ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: DFJunkie on June 24, 2010, 05:21:22 PM
-
I’m contemplating a houserule to add potential to the catch. See, some creatures (Black and Red Vampires are the most common) suffer actual damage from contact with otherwise innocuous substances, such as sunlight and holy water. Other types of damage simply bypass their supernatural toughness/recovery powers, such as wooden stakes for the Blampires (to the best of my knowledge they are free to handle wood to their cold dead heart’s content.)
My proposal: if simple physical contact with a normally innocuous substance (such as holy water or sunlight) causes damage, +1 to the value of the catch. This would also apply to things like cold iron or silver if they cause stress through contact in addition to their usual use (getting turned into weapons).
-
Nah, taking physical damage from normal contact with otherwise-innocuous substances is already covered as a compel on the critter's high concept. No need to adjust catch costs.
-
Sorry, I'm not really following that. A red court vampire chucked into a sunny court yard doesn't have the option to pay a fate point to avoid bursting into flame, it bursts into flame.
-
Sorry, I'm not really following that. A red court vampire chucked into a sunny court yard doesn't have the option to pay a fate point to avoid bursting into flame, it bursts into flame.
It can pay a Fate point to, say, quickly skitter under a nearby parked car before it takes more than a light scorching or crash through a wall on the opposite side of the Courtyard to find some shade, though.
-
Yep, every time a disadvantage of being your type of critter comes up, it's a Compel of your High Concept, even if it's due to a disadvantage like a Catch. Some of them aren't Compels you can buy off, but you always get the Fate Point.
Lycanthropes for example, get a Fate Point every time it's not the full moon and their powers would be useful...that doesn't mean they can just burn a Fate point and use them.
Think of anything that gives back Refresh as making certain kinds of Compels irresistable. That's probably the best way to look at it.
-
Think of anything that gives back Refresh as making certain kinds of Compels irresistable. That's probably the best way to look at it.
Then this should give Refresh back, since a BCV has no option to avoid taking damage from, say, being immersed in holy water. The reason I'd say that this catch is worth a little more than others is the way it can be used. Spraying entire zones with, for instance, acid risks harming your own people. Dumping massive amounts of holy water around the place does not. Additionally, a catch that prevents safe handling of some material, rather than simply permits that item to be weaponized for a normal attack is substantially more dangerous.
-
Yep, definite advantage. +1 Refresh worth of advantage? I really don't think so. Stuff that doesn't hurt everyone is also, as a rule, harder to get. You can't just go to the sore to pick up Holy Water like you can Cold Iron.
Also bear in mind the potential of fighting multiple enemies, some with such a Catch and some...not. A black Court Vampire with half a dozen Renfields would all be hurt by acid, only the Black Court by the Holy Water. When fighting two White Court, one each Skavis and Malvora a ring infused with True Hope is only gonna work on one of the two, and be nothing but a bauble to the Malvora.
-
Holy Water, not so hard to get. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_water#Use_and_storage
It's true that things like true love/hope/whatever are too uncommon to be considered for additional reimbursement. In fact, since there's really no way to do all that much damage with true love (you can't exactly make bullets out of it) I'd say it would almost be worth less as a catch.
On the other hand I am, as I write this, no more than one block from a Catholic church where I could procure several gallons of holy water quite easily. Definitely enough to fill a supersoaker.
-
And the next vampire that comes over has had the idea to wear a full-body latex catsuit. Which happens to be both waterproof and sunproof. :)
-
On Holy Water:
Depends on whether any water blessed counts as Holy Water. Personally, I only count it as such if the one blessing it has True Faith powers or possibly other mystical powers and alot of faith.
That covers pretty much every instance of holy water seen in the books, but not everyone has a Faher Forthill to make them Holy Water.
-
Holy Water, not so hard to get. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_water#Use_and_storage
On the other hand I am, as I write this, no more than one block from a Catholic church where I could procure several gallons of holy water quite easily. Definitely enough to fill a supersoaker.
Dresden once had a local priest consecrate a 55 gallon drum of water, I certainly agree that it wouldn't be hard to acquire. There doesn't seem to be any particular limit other than the need of the clergy performing the rite. Imagine a group of players opening up on a horde of vampires with a firetruck full of holy water. ;D
-
Imagine a group of players opening up on a horde of vampires with a firetruck full of holy water. ;D
There are any number of clever things people could do with the ability to bless holy water. Sprinkler systems and lawn sprinklers spring to mind from things I've seen on television. Water balloons and squirt guns make for portable and concealable items, and you could get them past police as an added bonus.
Blessing a moat or lake could make for a very unpleasant shock.
