A futuristic Star Trek world would be hilarious, what with technology malfunctioning all over the place. It would certainly explain a large chunk of Next Generation episodes!
We are currently running a renaissance era campaign set in Venice. Other than tweaking gear a bit and removing the Drive skill, everything works with only very minimal changes.
Some logs in RPG Geek http://rpggeek.com/thread/672156/venetian-masks-1-city-creation
By the time the far future comes about, the catch to magic will change from tech-hex to something else. Bob has said it has changed before, and if people rely on technology simply to live, magic would have to adjust or cease to exist (a wizard born on a starship would likely not survive to procreate, for example).
Did you add a pilot/sail/teamster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teamster) skill in its place? After all, cars did not exist, but carriages, gondolas and ships were far more common.
No, we rolled those trappings into Craftmanship and Survival instead. Situations where the characters drive or pilot a vehicle themselves (instead of using a driver or rower) don't really come up that much. Hired help is also far more common in that time period, after all.
Craftsmanship?
I'd have thought it would have been split up between skills like Athletics (rowing), Scholarship (navigation), Presence (commanding a ship) and Survival (driving a team of horses).
Of course you don't have to. My point was that the further away you go from the way the game is described in the books, the more stuff you have to figure out by yourself. At some point the game can cease to be Dresden Files and become another FATE variant. So if I think about DFRPG in other time periods, I focus first on settings that produce something that is as close to DFRPG as possible except for the time period. What is it after all that makes a game Dresden Files? The mechanics? The genre? The setting?... The existential questions?
Of course you don't have to. My point was that the further away you go from the way the game is described in the books, the more stuff you have to figure out by yourself. At some point the game can cease to be Dresden Files and become another FATE variant. So if I think about DFRPG in other time periods, I focus first on settings that produce something that is as close to DFRPG as possible except for the time period. What is it after all that makes a game Dresden Files? The mechanics? The genre? The setting?
Anyway, what's got to change?Actually, according to Dresden and Bob, it wasn't always technology that wizarding messed up, and it changes every 300 years or so. Instead of hexing, wizard powers might make milk go bad, or give the practitioner warts, etc.
- Hexing Complex electronics don't exist, and so another target for hexing will need to be identified... Gunpowder and chemical processes? Early clockworks and other machinery? Compasses? Or perhaps it's the classic signs of of the power of witchcraft, like nearby fires burning odd colors, animals spooking in the presence of wizards, milk curdling, etc...
Yeah, mechanics-wise, you could use the FATE rules for anything.
Something we noticed in the renaissance campaign was that the balance between mundane and supernatural characters became skewed because the level of technology available to mortals (and unavailable to wizards due to hexing) was not powerful enough. Without automatic or even breech-loading weapons, for example, the combat abilities of mortals are quite a lot lower than in the modern period. This is a topic you should think about when creating the equipment list and deciding how hexing works.
- Hexing Complex electronics don't exist, and so another target for hexing will need to be identified... Gunpowder and chemical processes? Early clockworks and other machinery? Compasses? Or perhaps it's the classic signs of of the power of witchcraft, like nearby fires burning odd colors, animals spooking in the presence of wizards, milk curdling, etc...
- Other Incidental Changes There's going to be some other relatively minor changes that are simply based on the change in scenery... In a pirate game, for example, the list of gear will need to be changed to include muskets, cannons and cutlasses, but it doesn't really affect any mechanics, it is a rather obvious change, and can be handled as you play the game.
Am I missing anything? It seems that, mechanics-wise at least, there aren't a lot of changes to be made. Most changes will lie in the historical background and plot.
Something we noticed in the renaissance campaign was that the balance between mundane and supernatural characters became skewed because the level of technology available to mortals (and unavailable to wizards due to hexing) was not powerful enough. Without automatic or even breech-loading weapons, for example, the combat abilities of mortals are quite a lot lower than in the modern period. This is a topic you should think about when creating the equipment list and deciding how hexing works.
By the time the far future comes about, the catch to magic will change from tech-hex to something else. Bob has said it has changed before, and if people rely on technology simply to live, magic would have to adjust or cease to exist (a wizard born on a starship would likely not survive to procreate, for example).For a cyberpunk setting I could see hexing changing from messing up technology to being incompatible with cyberware. The stronger one is at magic, the less one can have in one's body. Minor practitioners might be able to get a few implants while full wizards would reject any and all cybertech in their bodies, with the possible exception of one minor implant or two for the lower powered one's such as Molly. People in the know would be able to tell a wizard from most mundanes due to their being totally natural.
I don't think mortals take much of a power hit, honestly. It's the Guns skill that suffers. Mortal swordsmen are still viable in a historical game.Game mechanics-wise, yes, it doesn't so much matter whether the Weapon:3 you're using with a Superb skill is a broadsword or a shotgun.
Game mechanics-wise, yes, it doesn't so much matter whether the Weapon:3 you're using with a Superb skill is a broadsword or a shotgun.
Flavor-wise, however, a sword needs a lot more training and skill to use at a Superb level of effectiveness than a shotgun would, and comparatively a sword's going to be tougher to come by in a past setting than a shotgun would be in a modern setting.
But as big hammer, pick-axe and other large sticky weapons are all also weapons 3 that isn't much of an issue.Unless you want a modicum of historical accuracy. ;) Though if carrying a heavy machine gun through downtown Los Angeles isn't a stretch in today's DF world, oversized weaponry historically shouldn't be more of one.
Aren't hunting rifles and really big handguns weapon 3? I've always thought of weapon 3 as the standard weapon rating for a gun-using PC.
Aren't hunting rifles and really big handguns weapon 3? I've always thought of weapon 3 as the standard weapon rating for a gun-using PC.Quite possibly...but neither is really concealable. So calling them the standard requires adjusting modern norms significantly. ;)
Eh. Stick it in a duffel bag.Speaking from experience, long guns are, well, long. And they'd have to be stuffed with other stuff in a dufflebag to not be obvious, and as someone noted, nobody just walks around with a dufflebag all over the place. It's very suspicious.
Or if it's just a big pistol, hide it under your coat.
Not significantly harder than hiding a small gun, most of the time.
Point of fact, Claws are not concealable unless you have a shapeshifting power.
Punishing players for character flavor will only make your PC's play things that are more efficient and less varied.Wow. Such a broad brush used to indict so casually.
Talk about FATE/DFRPG being more about narrative than the game all you want - but deep down, the plauyers are goign to note it is simply easier to play something that doesn't need tools for combat. That way a good portion of the game isn't about avoiding law enforcement - which many PC's will find boring or a novelty at best.
I'm not saying never have reality come into play. I'm not saying don't complicate PC's lives...but some people on this forum seem to take great sadistic glee from making players who like to use guns or swords PC's life difficult.
Point of fact, Claws are not concealable unless you have a shapeshifting power.
The strength, spells, and etc. are concealable, yes, but they cost refresh--carrying a gun or a sword doesn't. And yes, those powers make them dangerous, which is rather the point. The lives of the PCs are supposed to be complicated by these kinds of things.
That said, a PC should certainly get a fate point if their tools can't be used for some reason. I've given fate points to a Warden PC to say he couldn't get his sword into somewhere, for instance.
Note: Unless you have the ability to conceal
your nature or change your shape (whether
through Flesh Mask, shapeshifting powers, or
the application of a Glamour), your claws are
always visible.
I may not like it, but normal looking doom-fists aren't possible by RAW.It can be easily. Human Guise is 0 refresh and hides such powers. (Technically the disguise goes away once you start to use them, but in the case of the kung fu master, that'd just be people realizing, "Oh, shit, he can punch through a tank.")
Which is dumb. Especially since Claws doesn't actually have to be claws. It can be anything, but for some reason even if your Claws are lightning fists they need to be constantly visible.
Part of the reason I rewrote Claws. A supernatural kung-fu master ought to be supported by the rules.
Actually, just realized an even easier way to have a Kung Fu character have Weapon:2 fists without incurring the 'can't conceal' thing: Inhuman Strength.
Whoops, forgot about this thread. My apologies.I'd love to play a character like that some time (I just have to actually have someone else run a game in my area). I considered making mine a Jesuit Monk. They're still around, after all.
My plan for a Mystic Martial Artist was Inhuman Strength/Toughness/Speed and Claws, plus some stunts.
And while you can rationalize your way around the silly restrictions on Claws, you really shouldn't have to. It's not like requiring Claws to be visible adds anything to the game.It's not that requiring them to be visible adds anything; rather, allowing them to be invisible for free takes away something.
...Think about it this way: if you were writing the game, would you add that restriction? If so, why?Because the game was built to do one thing really well: faithfully reproduce the DV. I would have written it the same way myself. They wrote it that way because that's how things are in the DV. Creatures that are nasty looking cover it up with ectoplasm (human guise). Creatures that have claws actually have claws. They don't just hit harder (unless they have supernatural strength, which is provided as a separate power). Claws as a power was written to be claws. If you want a supernatural judo artist, fine; but that wasn't what they were modeling with the game. There aren't any in-universe that we've seen, and honestly, that's better covered with other powers (many of them already existing).
Creatures that have claws actually have claws. They don't just hit harder (unless they have supernatural strength, which is provided as a separate power). Claws as a power was written to be claws.
...It just has to be something that's A) natural, rather than supernatural, and B) obvious to the casual observer.You are correct-- and I was considering that. I just didn't feel like writing "claws/fangs/protrusions/etc." everywhere I was talking about the feature. My argument still stands.
Orladdin, your argument is wrong. Looking weird is actually not bad, since it earns you Fate Points....I'm not saying looking weird is a "bad" thing. I'm saying that (claws) + (ability to hide them) > (claws) + (no ability to hide them). One of these you have more choices than the other. Period. With one you can choose to have them visible or hidden. With the other you cannot. Let me spell that out in a way that is more "mechanical" for you:
So removing the silly restriction on Claws's appearance does not make Claws stronger.
That's why players who have characters with no appearance-altering powers choose to have their characters look inhuman...Actually, I'd say they do that for narrative flavor. That's why I do it.
And it's why Human Guise is free.And human guise isn't strictly free-- it costs you the pure mortal bonus as an opportunity cost. That's neither here or there though, so, moving on...
PS: Technically, Human Form doesn't work for retractable Claws. Retracting your claws is not shapeshifting...I was talking about human guise, not human form. Human guise does let you hide them.
