ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: eiredrake on August 03, 2012, 08:32:18 PM
-
There was a game I got to play once called Torg, a GM ran it it was the best RPG evening I ever had (I shot an m16 down the barrel of a tank and blew it up) and then I never saw the GM again.
One of the problems they had in that game was the fact that Ninjas were vastly overpowered and poorly balanced to the point where anything that was sufficient to challenge the Ninja would kill the rest of the party. Additionally, anything sufficiently challenging to challenge the Ninja would probably be able to kill him outright.
This phenomena was referred to as the Glass Jawed Ninja (http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/and-the-darkness-spoke/wikis/glass-jawed-ninja)
I think there might be a similar problem with Wizards, at least in my group and I thought I'd write in here to ask for help. I'm going to be taking over the world for the current GM for a bit, so she gets to play in her own universe. The problem with this is that we have a very varied party with a single Wizard in it. But the sort of things the Wizard has been able to do are nothing short of crazy.
In the books, Harry is always concerned that some rogue 12 year old who found a pistol is going to accidentally kill him with an errant shot. This gives him more depth as a character but it also causes him to think before he acts. This is part of the reason he likes going out with Michael or Murphy or even his brother. Because at the very least it's another body to absorb bullets and another pair of eyes watching his back.
The Wizard in our party tends to solve every problem by blasting stuff. Yes I know Harry does that too, but he does occasionally come up with another idea. At one point, a group of nasties summoned a Titan... as in 'Zeus sprang out of my head' kind of Titan...
And the Wizard in the party proceeded to use earth magic, ripe open a giant hole in a Philadelphia neighborhood so that the Titan would fall in and then closed the hole up behind them. What was probably supposed to be an epic level ass kickery scene was resolved in two minutes with the Wizard being the only person to do anything.
So my question is, how do I make things challenging enough to keep the Wizard from being Michael Jordan while the rest of us are all in pee wee basketball?
Are Wizards as vastly overpowered as they seem? Or is it just that I'm not playing a Wizard so that is coloring my perception?
This brings me to my second question... I have an idea for a 'bad guy' that I wanted to run past the forums. No specifics but instead I'll give vagueries for some input. Be nice, even if you think it is crap.
So my idea was this: Shadow People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_people).
Those vaguely human-like shapes that occasionally turn up in photographs or on Ghost hunting TV shows that usually turn out to be tricks of the light and so forth.... They're real. Not only are they real, they're intelligent, they're malevolent and they've always been able to trickle into our world. Only now they've got a way to come into our world en mass.
Trick is that, they basically 'eat' magic. Much like that troll (or was it an Ogre) in one of the Dresden files that had magic run off him like a duck these things are essentially unaffected by direct magical assault. Hitting a Shadow Person with magic, actually makes them stronger as they feed off the magic (magic is representative of the living essence of the world right?).
I figure this should make it so that Mr. Wizard isn't just going to fart and blow away the whole plot. The problem is that naturally I'll need to give them enough of a weakness so they don't just summarily eat the whole party either.
Anyone have any tips on how to handle the situation? Especially on weaknesses. I'd rather not have it be something stupid like "true love wins out" some such nonsense. True love never stopped anyone from being eaten by a hungry crocodile. And using 'light' is a little too obvious and generic. Maybe a special kind/frequency of light?
Any advise would be appreciated.
Eire
-
And the Wizard in the party proceeded to use earth magic, ripe open a giant hole in a Philadelphia neighborhood so that the Titan would fall in and then closed the hole up behind them. What was probably supposed to be an epic level ass kickery scene was resolved in two minutes with the Wizard being the only person to do anything.
I'm sorry, could you clarify exactly what happened here? The wizard had enough time to cast incredible thaumaturgy, and the Titan could do nothing about it?
-
How in the hell did a wizard whip up in two minutes a spell that ripped up that much of the ground as to kill a Titan? That seems way, way beyond what he should be able to call up with an evocation.
That said, there's a dozen ways you can keep a wizard from doing that sort of things, and compels are at the top of the heap. Even if tearing up enough earth to trap something Kratos would have to climb for 20 minutes to kill was possible, well, it's a neighborhood. Compel the wizard to say big spells are going to hurt people.
Compel the wizard to keep his big defensive items away from the fight, or to leave his staff at home.
Compel, compel, compel.
-
I'm sorry, could you clarify exactly what happened here? The wizard had enough time to cast incredible thaumaturgy, and the Titan could do nothing about it?
Well the Titan was in the process of being summoned and was inside a big honking circle. The Wizard's recommendation was to wait until the thing was already here and broke through the circle and then basically knock it in the hole then close the hole up after it. I suspect the GM was also tired as it was about 1am when this was going on.
-
How in the hell did a wizard whip up in two minutes a spell that ripped up that much of the ground as to kill a Titan? That seems way, way beyond what he should be able to call up with an evocation.
That said, there's a dozen ways you can keep a wizard from doing that sort of things, and compels are at the top of the heap. Even if tearing up enough earth to trap something Kratos would have to climb for 20 minutes to kill was possible, well, it's a neighborhood. Compel the wizard to say big spells are going to hurt people.
Compel the wizard to keep his big defensive items away from the fight, or to leave his staff at home.
Compel, compel, compel.
He didn't actually kill it. He just sorta removed it from the area. If anything I would have though it would have A. drawn an enormous amount of attention. B. Did a massive amount of property damage and C. Had blood and other viscera shooting out of every hole in the wizard's body. But none of that happened. I don't even think he got any stress.
-
He didn't actually kill it. He just sorta removed it from the area. If anything I would have though it would have A. drawn an enormous amount of attention. B. Did a massive amount of property damage and C. Had blood and other viscera shooting out of every hole in the wizard's body. But none of that happened. I don't even think he got any stress.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it sounds like the GM was entirely asleep at the wheel. That's not at all the way the system is supposed to work.
I mean, seriously, what were the mechanics involved? What kind of spell did he cast?
-
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it sounds like the GM was entirely asleep at the wheel. That's not at all the way the system is supposed to work.
I mean, seriously, what were the mechanics involved? What kind of spell did he cast?
Well we're all kinda new to the system over all. It's possible the GM wasn't quite up to speed yet. As far as what spell he cast, I don't really know. I record every session, so I can go back and review the recording and see if I can find out. I know he made a dice roll and he got something obnoxiously high. Beyond that I don't remember except that it happened and I remember thinking 'A Titan goes down with one punch wtf?'
-
New to the system or not, that's ridiculous. As you said, that kind of thing can't happen without people noticing, property damage, and massive backlash.
-
Plus, any Titan worth the name likely has Epic Might score, Mythic Strength power, and Hulking Size. It should dig itself out in no time.
-
Sounds like the GM dropped the ball on an epic scale on that one. Even as thaumaturgy that would take an insane amount of power to call up. If done in that way, the fight could of been interesting with the rest of the group trying to keep the Titan busy while the wizard called up power for the spell.
As evocation, I'm not even sure a senior council member could pull that off out of nowhere. Something like that is death curse territory.
I have a wizard, a pyromancer, a bastard child of denarian, a spell slinger/brawler hybrid, and a pure mortal in my group. Thy haven't fought anything tougher than a pack of ghouls with machine guns. Everyone has had their time to shine. The wizard haven't overshadowed anyone.
-
I tend to believe that a large part of what causes the perception that spellflingers are OP is that GMs let them get away with too much. There's a key step in adjudicating how many shifts of power a given effect requires, and if the GM says "Sure, digging a 50-ft crater in the street behind the titan counts as a 3-shift evocation maneuver to place There's a hole in the ground behind you on the Titan", then you're liable to get a people claiming magic is too buff. (Note that I don't know how you statted the spell, so consider this an arbitrary example.) This issue can be fixed by recalibrating the shift adjudication to something that makes more sense to the party.
The second issue with wizards has to to with the lax rules for Thaumaturgy which makes it too easy to perform massive rituals. This has been discussed at length elsewhere, so I'll leave it at that.
Beyond that, I think that the best way to balance wizards vs everything else is by limits on preparation time. Wizards can do amazing things given time to prepare and rest up between fights. I think you'll find that encounters that the wizards is unable to prepare for or that are longer (ie, that force the wizard to fill up his mental track) will tend to shift the tactical focus to the non-spellflingers.
-
So my question is, how do I make things challenging enough to keep the Wizard from being Michael Jordan while the rest of us are all in pee wee basketball?
Are Wizards as vastly overpowered as they seem? Or is it just that I'm not playing a Wizard so that is coloring my perception?