-
Don't you mean 5-gallon drum? 55 gallons is far too much for anyone without inhuman strength to carry.
-
Dresden once had a local priest consecrate a 55 gallon drum of water, I certainly agree that it wouldn't be hard to acquire. There doesn't seem to be any particular limit other than the need of the clergy performing the rite. Imagine a group of players opening up on a horde of vampires with a firetruck full of holy water. ;D
He had Father Forthill do that, yes. We have no evidence of random Priests sans True Faith powers can bless anything effectively at all.
-
On Holy Water:
Depends on whether any water blessed counts as Holy Water. Personally, I only count it as such if the one blessing it has True Faith powers or possibly other mystical powers and alot of faith.
That covers pretty much every instance of holy water seen in the books, but not everyone has a Faher Forthill to make them Holy Water.
Do the rulebooks or any of the DF fiction books make that distinction? That there's fake (hence no H) holy water?
-
No, they don't. But then, Harry doesn't seem to have limitless supplies of Holy Water either, and it's never stated what is needed to make it.
-
Yep, every time a disadvantage of being your type of critter comes up, it's a Compel of your High Concept, even if it's due to a disadvantage like a Catch. Some of them aren't Compels you can buy off, but you always get the Fate Point.
So, my High Concept is a Wizard of the White Coucel. I trying to kill a human with pistol instead of my magic, because im affraid breaking LoM. This is selfcompel against my High Concept or not?
Im kinda lost in here.
-
Hmmm. Yeah, that is indeed a Self-Compel. You're a member of the White council and thus limited from using your most potent weapon, you get a Fate Point. :)
-
Greetings
Holy water as a means of repelling evil appears - in the real world - to be exclusively a Roman Catholic tradition. Not sure if this is the case in the DV. Basically priests and bishops sanctify holy water (usually for a font or smaller vessel). I'd expect a priest being asked to bless a load of holy water would want to know what was going on and would have to be 'in the know' in order to agree.
Regards
Edward
-
So, my High Concept is a Wizard of the White Coucel. I trying to kill a human with pistol instead of my magic, because im affraid breaking LoM. This is selfcompel against my High Concept or not?
Im kinda lost in here.
Are you kidding me? Your options aren't limited, they simple have pre-determined consequences attached to them. The reason you don't use magic in that situation is because its a bad idea. Not because you are restricting your character. Christ, why don't you give a pure mortal a self-compel every scene because he chooses not to break mundane laws?
-
Are you kidding me? Your options aren't limited, they simple have pre-determined consequences attached to them. The reason you don't use magic in that situation is because its a bad idea. Not because you are restricting your character. Christ, why don't you give a pure mortal a self-compel every scene because he chooses not to break mundane laws?
I'd give Murphy a Compel on her High Concept every time obeying the mortal law gets her in some trouble, yeah. Very similar situation.
-
Well, this is what my thinking is going into the issue: The laws of magic are a static fixture of the universe. They are a known quantity. They are built into the rules of the magic system of the game. They are an internal issue, not subject to compels just for acknowledging they exist.
But okay, maybe you do give fate points for working around them. I believe this leads to a problem, specifically given the way you have stated you deal with the laws in the past. You say that if someone is doing something that would break one of the laws, you offer them a compel to actually break them, and if they buy it off, they don't actually break the law (or at least the first law). If you are consistent in the way you give fate points, then anyone using a wizard with you as a GM can conveniently choose to ignore the first law entirely with a nifty little work around. They choose to use non-magic methods against pure mortals at first to gain the self-compelled fate point. Then, if that amount of force is sufficient to deal with the problem, they have a fate point and no problem. If it is not sufficient, they blow the mortals out with a devastating magic attack and use the earlier self-compelled fate point to buy off the lawbreaker stunt.
-
In theory, that would indeed work.
But I'm a person, not a computer, and, frankly, the best rules lawyer I know. If anyone was trying this as opposed to actually roleplaying I'd know, and I'd come down on them like a ton of bricks.
Also, and more importantly, I wouldn't give anyone a self-compel to use a gun to execute a tied down mortal or something...I'd allow some ppeople a Compel if they avoided using magic (or at least direct magical attacks) entirely in that fight for fear of breaking the Laws. And even that only if they have an Aspect meaning they're a great respecter of the Laws (which Wizard of the White Council certainly is). He's a Wizard, he wouldn't do that.
My Changeling Troubleshooter meanwhile totally WOULD do that, and only fear of the consequences (Lawbreaker and the Wardens) prevents him...he gets no Compels of that sort. It all depends on the character.
