ParanetOnline

The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: traeki on February 09, 2010, 04:51:55 PM

Title: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: traeki on February 09, 2010, 04:51:55 PM
How important to game balance are setting specific structures like the Laws of Magic and, say, Vampires dependence on Feeding?  That is, it seems pretty clear that the latter would be a positive cost refresh "flaw", but the former -- going by Harry's character sheet, which is awesome -- seems more implicitly rolled into character design.  So I'm curious to what extent you think I might unbalance the System by dramatically altering the Setting (I'm excited about using the DFRPG rules for other settings such as Alpha Omega or Shadowrun, for example).

My guess is that it doesn't matter very much because those things are mechanically dealt with by compels or even out-and-out plot devices, but I'm curious if the power level of, say, Evocation is in part dependent on the fact that you're not allowed to kill people.

I'm new to Fate, but it's often asserted that it's hard to build an unbalanced character -- there's too much advantage to be gained by having interesting flaw aspects (and indeed this is one of the things that makes this system so profoundly enticing for me).  To take things to one extreme, if I just used the DFRPG rules for a supers campaign of some kind, and stripped away all the flaws from templates by default, would that significantly alter the baseline power of a 10-refresh character?
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: iago on February 09, 2010, 04:58:12 PM
You can rip out the Laws of Magic if you aren't overly concerned about people turning into Victor Sells style "monsters" due to the corrupting influence of power.  Mechanically, when you break the Laws of Magic you end up gaining power -- specifically for breaking that law again (that's why they're negative refresh).  The more you kill with magic, the better you get at it, but the more it changes you and the closer it takes you to becoming a "monster" rather than a mortal.  If that's not important to you for your game, rip it on out -- though you'll find that without them magic has fewer limits on it to keep people from doing really horrific things to the "bad" guys. :)

I think you could do a decent supers game with the engine in the DFRPG, but I think it would require a fair amount of tuning all over to get the tone and feel of play more into the right pocket for supers. It's not just a case of "ditch the flaws".
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: traeki on February 09, 2010, 05:08:49 PM
Mechanically, when you break the Laws of Magic you end up gaining power -- specifically for breaking that law again (that's why they're negative refresh).

Ahh, I was wondering how that worked.  Very cool.

I think it would require a fair amount of tuning all over to get the tone and feel of play more into the right pocket for supers. It's not just a case of "ditch the flaws".

Quite.  I was simply using that to illustrate my point.  That said...  I will also be waiting with breath firmly bated for the Fate 3.0 publication.  I mean Oh Man am I excited about that creature.

If you're willing to venture at all off topic, though, I'm curious what you think are the key areas for tuning such things?

My guess would be that by tuning refresh rate, stress boxes, and skill selections you could get pretty far.  What are the other things you find/anticipate have to bend or break when you're tuning a Fate 3.0 instantiation?
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: iago on February 09, 2010, 05:13:09 PM
If you're willing to venture at all off topic, though, I'm curious what you think are the key areas for tuning such things?

My guess would be that by tuning refresh rate, stress boxes, and skill selections you could get pretty far.  What are the other things you find/anticipate have to bend or break when you're tuning a Fate 3.0 instantiation?
Yep, those are a big part of it. For starters, you'll also want to eyeball your philosophy of weapons and armor (in terms of stress bonuses), your notion of how fast consequences recover, how much you want to locate the implementation of superpowers in the skill bloc versus extensions like stunts and powers, what sort of forced movement options you want to fold into the combat system (e.g., knockback and other superheroic effects), how you want to represent ludicrous amounts of strength ("I'll hold up this falling skyscraper!") in ways that scale appropriately to your genre...
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: svb1972 on February 09, 2010, 05:14:48 PM
A drop of fresh blood
A doll
A pot of boiling water

Thaumaturgy to slowly boil someone's blood.  Strong link, should be fairly low power and it's WAY less flashy than ripping their heart out.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: iago on February 09, 2010, 05:16:36 PM
Thaumaturgy to slowly boil someone's blood.  Strong link, should be fairly low power and it's WAY less flashy than ripping their heart out.

Less flashy, yes, but it's not low power. Taking a life is not easy, but it's always possible for those willing to put in the effort.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: Ancalagon on February 09, 2010, 07:05:53 PM
Quote
but I'm curious if the power level of, say, Evocation is in part dependent on the fact that you're not allowed to kill people.