Wizards are powerful, spellcasters in general are more powerful than other archetypes. But I suspect they've been given more of a free reign to do 'great things' in your game than the system strictly supports.
Evocation is limited by mental stress. Extend scenes on occasion and your wizard will be (figuratively) gasping for breath while the others are still going strong. Thaumaturgy requires symbolic links. Never allow that requirement to be bypassed or even to become too easy. Beyond those items, wizardry requires heavy investment in skills. Social scenes, investigation, research, hacking, breaking and entering, and other challenges which aren't easily solved by a spell will help shine the spotlight on others in the group.
Anyone have any tips on how to handle the situation? Especially on weaknesses. I'd rather not have it be something stupid like "true love wins out" some such nonsense. True love never stopped anyone from being eaten by a hungry crocodile. And using 'light' is a little too obvious and generic. Maybe a special kind/frequency of light?
I'd be curious to see how you've written up your shadow people. Are you using toughness or immunity? That's when you really need a weakness / catch. If all it does is 'eat magic' the weakness / catch is easy - everything else.
-
I'll add my voice to the chorus saying you're playing the game wrong. Wizards can't just drop titans like that.
Now, Wizards are very powerful. And there are legitimate arguments to be made claiming that they're overpowered.
But your example is just way out there. Especially the bit about not taking stress...even weak evocations involve taking stress.
Going by the actual rules, here's how you keep wizards in line:
-Limit thaumaturgy somehow. Either use a homebrew fix or just exercise the GM's right to dictate how long a ritual takes. By the RAW a 200 shift ritual doesn't have to take longer than a 10 shift one, but you can and should change that. You don't even have to change the rules, you just have to use GM discretion the way Evil Hat seems to have assumed people would.
-Don't allow social/mental attacks with evocation, which is sort of a houserule and sort of RAW.
-Pretend Orbius does not exist. Just trust me on this one.
-Keep the weaknesses of wizards in mind. They can only cast a limited number of times per scene, they lack Speed and
Toughness, their skills are tied up in magical stuff. So they tend to have trouble in social scenes, very long fight scenes, and very short fight scenes.
-Encourage other players to optimize a bit. Wizards are sort of optimized by default, as long as they stick to one element and keep their casting skills high. Everything in the template is useful and it all fits well together. So to compete, other PCs should also have decent builds.
As for the Shadow People, they sound like a good idea to me. UmbraLux is right about the Catch, and if you're interested then there's plenty of anti-magic stuff on the Custom Power list.
-
There are many, many things that a wizard can't do - and shouldn't think of doing. A good example is when Harry found a string of numbers. When I read that passage, my first thought was a GPS location - but Harry's wasn't. Harry doesn't know GPS or much about the technological world.
When he needs to know something, he doesn't hit Wikipedia. He doesn't do google searches. He doesn't have a smart phone (or any cell device). He doesn't run spreadsheets to analyses... well, anything. He doesn't even have a bank card or credit card (because his field blanks the magnetic strip) so if he needs something and doesn't have the cash in his pocket, then he's screwed.
Think about how technology impacts us everyday - and imagine how it must be to be cut off from that.
Which is why Harry calls Murphy when he needs something looked up, or Billy, or Butters - he's not a completely self reliant character. Sure, he's great in a fight, but he can't do it all by himself.
Plot points for non-wizards?
The clue in on a cell phone (or jump drive).
They need information on a non-magical subject - and most of the ways of getting information are online. Even libraries are ditching their card catalogs in favour of computerised listing.
The plot a skill that isn't Discipline, Lore, or Conviction. Few wizards will have anything except those at the top of the pyramid. Contacts, Resources, Burglary, Investigation, Scholarship - all are useful and usually mastered by non-wizards.
The Bad Guy is surrounded by innocent bystanders - maybe invoking them as cover. One missed spell and innocents get hit - and that can lead to lawbreaker.
(Note: regardless of who picks the taken out effects, the PC shouldn't be positive that his "I use this to kill Red Court Vampires" rote won't kill a bystander.)
Richard
-
Wizards will excel at any sort of combat with "one big bad dude". They get to unleash their awesome all at one target, repeatedly.
They will fall behind in multicombatant scenarios. When there are say, seven, eight or nine targets pinging at the group he wont necessarily have the resources to take them all down by himself. It becomes very dangerous since he will be exposed to multiple attacks per attack he does. This means he'll have to expend resources on keeping himself alive and fighting the enemies.
This is where non-wizards can really shine. They aren't necessarily limited by a resource mechanic in the same way that a wizard is, so they can rather carelessly attack while the wizard will have to pick and choose his targets. This gives everybody nice spotlight time. (IE: A Bunch of 3 refresh nasties, if you have four players at refresh 10, thats 40 refresh for a nice challenge. 13 Opponents is a nice sized bout.)
When you do have to introduce a "Big Hulking Bad Brute Thing" into the mix, try to give it some "Pee Wee" support. You will want to organize the playing field in such a way that they aren't all in the same zone. (IE: The Ick and some Red Court Infected/Vamps as support.)
Do not be shy about limiting downtime. A wizard will recoup his resources between every scene, so sometimes an extended scene should be called for, a protracted fight makes wizards very very nervous. (IE: Chase scenes, where the group is fleeing something bad.)
You can "pre-challenge" the wizard before a knock down drag out fight as well, and this is a nice way to give the wizard a "moment" while also limiting his impact in the combat encounter. A mystical roadblock that only he can nullify means he will come into the fight a little tired to begin with. (IE: Opening a way into the nevernever before getting to the battlefield.)
Arranging things so that the wizard will have to deal with a threat while the other players deal with the combatants is another great way to make sure that everybody gets to shine. Perhaps the wizard has to perform a ritual "under fire" while the rest of the group defends him. (IE: He has to dismantle a spell in progress while the caster's mooks are opening fire on him and his companions)
Creatures which have an effect on the mental stress track are *absolutely terrifying* opponents for wizards. Suddenly the wizard is Defending himself from physical attack, attacking, and getting mentally attack all at the same time. That's three types of resource drain at once. This can be dangerous though since other character types are usually less robust in the mental defense area.
Environmental Hazards can play a big part in limiting a wizard's effectiveness as well. If your wizard is constantly throwing about fireballs then peppering the scene with highly flammable materials is a great way to discourage him from being brash. It is completely fair that if the wizard Nukes something so hard core that there are 3 or more shifts of excess that that remaining energy does *something* bad to the scene (like setting the aforementioned flammable objects ablaze).
Purely mundane human opponents can also give a wizard pause. Lawbreaking is a big deal and that will limit his options dramatically. Give those same humans otherworldly support and they can easily become a viable threat even without the lawbreaking limitations. (IE: A Fae sorcerer gave them very effective glamour armor and weapons, or someone like Cowl is doing a Regeneration spell on them like the Ghouls in the Deeps in White Knight).
-
They will fall behind in multicombatant scenarios. When there are say, seven, eight or nine targets pinging at the group he wont necessarily have the resources to take them all down by himself.
Just make sure not to put all the targets in one zone or in zones without allies in them.
Zone Evocations are really good.
-
It might be an idea to consider giving your big bad shagnasties Physical immunity against mortal magic, like Ogres. This forces the Wizard to do other stuff than just nuking them (maneuvers that do not directly affect the monster, clearing out mooks, etc.), allows the other party members a chance to shine while taking them down, and keeps things interesting.
-
It might be an idea to consider giving your big bad shagnasties Physical immunity against mortal magic, like Ogres. This forces the Wizard to do other stuff than just nuking them (maneuvers that do not directly affect the monster, clearing out mooks, etc.), allows the other party members a chance to shine while taking them down, and keeps things interesting.
Exactly, you just have to get clever. Though I would suggest NOT falling back on the "it's immune to magic" tactic too often. It becomes very obvious to the players that you're deliberately trying to hamstring the wizards. Players start to not have fun if they feel they are constantly being handicapped.
Variety is the key. For example my last session had my players in a cargo van trying to escape a pack of Black Dogs. At the bottom of every exchange the npc driver would make a driving skill roll. The group needed to accumulate 10 shifts of movement to escape the dogs. At the top of every exchange I would roll to see how many new dogs joined the fight. They were easy to take out, but they would never stop coming. More would join every exchange. I also gave the van a stress track and consequences, so the dogs could attack the van directly.
This forced every player to get very creative, not just the magic users. As it didn't matter how many mooks were killed, they had to play defensive and really work maneuvers and declarations to keep the vehicle safe.