-
I'd argue that the wizard has the option of using magic and so isn't compelled not to. If the high concept was 'Oath-Sworn Sorcerer', the oath being that they'd never ever use magic on a mortal, and if they didn't have a gun or any other way to stop the human then THAT would be a compel. If the wizard prepares for mortal encounters by carrying a gun around, they shouldn't get a fate point.
In the same way, mortals can choose to break the laws generally, however if the PC was a paladin equivalent then they'd get a fate point for avoiding the easy route and breaking the law.
To earn a fate point, they must be literally compelled to act in a certain way, and that action should definitely be one that they wouldn't want to take as it costs them. Either they do something stupid, or they can't do something that'd be useful, because of their nature.
-
I'm not trying to create an argument on this, just putting some refinement into the way I think of things: In general, I don't believe that a compel should be given simply for facts that are pre-existing. The laws of magic are simply facts, and ones which the players are aware of well in advance. I would no more give a fate point for acceding to those laws to a wizard than I would give a mortal a fate point for his inability to ignore gravity.
-
I'd interpret at least some of the stuff Harry comes up with as potions, rather than mundane stuff.
For example, when he "just happens" to have a holy water balloon to take on a blampire, that him succeeding in a lore roll to have the right kind of potion on hand. This also covers why Harry doesn't always have holy water on him, I'm sure Father Forthill would probably will willing to bless a super-soaker full on a pretty regular basis... Or when Kincaid gives him the paintball gun full of garlic (or whatever it was); easiest to implement as a potion again.
Of course, you run into a problem with mundane characters wanting to do the same sort of thing. If the ability is done rules wise as something they just happen to have and not a totally one-off event, then that's probably worth refresh, with maybe an effect total based on the characters contacts or resources or something. A techie character that pays a refresh point for the ability to just 'happen to have a" (cell phone, GPS, walkie-talkie, UV light emitter, business card copier, or whatever) is well within the rules space.
-
I'd interpret at least some of the stuff Harry comes up with as potions, rather than mundane stuff.
Nah, when he and Thomas are attacked by the blampires at the beginning of Blood Rites Harry just busts a fate point to have the holy water balloons handy. It's perfectly reasonable that someone in his position would have them in his car.
-
Deadman is right. If a character's high concept as a wizard of the White Council it means that there character concept requires them to be faithful to the laws of magic in a way that a sorcerer or an "independent" wizard a la Elaine is not. Especially if we are going to implement one of the anti-evocation house rules that we have been floating around here, following such a high concept with the negative baggage it employs needs (the extra oversight from the wardens that wizards get for example) needs to be balanced with compels to make it work.
-
I'm not trying to create an argument on this, just putting some refinement into the way I think of things: In general, I don't believe that a compel should be given simply for facts that are pre-existing. The laws of magic are simply facts, and ones which the players are aware of well in advance. I would no more give a fate point for acceding to those laws to a wizard than I would give a mortal a fate point for his inability to ignore gravity.
And I can see that point...but Fred's gone on record as saying that Lycanthropes DO get FP whenever it's not the Full Moon but their powers would be useful...so there's clearly a line past which even something that is a "pre-existing fact" gives Fate Points.
As for Holy Water, I'm not saying you need True Faith to have actual Holy Water...but you need a supplier with True Faith. Your supplier is then an NPC, a potent and useful plot hook who's ass you may need to pull out of the fire one of these days. I have a perfectly ordinary Pure Mortal in my game who has more Holy Stuff than you can shake a stick at...and a kickass In The Know supplier...who may well be the impetus for the entire plot of Book 3.
Isn't that more fun than either not having it or having it be easy to get?
-
Greetings
And I can see that point...but Fred's gone on record as saying that Lycanthropes DO get FP whenever it's not the Full Moon but their powers would be useful...so there's clearly a line past which even something that is a "pre-existing fact" gives Fate Points.
As for Holy Water, I'm not saying you need True Faith to have actual Holy Water...but you need a supplier with True Faith. Your supplier is then an NPC, a potent and useful plot hook who's ass you may need to pull out of the fire one of these days. I have a perfectly ordinary Pure Mortal in my game who has more Holy Stuff than you can shake a stick at...and a kickass In The Know supplier...who may well be the impetus for the entire plot of Book 3.
Isn't that more fun than either not having it or having it be easy to get?
1. My take is that there'll be times the Wizard's high concept gets compelled by the LoM and times it won't. If you're actively not using the optimum specific power to avoid breaching LoM then it's probably fair enough to gain a compel. If you could usefully apply your magic another way then I'd be less convinced. There's often quite an impact from killing someone anyway, whoever you are, however you do it: police investigations, PTSD.