PPS: Mr. Death, you've done a fair bit of writing for DFRPG. If you do more of it, I am fairly certain that you will eventually come to realize that what I'm saying here is true. Writing good mechanics for this game is so, so, so much easier when you look at things my way.Writing "good" mechanics is so much easier if you ignore anything but raw numbers? Yeah, I'm sure it is. Lots of things in life are "easier" if you ignore the bits that you personally aren't good at. You, personally, are highly skilled at balancing numbers against numbers. Everyone on the forums knows that. On the other hand, you've shown time and again that you either aren't able or aren't willing to see how things that aren't numbers can and do provide real, apreciable effects.
Actually, mechanics are about mechanical benefit vs mechanical cost. And the mandatoriness of Claws is a mechanical concern. The other stuff, while important, should be handled in other ways.The DFRPG is a narrative system. Suggesting that narrative effects have no mechanical component is ignoring what the entire thing is about.
PS: Technically, Human Form doesn't work for retractable Claws. Retracting your claws is not shapeshifting. But that's a part of the rules that really should be ignored, like the rules for Claws visibility. The thing that really ticks me off is that Human Form is an advantage in this case.It's shapeshifting inasmuch as Wolverine turns from a dude without claws to a dude with claws--not only his appearance changes but, at will, his claws either apply to his attack or they do not.
PPS: Mr. Death, you've done a fair bit of writing for DFRPG. If you do more of it, I am fairly certain that you will eventually come to realize that what I'm saying here is true. Writing good mechanics for this game is so, so, so much easier when you look at things my way.Easier, perhaps. But as I've said before, I tend to prefer to work with the rules as written (or at least, not directly contradict or change them) and change what I have in mind to work within the system rather than change the system to accommodate something I have in mind that might not fit the rules.
(Choices) > (No Choices)
Easier, perhaps. But as I've said before, I tend to prefer to work with the rules as written (or at least, not directly contradict or change them) and change what I have in mind to work within the system rather than change the system to accommodate something I have in mind that might not fit the rules.
Not so.This is so completely obviously wrong to me. I'm feeling very frustrated as to why you don't see it my way. I am willing to admit there may be something I'm missing here, but it's so rudimentary that I'm just boggled. Let me go into an example, then, and get your feedback on it, because I think you're either over-valuing Fate Points, I'm under-valuing them, or you're forgetting that compels need to be bought off.
If your lack of a choice concerning your appearance causes trouble, then it earns you a Fate Point. If it doesn't cause trouble, then it costs you nothing.
So there's no situation where the choice is helpful.
This is a mistake on your part, I think. If you intentionally bias yourself towards the RAW, you'll make less good decisions. All bias is to be avoided if possible.You might think it's a mistake, and that's fine. I just prefer to work with what I'm given, because then it's less to keep track of. And, for the most part, the RAW makes sense to me. I find greater satisfaction in answering the challenge of "How do I get this to work--or a reasonable facsimile--within the rules as they're written?" than in answering "How can I change the rules so I can get what I want?"
Not so.Have to agree with Orladdin here. Look at it from the opposite point of view - when a player doesn't want the claws to affect the story the guy who can't choose to hide them has to pay a fate point. It's a cost. Sure he can earn fate points...but he'll also have to pay.
If your lack of a choice concerning your appearance causes trouble, then it earns you a Fate Point. If it doesn't cause trouble, then it costs you nothing.
So there's no situation where the choice is helpful.
The real, appreciable, effects of narrative stuff are cool, but unless FP are involved they have no mechanical value. That's why even optimized characters in DFRPG have narrative flaws.Also have to disagree with this. Particularly for FATE which has mechanics to directly modify the narrative but also in general. Making the choice is what's interesting. The sheer number of choices are why people spend time on CharOp boards for a certain popular game. Something which opens up narrative choice is just as viable. Take the Changeling and Emissary of Power templates as examples - strip them down to pure mechanics and I don't think you'll have many, if any, differences. But the choice between them is still valid and interesting. Are your powers inherited or granted?
This is good. You don't want to make players choose between power and interesting-ness. Good mechanics make it so that the most powerful choices are narratively interesting.
This is a mistake on your part, I think. If you intentionally bias yourself towards the RAW, you'll make less good decisions. All bias is to be avoided if possible.This just seems odd to me - we have to start somewhere. Particularly on a public forum. I don't mind home brew at all, in fact I like it and often tweak things to fit what is needed. But, unless stated otherwise I'm going to evaluate based on the book.
I've seen horrible silliness from D&D 3.5 and Exalted players using your approach on their games, because those games are pretty broken. The good mechanics of this game make it possible to trust the writers implicitly, but they don't make it a good idea. Because while the writers make fewer mistakes here, they don't make none.The last paragraph is another fallacy. :/ There's no need to argue "this is like something I don't like therefore it's a Bad Thing (TM)". Particularly when you can make your argument for custom content using the book. ;)
(Not sure if that last paragraph made sense, sorry if it didn't.)
Last paragraph can't be a fallacy, UmbraLux, because it wasn't an argument. It was just an anecdote. Stuff like this fuels my distaste for conversational formal logic.We can open a thread on philosophy and use of logic if wish. To me, it appears you're attacking use of logic to avoid defending the argument. As for the "anecdote" quoted, it takes the form of "X is bad, Y is similar to X, therefore Y is bad". Guilt by association in other words.
In regards to modifying powers, I actually agree with your conclusions. Just not with your reasons. The book explicitly supports it and the authors have supported it...all else is gravy.
As for the whole "compels are not bad" thing, I think this goes back to the discussion we've had elsewhere about how other players, many of them, don't just consider the raw mechanics and how many fate points you can get.
Do I want a fate point? Yes. But do I also want to be able to save the damsel/stop the evil wizard/not blow my cool and have to give up a powerful artifact in recompense? Also yes.
Not every compel is something the character or the player wants. That's why the game bribes you with a fate point for it, and why there's an option to buy out of it.
If you want to talk raw mechanics though, go back to the example previously: Wolverine and Sabertooth want to get through somewhere unnoticed. Wolverine's claws are retractable, so he faces no compel. Sabertooth's, however, don't retract, so he gets compelled. As mentioned, he doesn't want to be noticed, so he buys off the compel. Which means if they started from the same total, he's a fate point behind Wolverine for the same result.
Compels aren't a bad thing, but they're not always what the player wants either. They can cost Fate Points just as much as they're a source of Fate Points.
@Mr. Death: Yes, Sabertooth ends up behind in that situation. But if the compel is soft and he accepts it, he ends up ahead.Yes, but to paraphrase the book, compels shouldn't be soft. If you're handing out a fate point, it should be for something that has bite to it.
You are here to judge the game. Like it or not, every word you post in defence of this or that rule is a judgement. If you just want to play, go do that. Don't get involved in conversations about the quality of the rules if you have no interest in the quality of the rules.I'm here to discuss the game. To gain a better understanding of the rules. To find ways to make ideas that I have work within the rules. To find out if ideas I have are even possible within the rules. None of that requires "judging" the rules.
Look, I'm not arguing that requiring Claws to be visible makes the game unplayable.You seem to be arguing that because Claws doesn't work for something its description was clearly not meant for, it should be changed.
So, it turns out my players want a Sci-fi game, instead of a pirate game... We're playing Starblazer Adventures, instead.
Haha, oh; cool. I haven't tried it. Stop in to the Billy's Game Den forum after you play a couple times and tell us what you/they think of it?
My problem with Claws is partly its inapplicability to unusual concepts, but it goes deeper than that. I'm against these aesthetic requirements on principle. And I hate the idea that Human Form could be an advantage. And I despise powers that introduce balance landmines to the game.I don't see "balance landmines," personally. And Human Form is an advantage in some areas, but not in others--just like any of the powers. It might help concealment, but while the claws are concealed, you can't use them. Human Guise lets you hide them and use them at the same time. If Wolverine and character with Claws and Human Guise get into a fight in public and don't want to reveal their natures, Wolverine's at the disadvantage.
Some compels will be hard, others will be soft. That's the game. If all compels were hard, nobody would ever self-compel.I very much disagree. There are people out there who love the kind of drama a hard compel brings them. I've known a guy who gets the biggest kick out of throwing his characters through the wringer, up to and including maiming and death (albeit in a setting that allows for quicker healing and resurrection). His DF character has a wife and kick specifically so they can be used against him like that. Just as I believe whenever a player uses a fate point they should get something tangible out of it, if I'm giving them a fate point it should come with some kind of bite.
Some compels will be hard, others will be soft. That's the game. If all compels were hard, nobody would ever self-compel.I very much disagree. There are people out there who love the kind of drama a hard compel brings them.
I very much disagree. There are people out there who love the kind of drama a hard compel brings them.
Somehow I don't think you two have quite the same connotations for those words. ;D
No joke, at least I didn't intend one. I just thought it funny that you were kinda speaking around each other.
Your example is wrong, Mr. Death. Human Guise drops as soon as you use the powers.My mistake, I misread.
How do you know what Claws was intended to be? You aren't telepathic.No, but the fact that it's listed in Creature Features, and is described as "claws, fangs, or other natural weapon" and is described as being something obvious without concealment is a pretty big hint.
Almost every power in the game is designed so that it can be used with a variety of narratives. This is good, you can see its positive effects when someone asks how to model something and has their problem solved with reflavoured canon powers.And there are indeed canon powers and stunts that add Weapon ratings to bare fists.
A balance landmine is anything that can suddenly and accidentally make a character stronger or weaker when an unskilled player uses it. By treating narrative elements as important to power, you make it possible for someone to overpower or cripple their character by narrating them a certain way.There's a point where the GM and the Player have to work these kinds of things out.
My definition of a hard compel is a compel where the drawbacks outweigh the benefits of accepting. One you want to refuse.Ah, there's where we differ, then. My definition is a compel that makes the player have to really consider buying it off.
When what you want is to add a weapon rating to your Fists, you spend refresh and get that weapon rating. Why should you have to jump through hoops?And Killer Blows and Lethal Weapon let you do exactly that.
Clearly it's not mechanically necessary. And you have no right to dictate narrative to people.I didn't think I was. I'm just trying to stick to the RAW on this power.
...And the reasons you've given for the way the RAW were written are not very good...
Given that +2 stress has no clear meaning within the game-world, those arguments don't work very well.Only because you've isolated the machanical advantage from the narrative reason for someone having that advantage.