-
In both the games I'm running, there's two wizards, so finding ways to keep them from incinerating everything that opposes them is a fairly common practice. There's a few solid ways to go about it:
A. Yes, making enemies immune to magic--but what I've done twice is made it so that the villains are deliberately doing this in response to the PCs and their previous exploits. In one case, it was a BCV who procured an anti-magic amulet explicitly because she expected one of the wizards to interfere with her plans, the other time a fae sent an Ogre to kidnap a specific wizard.
B. Put them in a situation where they can't use their magic (or to the full extent). Compel them to say they can't cast above a certain power rating or else the human mooks will die. Use hostages. Or just plain wear them out beforehand. In one of my games, the kidnapped wizard spent the whole of the last battle with thorned manacles on her wrists, preventing her from using any magic at all. So the player got creative, jumped on the enemy wizard's back, and choked him out with them for the duration of the fight. In another, I sent a handful of ghouls and RCVs at a pair of wizards so when the big demon showed up, they'd both taken physical and mental stress and had to fight smart.
C. Just throw really big things at them. Even a strong Submerged wizard is going to have trouble against something with 10 stress boxes and Armor 2 or 3. Even moreso if it's got a defense skill worth a damn. That way they'll have to spend a few turns either on defense or maneuvering to get the advantage needed to score a real hit.
D. Compel away their items, especially if they have rotes tied into them. Tell the Warden he can't get his sword into the Red Court nightclub. Tell the little spitfire of a wizardess that no, the Winter Lady isn't going to like it very much if she takes her fire-spewing staff into the private meeting.
-
In both the games I'm running, there's two wizards, so finding ways to keep them from incinerating everything that opposes them is a fairly common practice. There's a few solid ways to go about it:
A. Yes, making enemies immune to magic--but what I've done twice is made it so that the villains are deliberately doing this in response to the PCs and their previous exploits. In one case, it was a BCV who procured an anti-magic amulet explicitly because she expected one of the wizards to interfere with her plans, the other time a fae sent an Ogre to kidnap a specific wizard.
B. Put them in a situation where they can't use their magic (or to the full extent). Compel them to say they can't cast above a certain power rating or else the human mooks will die. Use hostages. Or just plain wear them out beforehand. In one of my games, the kidnapped wizard spent the whole of the last battle with thorned manacles on her wrists, preventing her from using any magic at all. So the player got creative, jumped on the enemy wizard's back, and choked him out with them for the duration of the fight. In another, I sent a handful of ghouls and RCVs at a pair of wizards so when the big demon showed up, they'd both taken physical and mental stress and had to fight smart.
C. Just throw really big things at them. Even a strong Submerged wizard is going to have trouble against something with 10 stress boxes and Armor 2 or 3. Even moreso if it's got a defense skill worth a damn. That way they'll have to spend a few turns either on defense or maneuvering to get the advantage needed to score a real hit.
D. Compel away their items, especially if they have rotes tied into them. Tell the Warden he can't get his sword into the Red Court nightclub. Tell the little spitfire of a wizardess that no, the Winter Lady isn't going to like it very much if she takes her fire-spewing staff into the private meeting.
These are all good ideas. another idea I had was tailoring the environment to the caster - if your player deals with his problems by chucking fireballs at them, give them an enemy that they can easily nuke, in an environment that makes that not the best idea. Either they show restraint - 'It might not be a good idea to chuck fireballs around in this public park', or they don't - 'Congratulations, you've just incinerated that ghoul. You've also set half the park on fire. Might be a good idea to try and evacuate the park to avoid a Lawbreaker power and/or attention from the Wardens. Consider the environmental consequences of an attack next time'.
-
I have to agree with JDK002, it would be a very bad idea to start using 'immune to magic" as your default in dealing with a pc wizard. But then, if you design your story where a hammer will fix every problem... its not really the fault of the player. Yet even I have problems, like this weekend when my group stole a shipping container that had three Red Courts imprisoned within. The PC Wizard just went from using the Sight, into power level 8, 'I'm heating it up'. Of course, that was just before another player chimed in with the suggestion that putting the container in a circle may have not been the wisest move since magic could the thing that keep these three vamps secured. And he added, there could be mortals in there as well as a food source.
I used the circle/magic, but not the mortal happy meals idea.
Or you could use the RAW about damage to property even with everything goes off right. And plus, being the big gun in a group will get him the bullseye with a repeat opponent.
But if all of this still doesn't work... go nuclear, and give him a white court girlfriend.
-
Another solution would be to allow reactive evocation blocks and use NPC spellcasters to shut down the PC wizard's powers once in a while. As others have said, mortal opponents could also represent a threat that can't be magi-nuked. If your PC doesn't care about the Laws, throw him against some badass Wardens.
There's a bunch of ways to avoid this problem. You just have to think outside th box a little.
-
Wizards have good attacks, but weak defences unless they Craft.
So a fight where defense is all-important really sucks for your average Wizard.
A good example of such a fight would be an ambush from an Evoker with Inhuman Speed.
The evoker drops a zone attack from hiding, then does it again when the fight proper starts. Then he gets gibbed, because he has no actual defences.
The wizard, lacking Speed, can't do anything here except take hits.
His Inhumanly fast and strong team-mate, however, is both better equipped to weather the attacks and more likely to act before the second attack.
And the mortal on the team can afford to Invoke his way away from the attacks.
Best thing is, this doesn't look like an anti-Wizard tactic at all. But it kinda is one.
PS: This (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,32477.msg1431046.html#msg1431046) seems relevant.
-
Attack their precious items! A mortal can get a new gun, or have a backup. A wizard who gets his staff shattered? He needs to wait for a chance to fix it. (And no, items don't take consequences.) Yes, its a bit mean, but hey it works. And unless you do go after their items, points spent on them are much more effective than anything else so you shouldn't let them have free power.
-
Attack their precious items! A mortal can get a new gun, or have a backup. A wizard who gets his staff shattered? He needs to wait for a chance to fix it. (And no, items don't take consequences.) Yes, its a bit mean, but hey it works.
Just be sure they are compelled to lose the items (getting them FPs or allowing them to buy-off), don't just fiat "Wizard, the villain snaps your staff in twain." Your players will hate you so fast your head will spin if you pull that shit.
And unless you do go after their items, points spent on them are much more effective than anything else so you shouldn't let them have free power.
The problem is that yes, at high refresh, foci/item slots are the most powerful way to spend refresh. This is a design flaw in the game. As such, we know experienced players will see it as the best option and take it. If we, as GMs, constantly spank them for this choice, it punishes them for making good choices. Don't overuse this.
-
Too true, I would say that goes with any tactic to make wizards play smart instead of just firing giant blasts of death at any problem you toss at them. Keep it mixed up and keep it interesting. If you're constantly challenging your wizards instead of outright punishing them they they will actually have more fun than if you just let them blow everything sky high.
My one wizard player has actually been doing this for me thankfully. My team is dealing with an extremely powerful psychomancer with an item of power that amplifies all his magic. My wizards idea? Set up a ritual that seals off all the magic in the area, including his own, because he knows he can take the bad guy out in a straight up brawl.
-
I agree with Orladdin on some points and disagree on others. I think if you want to take a focus item from a player "just because" (they forgot it/the bad guy just randomly breaks it etc.) the it should be a compel and they should be able to refuse. However, there are plenty of circumstances where it is appropriate to force them to give up their magic items, and these circumstances may not be a compel (in fact it may be a compel on a crotchety wizard to make him want to keep his focus item). For example, you go to meet with the winter lady, you bring your staff, the goon outside the club she is in tells you to ditch it (the book specifically says that larger focus/enchanted items are easy to detect as magical by anyone who can sense that kind of thing or has a high lore skill), in this case the wizard can comply, or he can fight a whole ton of fae goons and not get his meeting. If a fight just happens to break out between other factions...
I also disagree on the subject of punishing good choices. I don't feel that picking the most efficient option is always a "good" choice. It is generally a better choice to pick the more flavorful option. If a wizard was just picking up stronger and stronger foci just because it was the "best option" (read: most powerful option) I would have no problem compelling them out of fate points or setting up situations where they cant bring their items on occasion. If they had a good reason for it or it was cool of them to have their stuff (in a narrative sense) then I would be more reluctant to take that away.
I also don't think making foci/items the best way to spend refresh for wizards is a design flaw. I think it was a purposeful choice. The wizard could go the slower/more expensive (because of the pyramid) route of picking up internalized specializations, or he could go the quicker/cheaper route of making items. This is a trade off, do you go for more power or more reliability?
In most games, the GM has the same type of opinion you do. They think focus items were an over site/flaw and are just better and we shouldn't punish smart players. I think they did it on purpose, and that the reason foci are more powerful is because you will occasionally loose access to them. The player accepted the fact that he will loose access to some part of his power sometimes when he chose to go with foci instead of specializations.