2. I like the balance on the holy water front - you've got a justification that links into plot elements.
Regards
Edward
-
I would no more give a fate point for acceding to those laws to a wizard than I would give a mortal a fate point for his inability to ignore gravity.
Ah but a mortal can't break the laws of gravity but a mage can break the laws of magic. I wouldn't give away a fate every time they met a mortal and didn't kill them, but if they allow something bad to happen instead of breaking the rules to stop it then I think they've earned a fate point i.e. if the bad guy can only be stopped by death and not stopping him means something awful will happen.
-
A mage can break his laws, so he already has more freedom of action, i.e., is not in a compellible scenario. And in the situation where only death can stop a bad guy, the pure mortal is in the exact same bind (except he has less ability to bring forth that death) so if a wizard would be compelled by such a situation, then the pure mortal damned well better be given a compel for the same thing.
-
Yeah, there's definitely a line. IMO, avoiding breaking the laws of magic in and of itself isn't necessarily Compel-worthy. It becomes compel-worthy f it makes legitimate trouble, and the PC in question has a specific reason not to do so (like being a Warden or otherwise on the White Council). Hell, I'd probably throw Compels at a guy with "Lawbreaking Sorcerer" as his High Concept to break the Laws. It all depends on the character.
The catch on the other hand, is always worth a Fate Pont when it comes up, because it is, by definition, your High Concept (or Item Aspect if you get it from an Item of Power) being used against you. Exceptions would likely be made for "anything but" Catches like that on Ogre's Physical Immunity. An Ogre doesn't get an FP every time someone fails to use magic on him...but he does whenever they use Cold Iron.
-
A mage can break his laws, so he already has more freedom of action, i.e., is not in a compellible scenario. And in the situation where only death can stop a bad guy, the pure mortal is in the exact same bind (except he has less ability to bring forth that death) so if a wizard would be compelled by such a situation, then the pure mortal damned well better be given a compel for the same thing.
If they had an Aspect involving a commitment to not killing? Absolutely. Batman sure as hell would, for example.
My point (and I think that of others) is that "Wizard of the White Council" is precisely that kind of Aspect. It implies a devotion to the Laws of Magic and a devotion to avoiding breaking them. That's what's being compelled, not the "I Do Magic" part.
-
What Deadman just said.
The laws of magic are also different however because the lawbreaker stunt not just massively complicates a character's life, but have the potential to make it unplayable. Using such a hammer by changing the rules to make it almost impossible for a mortal spell-slinger to avoid it with care and then turning around and not allowing compels when that fits the concept ("morally grey" casters should not get this benefit but someone who really would be hyper-cautious such as Donald Morgan deserves it) risks creating an unhealthy dynamic
where players feel that the GM is screwing with them.***
*** I was really looking forward to playing this game but, because the other potential GMs all pull these stunts in our WoD, everybody else has quite literally refused to play unless I GM the game. I say this, not because I think anyone here would do this, but to just provide the benefit of my experience. And also in hopes that someone will take pity on my Bookworm of the White Council and give me an idea on how to find him a home, because it is sad when a character is homeless. :(
-
And also in hopes that someone will take pity on my Bookworm of the White Council and give me an idea on how to find him a home, because it is sad when a character is homeless. :(
Well, there is a whole Play by Post sub-board. Check it regularly and I suspect you'll find an appropriate game evetually. I mean, abortive starts aside, I'm in two actual games right now and have a prospective third, and I'm not even trying that hard.
-
I never really considered giving mortal spellcasters fate points for not killing people with magic given that the "taken out" system gives total control (witin reason) of the defeated character's fate to the victor. A compel is worth a fate point when it complicates a character's life, and since the character in question is free to engage in the conflict with all of their magical might there really isn't much of a complication.
On the other hand compelling a character with the appropriate aspects to turn that knock out blast into one that will spatter a hated enemy all over the wall is something I'd do.
-
DFJunkie,
Your system works too. The difficulty is that there are a number of GMs who have apparently crafted their own custom house rules that make it virtually impossible to use magic without the taken out result being mandated by GM fiat as automatically death. This is a severe deviation from the rulebook and makes seriously complicated play balance. I am currently redesigning the campaign I am GMing to incorporate a bunch of refugees from such games- none of whom were playing spell-slingers but who are so tired of the other GMs in my city behaving like this that they would rather have a less experienced GM (granted one whose knowledge of all things Dresden is better than the other potential GMs) than deal with this issue.