Only because you've isolated the machanical advantage from the narrative reason for someone having that advantage.
If we're just going to let people purchase whatever numerical bonuses they want irrelevant to the narrative reasons for getting those improvements, why not just play any of the strictly level-based RPGs out there? "Oh, you're attacking me? Good thing I'm a higher level than you and simply win by numerical fiat."
PS: Good level-based games don't work like that. Heck, even the bad ones don't. Put a 20th level Monk against a 19th level wizard in D&D, the wizard will win effortlessly. Actually, I've read serious arguments from internet people saying that a 20th level wizard could effortlessly crush a 1000th level monk.It was a example-in-hyperbole, but we'll discuss this for a quick moment anyway. Certainly in level-based games some classes might be more powerful in certain situations than others. People always use D&D wizards as an example of OP (and they aren't explicitly wrong to do so) but if you compare a 6th level monk to an 8th level monk you should see what I mean. Comparing a monk to a wizard is too much apples and oranges for my example to function properly in the context of D&D.
Besides, tactics and luck matter. Sometimes the stronger fighter loses.
Nah, that's what the conversation's been about for a while.<sarcasm> Pssh, yeah, keep up Silver. </sarcasm> ;)
Orladdin, you've got my postion backwards.While I'm not above being wrong, I think I do understand your position here. Maybe I've not been clear enough in my examples to show it, though. Let me go over your points.
I care about this because I care about narrative. Visibility of Claws is non-mechanical, it's not something that someone who only cares about mechanics would care about.But it should be something they care about. There's a reason why an Abram's Tank, while far more powerful than an Uzi, is less useful in practice. Narrative balance to mechanical strength does exist, even if it is inconvenient. That's why game balance is such a hard thing to do.
I care about this because I strongly believe that there is no wrong way to play, and so people who want to flavour their Claws weirdly should be accommodated by the rules.I agree with this sentiment. Entirely, in fact.
And I care because I'm tired of seeing the lousy custom powers and balance decisions that get made when people don't accept the division between narrative and mechanics.This is just like saying "I'm tired of seeing all of these lousy structures designed and built on the ground because people can't accept the division of mass and gravity. If you'd just ignore the existance of gravity, we could have much cooler buildings!"
The only other option is to introduce another, smaller, (perhaps narrative) drawback of the same calibur.
Narrative balance to mechanical strength does exist, even if it is inconvenient.
This is just like saying "I'm tired of seeing all of these lousy structures designed and built on the ground because people can't accept the division of mass and gravity. If you'd just ignore the existance of gravity, we could have much cooler buildings!"
Yours is an idealists' division. It cannot actually exist. Your job is harder because narrative does play a part in mechanical design. They are inextricably linked in a good game.
This got me thinking... What if (either implicitly or explicitly) it took a supplemental action to extend or retract the claws, just like drawing or sheathing a weapon?
So, you would be, in effect, spending 1 refresh for a sword that can't be disarmed, is easily concealed, and that uses your Fists skill instead of Weapons.
This is factually incorrect, at least in this game. All aspects are equal, that's a basic property of the system's balance.No, they're not. There's a reason that the book has a whole section on what makes a good/bad/weak/strong aspect. And a temporary aspect is not and should not be equal to a High Concept or a trouble.
While I'm sure the "Is Claws woefully underpowered AND comes with built-in drawbacks to boot" talk will surely come to a consensus soon, I was hoping the original topic could be addressed ;)
I've just started a campaign set in the 12th century. We've started out in Frankfurt, Germany and I was wondering if anyone had any particular ideas for that?
Currently, we've established that the Black Court has a clear presence in the area, fae and spirits haunt the wilderness and we've decided that Hexenwulfen need to make some appearances... having a German name and all. ::)
Ideas?
Retractable-ness has no mechanical value.
I've just started a campaign set in the 12th century. We've started out in Frankfurt, Germany and I was wondering if anyone had any particular ideas for that?
While I'm sure the "Is Claws woefully underpowered AND comes with built-in drawbacks to boot" talk will surely come to a consensus soon, I was hoping the original topic could be addressed ;)Very sorry to derail your thread, but we slipped into the other topic slowly and I don't have authority to "split" it to its own without humungous effort (reposting everything).
I've just started a campaign set in the 12th century. We've started out in Frankfurt, Germany and I was wondering if anyone had any particular ideas for that?
Currently, we've established that the Black Court has a clear presence in the area, fae and spirits haunt the wilderness and we've decided that Hexenwulfen need to make some appearances... having a German name and all. ::)
Ideas?
My complaint is more like "I'm tired of seeing all these lousy structures built without walls because people can't accept that gravity and mass are different things. If you'd just accept the difference, we could have buildings that don't collapse!"[EDIT:] Ah, after a re-read, I think I see the difference. You're arguing that people are already making things illogically, and you'd rather they didn't. My argument is that you are making things illogically and everyone else understands and subconsciously substitues the piece that you're missing.
...I've seen both approaches used, and mine works better.... For you. You find it easier to balance powers when you can look at only one side of the equation.
That would be pointlessly punitive. Why should you have to pay for retractable claws? Retractable-ness has no mechanical value.I've previously proven that retractable-ness does have a mechanical value in a separate post. Retractable claws have the added ability to be concealed if desired while retaining the ability to be always-out. They are simply better. If you want to ignore this fact, feel free, but don't keep bringing it up.
... The powers I'm complaining about are not functional. Whereas the ones I write from my perspective are....I haven't looked yet, but I will once I post this.
Though I did do something along those lines when I wrote up Natural Weaponry. Have you seen that power? It represents what I want Claws and Breath Weapon to look like.
This is factually incorrect, at least in this game. All aspects are equal, that's a basic property of the system's balance.
They're all equally optimal. Some might be more interesting than others, but that's beside the point.No they're not. The entire chapter on aspects in the book says exactly the opposite. They even rate columns of example aspects as "Boring," "Hot," and "Fuego!" from poorer to better aspects. As an aspect, "Strong" is less good than "Ogre Thews" is less good than "Beefiest Thews in the Summer Court." You have to stretch less to make it apply to more things. How flavorful an aspect is, how many situations it can apply to and how much it adds to your character all affect the quality of an aspect. If it can apply to more things, it can be used more-- both to compel and to invoke; making it better.
Really? This is your response to that example? In a world where people can either buy a vanilla sword or enchant one as a character feature you can't accept an equipment example? Ok, fine; so liken it to something that is part of the character then. My point is that things don't exist in a vacuum where all you have to consider is their abilities or their functions. There are outside (see: narrative) influences, too. These are often nebulous and hard to take into account, but they exist.But it should be something they care about. There's a reason why an Abram's Tank, while far more powerful than an Uzi, is less useful in practice. Narrative balance to mechanical strength does exist, even if it is inconvenient. That's why game balance is such a hard thing to do.Given that tanks aren't parts of characters, they aren't really relevant to this discussion.
You can't drive around town in your Abrams. People in the game world simply won't let you.
PS: Orladdin, I thought a bit more about your point about idealism and I realized I might be misinterpreting your position. Could you explain that point a bit further?My point is that, in an ideal world, you would be able to divide narrative and mechanics: it would make balance easier. But we don't live in an ideal world. Narrative and mechanical properties do have an effect on each other.
...There are games where narrative is used to balance mechanics, and they tend to be broken as a result.Is it as a result? Or is it a secondary and unrelated event? Just because there are a lot of broken games that happen to balance narratively (like D&D 3rd ed. prestige class pre-reqs) that doesn't mean they are broken because of that. It only means they are broken in addition to that.
Very sorry to derail your thread, but we slipped into the other topic slowly and I don't have authority to "split" it to its own without humungous effort (reposting everything).
Sure it does. The mechanical value is that it allows you to use the Deceit skill to hide a Weapon:2 weapon, when you ordinarily can't... The mechanical value is that the character will still be armed (or more heavily armed) in situations where the other characters might not be.
Additionally, Sanc, I'm curious: Have you ever looked into GURPS? To me, it seems like it would suit your style more than the DFRPG. More granular cost structures, more guides for homebrewing content.
It's way to big a beast for me, but I know some guys who write for it.
Also, where was that Natural Weaponry power you mentioned? I looked in the Wiki link in your sig and didn't see it.
While I'm sure the "Is Claws woefully underpowered AND comes with built-in drawbacks to boot" talk will surely come to a consensus soon, I was hoping the original topic could be addressed ;)
I've just started a campaign set in the 12th century. We've started out in Frankfurt, Germany and I was wondering if anyone had any particular ideas for that?
Currently, we've established that the Black Court has a clear presence in the area, fae and spirits haunt the wilderness and we've decided that Hexenwulfen need to make some appearances... having a German name and all. ::)
Ideas?
[EDIT:] Ah, after a re-read, I think I see the difference. You're arguing that people are already making things illogically, and you'd rather they didn't. My argument is that you are making things illogically and everyone else understands and subconsciously substitues the piece that you're missing.
I've previously proven that retractable-ness does have a mechanical value in a separate post. Retractable claws have the added ability to be concealed if desired while retaining the ability to be always-out. They are simply better. If you want to ignore this fact, feel free, but don't keep bringing it up.
What this quote tells me, though, is that rather than analyze what a power is and what it represents, you'd rather simply remake it your own way. If you do this, you have to go ahead and remake every power presented in the book. If you make a version of claws that is the same cost as the one in the book, and the one you make is retractable, no one will take the one in the book. This should give you the hint that your new one is "better" or "more powerful".
No they're not. The entire chapter on aspects in the book says exactly the opposite. They even rate columns of example aspects as "Boring," "Hot," and "Fuego!" from poorer to better aspects. As an aspect, "Strong" is less good than "Ogre Thews" is less good than "Beefiest Thews in the Summer Court." You have to stretch less to make it apply to more things. How flavorful an aspect is, how many situations it can apply to and how much it adds to your character all affect the quality of an aspect. If it can apply to more things, it can be used more-- both to compel and to invoke; making it better.
Really? This is your response to that example? In a world where people can either buy a vanilla sword or enchant one as a character feature you can't accept an equipment example? Ok, fine; so liken it to something that is part of the character then. My point is that things don't exist in a vacuum where all you have to consider is their abilities or their functions. There are outside (see: narrative) influences, too. These are often nebulous and hard to take into account, but they exist.
These are what make game balance so hard.
