Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Wolfwood2

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1
DFRPG / Pack Instincts useless for a PC?
« on: May 22, 2012, 08:00:25 PM »
So one of my fellow players wants to play a lycanthrope PC, and I am kind of wincing on his behalf.  The "only near the full moon" limitation on his abilities is bad enough.  (I know it's meant to be taken care of narratively, but a lot of adventures/campaigns lend themselves to tracking time more carefully.)

However, I can't help but feel bad that the template is forcing him to take Pack Instincts.  None of the other players are playing lycanthropes or any creature with pack instincts.  And honestly, the benefits are pretty weak even if they were.  Less useful than a lot of stunts.

I think Pack Instincts make good sense for building NPCs, but I wouldn't put it as a mandatory part of a PC template.

2
DFRPG / Re: Living in the nevernever
« on: June 10, 2011, 06:36:22 PM »
I'm actually disappointed.  I was hoping this would be a thread about wizards frustrated with the high prices of city housing who decide to just go ahead and live in the Nevernever.

3
DFRPG / Re: Playing AS a Warlock
« on: June 08, 2011, 09:21:48 PM »
Quote from: Becq on June 08, 2011, 09:09:16 PM
Given that both the story and play were what justified the shifting aspect to begin with, I don't see how it would be possible to justify changing it back at the next milestone.  Not to mention that the altered aspect doesn't represent some afliction for which you might look for a cure, but rather an actual change to who you are.

I tend to play characters whose aspects are a little more fluid, more in the Harry Dresden style where aspects change relatively frequently.  They reflect what's important to the character at that moment, and that often changes from adventure to adventure.  So it's not so much "changing it back" as removing the 'tainted' Aspect entirely and replacing it with something quite different.  You know, maybe after I've killed a guy because I was caught alone and didn't see another option, I Kill Alone (to suggested a twisted version of 'I Work Alone') doesn't seem like quite such a good idea anymore.

But admitedly I've never played a Lawbreaker, so this is theoretical.

4
DFRPG / Re: Playing AS a Warlock
« on: June 07, 2011, 04:32:29 PM »
Quote from: Becq on June 01, 2011, 08:11:44 AM
If you've killed with magic at least 21 times, then every one of your aspects (including your High Concept) will have been corrupted by the black magic you've been casting.  Keep in mind that in DFRPG terms, this means in effect that every bit of who you are has been twisted into something different and darker than when you began.

Of course, one of the things you can do with a minor milestone is change an Aspect.  Lawbreaker makes you change an Aspect to reflect your lawbreaking; it says nothing about the changed Aspect being more permanent and unchangeable than any other Aspect.  Unless you're breaking a Law multiple times every session, it's possible to stay ahead of the game and take the lawbreaker references back out.

Note that I don't view this as gaming the system but rather as what a warlock depserately trying to maintain control would look like.

5
DFRPG / Re: Summoning: Guidelines and Suggestions Welcomed!
« on: June 03, 2011, 06:47:09 PM »
Quote from: InFerrumVeritas on June 02, 2011, 05:22:10 PM
So, I run summoning close to, but slightly different from, RAW.  Here's how I do it.

Two or Three Spells.

My problem with summoning is that two or three spells consumes an unacceptably large amount of game time.  Doing one ritual can usually fit acceptably into the story.  Do three rituals, and once you fit in all the declarations/mini-scenes and such you need to do in order to pull off a summoning ritual, it hardly seems worth it.

6
DFRPG / Re: How to simulate super tech, i.e. Iron Man?
« on: June 03, 2011, 06:41:19 PM »
Quote from: EdgeOfDreams on June 03, 2011, 05:23:59 PM
Modular Abilities as an IoP should work fine.  Include stipulations that the super suit can also have mundane equipment built into it the same as what the character would normally be able to carry around with his resources score or whatever (e.g. guns, tools, etc.).  Also, the character should have an aspect like "I'm nothing without my suit" or "The right tech for the job" that can be compelled for either not having access to the suit, needing time to get the suit on or reconfigured, or for the suit not having a certain power when they'd want it.

That's already built into taking an IoP, as one of the requirements is that you have an aspect referencing the Item of Power.

7
DFRPG / Most useful rotes in-play?
« on: June 03, 2011, 02:31:56 PM »
So having played a couple of wizard characters now, I'm still struggling when writing up my evocation rotes.  I'm never really confident that I've designed them "right", not so much as reagrds to the rules as to what makes a good rote.

So I'm asking folks with actual play experience using rotes.  What have you found most useful in game?  When have you broken something out and said, "Boy, I'm glad I had that as a rote?,"?  Do they really matter at all?  Is there a trick where maneuver rotes or protection rotes are more useful?

8
DFRPG / Re: Does Sleep Magic Break Any Laws of Magic?
« on: May 19, 2011, 04:00:34 PM »
I would say that a Sleep spell is usually Physical stress, unless circumstances dictate otherwise.  This is from a gameplay perspective as much as anything.