Hello

This is a bit of a tangent, but I feel it's an important question on the "feel" of the system.

In some systems (let's say, many editions of D&D for example), some attacks are too weak to kill a foe, period.  For example, if you threw a dagger, and you're not particularly good at it, at a tough dwarven warrior, this will not kill him, period.  You may hurt him, you will certainly anger him, but he has too many hp, that even with a critical hit, he won't die from it.

In some other systems - and in real life! - even a somewhat weak attack has the potential to kill.  There was a court case in Ottawa a few years back where someone sucker punched someone else, and the single blow ruptured a blood vessel in the victim's brain, and he died on the spot.  That is perhaps an extreme example, but say if I shot at someone with a weak gun, like say a .22, I would still be charged with attempted murder - even though it' s a "weak bullet", it can still kill.   In warhammer frpg 2nd ed, each attack has the potential of having its damage "explode", so an arrow from a puny goblin has a small, but not negligible, chance of slaying a mighty armored knight. 

This is a pretty important question.  If you do it D&D style, the PCs can feel more heroic... but sometimes to the point where it is very plot disruptive.  It can lead to "so what the bad guy is pointing his gun at me and telling me to freeze, I can take the damage!" kind of thinking.   If you use a more realistic system, it can lead to more realistic roleplaying - if someone is shooting at you, it's *bad*, no matter how tough you are.  On the other hand, the adventure can be derailed by an important NPC (or PC) being killed by a rock thrown by some puny goblin punk.

So... how does this work in Fate 3.0?   To get back to the topic at hand, if we are closer to option two, it means that you can't really ever throw aggressive evocations (say, like beams of fire) at other humans because you risk killing them - in other words, you can't use it to soften them up - not without risking breaking the laws of magic.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: iago on February 09, 2010, 07:10:07 PM
So... how does this work in Fate 3.0?   To get back to the topic at hand, if we are closer to option two, it means that you can't really ever throw aggressive evocations (say, like beams of fire) at other humans because you risk killing them - in other words, you can't use it to soften them up - not without risking breaking the laws of magic.

In Fate 3.0 is a broad topic, since that encompasses both SOTC (where the answer would be "not much risk of killing") and DFRPG (where the answer would be "solid risk of serious injury if not death").  SOTC doesn't do bonuses for weapons (weapons are just color there), and has long stress tracks.  DFRPG has shorter stress tracks and bonuses (sometimes big bonuses) for stress on a successful hit, which can quickly turn into consequences or even a taken out result (which might include death).

I'd say you gotta be careful with those evocations for sure. :)
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: Ancalagon on February 09, 2010, 08:18:39 PM
Thank you!

I had noted the differences in stress track length between SotC and character sheets posted for Dresden Files characters, but I had attributed that to me not understanding the system.

I imagine that this would be very easy for the GM to adjust to his preference. 
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: TheMouse on February 09, 2010, 09:04:07 PM
Just mathematically, let's consider two characters with equal skill fighting each other. The bonuses don't matter, because one's offensive bonus is equal to the defensive bonus of the other. Assume equally effective investment in Stunts as well.

The dice can produce a maximum of +4 and a minimum of -4. If the attacker gets max and the defender gets min, that's a range of 8. This exceeds the base stress track, even if using so minor of a weapon that it grants no bonus. That means that such a hit goes to Consequences and leaves the character even more vulnerable to future hits.

Setting up a sucker punch might be a maneuver with a free tag. In that case, it adds 2 to the above example. That's 5 beyond the base stress track. I don't know which stress reduction model DFRPG is using for Consequences, but using the normal 2/4/6 structure that seems common among FATE hacks, that means a serious Consequence and the track almost full. That's bad.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: iago on February 09, 2010, 09:11:20 PM
Setting up a sucker punch might be a maneuver with a free tag. In that case, it adds 2 to the above example. That's 5 beyond the base stress track. I don't know which stress reduction model DFRPG is using for Consequences, but using the normal 2/4/6 structure that seems common among FATE hacks, that means a serious Consequence and the track almost full. That's bad.