My point is that, in an ideal world, you would be able to divide narrative and mechanics: it would make balance easier. But we don't live in an ideal world. Narrative and mechanical properties do have an effect on each other.
Look at D&D 4th edition as an example. They (initially, before expansion bloat) went to great lengths to balance the combat system mechanically so that it could not be abused. What was the result? Powers that explicitly specified that you could only target characters or powers that behaved in really weird ways and didn't feel right ("What? My ring of the ram can't be used on doors in this edition? Why not?" "Because the power says the target is 'One character'"). With the exception of a few, isolated bugs, you couldn't break the system. That didn't mean it was a good system. Many of the powers were boring. Many were simply more powerful, higher level counterparts of the lower-level powers.
Lots of people complained.
Is it as a result? Or is it a secondary and unrelated event? Just because there are a lot of broken games that happen to balance narratively (like D&D 3rd ed. prestige class pre-reqs) that doesn't mean they are broken because of that. It only means they are broken in addition to that.
I would argue that 3rd ed. D&D isn't broken because of the prestige class pre-reqs being narrative, it's broken because they didn't balance those class features against other, similar class features. It's a design problem that's entirely separate from the other design elements, which can each be evaluated based on their own merits.
Likewise with our discussion on claws. Retractable claws are not broken by themselves. They are broken compared to the non-retractable version. Likewise ACAEBG isn't broken by itself, it's broken when you strip it down to 3-refresh and a FP to use.
You are asserting that a broken game ('G') logically follows from a narrative design ('N'), or:
N → G
I am asserting that there is no logical relation between narrative design and a broken game, and that your experience with broken games that have narrative design is simply a coincidence. There are plenty of broken games without narrative design (G ^ ¬N). More importantly, there are plenty of games with narrative design that are not broken (¬G ^ N). This second one disproves your implication, thus:
For N to imply G, the following must evaluate to true:
N → G ⇔ ¬N v G (Material Implication)
Given that (¬G ^ N) is true,
N is true,
G is false,
¬N is false
G is false
¬N v G is false,
Therefore, N -/-> G
A narrative game is not broken by its nature as a narrative game (though this does not preclude it from being broken in addition to it's nature as a narrative game).
...
Is that more clear?
Wrong.Or you lose a fate point because you don't want to be compelled. Compels are not always beneficial, and they are not always wanted, otherwise there would be no reason to buy out of them.
If the non-retractable nature of your Claws causes a problem, that's a compel. So in any situation where you benefit from retracting your Claws, you would have been compensated for not having that ability.
You proved nothing, Orladdin. I tried to point this out already. When your Claws are retractable, you can't choose to receive the compels that a guy with non-retractable compels would have gotten. So you miss out on both the benefits and the drawbacks of obvious claws.With retractable claws, you get more choice--you can go into places and situations that someone with non-retractable claws simply can't. Getting compelled to jump through hoops every time you want to be in public isn't necessarily a fun experience.
I know that you think that it's a fact, that you have no choice about it, but you're wrong. There's nothing in the rules that makes it so. It's your choice whether narrative has mechanical value, and you can choose between a correct answer and an incorrect one.I have to say, it is irritating and coming off as rather arrogant for you to keep simply declaring that we're wrong, that we're "incorrect" and that you are absolutely right. It's your opinion, one that I, Orladdin, and others disagree with.
Good aspects =/= powerful aspects.You can do a lot more, and justify a lot more, with Omnipotent God to invoke from, than you can from a lot of other aspects. Even if each invoke is relatively equal in strength, you have an aspect that can be used to justify literally anything.
Suppose I gave a character the aspect OMNIPOTENT GOD. Would that make them more powerful?
No it wouldn't. Because aspects have no mechanical value.
Good thing too, or everyone would be an omnipotent god. And what an aspect can be applied to is entirely dependent on the GM's whims. It's not something you can measure or compare.
Generally, you want something that in your GM's opinion applies to most of what you'd want to use it for. Which can't be defined beyond a single moment at a single table.
The biggest balance weakness in this game is probably just the fact that some games will have many uses available for any given ability and others will have few.I could say almost the exact same thing about Tetris.
(Oh, and you can definitely use Deceit to hide a weapon: 2 weapon. This is not even a question, it's certain.)
Ugh, formal logic. What a waste of time. You could have said the same thing in six words with much more clarity.While I generally agree, I thought our problem was in lack of belief that the outcome follows from the premise. My natural tendency in those cases is to show that the outcome is inextricable from the premise. I was going one step further than previous posts (where I used six words) because I thought you simply weren't getting the correlation I was making; when, in reality, you were considering a different discussion entirely. My mistake there...
I've never seen narrative-mechanical-integration that wasn't either at least slightly unbalanced or pure GM fiat. Sometimes it wasn't bad enough to screw the game up though.While you're right that you need to develop your rules in a vaccuum (as there's little other choice); there is a reason more and more developers are doing playtesting these days. And that increase in play testing has be the primary force responsible for the improved games we've seen in the last decade or so.
Not sure why you object to my response to the tank thing. A tank is a construct of narrative, a free thing, not a thing that can be balanced.
Never played 4th edition, but I've heard good things about it. Can't comment much.
If the Ring's fluff makes it sound like it works in a way that it doesn't work, that's just bad fluff-writing.
Now, it's hard for me to follow your argument, but I think it goes something like this:
"In game, all kinds of stuff happens. This stuff won't all be part of the game's mechanics, and some of it will be important. So non-mechanical stuff affects mechanics."
This is actually mostly true.
But it's not relevant to how you should write, because what people choose to do with the rules is up to them. All you can do when writing rules is make them work in a vacuum. You don't have air to work with, and if you get some it'll be different from all the other airs. So you have to write in a vacuum, whether you like it or not.
Rules do exist in a vacuum, even if they're taken out of that vacuum when they're used.
Fortunately, this rarely causes problems. Because while groups often break the rules or insert narrative into them, the effects tend to push in no particular direction. So they mostly cancel each other out. And you end up with something similar to what you had in a vacuum.
...Yeah, sorry; I got a little touchy on that one. Let me go back with a cooler head:
Also, it sounds like you're losing your temper. If something I do is pissing you off, I'm sorry.
...
That's libel!
Okay, not really. But I don't appreciate being told that I don't analyse powers. I do, and I do it a lot. More than pretty much anyone else, actually...
If the non-retractable nature of your Claws causes a problem, that's a compel. So in any situation where you benefit from retracting your Claws, you would have been compensated for not having that ability.Point A: You're saying that the character's inability to hide their claws is balanced by the player's ability to be compelled.
...
You are creating this problem with your insistence that retractable weapons are better.
...
You proved nothing, Orladdin. I tried to point this out already. When your Claws are retractable, you can't choose to receive the compels that a guy with non-retractable compels would have gotten. So you miss out on both the benefits and the drawbacks of obvious claws.
Natural Weaponry can be retractable or non-retractable or whatever. Judging by people's willingness to take obvious Breath Weapons and refund-less inhuman features, people will still take non-retractable Natural Weaponry. And they'll not be made weaker by that decision.I could go the other direction with that argument, too: If it's just as mechanically viable to have claws as to not have claws, and if having visible claws is simply a fate point factory, why isn't every single person in the game world walking around with claws? There are reasons people aren't all walking around the world with claws.
The reason I keep harping about narrative-mechanical separation is my dislike for the problem you bring up. If you assign a mechanical value to a narrative decision, then everyone ought to make that decision. So you don't do that, ever, unless you're trying to force people in a certain direction for some reason.
Not sure what would force me to rewrite every other power. Are you saying that they'd need to be improved to match Claws? Because believe me, Claws is in no danger of overpowering anything. And I didn't make it stronger, though I did buff Breath Weapon.No, I'm saying if you're making custom powers that are more preferable than the other powers available, you should consider how it changes the balance with everything else in the system. In this case, Natural Weaponry is simply preferrable to Claws as written. That should imply a power increase. Sure, it's not a numerical power increase, but options are power, too.
Good aspects =/= powerful aspects.Well, it could if your GM is a push-over and lets OMNIPOTENT GOD apply to everything. You're right that it is highly table and GM dependant, but if you had a pushover GM and you were good at narration, OMNIPOTENT GOD could let you do anything. And yes, it would be more powerful than any other aspect. Sure it can only give rerolls/+2s... unless he invokes for effect... and he could get fate points from literally anything that way to fund it. That's not advisable play (unless the guy really does somehow make the game more fun for everyone via that aspect) but it is true. Common sense prevents it, but it is still possible and true by the rules.
Suppose I gave a character the aspect OMNIPOTENT GOD. Would that make them more powerful?
No it wouldn't. Because aspects have no mechanical value.
Good thing too, or everyone would be an omnipotent god. And what an aspect can be applied to is entirely dependent on the GM's whims. It's not something you can measure or compare.
Generally, you want something that in your GM's opinion applies to most of what you'd want to use it for. Which can't be defined beyond a single moment at a single table.
Well does someone have that authority? I'd like to be able to continue to follow this thread now that there finally is discussion on the topic again... ;)
I have to say, it is irritating and coming off as rather arrogant for you to keep simply declaring that we're wrong, that we're "incorrect" and that you are absolutely right. It's your opinion, one that I, Orladdin, and others disagree with.
I have to say, it is irritating and coming off as rather arrogant for you to keep simply declaring that we're wrong, that we're "incorrect" and that you are absolutely right. It's your opinion, one that I, Orladdin, and others disagree with.
You can do a lot more, and justify a lot more, with Omnipotent God to invoke from, than you can from a lot of other aspects. Even if each invoke is relatively equal in strength, you have an aspect that can be used to justify literally anything.
I could say almost the exact same thing about Tetris.
You must have a very different definition of "hiding small objects... ...in plain sight" than I do.
You can feasibly hide any object, but you can't really hide a sword or a baseball bat or an semi-automatic .45 in your jacket pocket without the bouncer finding it when he frisks you (or casually glances at you, for that matter).
Sure, Harry and Michael routinely "hide" their staff and sword, respectively, by stuffing them into a big duffel bag, but they'd never get that past Marcone's bodyguards... not even by accepting a compel. It doesn't have to be a compel... It's as simple as the bouncer saying, "Sorry, you can't come in here with weapons," or "Hey, I'll need to look inside that duffel bag."
