are reasonably expected to do things pretty dumbly, from a gameplay perspective.

First, that's not how video games work. AI enemies are generally much dumber than people, and random mooks in DFRPG tend to be as smart as people because they tend to be people.

Second, it's just plain rude to dismiss people's arguments like that.

And third, people generally refer to RPG stuff as video-gamey when they're trying to denigrate it. (Especially when D&D4 is involved.) So if you're not aiming to be insulting, you should avoid the comparison.

[blackstaff67]

First, that's not how video games work. AI enemies are generally much dumber than people, and random mooks in DFRPG tend to be as smart as people because they tend to be people.

Second, it's just plain rude to dismiss people's arguments like that.

And third, people generally refer to RPG stuff as video-gamey when they're trying to denigrate it. (Especially when D&D4 is involved.) So if you're not aiming to be insulting, you should avoid the comparison.

This isn't the movies! :-)

[JDK002]

No, I'm implying that they're applying the same type of thinking toward this game as you would find in a video game. Just like I had to remind one of my own players that it wasn't DnD when he took someone out with a Guns roll then lamented that he didn't want to kill him.

But yes, sometimes people do need to be reminded of it, because it's easy to forget in a discussion like this, where one side of the argument appears to read as, "It doesn't work very well if the other side is doing everything to the utmost optimization," when that's not how most encounters are supposed to work. Against high-level named NPCs? Sure, you can reasonably expect them to do things efficiently as a challenge--but at the same time, named NPCs are going to have motivations driving them that will conflict with that. Low-level mooks, however, are reasonably expected to do things pretty dumbly, from a gameplay perspective.

The issue I have with that is pretty much all of that should be handled with compels.  I don't feel a GM should be expected to handicap themselves, the other players certainly don't do this.

Compels are what the GM uses to monkey wrench players and keep them from taking the most optimal action every time.  I don't see why it should be any different when the tables are turned, seeing as how it's within the players ability to call compels on npc's.