It's not *quite* as dire as that, in that you can combine consequences (so you could take a -2 and a -4 in order to get rid of 6 points of stress) and in that you only check off the box it lands on, not all of the boxes up to and including that one.  So, suppose a target with Mediocre Endurance, thus a stress track length of 2 -- Joe Shmoe. He gets hit by maximum bad dice luck: -4 on his defense, +4 on the attack, assuming equal attack and defense skills in action, margin of 8.  That's 8 stress before you add in a Weapon rating for, say, a knife. Let's call that Weapon:2.  10 stress.  He'll need to take a -2 and a -6 (total of -8) consequence set just to get that to land on the stress box in position #2.  Someone comes up and love-taps him for 6 stress on a subsequent attack, and he has to use his remaining -4 to get that to be a 2-stress hit -- but that lands on his already marked out stress box #2.  In that case, it "rolls up", but there's no stress box #3, so he's Taken Out anyway.  Taken Out means the attacker's player gets to define the nature of the defeat -- which could be death.

It's not easy to one-shot kill people in the system (though that's nominally possible), partly because the game is careful not to give players a feeling they could have their characters taken away from them through capriciousness.  BUT, it is easy to one-shot CRIPPLE people in the system, because consequences land fast and hard and the ones past -2 take a while to heal from.  And that's usually enough to make someone think about maybe getting the hell out of this fight.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: Ancalagon on February 09, 2010, 09:36:37 PM
the chance of someone rolling a - 4 (or a +4) is 1 in 81 (or 1.23%).  Unless I'm really off, the chance of rolling a 0, +1 or -1 on the 4 dice is 51/81 (or 62.9%), so such a dire result (8 apart on the stress track) is not too likely.

... in fact, with the frequency of average rolls, a 1 point difference between the attacker and the defender (the attacker has say, +3 attack vs a + 2 defense) would be quite significant.  Hmm... that can have consequences on how the game runs.

p.s.  I have a cold, so my curve calculations may be off.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: iago on February 09, 2010, 09:47:24 PM
You're right! A -4 vs +4 situation is much like the one cited above where a punch causes someone's vital bits to rupture and they die.  Rare, but possible.

Of course, when someone swinging the punch is 9 feet tall, warty, green, and has a curious allergy to iron, they don't NEED to get a margin of 8 in order to make you really, really hurt.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: Bosh on February 10, 2010, 02:22:47 AM
Dresden Files FATE is trying to do different things with its damage system than either D&D or Warhammer, the purposes of the damage systems are:

D&D: you're a big damn hero, (unless you're first level ;) ) big damn heroes do NOT get taken out by puny little untrained goblins no matter how lucky the goblins unless there's is a damn big swarm of goblins.

Warhammer: the world is a nasty dangerous place ANY attack has a chance of doing serious serious damage to your character.

FATE: skill generally matters more than random chance but what can trump skill is how dramatically appropriate something is. Let's say Bob the Bloody killed a women in a fit of rage and then felt remorse about it and tried to reform (Aspect: "Haunted by what he has done"). Meanwhile Sarah's mom got killed by Bob the Bloody swore revenge (Aspect: "You killed my mother. Prepare to die."). Let's say Sarah confronts Bob, gives a speech and then lunges at him with a pointy knife. She's driven by fury and he hesitates because of his feeling of guilt.

Bob is an experienced warrior and Sarah's just a teenager, in D&D Bob could just laugh Sarah off and in Warhammer Sarah attacking Bob and any other random teenager attacking Bob, but in Fate those two aspects get tagged, giving Sarah a +4 bonus, which is enough for Sarah to trump Bob's greater level of skill. It's that sort of thing that makes Fate tick, not trying to be realistic.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: TheMouse on February 10, 2010, 04:40:54 AM
Ah, I didn't realize that you were using roll up type stress. I had figured from comments made about the faster conflicts rules for SotC that y'all were using a stress as HP type model.

Although I suppose with a base track of two that it hardly matters.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: iago on February 10, 2010, 06:45:42 AM
Ah, I didn't realize that you were using roll up type stress. I had figured from comments made about the faster conflicts rules for SotC that y'all were using a stress as HP type model.

Faster conflict rules for SOTC involve shorter stress tracks and -2/-4/-6 consequences, NOT necessarily HP style stress tracks.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: Rechan on February 10, 2010, 03:32:43 PM
So, what's the -2/-4/-6 mean?

I've read SotC, so I understand "Fill up stress boxes, when something goes above the stress boxes, consequence, and if that happens 3 times, yer out". But what does the -2/-4/-6 mean? Do you actually get penalties when you're wounded or something (like WoD)?