In fact, it SHOULDN'T be a compel, because simply carrying a weapon doesn't give the character an aspect to compel, unless some other character takes the trouble to generate that aspect using an appropriate action.
Point A: You're saying that the character's inability to hide their claws is balanced by the player's ability to be compelled.
Point B: You're saying that having retractable claws causes you to miss out on this option.
I agree that Sanctphrax does ignore the other side of the equation about narrative effecting mechanics.
If you are creating a game. You simply must take narrative into account or you isolate the people who value the narrative as much or more than the mechanics. That is bad business. That is not good game design. As I've said before I have helped game designers do just this. I got paid for it. I was asked to move halfway across a country to do this (help create balanced game rules and mechanics) and help write narratives also. They all (all is obviously a fallacy but the vast majority is not) agree narrative must be tended to in terms of designing powers. It is fact, I'm sorry.
Yeah, I can see how that would be annoying. But:A belief is no more ironclad than an opinion. Just harder to change.
It's not an opinion, it's a belief. The difference matters.
Someone here is right and someone here is wrong.
Nope. The GM has to find your explanation satisfactory, and they're under no obligation to let you invoke OMNIPOTENT GOD for everything. Or for anything, actually.And the aspect OMNIPOTENT GOD can be used to justify a lot more than most aspects. Think about how many ways you can finish the sentence, "I'm an OMNIPOTENT GOD, so I'm going to..." as compared to "I'm a WIZARD OF THE WHITE COUNCIL, so I'm going to..." The former allows for many things the latter does not.
What is this I don't even.
Seriously, no idea what you mean.
The biggest balance weakness in this game is probably just the fact that some games will have many uses available for any given ability and others will have few.
A belief is different from an opinion in that it can be true or false. This distinction is extremely relevant in an argument.Untrue. A belief is an opinion you have a lot of conviction in. The word refers to how much the believer, well, believes, not to the objective truth of the belief.
And like Orladdin said, what OMNIPOTENT GOD applies to depends on the GM. Personally, I'd not let it be invoked much.What anything applies to depends on the GM--but some aspects are going to be able to produce more powerful and varied effects than others. Omnipotent God could be used to justify a much wider variety of effects (literally all of them), while the aspect "Bruised Knee" can't.
You familiar with the term Magical Tea-Party? That's what the invocation system is, pretty much.In fact, I'm not. Could you elaborate?
Okay, your definition of belief is very strange to me. Here's the one I'm using:The definition I'm using is confidence in something that cannot necessarily be proven; or an opinion for which you have a lot of conviction.
"An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."
This is different from an opinion, in that it's not subjective. It's right or it's wrong.
And there do exist people in the world who don't search duffel bags for weapons.
Suggest you read the trapping again, it doesn't work that way. It can hide small objects in plain sight, and it can be used to oppose any attempt to see something you've hidden.
Let's not get hung up on the meanings of words. What I want to say is:I strenuously object to the idea that you can declare yourself right, and others wrong, by framing your argument as a "belief," even putting aside that the word "belief" doesn't have anything to do with whether something is objectively true.
This is not a matter of opinion; someone is right and someone is not.
I have considered your viewpoint, and seeing the flaws in it has only strengthened my beliefs. It's possible that I'm wrong, but I really doubt it.
Your perspective is that the sheer mathematical mechanics are above everything else--which is a fine, valid opinion to have, but not any more "right" than if I were insisting that the mechanics should take a back seat to the narrative.
You can't hide a sword during a full search.
But if you're carrying a weapon while walking down the street and you come across someone who tries to guess whether you're armed, you can use your Deceit. That's not a contrived scenario:
You can also BS your way past a search, but that's probably a different trapping.
Though distracting someone properly could mess up a patdown.
They even mention that as a possibility in YS IIRC. Can't find it though, it was something about DISTRACTING BEAUTY. Sometimes I wish I had a searchable PDF, then I remember I could get one free and realize I can't be bothered.
PS: Personally, I'd say that a roll of 17 or so on Deceit could conceal an aircraft carrier. You just need to make sure that everyone looks in the exact opposite direction. Which is practically impossible, but only practically.
No, we're not on the same page.
See, if you have obvious Claws and they cause trouble in a pat-down, then that's a compel. So retractable-ness isn't actually useful.
PS: Concealing an aircraft carrier is actually quite reasonable. Crazy stuff happens, I've missed huge things before. And a roll of 17 is frickin' ridiculous, given that I doubt any mortal can get a skill above 6. So it can do stuff like that.A 17 is easy for a group working together. For a normal individual, it takes longer and approaches limits of what can be accomplished.
How can it possibly be a compel, without a related aspect?Most power related compels will target your high concept. All powers should stem from it. Non power related items may simply be a declaration. "That metal detector found your gun, want a fate point?" is an easy example.
Oh, stop it... Now you're just being obstinate. I agree with practically everything you said in your previous post.
NO.And to someone like me, narrative mechanics fall in line with the regular mechanics. It's all part of the setting and, therefore, part of the system.
It's capslocked and red and bold and underlined because it's super important, not because I'm angry.
The math is not the most important thing. I enjoy playing with it, because I'm a math guy. But that's not why I try to keep the math and the story semi-separate.
My constant harping about narrative mechanics is about preserving narrative, not about preserving mechanics.
Because people will generally do whatever the mechanics tell them to do. If the mechanics tell you that concept X is unworkable, then nobody plays concept X.Not necessarily. As I've said before, there are plenty of people who won't just do what the math tells them is better.
By making it a disadvantage to look weird, you tell people to look normal.No, you tell people that if you want an advantage, it comes with some kind of price.
And they're right about the narrative taking precedence in FATE. One of the best things about this game is that that can be done entirely without breaking the rules. (I think that "how often the rules need to be bent or broken in order to have fun" is actually a good measure of how bad a game system is.)I'd wonder just how much dissecting a canon power into its component trappings counts as bending and breaking :P
Also, I'm not declaring myself right by saying that this is a belief. The earth being flat is a belief too. So are 2+3=5 and 2+2=5.Perhaps not directly. What you are saying is "It's a matter of belief, so someone has to be right, and someone has to be wrong. Since I'm right, you all have to be wrong."
The point is that you can't just say "that's your opinion, this is my opinion". Someone's right.Again: Says you.
See, if you have obvious Claws and they cause trouble in a pat-down, then that's a compel. So retractable-ness isn't actually useful.Unless you don't want to face a compel every time you want to do something in public. Compels aren't automatically something the player wants.
And to someone like me, narrative mechanics fall in line with the regular mechanics. It's all part of the setting and, therefore, part of the system.
Most power related compels will target your high concept.
Non power related items may simply be a declaration. "That metal detector found your gun, want a fate point?" is an easy example.
I'm not declaring myself right, though. I'm trying to prove that I'm right, with arguments unrelated to the belief thing. The belief thing is just there because I'm tired of people treating facts as opinions.But when we do, we're scoffed at for writing formal logic proofs.
If you think I'm not right, try to prove I'm not. Or at least try to demonstrate that I might not be right.
Some rare people ignore what the rules encourage them to do, but most people don't. Hardly anyone makes a Wizard without decent ratings in the three casting stats, because the rules make it a horrible idea to do that.This is absolutely wrong. This is a perfect example of the Stormwind Fallacy (http://mtgsalvation.com/928-at-the-gathering-the-stormwind-fallacy-teflon-redux.html).
A Wizard with terrible Discipline is actually a workable character concept. You have all the power and talent you need, but you lack the self-control to use it right. But the mechanics discourage that concept so it sees little play.
And if you make something a disadvantage you encourage people to avoid it if at all possible. Which is what I was trying to say.Which is true to life. Some things are disadvantageous. That's why the world looks the way it does. That makes the oddball characters even more interesting. It's what allows the oddball characters to get compels for being weird. If society (either in real life or in the game-world) was absolutely full of unique snowflakes, there would be no stigma against them to compel.
The problem with Claws as written is that it makes that impossible in one narrow circumstance that hardly anyone cares about.... Actually, it appears (from this thread and others) that it's a circumstance that a lot of us seem to care about...
And no, not everyone wants compels. But that's personal taste, not a mechanical thing. If you don't want to experience compels related to a certain thing, you remove that thing from your concept. If you do, you add it to your concept.But you're ignoring the point I've made-- and at this point, I'm beginning to think you're trolling. With the retractable claws you can do either one of these without a character modification. You can just choose right now to do option A, get a compel; and then later choose to do option B and walk into the club unmolested. You can make either choice as it suits you with retractable claws; whereas before you had to make a major character change.
This is absolutely wrong. This is a perfect example of the Stormwind Fallacy (http://mtgsalvation.com/928-at-the-gathering-the-stormwind-fallacy-teflon-redux.html).
You don't need to have a sub-optimal skill arrangement to have a narratively interesting character. Especially not in this game. Having a low discipline skill would be dumb-- even if you wanted to play the character who lacks control in his spells. Harry Dresden himself is this way. Y'know how he handles it? With an aspect. He gets compelled to botch his spells. It's not because Jim built his character sub-optimally.
I'm not declaring myself right, though. I'm trying to prove that I'm right, with arguments unrelated to the belief thing. The belief thing is just there because I'm tired of people treating facts as opinions.It's more that I have a different perspective on the game and its relation to the narrative than you, I think, which isn't so clearly a "right or wrong" thing.
If you think I'm not right, try to prove I'm not. Or at least try to demonstrate that I might not be right.
Some rare people ignore what the rules encourage them to do, but most people don't. Hardly anyone makes a Wizard without decent ratings in the three casting stats, because the rules make it a horrible idea to do that.Not optimum? Sure. "Horrible" though? I disagree. Potentially more interesting, to me, is a wizard that doesn't have a lot of power, and so has to be creative with it, or a wizard without a lot of control, who has to be more careful and spend his or her fate points wisely.
And if you make something a disadvantage you encourage people to avoid it if at all possible. Which is what I was trying to say.And giving something no disadvantage encourages more people to take it than rightfully should be.
Dissecting a canon power is not bending or breaking the rules. It's following them exactly. Which can sometimes be a problem. Have you heard of Malicious Obedience (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Malicious%20Obedience)?I think following the rules exactly would involve keeping a power with all the trappings attached to it, personally.
And no, not everyone wants compels. But that's personal taste, not a mechanical thing.Then stop acting as if compels are automatically and always a good thing. You have repeatedly stated that if something causes a compel, that it cannot be a downside and is a good thing.