-
For example, you go to meet with the winter lady, you bring your staff, the goon outside the club she is in tells you to ditch it (the book specifically says that larger focus/enchanted items are easy to detect as magical by anyone who can sense that kind of thing or has a high lore skill), in this case the wizard can comply, or he can fight a whole ton of fae goons and not get his meeting. If a fight just happens to break out between other factions...
I'd say that is the compel. The compel is not "you lose your magic items," it's "the goon isn't going to let you in with those," meaning the player has options--comply, refuse, fight, or negotiate.
Maybe you have to browbeat the goon, causing the Winter Lady to start off hostile. Maybe you negotiate, but end up taking Social consequences in the meantime. Maybe you fight and a whole big brawl breaks out.
Compels should be, in my opinion, more about having the players adapt to and respond to the situation, rather than just taking something away and bribing with a fate point.
I also don't think making foci/items the best way to spend refresh for wizards is a design flaw. I think it was a purposeful choice. The wizard could go the slower/more expensive (because of the pyramid) route of picking up internalized specializations, or he could go the quicker/cheaper route of making items. This is a trade off, do you go for more power or more reliability?
Also don't forget that while Specializations apply broadly to just an element's power or control, focus item slots have to be specialized to only offense or defense. A +1 specialization to Power in Fire is more efficient than having to spend two slots to get +1 fire offensive power and +1 fire defensive power.
In most games, the GM has the same type of opinion you do. They think focus items were an over site/flaw and are just better and we shouldn't punish smart players. I think they did it on purpose, and that the reason foci are more powerful is because you will occasionally loose access to them. The player accepted the fact that he will loose access to some part of his power sometimes when he chose to go with foci instead of specializations.
Similar in principle to Items of Power, really.
-
I'd say that is the compel. The compel is not "you lose your magic items," it's "the goon isn't going to let you in with those," meaning the player has options--comply, refuse, fight, or negotiate.
I agree, I would like to make any situation where a characters life is more complicated a compel, but what happens in this case when the player buys off that compel? I am still not going to let him in with his staff just because he refused my compel.
The problem here is that as a GM I am not prepared for what happens when they refuse. It is kind of like what the book says about skill checks. For any skill check there has to be an interesting thing that happens for success (like advancing the story) and an interesting that happens for failure (you have to find another way/you get in but the cops are coming). If you aren't prepared to deal with what happens when the PC's fail/succeed to break in to the safe house, you shouldn't call for a roll, just say it happens or it doesn't.
Similarly, if I don't think it makes any sense for the wizard to just walk in the front door with his staff in hand, I am not going to accept him buying off the compel, so I shouldn't really be compelling him. The book is pretty clear (and it is good gaming sense) that when you accept/buy off a compel it is over. You don't accept a compel to get arrested and then get to have opposed athletics with the cops to run away before they get you in the car. Similarly, if you buy it off you get to escape, you bought of the compel, the cops just don't show up till a few minutes after you are gone.
Basically, in this case, I expect that the character either gives up his staff, or he has to get into some sort of conflict (on contest) to talk his way in/sneak it in or something. I would like to know how other people would deal with this type of situation. A compel that couldn't be bought out of would be good (but that is basically just giving the wizard a fate point, not a compel), do people use that method?
-
... A compel that couldn't be bought out of would be good (but that is basically just giving the wizard a fate point, not a compel), do people use that method?
Some do, yeah, but many people consider it a "bribe" and suggest that it feels like a softer kind of railroading.
I'd say suggesting a contest is a perfectly realistic option, sure. The wizard can attack/negotiate/mind-bend the bouncer into letting him in with his staff.
-
I agree, I would like to make any situation where a characters life is more complicated a compel, but what happens in this case when the player buys off that compel? I am still not going to let him in with his staff just because he refused my compel.
Depends on the compel and why you had it happen--were you planning on a fight you wanted him to be handicapped for? Him to be intimidated because he lacks his usual defenses when facing the Winter Lady?
If he buys out of it, whatever complication you were aiming for doesn't come into play, and you have to play to the situation and improvise.
In this case, maybe the wizard can convince the goon without consequence--or the Winter Lady comes out and says, "Hey, Goon, quit wasting time and just let him in here, I'm not afraid of some mortal wizard's staff". The possibilities are endless.
-
Depends on the compel and why you had it happen--were you planning on a fight you wanted him to be handicapped for? Him to be intimidated because he lacks his usual defenses when facing the Winter Lady?
If he buys out of it, whatever complication you were aiming for doesn't come into play, and you have to play to the situation and improvise.
In this case, maybe the wizard can convince the goon without consequence--or the Winter Lady comes out and says, "Hey, Goon, quit wasting time and just let him in here, I'm not afraid of some mortal wizard's staff". The possibilities are endless.
This is precisely why (as I explained in the rest of my post) I would not do this scenario as a compel. Of course I could make up some reason why he got past if he refuses, but I don't want it to be that easy.
I like Orladdin's point that instead of a compel you just say "I'm making your life more complicated by banning foci from the presence of the Winter Lady, have a fate point." But as he mentioned, it is pretty similar to just doing it without a compel of any sort.
Back on topic:
Basically, if the GM wants to handicap a wizard they think is too powerful, they can go for the items. Obviously this shouldn't be something that happens every scene, but it could be fairly common. If you don't want it to look like a punishment you could make it a compel, or if you want to make sure it sticks you could just do it and then pay them off a fate point.
-
This is precisely why (as I explained in the rest of my post) I would not do this scenario as a compel. Of course I could make up some reason why he got past if he refuses, but I don't want it to be that easy.
I wouldn't call it 'easy'--fate points are valuable, remember, and that's a two-point swing to buy off any compel. If you really want to push it, escalate as the book suggests. The fate point(s) he spends to hold onto his staff might be better used on a dodge roll to keep him from being beaten into paste.
Fair's fair. If you're offering a fate point, the player should be able to spend one to refuse the compel.
-
Sometimes the fae at the door just wont let you take that staff in. If he sees it (stealth roll?) and you don't beat him in a social conflict (convince him its not magic somehow/make him more scarred of you than of the Winter Lady/be his best buddy) or just take him down, he wont let you by.
The problem here is that as a GM I am not prepared for what happens when they refuse. It is kind of like what the book says about skill checks. For any skill check there has to be an interesting thing that happens for success (like advancing the story) and an interesting that happens for failure (you have to find another way/you get in but the cops are coming). If you aren't prepared to deal with what happens when the PC's fail/succeed to break in to the safe house, you shouldn't call for a roll, just say it happens or it doesn't.
In this case, if the compel succeeds great, the wizard doesn't have his staff. But what if he buys it off? I am not just going to let him in. It is worth more than 1 to 3 fate points to me. Maybe it is a huge part of the narrative. It is either resolved via him loosing his staff or a conflict/contest.
I could just say "No, you cant get it through peacefully" and be done with it. But that just feels bad. That's why you offer the "half-compel."
Also, it isn't a 2 point swing. It is 2 points different that if he had accepted the compel, but it isn't 2 points different than the starting point. Also, I think you are overvaluing fate points. That staff probably gives upwards of +2 power and +1 control, so if they cast even 1 spell that hits they have more than payed off that fate point.
In this case it isn't about being fair, it is about providing a challenge for a wizard who is too strong in your game, and one way to do that is to limit access to his items. It isn't about fair, it is about handicapping the wizard in a graceful way and I think paying him a fate point to ditch his staff or fight about it is fairly graceful as these things go (compare to adding in magic immune monsters...)
-
The game isn't just about what the GM wants. The FATE system for this game is built around giving the players agency to directly affect the story, and fate points are the currency of that.
Yes, there's a place for GM fiat, but frankly, if the player has fate points and is willing to spend them, they should be able to. As GM, it's your responsibility to be able to adapt, not say, "I'm not prepared for what happens when they refuse, therefore they can't refuse." That is, plain and simple, railroading.
There is always a way around things. Fate points exist specifically to make those things happen. If "the fae at the door just won't let you take that staff in," that's the compel. If the player spends the fate point, then there is a way to get the staff in. That's the RAW.
And yes, that's exactly what "two point swing" means. It means a two-point difference between end results, not from the starting point--either you take the compel, in which case you're at +1 fate points, or you buy out and you're at -1.
-
Let us attempt a different example because I think you are getting caught up on the specifics here.