Also, Fred. When you talk about being "Taken Out", and that the person who hits you gets to define your defeat, this means that it's wholly possible to shoot a mortal in the face with a Gout of Fire and not kill them. Because you can say "He doesn't die" when you take him out, you can conceivably throw around all the force you want, and just never opt to kill. Right?
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: TheMouse on February 10, 2010, 03:43:41 PM
2/4/6 means that you reduce incoming stress by an amount corresponding to the Consequences you take. Say someone hits you for 3 stress and that's enough to take you out. You take a Minor Consequence, which reduces that by 2, to 1. Now you fill the 1 stress box, have a Mild Consequence, and you're still in the fight.

Moderate ones reduce by 4, Serious by 6.

You do not get penalties. The minuses are how much the Consequence reduces incoming stress and nothing more.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: iago on February 10, 2010, 03:51:55 PM
Also, Fred. When you talk about being "Taken Out", and that the person who hits you gets to define your defeat, this means that it's wholly possible to shoot a mortal in the face with a Gout of Fire and not kill them. Because you can say "He doesn't die" when you take him out, you can conceivably throw around all the force you want, and just never opt to kill. Right?
Sure. But there's no problem there, as far as the system goes. The GM could compel you in that moment to kill instead of maim.  The opponent could concede the fight -- by dying.  (Concession is how the victim can end the fight early, defining how HE exits the fight. That includes saying 'Here, I die.')  There's a lot in the toolbox here, and in Fate, we prefer to make death a discussion instead of an act of capricious randomness.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: ClarkValentine on February 10, 2010, 04:38:30 PM
You do not get penalties. The minuses are how much the Consequence reduces incoming stress and nothing more.

No direct penalties, but those Consequences are expressed as temporary Aspects that can be tagged by your opponents or compelled by the GM. For example, the consequence Broken Arm might not give you any direct penalties, but if you try to wrestle the evil sorcerer's staff away from him, he's probably going to tag that Broken Arm to give himself a bonus to his roll.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: traeki on February 10, 2010, 05:14:34 PM
You do not get penalties. The minuses are how much the Consequence reduces incoming stress and nothing more.

I don't think anybody has explicitly stated yet: The worse the consequence is, the harder it is to heal.  So a minor consequence might be "winded" which goes away as soon as you have a chance to...well...take a breather.  But a more serious consequence would be "bullet wound in the shoulder" and in both system and fluff terms that's going to take longer to heal, obviously.  So you could spend multiple sessions running around with an extra taggable, assessable, compellable aspect of weakness.  Not to mention you remain down a consequence, so you're that much closer to being Taken Out.  I'm not sure how the different levels are characterized in DFRPG, but in SotC the really bad consequence (-8) is essentially permanent.  When you "heal" it, you get the consequence slot back, but the aspect itself just replaces one of the 10 original aspects of your character.  Maybe your girlfriend leaves you because of the horrible disfigurement, I dunno.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: Rechan on February 10, 2010, 10:15:23 PM
2/4/6 means that you reduce incoming stress by an amount corresponding to the Consequences you take. Say someone hits you for 3 stress and that's enough to take you out. You take a Minor Consequence, which reduces that by 2, to 1. Now you fill the 1 stress box, have a Mild Consequence, and you're still in the fight.
I thought you coudln't be taken out until you've had all 3 consequences filled. So, how does that come into play?

Or, that when you GET a consequence, it reduces the stress? (I.e. You have 2 empty stress boxes. You get hit for 3 stress: so you take a Mild consequence, and fill in 1 stress box?)

Because if that's the case, that you have 2 stress boxes, you have a total of "5 stress" (you fill 2 stress boxes, then the next three hits and you're done", right?
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: TheMouse on February 10, 2010, 10:16:04 PM
No direct penalties, but those Consequences are expressed as temporary Aspects that can be tagged by your opponents or compelled by the GM.

I don't consider those to be penalties. Consequences add ways for you to gain and spend FPs. This consideration coloured my response.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: Rechan on February 10, 2010, 10:21:41 PM
Sure. But there's no problem there, as far as the system goes. The GM could compel you in that moment to kill instead of maim.  The opponent could concede the fight -- by dying.  (Concession is how the victim can end the fight early, defining how HE exits the fight. That includes saying 'Here, I die.')  There's a lot in the toolbox here, and in Fate, we prefer to make death a discussion instead of an act of capricious randomness.
True, but then concessions have to be accepted. I think?