If you don't want to experience compels related to a certain thing, you remove that thing from your concept. If you do, you add it to your concept. The problem with Claws as written is that it makes that impossible in one narrow circumstance that hardly anyone cares about.I believe most, if not all, of the powers say that you have to have an aspect or a high concept that can justify or represent its use. So, yes, if you've got razor sharp claws, I think you have to have an aspect, which can be compelled, to indicate why you have that power.
Oh, and I have no idea what:I'm saying that to someone like me, ACAEBG's attachment to the sword, including its role in the world and associated narrative drawbacks and restrictions, is as much a mechanic for its power as its refresh cost and effect.QuoteAnd to someone like me, narrative mechanics fall in line with the regular mechanics. It's all part of the setting and, therefore, part of the system.means.
If were going to be really true to the setting then any supernatural with stealth and strength who manages to ambush a wizard gets to kill said wizard outright because wizards are incredibly brittle.As I'm given to understand, that's pretty much a given to happen to any NPC that isn't going to take consequences anyway.
That creatures with mythical level skills are nearly impossible to defend against (have any of you read how Butcher describes white court vampire Celerity and that's only at the supernatural level), that wizards can carry on casting for more than a couple of minutes and finally any mythical strong beast that grapples a pure mortal can snap him in a blink of an eye.Aside from the wizards casting for more than a few minutes, I'm pretty sure the rules do pretty much bear that out.
So if we are going to play it by the book series the game needs to be considerably more unbalanced than it already is and considerably more lethal.One solid shot is enough to kill anything without supernatural toughness, and barring the plot armor of consequences, and some of those consequences will last a long, long time. That already seems considerably more lethal than other game systems I've seen.
If were going to be really true to the setting then any supernatural with stealth and strength who manages to ambush a wizard gets to kill said wizard outright because wizards are incredibly brittle.You can, it just takes preparation. (i.e. Maneuvers and Declarations.)
That creatures with mythical level skills are nearly impossible to defend against (have any of you read how Butcher describes white court vampire Celerity and that's only at the supernatural level) , that wizards can carry on casting for more than a couple of minutes and finally any mythical strong beast that grapples a pure mortal can snap him in a blink of an eye.Pretty sure all of this works in the game system also - simply takes using appropriate tactics. Have your Mythic Speed vampire use hit and run attacks from cover. Time is extremely flexible in game terms. (A single exchange could be anything from near instant to several minutes or even hours. Perhaps even days or weeks for some actions.)
So if we are going to play it by the book series the game needs to be considerably more unbalanced than it already is and considerably more lethal.I think it can be extremely lethal. The only reasons I haven't killed a PC before now are concessions. ;) That said, the "Don't be a d!*k." rule applies to GMs as much as players. Perhaps more so since a GM can wipe the players anytime he feels like throwing arbitrarily high difficulty opponents at them.
Okay, I think it looks like everyone's getting tired of this.
The sad part, for me, is that I don't think anyone actually understands what I've been trying to say. Orladdin, Mr. Death, both of your posts demonstrate that you believe that I believe things I don't actually believe.
This is probably my fault, mostly.
First, I'm not invoking Stormwind here. I'm using an example to demonstrate the power of mechanics to control behaviour. Wizards with Mediocre casting stats are mechanically discouraged, and as a result hardly anyone plays them. A similar effect will occur if you discourage something else mechanically. That is the entire substance of that argument.
What I said is that you don't get to pick whether you get compelled. You make a character concept and then you get whatever compels are appropriate for that concept. Even self-compels depend on GM fiat. If you have the power to avoid a compel effortlessly, then you don't get that compel.
Also: I may have given the impression that I believe compels are a good thing. I don't. Compels are neither good nor bad, they're just a thing. Opening yourself up to them has its benefits perfectly negated by its drawbacks.
And Mr. Death, you seem to be suggesting that we bend/break the game deliberately, in order to control player behaviour. And you know what? That's okay. That's a standard part of game design.
But I see no sensible reason to bend/break the game against people with weird natural weapons. That sort of thing should be reserved for when it's really necessary and when it can be done elegantly.
Is that all clear now?
PS: Does anyone actually care this much about Claws? This has been about deeper principles, I thought.
Say for instance: When would you say the "technology and magic don't mix" thing started?
and what changes do you think would be necessary to the system to set the campaign in 1875 and what would you change (if any) to set the campaign in 1960s?
First, I'm not invoking Stormwind here. I'm using an example to demonstrate the power of mechanics to control behaviour. Wizards with Mediocre casting stats are mechanically discouraged, and as a result hardly anyone plays them. A similar effect will occur if you discourage something else mechanically. That is the entire substance of that argument.Personally, I think that's part of the intent of the power. They, the writers, may not have wanted people to have the Claws power just for the Weapon:2 effect. Claws, from my reading of it, is supposed to be a power for monsters and animals, to reflect that whatever it is sitting the end of their arms, it's different and more dangerous than normal hands, and stunts like Killer Blow and Lethal Weapon were meant for the "I've got normal hands, but I hit harder with them" type.
And Mr. Death, you seem to be suggesting that we bend/break the game deliberately, in order to control player behaviour. And you know what? That's okay. That's a standard part of game design.I'm not sure what you mean by bending and breaking the game. Do you mean I'm suggesting that is what you're doing, or that I'm suggesting it's something we should do?
But I see no sensible reason to bend/break the game against people with weird natural weapons. That sort of thing should be reserved for when it's really necessary and when it can be done elegantly.
PS: Does anyone actually care this much about Claws? This has been about deeper principles, I thought.Well, no. Mostly I thought it served as the most immediate example about the larger argument.
Say for instance: When would you say the "technology and magic don't mix" thing started?I've heard it suggested that hexing happens largely because the wizards don't understand how, say, a computer works, and their magic unconsciously reflects that by making it not work.
and what changes do you think would be necessary to the system to set the campaign in 1875 and what would you change (if any) to set the campaign in 1960s?
I've heard it suggested that hexing happens largely because the wizards don't understand how, say, a computer works, and their magic unconsciously reflects that by making it not work.
So I'd say the technology hexing probably started around the time that technology stopped working in "obvious" ways.
Or a bonus to avoid it?So I'd say the technology hexing probably started around the time that technology stopped working in "obvious" ways.So a wizard with high scholarship should get a bonus to hexing.
You did, or someone did anyway. I can't be bothered to go back and check. I think, however, that I like it enough to keep it, (I've even used it,) provided that it also includes stuff like piloting a plane or boat and navigation and such. Anyway I think ride and such has more interesting opportunities than drive. I often grow bored during car-chases, but horses actually have personalities to play with.Wouldn't horses and riding animals fall under Survival, though?
So no one thinks anything should be changed for a 1960s game?I think those are close enough to the present to translate without problems as far as the Skills listing goes.
How about WW2? or the thirties? Prohibition game anyone?
I think those are close enough to the present to translate without problems as far as the Skills listing goes.
Wouldn't horses and riding animals fall under Survival, though?It would, but that's only one and a half trapping of a fairly wide skill. It won't make that much of a difference to move it to Travel. And more people know it. Even blatant "city boys" who wouldn't know a thing about finding drinkable water and such.
I think the "magic doesn't work with tech" change would have happened when technology started to make huge inroads on people's everyday lives.
[...]
Yes, the years between the wars brought a massive, wide spread shift in thinking in the west as technology entered people's lives. At the same time you had the Empires shipping tech to the farthest colonies - where in some cases it was seen as another form of magic. It looks like the perfect point for the swing to happen.
So if I was making the call, no real changes in hexing until the 1920s, variable from 1920s until the 1880s, and "milk curdles" stuff before that.
Personally, I think that's part of the intent of the power. They, the writers, may not have wanted people to have the Claws power just for the Weapon:2 effect. Claws, from my reading of it, is supposed to be a power for monsters and animals, to reflect that whatever it is sitting the end of their arms, it's different and more dangerous than normal hands, and stunts like Killer Blow and Lethal Weapon were meant for the "I've got normal hands, but I hit harder with them" type.
I'm not sure what you mean by bending and breaking the game. Do you mean I'm suggesting that is what you're doing, or that I'm suggesting it's something we should do?
I don't take the intent argument very seriously, I admit. Partly because Evil Hat is very clear about how worthless their intent is. And partly because it's circular: the power's writing is good because it supports its intent, and its intent is whatever is written there.I'm not saying whether it's good or not. I'm just saying it's there for a particular purpose.
You are suggesting that the game be deliberately made less balanced in order to ensure that people use teeth and claws instead of lightning-touches or supernaturally-effective punches.Ah, I see. No, that's not quite what I meant. I'm not saying that the rules should be bent or broken to that end; I'm saying that's what the rules are.
Which seems kind of pointless, to me. Those concepts are not evil, and even if you find them distasteful your proposed measure is too drastic. Plus it goes against the way the game is written; other powers don't dictate thematics.
Sure, seems sensible. I might have put it slightly earlier in some places, like England, because of things like the railroad and spinning machines and such (the industrial revolution starts in the 1700s!), but mostly that's sensible. What about those Wizards who live through the change? How do they experience it? There must be a lot of them since many live such long lives.I'd put it that a wizard from the sticks, where the railroad and such haven't reached, would be more likely to hex something in Victorian England than a Victorian Englishman would be. If it has something to do with the hexing wizard's understanding of it, then someone who has a vague understanding of it might be less apt to hex than someone who sees it as the Magical Metal Horse.
As for magic vs tech, I'd say any high tech appropriate for the period should pose problems. Once something has become "mainstream" enough, magic should not affect it any longer. Examples (no way / problematic / OK):
Present day - digital circuits / analog circuits / electricity
WWII - analog circuits / electricity / internal combustion
Victorian - electricity / internal combustion / gunpowder
Napoleonic - steam / gunpowder / ??
Renaissance - gunpowder / ?? / ??
As one goes further back it becomes harder to find susceptible technology and the whole hexing idea should be examined again (as discussed earlier in this thread)
Sure, seems sensible. I might have put it slightly earlier in some places, like England, because of things like the railroad and spinning machines and such (the industrial revolution starts in the 1700s!), but mostly that's sensible. What about those Wizards who live through the change? How do they experience it? There must be a lot of them since many live such long lives.