I would also negate the advantage of it being 'safe' to use on humans with the disadvantage that you can pretty easily use Discipline or Endurance to defend against it rather than Athletics.  Basically, you get a spell that is Lawbreaker-safe for humans, but it's way easy to justify multiple defensive skills against it.  This explains why Wardens aren't more free with the Sleep spells in the novels.  It's great if you need to take out a night security guard without hurting him, but a bad choice agianst enemy spellcasters and their high Disiplines.

9
DFRPG / Re: Healing with enchanted items?
« on: May 19, 2011, 03:48:54 PM »
Quote from: Belial666 on May 19, 2011, 12:57:49 PM
As for concessions, here's the thing; it you conceed and the concession is accepted then you don't die. But a black court vampire that's hungry is free to ignore your concession and drink your blood. (especially since Blood Drinker may compel it to drink your blood even in cases it might accept a concession)

I don't consider concessions to be an in-character negotiation.  When you offer a concession, it's not the black court vampire who accepts it or rejects it, it's the player who is running the vampire.  Consequently the decision can't be compeled any more than you could compel a player to change a character's aspect or something similiar.  Only characters can be compeled, not players.

10
DFRPG / Re: Were-forms that should not be?
« on: May 10, 2011, 07:10:04 PM »
Quote from: Shecky on May 08, 2011, 12:43:13 PM
When it comes to size, remember the weres we've seen in the books - they tended to have the same mass as the untransformed human. It would seem reasonable that that's the easiest transformation; changing mass would have to do something with the "lost" or "gained" mass-energy, and I'd imagine that adds a big level of complexity to the magic involved.

Of course, then YS goes on the have one of the sample characters at the back of the book be a weremouse who drops herself down to mouse size.  I'm sure that was to demonstrate that guidelines like that need not apply to cool folks like the PCs.

11
DFRPG / Re: Noob GM: NPC Consequences
« on: May 06, 2011, 06:30:33 PM »
Quote from: Aubri on May 06, 2011, 06:11:40 PM
I get the impression that certain kinds of NPCs should be able to take consequences, and others can't. Is there any hard and fast rule/suggestion on this? If not, is there a decent rule of thumb?

A good rule of thumb is, "Is this NPC ever going to show up again?"  If they are in this scene and then they're pretty much done no matter what, then they shouldn't take any consequences.  If they might stick around for a follow-up scene, they should take a mild consequence.  (Also if they have a recovery power that lets them shrug off minor consequences, or if just if you're not quite ready for them to go down yet.)

If they might show up next session, they should take up to moderate consequences.

If you could see them showing up through this story-arc, they should take up to severe consequences.

If they are a major reoccuring NPC (or have the potential to become one) you might go all the way to Extreme Consequences, preferably taken as part of a Concession where they flee, cursing the PCs' names forever.

12
DFRPG / Re: The concept of conceding
« on: May 06, 2011, 04:48:39 PM »
Incidentally, at my table we allow Concessions to be offered a little later in the process than the book would indicate.  With us you can offer a Concession after the attack roll against your character but before you make your defensive roll.

We made this change because often folks are a little quick on the draw with attack rolls.  It's not a bad thing; knowing what you want to do and doing it keeps the game moving.  But it seems unfair to make a Concession opportunity some kind of game show buzzer speed contest where you have to realize you should concede and shout your intention to do so before the dice can be picked up and rolled.  It becomes especially important when someone very much not optimized for that sort of combat realizes they have become the target of a powerful attack.

Anyone else do it that way?

13
DFRPG / Re: +0 Catch for WCVs?
« on: May 06, 2011, 03:29:54 PM »
Quote from: Tedronai on May 06, 2011, 03:20:10 PM
These two statements do not, in fact, follow logically.

The fact that they can 'waste' a WCV without implementing the catch has no bearing on how easy it would be for them to implement the catch.

It does in the sense that it becomes not worthwhile for the GM to spend a lot of time throwing obstacles in their way.  If the PCs are bound and determined to satisfy that catch and willing to spend as much play time as necessary to do so, then the GM is more likely to concede and let them do it.  Since it's not going to matter much in the end, the quest has relatively little narrative weight.  Why should he put focus on it?  Just say "Yes" and move on.

14
DFRPG / Re: Help with Enchanted Item?
« on: May 06, 2011, 03:00:53 PM »
Quote from: Sanctaphrax on May 05, 2011, 08:36:29 PM
You could have the enchanted item count as a library of a quality equal to its power.

I've read the rules several times and I still don't really understand what libraries even do.

15
DFRPG / Re: +0 Catch for WCVs?
« on: May 05, 2011, 03:45:55 PM »
My take on 'Finding True Love' is that it wouldn't do you any good.  However, regarding the question of "can magic do it", the general rule seems to be that magic can do anything that mundane action can do, while ignoring things that would make it generally impossible.

Can mundane action find True Love?  Sure, we have an example in the novels.  Thomas runs the salon where he comes in contact with a great number of people every day, and occasionally he runs across True Love.  So it's possible to do with with a White Court Vampire making what I would describe as a Contacts roll.  (That is, the WCV either already knows someone with True Love or can interact with a lot of people and can find one.)

So you could do a magical ritual to find true love, but one of the necessary components is the willing cooperation of a WCV.  No vampire and you can't make the ritual work.  The shifts of the ritual are equal to the Contacts roll.

That seems a fair and equitable way to handle it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9