Lets say a pure mortal character who is skilled in guns (multiple guns stunts etc.) goes to an airport. Do you give them a compel to give up/not take their gun through security? What if they refuse? Do they get to spend 1 fate point and get their loaded gun past the security officers and metal detectors and x-rays? My point here is that in some circumstances buying out of this type of compel makes no sense at all (maybe people have gotten guns past security, I prefer to think that that is not something you can do easily).
Maybe you think it is railroading to force characters to fight inside security at an airport, fine. But sometimes the narrative demands such an encounter and sometimes this is the method the GM has chosen to use to make the fight a bit more difficult/complicated. Of course if the PCs came up with some excellent way to get around this problem they get to do it, that's the fun part of FATE. But when all they need to do to get out of it is spend a fate point and say "The guards are dumb and don't notice" that's not interesting.
Also, they are not loosing out on 2 fate points by buying out. They are paying 1 point to act in some way contrary to the narrative and not taking advantage of the GM's generosity on the other fate point. The GM is not required to hand out fate points when your life is hard, they choose to when you get in a sticky spot because of your character's flavor or they want to make 'railroading' seem more palatable (but this argument is silly, shouldn't have brought it up).
-
Let us attempt a different example because I think you are getting caught up on the specifics here.
Lets say a pure mortal character who is skilled in guns (multiple guns stunts etc.) goes to an airport. Do you give them a compel to give up/not take their gun through security? What if they refuse? Do they get to spend 1 fate point and get their loaded gun past the security officers and metal detectors and x-rays? My point here is that in some circumstances buying out of this type of compel makes no sense at all (maybe people have gotten guns past security, I prefer to think that that is not something you can do easily).
Maybe you think it is railroading to force characters to fight inside security at an airport, fine. But sometimes the narrative demands such an encounter and sometimes this is the method the GM has chosen to use to make the fight a bit more difficult/complicated. Of course if the PCs came up with some excellent way to get around this problem they get to do it, that's the fun part of FATE. But when all they need to do to get out of it is spend a fate point and say "The guards are dumb and don't notice" that's not interesting.
Also, they are not loosing out on 2 fate points by buying out. They are paying 1 point to act in some way contrary to the narrative and not taking advantage of the GM's generosity on the other fate point. The GM is not required to hand out fate points when your life is hard, they choose to when you get in a sticky spot because of your character's flavor or they want to make 'railroading' seem more palatable (but this argument is silly, shouldn't have brought it up).
Really I don't see why this is a compel, the character doesn't choose to have the airport security there, it like compelling a wizard to have it rain yes it hinders the wizards casting but the wizards doesn't have any way to affect whether it rains or not (other than magic).
-
I would also argue that if the narratve of yur entire session is ruined because one player decides to buy out of one compel, then the GM didn't think things through very well.
Bit as far as the example we've been going with, I wouldn't treat it as a compel as it doesn't really fit the narrative. I would treat it as toucan either gve up you weapons and enter, or you can get into a socal conflict, possbly tale consequences, them deal with whatever happens when you get in which could be yet another conflict.
-
Let us attempt a different example because I think you are getting caught up on the specifics here.
Lets say a pure mortal character who is skilled in guns (multiple guns stunts etc.) goes to an airport. Do you give them a compel to give up/not take their gun through security? What if they refuse? Do they get to spend 1 fate point and get their loaded gun past the security officers and metal detectors and x-rays? My point here is that in some circumstances buying out of this type of compel makes no sense at all (maybe people have gotten guns past security, I prefer to think that that is not something you can do easily).
I would compel along the lines of, "The security stuff is going to be a problem." If they spend the fate point, then yes, it won't be a problem--a good player will help you come up with a reason for that. Maybe they can bribe someone. Maybe the person at the X-Ray machine is asleep at the wheel. Maybe it's not a problem because they can get another gun the second shit goes down.
Maybe you think it is railroading to force characters to fight inside security at an airport, fine. But sometimes the narrative demands such an encounter and sometimes this is the method the GM has chosen to use to make the fight a bit more difficult/complicated. Of course if the PCs came up with some excellent way to get around this problem they get to do it, that's the fun part of FATE. But when all they need to do to get out of it is spend a fate point and say "The guards are dumb and don't notice" that's not interesting.
"The narrative demands" = Railroading. You have to work with your players to make sure it's interesting, not just disallow something entirely because you don't think it should happen.
Also, they are not loosing out on 2 fate points by buying out. They are paying 1 point to act in some way contrary to the narrative and not taking advantage of the GM's generosity on the other fate point. The GM is not required to hand out fate points when your life is hard, they choose to when you get in a sticky spot because of your character's flavor or they want to make 'railroading' seem more palatable (but this argument is silly, shouldn't have brought it up).
Thinking of buying out of a compel is "contrary to the narrative" is the wrong way of going about it in my opinion. The narrative includes the players' decisions, not just the GM. You're not just telling a story here--you're providing a framework for the players to help create their story.
Really I don't see why this is a compel, the character doesn't choose to have the airport security there, it like compelling a wizard to have it rain yes it hinders the wizards casting but the wizards doesn't have any way to affect whether it rains or not (other than magic).
Because you're looking at what a compel is the wrong way. A compel is about player choice, not character choice.
I would also argue that if the narratve of yur entire session is ruined because one player decides to buy out of one compel, then the GM didn't think things through very well.
Truth.
Bit as far as the example we've been going with, I wouldn't treat it as a compel as it doesn't really fit the narrative. I would treat it as toucan either gve up you weapons and enter, or you can get into a socal conflict, possbly tale consequences, them deal with whatever happens when you get in which could be yet another conflict.
That's still a compel--something about the character (he needs his foci) or the situation (someone doesn't want him bringing foci in) is creating a complication where otherwise there would be none. In either way, the 'no foci allowed' is complicating the character's life, and that's exactly what compels are for.
-
Yeah I was thinking about it after I posted. If the players decided to get into a conflict over it, I would probably give a fate point. Even though I wasn't exactly directly compelling an aspect. As in that case even though they get to enter with all their weapons they still may have taken some consequences and are therefor weakened. Which is what I wanted in the first place.
-
The problem is that yes, at high refresh, foci/item slots are the most powerful way to spend refresh. This is a design flaw in the game. As such, we know experienced players will see it as the best option and take it. If we, as GMs, constantly spank them for this choice, it punishes them for making good choices. Don't overuse this.
I don't see the usefulness of foci as a flaw. It doesn't damage the game, so far as I can tell.
(The power level of magic and its spending cap are another matter.)
I agree with you about GM spanking though.
-
Lets say a pure mortal character who is skilled in guns (multiple guns stunts etc.) goes to an airport. Do you give them a compel to give up/not take their gun through security? What if they refuse? Do they get to spend 1 fate point and get their loaded gun past the security officers and metal detectors and x-rays? My point here is that in some circumstances buying out of this type of compel makes no sense at all ...
I think you're looking at buy-outs the wrong way-- it's not that the character "get[s to take] their loaded gun past the security officers," they don't (generally) just walk by unnoticed; it's that some story element allowing them to bypass that hurdle comes into play. It's generally up to the player or the table to come up with the reasoning behind the buy-out.
In the above case, simply telling the characters that they won't be able to get by the checkpoint with armaments thorugh normal means isn't unreasonable. It's an airport. They had no reason to believe they would be able to. A meeting of supernaturals is another matter.
I assume you took issue with the initial scenario because it lacks ready-made, out-of-the-box narrative flavor? There's no immediately obvious reason why it happened?
How about this, then: To use the above example, my players would probably swing into a mens' room bordering the checkpoint wall and declare that the hard-wall doesn't go above the ceiling tiles, store the gun up there, bypass the checkpoint, and then recover the gun on the other side. They generally had to spend fate points to do this (if they wanted to do it relatively quickly; otherwise skill checks to get blueprints to the airport for finding such a security flaw, etc).
The airport checkpoint would usually be enough to trigger them making declarations to get around it. Declarations using fate points. See how that works? Same end result, different way to get there.
The key point is: don't set your mind against them finding some way to do it. If your players want something bad enough and are willing to work for it, they should generally get it.
[Some words]
I agree with everything you said.
I don't see the usefulnes of foci as a flaw. It doesn't damage the game, so far as I can tell.
If you were in Centarion's camp, though, you would think it damages the game. It's too good of an option. Foci is one of the primary ways that wizards so drastically outstrip mortals in high-refresh games.
(The power level of magic and its spending cap are another matter.)
But that ties directly into the power level of magic. It's an option in the core rules that significantly increases magical output and capability. It's also significantly more potent, point-for-point of refresh, than any other option in the game.
I agree with you about GM spanking though.