Ah, I see. No, that's not quite what I meant. I'm not saying that the rules should be bent or broken to that end; I'm saying that's what the rules are.
this is a setting where, generally speaking, when supernatural power comes out to play, people can tell by looking at it (unless whoever's behind it is doing something to hide it).
So lightning touches would be fine, if they're accompanied by some lightning-ish effect.
Sanctaphrax, you like writing rules, are you up for it?
... Maybe something like have the top point be whatever time you're going for, hex just the top part if you're a focused practitioner, top three for sorcerers and their ilk and top five for wizards. Still on the No Way / Problematic / Ok scale of course. You'd have to extend the list of course.
I'm not saying you think the rules should be bent or broken. I chose my words with care, and I said balance.I'm not saying it should be that way. I'm saying it is written that way.
You think that the rules should be written in a way that discourages non-obvious natural melee weapons, right? (Though for whatever reason you apparently have no problem with non-obvious natural ranged weapons).
That's bending the game's balance. It's useful for preventing people from playing the game wrong.
That's just not true. Everything Uriel does is incredibly subtle, and there's no indication that he's trying to hide anything. He just acts in subtle ways.Uriel is by far not a good measure. In fact, he's on such a power scale that a lot of his job consists of not using his power. And what power have we seen him use? The most obvious use of his power has been...to say a few words of encouragement to Dresden a couple times. Uriel is heaven's black ops guy--by definition, what he does is going to be subtle and unnoticeable, because he's doing something to hide it.
Soulgazes and The Sight, so far as we can tell, don't look like anything.No, but they've been known to cause people to faint anyway--and they're some of the weakest powers for effect.
Some thaumaturgy and most accidental hexing is subtle enough that it can be passed off as coincidence.Some is, yes. A lot isn't. The big bit of Thaumaturgy that looks accidental is Entropy Curses, which are supposed to look like accidents (i.e., doing something to hide it).
Michael and Charity are to all appearances totally mortal, despite having plenty of supernatural power.When he's on the clock, Michael's sword freaking glows. In Grave Peril, he makes a couple of daggers glow and physically repel monsters just by holding them upside down so they look like crosses. Charity we simply haven't seen her doing anything for most of the books, so she's just not a good way to judge it.
Furthermore, it's worth mentioning that the rules don't require Claws to be obvious when it's used, they require it to be obvious at all times.Unless you buy a power that costs nothing.
No they wouldn't, not unless that effect is always visible. If they're only obvious when used, they break the rules for the power.Again, there's a power that's completely free that eliminates that issue.
Up for what, exactly?Writing a new expanded hexing table:
There's a table on YS258 which addresses how difficult it is to intentionally hex something. Something could be made of that I suppose, but Harry seems to regularly hex anything down to difficulty five on the list, so some tweaking is in order. Maybe something like have the top point be whatever time you're going for, hex just the top part if you're a focused practitioner, top three for sorcerers and their ilk and top five for wizards. Still on the No Way / Problematic / Ok scale of course. You'd have to extend the list of course. Maybe we could get someone here to do that?I wrote it just above where I asked if you could do it...
First you'd have to define what approximate time periods you aim for and what is the High Tech for each, of course. Some sort of "tech level" definition that some games have - any existing usable scales that anyone knows of? Some relevant breakthroughs were already mentioned: gunpowder - steam - electricity - electronics
Unless you buy a power that costs nothing...
...Again, there's a power that's completely free that eliminates that issue.
I'm not saying it should be that way. I'm saying it is written that way.
And there's no such thing as a non-obvious natural ranged weapon. Once you start hurling flaming poo at someone, they're going to notice.
When he's on the clock, Michael's sword freaking glows. In Grave Peril, he makes a couple of daggers glow and physically repel monsters just by holding them upside down so they look like crosses. Charity we simply haven't seen her doing anything for most of the books, so she's just not a good way to judge it.
Unless you buy a power that costs nothing.
Again, there's a power that's completely free that eliminates that issue.
I'll take a shot at an expanded hexing table soonish.
You've posted repeatedly defending the way it's written. That means you're saying it should be that way.No. I've posted repeatedly stating the way it's written, and why it's written that way. It is not the same thing.
The power does not prohibit invisible or intangible attacks. And it very much does not prohibit powers that are not obvious until used.I'm under the presumption that Breath Weapon is exclusively physical attacks (Mental attacks would be better under Incite Emotion and Social attacks...well, okay, some kind of puke-based Breath Weapon I could see, fine). That means that even if your attack is invisible, your target is going to react. If you wave your hands at, exhale really hard, or stare at someone who then recoils in pain/starts melting/is flung across the room, that's pretty noticeable.
That's the sword. Michael himself is by all indications a totally nonmagical human in the novels, despite the large amount of divine help that he receives.Michael, sans sword, was able to make a pair of apparently-mundane daggers glow and ward off a room full of vampires. You sure it's just the Sword?
Forthill and Charity even more so. Neither of them ever does anything to indicate any kind of magical ability.And neither of them really face down supernatural creatures terribly often. The one power they do seem to use a lot, Guide My Hand, may not be big and flashy obvious, but what's happening is clear enough that Father Forthill and Michael recognize that there's a divine hand involved when the former mysteriously breaks down right in front of the Carpenter house when Michael needs to go out smiting, and Harry has noticed it enough that he's literally bet his life on it on more than one occasion.
this is a setting where, generally speaking, when supernatural power comes out to play, people can tell by looking at it (unless whoever's behind it is doing something to hide it).
Hold on, that's my line. Do you still disagree with me?If you're willing to say that the "problems" with Claws can be more or less solved by taking a power that costs no refresh (Human Guise or Human Form), then we can agree on that.
No. I've posted repeatedly stating the way it's written, and why it's written that way. It is not the same thing.
Okay.Er...could you specify what it is you're asking about here?
So do you actually disagree with me or not?
Please explain your position before this goes any further.My position is to take the powers as they were written, because they were written to reflect the realities of the setting. Or at least, if you're going to reflavor a power, it ought to be in line with the original power's parameters, up to and including the narrative role of the power.
So, you're not saying that it's well-written?I'm saying that I'm not judging it (the RAW, that is). I think the rulebook is very well written, in fact, as far as reflecting the realities of the setting, and reflecting the realities of the setting is what is important to me more than whether everything is balanced, so I don't judge on whether everything is balanced. It's simply not something I feel qualified to judge. If I'm judging it at all, I'm judging it on the basis of, "Is that how it works in the setting?"
If so, then I guess this whole argument was a massive waste of time.
Okay, this was all a gigantic waste of time then. Because even if I'm completely right and can prove it perfectly, you don't care.I'm sorry you feel that way. I said a few times before that I wasn't judging the rules or mechanics--just discussing them and getting a better understanding of them.
Anyway...I don't share your excessive humility. I know of many ways that I could make the game better.Perhaps you should. I don't mean any disrespect, and I'm sure you're good at this, but remember the game was made by professionals at making games, while you are a young hobbyist. Believe me (and I can't believe I'm playing the wise-old-man card, but here we are...), I was a lot like you--sure that I was totally right, and totally unmoving. Humility is a good thing. Just consider that maybe the people who put it together had reasons for putting it together the way they did, and consider that you might not be right about how you can make the game better.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I said a few times before that I wasn't judging the rules or mechanics--just discussing them and getting a better understanding of them.
Perhaps you should. I don't mean any disrespect, and I'm sure you're good at this, but remember the game was made by professionals at making games, while you are a young hobbyist. Believe me (and I can't believe I'm playing the wise-old-man card, but here we are...), I was a lot like you--sure that I was totally right, and totally unmoving. Humility is a good thing. Just consider that maybe the people who put it together had reasons for putting it together the way they did, and consider that you might not be right about how you can make the game better.
Yeah, that's a valid perspective on hexing. But I think of it somewhat differently. To me, hexing is the result of random drift in physics resulting from the vagaries of a mortal mind commanding magic.Hm, maybe. Perhaps there is some overlap between the two, like Mr. Death suggested.
The difference shouldn't matter too too much, but if it bugs you feel free to make whatever changes you want to what I wrote. I doubt I'll be able to help you much with that, though, because my historical knowledge is pretty weak.
And paid professionals write garbage all the time. Not so much in this game, though there are some headscratchers. But games like D&D, Pathfinder, Shadowrun, and Exalted have some truly cringe-inducing writing. Like, unbelievably bad. Go to boards dedicated to those games, they'd be glad to tell you.
I recall you saying that this is your first RPG with actual rules, so:
I hate to play the old man card back at you, but...trusting in someone because they are a professional just isn't a good idea in this business. Play more games and it will become impossible to deny that fact.
Often, the reason something is written the way it is written is: "the writer doesn't have the foggiest clue how this game works".
Funny thing is, I used to think the way you do. But with experience, I realized that being a professional isn't worth much.Fair enough--but I would venture to say that the professionals who put together this game generally had their heads on straight.
In every RPG fandom I've seen, there have been at least a few fans who knew better than the writers.And in every fandom I've seen, there are at least a few fans who think they know better than the writers, but are manifestly wrong. And they never realize it until there are hammer-marks in the tops of their skulls.
I hate to play the old man card back at you, but...trusting in someone because they are a professional just isn't a good idea in this business. Play more games and it will become impossible to deny that fact.As I said before, I have a hard time believing that is the case with this game. What I see is a game that's intended toward the "emulate the setting of the books" side of the spectrum more than the "make everything balanced mechanically" side. Not because they didn't know how the game works, but because they made a decision that fluff was as important as crunch, and occasionally moreso. You may consider this a detriment, but others don't.
Often, the reason something is written the way it is written is: "the writer doesn't have the foggiest clue how this game works".
Oh, and there's one other thing. My certainty in my own ideas in not limitless. I can be convinced. People on this board have done it. Your arguments just weren't very good.Fair enough. But it wouldn't hurt you to exercise a little less certainty, at least where it comes to declaring people absolutely right or wrong.
Fair enough--but I would venture to say that the professionals who put together this game generally had their heads on straight.
As I said before, I have a hard time believing that is the case with this game. What I see is a game that's intended toward the "emulate the setting of the books" side of the spectrum more than the "make everything balanced mechanically" side. Not because they didn't know how the game works, but because they made a decision that fluff was as important as crunch, and occasionally moreso. You may consider this a detriment, but others don't.
Fair enough. But it wouldn't hurt you to exercise a little less certainty, at least where it comes to declaring people absolutely right or wrong.