That being said, while I would probably go with your system for the most part, if not killing the opponent with magic will create problems for the character and they have an appropriate non-killing aspect, then I would still award the FATE point
-
That being said, while I would probably go with your system for the most part, if not killing the opponent with magic will create problems for the character and they have an appropriate non-killing aspect, then I would still award the FATE point
Oh sure, in that rather unusual situation it would certainly be worth a fate point.
In fact, I would say that any character with the word "wizard" in their high concept has an aspect that implicitly forbids them from breaking any of the rules of magic, and any time the characters abstention from lawbreaking substantially complicates their life it is worth a fate point.
-
Greetings
DFJunkie,
Your system works too. The difficulty is that there are a number of GMs who have apparently crafted their own custom house rules that make it virtually impossible to use magic without the taken out result being mandated by GM fiat as automatically death. This is a severe deviation from the rulebook and makes seriously complicated play balance. ...
There's a balance to be struck between allowing unfettered use of potentially deadly magic against mortals and completely crippling wizards fighting mortals. My view is that its' a 'table' discussion for the table to be happy with - my inclination is to enable sensible use of magic without any difficulty but to warn the player if the spell is likely to put mortals in danger.
We've got city and character creation tomorrow so we'll see how we go.
Regards
Edward
-
On the other hand compelling a character with the appropriate aspects to turn that knock out blast into one that will spatter a hated enemy all over the wall is something I'd do.
This is exactly what I do. Usually anyway. If they throw blasts of fire at people they're going to chance accidental death via my compelling them...and a Compel to keep them to mundane weapons for a particular Conflict for that reason is sometimes appropriate. Now, they can avoid both those Compels with a little mystical ingenuity (taser-lightning is the most obvious solution)...but those may make their life more difficult in other ways.
-
Imagine a group of players opening up on a horde of vampires with a firetruck full of holy water. ;D
They actually did that in an episode of Supernatural. Except it was against demons, not vampires. Still hella effective!
-EF
-
The decision to award or not award a Fate Point is determined by a simple question, "does the aspect complicate the character's life?" If yes, then Fate Point. If no, then no Fate Point. Everything else is just decoration. If a skilled psychomancer has access to a captured NPC and has to decide between rifling through his thoughts the easy way or interrogating him the hard way, then the mage gets a Fate Point for choosing the hard way or the Lawbreaker power for choosing the easy way.
When it comes to killing NPCs with magic, remember that even mooks have the full suite of consequences (mild, minor, severe, and extreme). The practice of letting mooks Concede after taking only a mild consequence is a narrative device to separate the weak from the strong and keep the game moving at a brisk pace. So, if a wizard hits one of Nico's tongueless minions with a gout of flame, then consequences are applied as normal, up to and including an extreme consequence. If even the extreme won't save the brute, then it is perfectly reasonable that death is the only acceptable result of such an attack and the wizard breaks the First Law. If the brute can take enough consequences to avoid a Taken Out result and then follows it up with a Concession, then the wizard did not kill with magic and does not earn Lawbreaker. They may be crippled, maimed or just severely burned, and they may yet die from an infection or other complication, but such a death would not be directly caused by magic insofar as the Lawbreaker power is concerned (the White Council may see things differently, ahem).
So long as everyone at the table knows this at the start, then there's an objective line between killed and not-killed that doesn't require house rules or GM adjudication. It also serves as a nice line between murder and assault in regards to mortal law, too.
-
They actually did that in an episode of Supernatural. Except it was against demons, not vampires. Still hella effective!
-EF
My players are totally planning exactly this and have the resources to pull it off. They're also going to armor it, put heavy weaponry on top of it, and create a magical sunlight-projector as well. They're going to name it Buffy.
I love my players sometimes.
-
My players are totally planning exactly this and have the resources to pull it off. They're also going to armor it, put heavy weaponry on top of it, and create a magical sunlight-projector as well. They're going to name it Buffy.
I love my players sometimes.
When they start building it, let them find out that the vampires next door are building a similar vehicle for killing wizards and changelings. It'd be just like the program scrapheap challenge!
-
Heh. They're still at the procurement stage.
And the guy mainly behind it is a Pure Mortal so, as he puts it "My Catch is damage." Making vehicles specifically to kill him is just...unnecessary. Not that he's not terrifying (he's an Ex-British Special Forces and current Arms Dealer with a penchant for weapons to take out the supernatural), but you can kill him with, y'know, bullets.
-
They may be crippled, maimed or just severely burned, and they may yet die from an infection or other complication, but such a death would not be directly caused by magic insofar as the Lawbreaker power is concerned (the White Council may see things differently, ahem).
Indirect effects can insulate you, to a point. If you use your magic to push someone off a building and they fall to their death; they were killed by gravity, not magic; but it's still a first law violation.