Which is nice, that it basically lets the player DECIDE of he's going to kill the mortal or not (and gives at least three opportunities: Concession, Compel, and Taken Out Decision). So if you REALLY don't want to break that law, you don't have to. It also avoids accidental death (Whoops, that bystander gets thrown off the roof by your wind spell. Sorry, Wardens coming to get you). Accidental death was my biggest concern about playing with the Laws.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: TheMouse on February 10, 2010, 10:23:17 PM
I thought you coudln't be taken out until you've had all 3 consequences filled. So, how does that come into play?

Or, that when you GET a consequence, it reduces the stress? (I.e. You have 2 empty stress boxes. You get hit for 3 stress: so you take a Mild consequence, and fill in 1 stress box?)

Because if that's the case, that you have 2 stress boxes, you have a total of "5 stress" (you fill 2 stress boxes, then the next three hits and you're done", right?

As written in SotC, you need to fill your stress track and then take three Consequences in order to be taken out. That takes forever.

As I understand the incarnation in DFRPG, you are taken out if your stress track fills. Taking Consequences reduces incoming stress. You may choose to allow a hit to take you out without taking any Consequences at all, or you may take them until you've taken your cap of three.

Let's say you have no stress. Someone hits you for 3. Your track is only 2, and you don't want to be taken out. So you take a Mild Consequence and reduce incoming by 2, to 1; you then fill in the first box of your track. Someone hits you again for 3. You no longer have a Mild Consequence, only a Moderate one. You use it to reduce incoming by 4, to a minimum of 0, which you do; your stress track still has 1 check in it. Then someone hits you for 2 more stress; you've only got your Severe Consequence left, so you use that to lower incoming to zero, leaving you as you were before. Someone hits you again for 3, and you're taken out.

There are lots of ways to combine this, since you can use multiple Consequences at once. Some huge troll tries to smash your soft little head with a fire hydrant and generates 9 incoming stress on your untouched stress track of 2. So you spend your Severe and Mild Consequences to reduce that to 1, checking off your first box. A repeat performance is more than adequate to take you out with the second shot.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: Rechan on February 10, 2010, 10:28:18 PM
Is... is that correct Fred?!

<Expletive!>
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: Rechan on February 10, 2010, 10:32:44 PM
I don't think anybody has explicitly stated yet: The worse the consequence is, the harder it is to heal.  So a minor consequence might be "winded" which goes away as soon as you have a chance to...well...take a breather.  But a more serious consequence would be "bullet wound in the shoulder" and in both system and fluff terms that's going to take longer to heal, obviously.  So you could spend multiple sessions running around with an extra taggable, assessable, compellable aspect of weakness.
So the SotC rule that if you have a back-to-back session (Hence, no down time to heal up) at all, a consequence doesn't downgrade in DFRPG?  

Quote
Maybe your girlfriend leaves you because of the horrible disfigurement, I dunno.
So would Harry's hand constitute a -8 consequence? Even though he seems to be healing just fine after (what, five books?). I would think he wouldn't have the Aspect any longer.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: iago on February 10, 2010, 10:38:35 PM
Is... is that correct Fred?!

<Expletive!>

Mouse is mostly right.  There's just not a "cap of three" per se. You have slots of consequences; everyone starts out with one -2 slot, one -4 slot, one -6 slot. (And technically a -8 slot as well, but that has some special rules attached to it.) You might gain an additional mild consequence slot or two, often restricted to applicability only in particular kind of conflict (physical, mental, social), through various other means.

But otherwise, yeah.

It works significantly better than in SOTC, and it's let us tune things to the point where fights feel extra dangerous. As they should.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: ClarkValentine on February 10, 2010, 10:42:55 PM
I don't consider those to be penalties. Consequences add ways for you to gain and spend FPs.

Oh, of course. My point was that those consequences had mechanical effects, but not of the "apply this modifier every time you roll dice" variety.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: iago on February 10, 2010, 10:44:54 PM
So the SotC rule that if you have a back-to-back session (Hence, no down time to heal up) at all, a consequence doesn't downgrade in DFRPG?  