What you see as "issues," those of us who are more into the setting than into RPGs in general (like me; I doubt at the moment that I'll ever play a different system, since I'm only playing this game because I already love the setting. But then if you'd asked me a couple years ago, I'd have told you I'd probably never play any dice games, this one included, so eh, who knows) are going to see as features.
There really doesn't have to be a conflict between setting emulation and mechanical balance.There doesn't have to be, but they're not always going to match up. Harry's a guy who could level a building in seconds if he was in a bad mood, and is capable of offensive, defensive, investigative, and other -ive feats that his mortal partners couldn't dream of. You can nerf all that to make it balance with a pure mortal, but eventually that takes away from the feel of the setting.
Slapping some reasonable restrictions on ACaEBG would actually have made the setting emulation better, now that I think about it. Having the "even ground between mortal and monster" power work really well with supernatural strength is just weird.So you're saying instead of making it implicit, via the established use of the power in the setting and what we have of its write-up in the book, they should have made it explicit? Okay, that I can agree with, with the caveat that I think it's reasonable to assume what the intention was regardless.
And making retractable Claws just as cheap as non-retractable ones wouldn't have damaged the setting at all. Nor would have writing the powers in OW properly. Nor would have making Orbius non-stupid.Maybe not damaged, but it wouldn't necessarily reflect the setting either, and I think that was the intention. They were answering the question, "Okay, vampires and ghouls have big scary claws, how does that affect their attacks?" more than, "How much refresh is adding Weapons:2 to fists attacks worth?"
With respect, I'm pretty sure I know what would hurt me better than you do. And that would hurt me.With respect, few people really know what's good for them. I speak from experience here, because I think you're a lot like I used to be, and I didn't really change until reality hit me repeatedly over the head.
Nope. The fact that Harry is mechanically speaking an idiot for not tossing out Orbius instead of his shield spell is a problem for everyone. The fact that Mouse is due to sloppy writing a social powerhouse is a problem for everyone. And the fact that it's impossible to tell which numbers to use with Incite Emotion is a problem for everyone.I'm not sure how Harry's an idiot for not using a spell that's practically an instant first-law violation. I mean, it's a straight-up murder spell. Mouse stops being a social powerhouse when you remember he's a dog and compel that--then again, dogs tend to be popular and not concerned about social stigma anyway. I could totally believe an intelligent dog running circles, so to speak, around a human when it comes to getting people on its side. I'm not sure what you mean about Incite Emotion, I thought the power was pretty clearly written.
There doesn't have to be, but they're not always going to match up. Harry's a guy who could level a building in seconds if he was in a bad mood, and is capable of offensive, defensive, investigative, and other -ive feats that his mortal partners couldn't dream of. You can nerf all that to make it balance with a pure mortal, but eventually that takes away from the feel of the setting.
So you're saying instead of making it implicit, via the established use of the power in the setting and what we have of its write-up in the book, they should have made it explicit? Okay, that I can agree with, with the caveat that I think it's reasonable to assume what the intention was regardless.
Maybe not damaged, but it wouldn't necessarily reflect the setting either, and I think that was the intention. They were answering the question, "Okay, vampires and ghouls have big scary claws, how does that affect their attacks?" more than, "How much refresh is adding Weapons:2 to fists attacks worth?"
As for Orbius, honestly, I think the problem there might be a misinterpretation. I don't recall seeing anything in its write-up precluding someone from rolling an action just to yank the stupid thing off.
With respect, few people really know what's good for them. I speak from experience here, because I think you're a lot like I used to be, and I didn't really change until reality hit me repeatedly over the head.
What I'm talking about is how it's been mentioned on a couple occasions how it's irritating and comes off as really arrogant when you act like an authority and declare one side of a discussion absolutely correct or incorrect. One such post, as I recall, got you a warning from the moderators. Or at least, the tone of the post did, which I think was borne out of your certainty.
That's what I'm talking about when I say that it wouldn't hurt you to be less certain, though perhaps I phrased it badly--not to be less certain, but not to act so certain. When you act as if you're the authority on things and start passing judgment (without having actual authority), it can make you come off as very abrasive, puts people on the defensive, and in general leads to more argument and complication than is necessary.
I know that's not what you intend, and you seem a decent fellow, but you rub people wrong a lot less if you allow that you may be wrong--even when you're sure you're right.
I'm not sure how Harry's an idiot for not using a spell that's practically an instant first-law violation. I mean, it's a straight-up murder spell. Mouse stops being a social powerhouse when you remember he's a dog and compel that--then again, dogs tend to be popular and not concerned about social stigma anyway. I could totally believe an intelligent dog running circles, so to speak, around a human when it comes to getting people on its side. I'm not sure what you mean about Incite Emotion, I thought the power was pretty clearly written.
At any rate, we probably should drop this and get back to the topic of the thread.
Nah. If anyone wanted us to stop, they'd tell us to, right?Uhm, did you miss this?
If you're all bored of the argument and/or actually in agreement, do you think it would be possible to get back to discussing the original subject? *hopeful* Because I always get a bit disappointed when I see a subject with a title that really interests me not be about that subject at all... :-\
Say for instance: When would you say the "technology and magic don't mix" thing started?
and what changes do you think would be necessary to the system to set the campaign in 1875 and what would you change (if any) to set the campaign in 1960s?
You can reflect big scary claws just as well, if not better, with Claws that just make your Fists attacks weapon 2.For whatever reason, they decided to make the "big, scary" part in the power's write-up. Probably means they thought it was important to spell out.
Glad you think I'm a decent fellow, but I'm not willing to fake uncertainty. If the answer to a question is clear and objective, I'll treat it that way.It's not so much faking uncertainty as allowing the possibility that you might be wrong. Because no matter how sure you are, it's always a possibility. It's why I hedge my statements with "generally speaking," or "unless I'm mistaken," or something like that. It's a habit picked up from my profession, but it's a good one to get into anyway. It's been my experience that people don't take absolute certainty well--it makes them try to undermine it, find fault in it, and generally give you a harder time than if you'd said, "I'm reasonably sure," instead of "I'm absolutely sure you're wrong."
I don't really have the stomach for a campaign of deception, even a well-intentioned one.
Some people think that Incite Emotion lets you attack with Deceit +2, others think it lets you attack with Deceit. I subscribe to the latter view, because it's fairer. But I've got to admit that the other side has a decent RAW argument.Again, I'm not sure what the confusion is. The Lasting Emotion trapping says you get to add Weapon:2 stress to the Emotion-Touch trapping, and the Emotion Touch trapping says you roll from +2. Why would an upgrade make your rolls less effective? (i.e., easier to resist?)
Choking someone out is probably the safest way to force them into unconciousness. Blunt force trauma frequently kills, controlled suffocation rarely does. Orbius would be less lethal than any combat spell in Harry's arsenal if used right.Correction: Choking someone out is the safest way to force someone into unconsciousness if you know what you're doing. Depriving someone of air for even 10-30 seconds more than necessary is very dangerous. Knocking someone unconscious in any way is very dangerous in real life.
Magic wasn’t always screwing up post WW2 tech. Before WW2 magic had other effects. It sorta changes slowly over time, and about every 3 centuries it rolls over into something else. At one time, instead of magic making machines flip out it made cream go bad. Before that magic made weird molls on your skin and fire would burn slightly different colors when you were around it.
I'm also impressed how right people "know" they are. Historically there have been a lot of saints and sinners all of which who had such hubris. Mythology is full of such examples also.To quote the famous Dr. Thomas Lee Jones, "Imagine what you'll 'know,' tomorrow."
Psychologically speaking: people are less likely to believe or value the statements of someone who is so absolutely sure they are correct. In time their opinions (my bad: facts) become less valued.
hexing table: one idea is pretty simple. Find the table in the book. Slide the technology vs conviction table either higher or lower for the time frame/setting. It should take little time at all.Yeah, I believe that's kind of how they put it when adjusting for really really old wizards (like the one who's still put out about the civil war not going his way).
I'm impressed.
Someone changed the name of the thread due to derailment. That should send a message.
One thing to adjust for is just how much slower everything is. Nowadays, traveling 60 miles is an hour's trip (40 minutes, if you're a little nuts). Back before the 1900s, it was a day's trip. This is going to affect the scope of whole campaigns all the way down to what would be relatively simple actions nowadays.
Actually, I'd be terribly interested in opinions and suggestions for using DFRPG supernatural powers in a Science-Fiction setting... It seems that many of the powers would be suitable for use as "psionic" powers, and most of the "monster" powers could be used for creating alien races and creatures.Actually, I've done just that, for a Mega Man X-based game. Mostly, though, I suppose the powers outside of the Strength/Toughness/Speed/Recovery powers ended up being homebrewed stuff mostly based on things like Breath Weapon. The busters' charging mechanics were kind of like channeling, though.
Of course, that'll make traveling through the Nevernever that much more useful.Indeed. One gets the sense that having supernatural power was a much bigger advantage back in the day than it is now, considering among the running themes in Dresden is that modern technology is either bridging or surpassing advantages the supernatural community has had for all time up to now.
People already know I'd just play another system if that is what I wanted.
Uhm, did you miss this?
Though I have really given up at this point.
Rules, no, but some actions would have their difficulties ratcheted way up for normals--Contacts and Scholarship rolls jump to mind to account for the lack of quick communication and travel (no phones or cars) and widespread learning and the availability of information (fewer libraries, no Wikipedia).
So instead of a contacts roll having a difficulty of 3 or 4 to find out what's going on in the big city, it might have a difficulty of 6-8; putting it beyond the reach of your average mortal, but well within the bounds of a solid ritual (or bribing the local pixies).
Well, tomato-tomahto. The book suggests that unmet shifts go into the time units to make up the difference rather than a straight fail in some cases.
If the difficulty of a Contacts roll to find a piece of information is, say, 8, a mortal rolling a 5 might mean "I know just the guy, but he's a couple towns over. I can talk to him in a couple days." On the other hand, a wizard can put together a ritual for those 8 shifts and get that information by the end of the day from some willing spirit (or a trip through the Nevernever).
I was with you until the last paragraph.A difficulty 8 roll is largely up to the whims of the dice, while an 8-shift ritual is not.
Why would increasing Contacts difficulties be better for Wizards than for others? An 8-shift ritual is harder than a 4-shift one, just as a difficulty 8 roll is harder than a difficulty 4 one.