I'm not surprised. You've got a good head on your shoulders even though we don't always agree on things. Most good GMs and modern game designers would agree with us on that principle. Game theory has come a long way in the last 30 years.
-
I assume you took issue with the initial scenario because it lacks ready-made, out-of-the-box narrative flavor? There's no immediately obvious reason why it happened?
How about this, then: To use the above example, my players would probably swing into a mens' room bordering the checkpoint wall and declare that the hard-wall doesn't go above the ceiling tiles, store the gun up there, bypass the checkpoint, and then recover the gun on the other side. They generally had to spend fate points to do this (if they wanted to do it relatively quickly; otherwise skill checks to get blueprints to the airport for finding such a security flaw, etc).
The airport checkpoint would usually be enough to trigger them making declarations to get around it. Declarations using fate points. See how that works? Same end result, different way to get there.
The key point is: don't set your mind against them finding some way to do it. If your players want something bad enough and are willing to work for it, they should generally get it.
I agree completely with this. I objected in the previous example because to me spending a fate point and saying "I just walk in and the trained fae bodyguard doesn't notice the giant magic stick" just makes no sense. But if they want to either try to use a skill contest (like stealth vs. alertness) or a social conflict to get in they can, it will be hard, but they are being direct. If instead they try something like your example it will take more narrative effort, but be a series of easier checks. I like that concept, bashing your way through problems is an option, but it is hard, being smart is less direct but easier (once of think of a way). I have no problem with players finding creative solutions to problems, as you said if they really want it and are willing to work for it they can likely do it.
My only problem/question about your example is exactly what happens with the compel in your example? You suggested something like a security checkpoint or a supernatural bouncer is generally worth a compel to your [guy with guns/wizard]. I am all for them taking the compel and giving up the staff, or taking the compel and then spending some narrative effort (likely using that fate point) to go around (like the scenario you suggested). But what if they flat out refuse the compel? I just doesn't make sense to me that the checkpoint ceases to exist/fails to work properly just because they spent a fate point. How would you handle that?
My view on focus items is that if you treat them as another form of specialization they are too good. If they are an inseparable part of the wizard they are too strong. They allow deep specialization into 1 type of magic for a comparatively small cost (as opposed to actual specializations which cost you a ton when you start trying to go above 2 or 3). As Sanct like to say the path to power in DFRPG is specialization, pick one thing an do it well and focus items are the best at that. On the other hand, I don't think focus items are broken in game. I think they were designed to be a potential flaw. Modern game design is all about choices and restrictions (if you like Magic the Gathering you may have heard this from Mark Rosewater, head designer), and if the choices are easy they aren't even choices. It is pretty clear that the optimal way to build a (blasting) wizard if you are going to always let them have their focus is by spending 1 refinement to get +2/+1 in your element and then building the best possible focus item. But if you say that sometimes you may not have you focus item then this choice is actually interesting and meaningful. Do you want your full strength to be as much as possible but only be at full strength 70-80% of the time? Or do you want to be at almost full strength always and be slightly less specialized? Also smaller foci are easier to hide/carry, so you likely have them more often.
Anyway I am done rambling on that subject.
-
I personally think using the example of airport security and getting a gun pass a checkpoint isn't the best choice. Any DFRPG group that couldn't, needs to turn their Fate Dice in.
Now if we're talking about a Fae Bar, that's different....
-
My only problem/question about your example is exactly what happens with the compel in your example? You suggested something like a security checkpoint or a supernatural bouncer is generally worth a compel to your [guy with guns/wizard]. I am all for them taking the compel and giving up the staff, or taking the compel and then spending some narrative effort (likely using that fate point) to go around (like the scenario you suggested). But what if they flat out refuse the compel? I just doesn't make sense to me that the checkpoint ceases to exist/fails to work properly just because they spent a fate point. How would you handle that?
If I am right, you seem to think that you slide the compel across the table and say "You can't get in with that staff." and the player just slides his buy-out and says, "nuh-uh!" That's not how it works.
Compels and buy-offs are negotiated at the time they happen. The person taking/rejecting the compel cas to come to an agreement with the table about what is fair and what makes sense for the circumstances in question. There isn't a situation where the player simply buys-off the compel and it mystically "goes away."
A couple of examples:
If you approached the scenario with the fae bouncer by saying "You're planning to stop off at the Winter Club on your way home. <slide fate point> You know security is likely to prevent foci and iron weaponry from being taken in." Then them sliding the buy-out should be accompanied by the player responding "Normally that would be true, but because of the recent skirmish between winter and summer in the Ozarks, the club is likely to be undermanned and they won't notice," or perhaps "Normally that would be true, but because of the service I am offering Maeve, she doesn't see a reason to block my armaments."
If it happens a different way, such as the player strolling up with his stick and demanding entry out of the blue (rather than the theoretical planning phase the previous paragraph described) you slide a fate point and say something like, "The burly troll at the door eyes your staff and puts a stopping hand out. 'No staffs, wizard,' he says." The player would need to slide a buy-off and say something like "I am here to perform a service to Maeve. She will need me armed." or some-such.
-
OK, lets look at that second example.
If it happens a different way, such as the player strolling up with his stick and demanding entry out of the blue (rather than the theoretical planning phase the previous paragraph described) you slide a fate point and say something like, "The burly troll at the door eyes your staff and puts a stopping hand out. 'No staffs, wizard,' he says." The player would need to slide a buy-off and say something like "I am here to perform a service to Maeve. She will need me armed." or some-such.
You show up out of the blue, the bouncer doesn't know you, Maeve may have heard of you, but isn't your friend. You say you want to perform a service and need to be armed. The troll probably says "You can have it back when you leave, you won't need weapons in there." He doesn't trust you, also he thinks your excuse is stupid. He knows that if you are performing sanctioned magic in the club you can easily come back with permission and pick up your staff, and if you are going in to get instructions and then leave to perform a service you can pick it up on the way out. The only reason he sees for you to want to be armed in the club is if you want it for protection against the fae in there.
In this case simply buying out just doesn't seem appropriate to me. Do you think that was an appropriate buy-off? Convincing the troll that Maeve wants you to keep your staff is likely a social conflict in its own right. I would allow the player to accept the compel and then start such a social conflict (or try to sneak the staff in, or whatever), absolutely, I am not against players finding their own ways around obstacles. But in your second example buying off the compel is basically just making the compel "mystically go away."
-
In this case simply buying out just doesn't seem appropriate to me. Do you think that was an appropriate buy-off? Convincing the troll that Maeve wants you to keep your staff is likely a social conflict in its own right. I would allow the player to accept the compel and then start such a social conflict (or try to sneak the staff in, or whatever), absolutely, I am not against players finding their own ways around obstacles. But in your second example buying off the compel is basically just making the compel "mystically go away."
Is the player actually there to perform a service to Maeve? Then the troll leans his head in, gets the OK, and the player enters. Why slow the game down by making them come back out?
In any case, they are using their FP in exchange for the social skill roll to convince the troll. Remember how aspects created with skill rolls get a free tag? Skill rolls and FPs are somewhat interchangable. They use the FP to convince the troll. That's what they're really doing here. It's essentially the same as making the declaration "I convince the troll." You just forced them to do it.
OK, lets look at that second example.
You show up out of the blue, the bouncer doesn't know you, Maeve may have heard of you, but isn't your friend. You say you want to perform a service and need to be armed. The troll probably says "You can have it back when you leave, you won't need weapons in there." He doesn't trust you, also he thinks your excuse is stupid. He knows that if you are performing sanctioned magic in the club you can easily come back with permission and pick up your staff, and if you are going in to get instructions and then leave to perform a service you can pick it up on the way out. The only reason he sees for you to want to be armed in the club is if you want it for protection against the fae in there.
Your deep and intricate reasoning and detailed character motivations here are nice to see. It shows how much thought you put into the world all on your own.
Have you explained this paragraph to your table? It's a very reasonable and rational explanation as to why he can't take it in. You could even escalate the compel with each couple sentences of that paragraph you lay out. "He doesn't trust you. Maeve hasn't told him you were coming. <slide a second fate point, escalating the compel> <Player buys off again> If you were going to perform sanctioned magic here, you could come back out and get it. <slide the third fate point, escalating again>"
Also, since we're talking in-character motivations, here, Is the troll really smart enough to think this entire, detailed motivation out? Trolls aren't exactly known for their sharp intellect.
Most importantly of all:
As nice as your detailed thought process above was, it is also mostly irrelevant.
You need to talk with your table on this. If they don't think any encounter with the no-name bouncer is going to be an interesting improvement to the story and, more importantly, they are willing to pay valuable narrative currency to avoid it, why are you trying to force them to play through it? Because you took the time to stat it out? That's nothing but hubris.
Just this weekend I ran a FATE game. I had planned out 3 different combat encounters. My players, through sheer cleverness, buy-outs and subterfuge, bypassed ever fighting a single one of them. And you know what? They abosultely loved the session. Your players are telling you what they want. Why aren't you listening?
-
I think we should note here that I am currently not GM'ing any FATE campaigns. I GM'ed a one shot once, and I talk to my GM about this kind of thing a lot (and of course think about it a lot), but I am currently not GM'ing.
Is the player actually there to perform a service to Maeve? Then the troll leans his head in, gets the OK, and the player enters. Why slow the game down by making them come back out?
When I gave this example, my assumption was that the players were here to fight/capture something, and that Maeve probably wouldn't be too pleased. If their business is actually legit I wouldn't go through the trouble of disarming them (or maybe I would, but in this case a buyout would make sense, just as you described). Also, in my head this troll was not meant to be an encounter, he was meant as a compel like device to weaken the wizard before a fight, because the original topic of this thread is what to do when wizards are too powerful in your campaign and making it less fun and one possible answer was take away their foci.
I appreciate players being clever, and using narrative power and subtle skill roll to bypass fights. And if that is what my group wanted to do I would certainly let them. But I probably would not let them do it by just walking past an encounter by paying 3 fate points to buy out (maybe if they had a really good reason, but using a fate point to substitute for deceit to lie to the guard, and then spending 2 more when I escalate to make it a "really good" deceit just isn't natively interesting) , they would have do some other scene about how they sneaked past it, or sweat talked the combatants or whatever they do.
I would never make the group fight an NPC they had a reasonable way to get around just because I wanted them to, you are right, that is just hubris. I also wouldn't force them into a scene to bypass it if they thought it was boring. But I don't know if I would let them get away from this situation without acknowledging the troll in any way but spending a pile of fate points to buy off the compel and barging past (however they want to flavor it, that is whats happening). In this case they could fight it/have a social conflict/try to sneak in the staff under it's nose/case the joint a break in etc or they could just give in and ditch the staff. They have tons of options, from clever, to brutal, if they want to get around my "nerf" (I am not railroading/using GM fiat here) but if they don't want to put in the time/effort why should I let them just walk through my bouncer?
Also, while the troll may not be bright, he was probably told to not let anyone in with iron weapons or magic items unless he has a direct order otherwise. Since he is so dense, he would likely not be easy to persuade otherwise. He would likely just say "Nope, can't let ya in, orders are orders" even if he believed you were there on legit business.
-
Ah, I was under the impression that this was something that happened to you, and not a completely hypothetical question. In general, it sounds like you've got your head on straight, and won't really have many problems in practice.
But one thing that I'll reiterate because it's really important:
Three fate points is a pretty huge expendature to bypass something like that. Consider that's a +6 (numerical) coming accross the table (or three really potent invokes-for-effect). How many times would he need to cast spells to get that kind of output? You make it sound like this is a trivial expendature. It is not; by any means. Especially since it is presumably the wizard who has to pay it, and Wizards are notoriously low on FPs pretty much all the time. You probably just cost him h(is/er) whole load of chips (if he even could pay it off). Think of it: even if you let him in with his staff now, he can't pay off other compels, reroll abysmal rolls or give himself that extra little oomf to turn a miss into a hit. You're neutering him just as much, just in a different way. And, in so doing, put the option of how it happened in his hands.
If you simply don't want to handle it with a compel, that's fine, but its no more or less effective mathematically.
-
I understand your point, and I agree 3 fate points is a lot. On a pure mechanical basis (and I do remember that the purpose of this was to handicap a wizard running amok) this probably works as you want, maybe even harsher. And on a game play basis it may be best to allow this sort of thing just to speed up play. But I got drawn into the argument and started thinking about it from a pure narrative perspective, and I could totally see one of my friends really not wanting to part with his staff, but also too lazy to think of a solution and just paying his way out; and I thought that was just boring.
Anyway, if I was GM'ing it I would probably say "There is a troll at the door, as you come up he looks at your staff and holds out his hand" *slides fate point for compel* "He isn't gonna let you take that in." Then I would pretty much tell them to either give up the staff or if they pressed me on it to look for a clever alternative, I likely wouldn't let them buy out at all, but if they pressed I may escalate once and give them 2 fate points to give it up or look for another way in/a conflict with this troll. I feel like while it is kinda mean to not let them buy out of the compel I am not really railroading them into doing anything since they can always back away and try some other way in, or get in a fight or give it up, they have plenty of options.
Thanks for this discussion though. It has enlightened me a lot on good practices while Gm'ing in FATE and given me some good ideas for things to do as a player.
-
Thanks for this discussion though. It has enlightened me a lot on good practices while Gm'ing in FATE and given me some good ideas for things to do as a player.
Oh, you're most welcome. I'm on here 'cause I love to talk about it.
And thank you, as well. I love thought excercises, and those two scenarios had so many ways to dance around them.
-
Another way to nerf spellcasters is to throw another spellslinger at them, and have the enemy wizard focus on your wizard PC. An ongoing block-maneuver-attack-counterspell duel would be quite exciting for the Wizard and allow the player to show off, while allowing the other players the chance to shine while taking out the enemy wizard's flunkies. Depending on how successful the PC wizard is at dealing with the NPC wizard, your other PCs may even kill the other wizard. Bam, exciting magical duel for the wizard, exciting brawl for the others.
-
The first rule of handicapping a wizard is not letting the player know that's what you're planning. So the troll should hit up most everyone in the group for at least something besides just the wizard's foci.
So if the compel is 'disarm', you could have alot of fate points being passed around.
So unless the group was low on FP, the best move would be someone to do a declaration before hand (We're on the List).
-
The first rule of handicapping a wizard is not letting the player know that's what you're planning. So the troll should hit up most everyone in the group for at least something besides just the wizard's foci.
So if the compel is 'disarm', you could have alot of fate points being passed around.
So unless the group was low on FP, the best move would be someone to do a declaration before hand (We're on the List).
Suddenly I'm looking at this as the scene in The Two Towers where they're going in to see Theodin. The GM hands Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli's players fate points to have them disarm, and Gandalf's pays the compel and comes up with the 'old man with a walkingstick' excuse to keep the staff.
-
Suddenly I'm looking at this as the scene in The Two Towers where they're going in to see Theodin. The GM hands Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli's players fate points to have them disarm, and Gandalf's pays the compel and comes up with the 'old man with a walkingstick' excuse to keep the staff.
I thought that too. That is an excellent excuse, especially with mortal thugs outside a clued in mobsters mansion. With a fae creature who can sense the magic rolling off your staff (see the section talking about enchanted item/foci size in YS) it may not work as well. But it is still an awesome scene :) .
Ya The troll would almost certainly also ban any iron weapon, so it may not look horribly suspicious. I also really like a magical duel concept, I may have to look into getting more spell-caster enemies into my games (and re-read the rules on counter spells).
-
As far as countespells go, you can only counterspell an ongoing effect-spell. So any ongoing block, sustained attack, or maneuver that relies on an ongoing evocation to work is fair game, but you can't reactively counterspell.
That said, one of the cooler options the book gives you is reactive blocks - allowing one to defend with Evocation. I really like this idea - countering a blast of flame with a curtain of water is a really cool image, and it would also serve the purpose of wearing the spellcaster down - they're only going, at maximum, have four mental stress boxes before they start taking consequences, and consequences should be a big deal. If parrying a strike with magic takes a mental stress hit, you have, at most, four exchanges, and if both parties are doing it, two exchanges of spells before they go into consequences.
Thus, you're effectively limiting the amount of spellcasting a PC can do, but the player thinks it's entirely their choice.
-
As far as countespells go, you can only counterspell an ongoing effect-spell. So any ongoing block, sustained attack, or maneuver that relies on an ongoing evocation to work is fair game, but you can't reactively counterspell.
Personally, I would allow it if you were holding action and 'interrupting'
-
Personally, I would allow it if you were holding action and 'interrupting'
Trouble with that, you got to know the person is a spell caster first and still be faster then them too. Which in some cases, would neuter the ability to counter-spell. Which would be a shame, since its a rule I like but its overlooked alot in the games I'm in.
-
Personally, I would allow it if you were holding action and 'interrupting'
I'd allow it then, too.
Trouble with that, you got to know the person is a spell caster first and still be faster then them too. Which in some cases, would neuter the ability to counter-spell. Which would be a shame, since its a rule I like but its overlooked alot in the games I'm in.
I agree, it's a very specialised circumstance, but it would be easy to tell the Wizard that 'you feel a stirring in your mystical senses. You can tell that one of these/this particular NPC(s) is preparing to cast a spell'.
-
I agree, it's a very specialised circumstance, but it would be easy to tell the Wizard that 'you feel a stirring in your mystical senses. You can tell that one of these/this particular NPC(s) is preparing to cast a spell'.
Yeah, going by the books, calling up magical power takes a second or two before you actually let loose (when fighting the Skinwalker at Chateau Raith, Harry mentions that if he started calling up power for a spell, the Skinwalker would sense it and beat him to the punch), so it makes sense that if a wizard is waiting for it, they could see/sense it coming quick enough to counteract it.
-
I'm ok with a easy Lore roll at the start, so the wizard knows to counter spell. But I'm also thinking it could be cool to let a wizard who isn't that fast to still be able to counter spell to maybe lessen the attacking spell.
Because I rather stay away from giving a wizard even more reasons to get supernatural speed.
-
In that case, I'd just use a reactive block. Usually the same mental stress cost, simpler, and easier to do mechanically. I'm not a big fan of widespread reactive counterspelling.
-
If you were in Centarion's camp, though, you would think it damages the game. It's too good of an option. Foci is one of the primary ways that wizards so drastically outstrip mortals in high-refresh games.
...
But that ties directly into the power level of magic. It's an option in the core rules that significantly increases magical output and capability. It's also significantly more potent, point-for-point of refresh, than any other option in the game.
Sorry, I was unclear.
I meant that I think the balance between foci and specializations is decent. I was trying to avoid the whole "how strong is magic" debate.
I'm not surprised. You've got a good head on your shoulders even though we don't always agree on things. Most good GMs and modern game designers would agree with us on that principle. Game theory has come a long way in the last 30 years.
You're very kind.
PS: Two houserules that might be appropriate here:
1. Let Wizards use reactive blocks, but only against evocations. A Wizard buff and a Wizard nerf, all at once. I like this because a) it enables cool stuff, b) it makes spell fights less rocket-launcher-tag-like, c) it makes defensive foci better, and d) it doesn't actually make Wizards stronger the way normal reactive blocks do.
In fact, I might go so far as to let an unsuccessful spell-block reduce the blocked spell's power. So a 10 shift attack blocked by a 7 shift spell only inflicts 6 stress instead of 13.
2. Only let one focus be used on each spell, with the understanding the the (Lore) cap on slot spending applies to the total bonuses of a focus. This lowers the spending cap on Evocation, reducing the viability of uber-evokers.
-
I'm not a big fan of widespread reactive counterspelling.
Why, if I may ask?
-
In that case, I'd just use a reactive block. Usually the same mental stress cost, simpler, and easier to do mechanically. I'm not a big fan of widespread reactive counterspelling.
Maybe, but I can see advantages to counterspelling instead of blocking--a block might stop, say, a beam of fire from hitting you, but may end up being thrown into the wall or the rafters or something. A counterspell would presumably just make the spell stop happening, so there'd be no splash.
-
Maybe, but I can see advantages to counterspelling instead of blocking--a block might stop, say, a beam of fire from hitting you, but may end up being thrown into the wall or the rafters or something. A counterspell would presumably just make the spell stop happening, so there'd be no splash.
Good catch, Mr. Death....missed that myself. I now see alot of situations where a counterspell would be so much better if suddenly your gm decides to get creative with splash.
-
Why, if I may ask?
I dunno. From a fluff perspective, counterspelling is disrupting the magical energies of a spell, so you'd need a second or two - in game terms, an exchange - to identify what those energies are and how to disrupt them (the Lore assessment), then actually do it (the counterspell). Thus, one exchange for a countespell. If you'd held action and interrupted, it would make sense that you did the first part while the enemy spellslinger was drawing their power, and could do the second part quickly. In an ordinary exchange, though, there just isn't *time* to study analyse the energies of the fireball that's on its way to melt your face. You either get out of the way (defend with Athletics) or, if you're good, nullify it with an opposing force (reactive block with Water or Spirit or whatever).
From a mechanics perspective, I feel that allowing casters to simply disappear any spell effect makes counterspelling too powerful, and it makes magic duels/fights *boring*. A series of spells fizzling from existence in between the casters isn't as cool as opposing spell energies clashing in the space inbetween them, or characters frantically throwing themselves aside just in time to dodge a bolt of lightning. There are mechanical benefits to the wizard counterspelling, but I feel that if you're having a full-on magical duel there should be some environmental damage.
PS: Two houserules that might be appropriate here:
1. Let Wizards use reactive blocks, but only against evocations. A Wizard buff and a Wizard nerf, all at once. I like this because a) it enables cool stuff, b) it makes spell fights less rocket-launcher-tag-like, c) it makes defensive foci better, and d) it doesn't actually make Wizards stronger the way normal reactive blocks do.
In fact, I might go so far as to let an unsuccessful spell-block reduce the blocked spell's power. So a 10 shift attack blocked by a 7 shift spell only inflicts 6 stress instead of 13.
2. Only let one focus be used on each spell, with the understanding the the (Lore) cap on slot spending applies to the total bonuses of a focus. This lowers the spending cap on Evocation, reducing the viability of uber-evokers.
1. This was what I meant. I wouldn't normally allow this vs. straight physical attacks or ambushes - if you're being shot at or caught off guard, you can't concentrate enough to cast the necessary spell. I *might* allow reactive blocks vs. gunfire - but only with a stunt or expenditure of a Fate Point to invoke a requisite Aspect (like 'cool under pressure' or something)
2. Apparently this isn't RAW, but I'd never allow (or use) more than one Focus per spell. not sure what you mean about the Lore cap, though. Could you explain?
Good catch, Mr. Death....missed that myself. I now see alot of situations where a counterspell would be so much better if suddenly your gm decides to get creative with splash.
See my above point on the destructive effects of Magical duels. This is just my preference, but I'm sticking to it.
Maybe, but I can see advantages to counterspelling instead of blocking--a block might stop, say, a beam of fire from hitting you, but may end up being thrown into the wall or the rafters or something. A counterspell would presumably just make the spell stop happening, so there'd be no splash.
True, although I'd argue that, depending on the way the block is described, this might not happen. A straight harry-style Spirit shield is one thing, but using Water to create a column of water to quench the fire or merely altering its course away from you are all blocks, mechanically. I'd use both of these to make Scene Aspects, as GM - the first, 'Cloud of Steam', the second would set something on fire.
-
2. Apparently this isn't RAW, but I'd never allow (or use) more than one Focus per spell. not sure what you mean about the Lore cap, though. Could you explain?
You get one power focus, and one control focus. That's the rules as written and the rules as intended, I'm pretty sure.
Might not be the ideal rule, though.
You can't invest more than (Lore) focus slots in one item. Or maybe you can't invest more than (Lore) slots in any particular bonus. I thought it was the former, but apparently it's ambiguous.
Regardless, the idea here is to make impossible the character with two staffs that together give +5 offensive spirit power and +5 offensive spirit control.
-
You get one power focus, and one control focus. That's the rules as written and the rules as intended, I'm pretty sure.
Might not be the ideal rule, though.
You can't invest more than (Lore) focus slots in one item. Or maybe you can't invest more than (Lore) slots in any particular bonus. I thought it was the former, but apparently it's ambiguous.
Regardless, the idea here is to make impossible the character with two staffs that together give +5 offensive spirit power and +5 offensive spirit control.
Okay that makes sense. I wouldn't allow that kind of abuse of Foci. In the background, Harry only ever uses one focus-per-spell.
-
It isn't abuse. It's just use.
-
Okay that makes sense. I wouldn't allow that kind of abuse of Foci. In the background, Harry only ever uses one focus-per-spell.
I'm not sure that is actually true, that said, Harry hasn't invested very much in evocation Foci, has them split across multiple elements, and doesn't have the control to make good use of a power Foci in any of his elements.
Advanced Harry dumps a bunch of refresh into various Sponsored Magic packages and enchanted items.
-
If you are going to allow reactive evocation blocks, I think allowing reactive counterspelling is not that different.
A reactive counterspell has the advantage of being against the power of the spell, which helps reign in the 'all control, no need for power' offensive caster. But the limit of the counterspell is that it only ever works against on spell, it won't persist like a block could.
I'm not as strongly against reactive evocation blocks because I think that giving the wizard the opportunity to run themselves out of mental stress twice as fast means that even shorter fights make the wizard face using consequences to fuel spells, .