Each consequence heals on its own timeframe in the DFRPG.  They don't "downgrade" to one another or anything like that. From the text:

Quote
Mild consequences cancel out 2 stress. They last for one scene after recovery starts. (Examples: Bruised Hand, Nasty Shiner, Winded, Flustered, Distracted.)

Moderate consequences cancel out 4 stress. They last until the end of the next session after recovery starts. Think of things that are bad enough to make you say, “Man, you really should go take care of that/get some rest.” (Examples: Belly Slash, Bad First Degree Burn, Twisted Ankle, Exhausted, Drunk.)

Severe consequences cancel out 6 stress. They last for the next scenario (or two to three sessions, whichever is longer) after recovery starts. Think of things that are bad enough to make you say, “Man, you really need to go to the ER/get serious help.” (Examples: Broken Leg, Bad Second-Degree Burn, Crippling Shame, Trauma-Induced Phobia.)

So there you go.

Quote
So would Harry's hand constitute a -8 consequence? Even though he seems to be healing just fine after (what, five books?). I would think he wouldn't have the Aspect any longer.

Extreme consequences (-8's) don't heal, per se. And when you take one, it changes one of your core aspects.  You can recover the ability to use a -8 consequence again, but the change to your aspects remains for a long time, possibly forever.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: SoulCatcher78 on February 10, 2010, 10:47:33 PM
Ok, just to jump into the middle of this and muddy things a bit more.  How many Stress positions (sounds like there should be a pg13 rating attached) do you have?  Looking at the Harry Dresden character sheet (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Harry-Dresden.pdf) he has 4 open stress circle thingies in both Physical (Endurance) and Mental (Conviction) but only 3 in Social (Presence).  

His skills in these are Conviction (5), Endurance (4), and Presence (1).  

Can you explain (preferably in little words) how the skills match up to the Stress Tracks?
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: traeki on February 10, 2010, 11:01:46 PM
Ok, just to jump into the middle of this and muddy things a bit more.  How many Stress positions (sounds like there should be a pg13 rating attached) do you have?  Looking at the Harry Dresden character sheet (http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Harry-Dresden.pdf) he has 4 open stress circle thingies in both Physical (Endurance) and Mental (Conviction) but only 3 in Social (Presence).  

His skills in these are Conviction (5), Endurance (4), and Presence (1).  

Can you explain (preferably in little words) how the skills match up to the Stress Tracks?

Well, I'm a little confused by the Conviction, but in SotC I think you get +1 boxes for Average-Fair, +2 boxes for Good-Great, +3 boxes for Superb or higher.  Which would result in 5 Mental boxes, so perhaps the accounting is a bit more strict for DF (or maybe that's why he gets an extra mental consequence, but I was assuming that came from the +0 "Wizard's Constitution" stunt).
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: iago on February 10, 2010, 11:03:47 PM
Conviction ties to mental stress, Presence to social, Endurance to physical.

Base length of each track is 2.

1-2 points in a skill gives you 3 boxes instead of 2.
3-4 points gives you 4.
5+ points gives you an extra mild consequence slot of that type only on top of your 4 stress boxes.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: traeki on February 10, 2010, 11:04:57 PM
As I understand the incarnation in DFRPG, you are taken out if your stress track fills. Taking Consequences reduces incoming stress. You may choose to allow a hit to take you out without taking any Consequences at all, or you may take them until you've taken your cap of three.

Point of clarification: In DF, are you taken out when your (two) stress boxes are filled, or when your two stress boxes are filled and you take another stress that you can't prevent with a consequence?

I had assumed the latter, but TheMouse seems to be indicating the former, and the difference is significant when we're talking about two boxes.  =)
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: iago on February 10, 2010, 11:14:29 PM
Point of clarification: In DF, are you taken out when your (two) stress boxes are filled, or when your two stress boxes are filled and you take another stress that you can't prevent with a consequence?

You are taken out when you are unable to take a hit on your stress track.

Consequences try to push the hit onto your stress track.

No available box (or hit still lands too high to land on the track at all), bam. Taken out.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: Rechan on February 10, 2010, 11:16:25 PM
Quote
They last until the end of the next session after recovery starts
Holy crap. I thought that they lasted until you got something like, well, rest. They last an entire session? Even if say, there's downtime (like in the books, where there's the period Harry gets a bit of sleep and can eat a sandwich)?

This means you can only have like maybe three conflicts per adventure, or else you're going to kill your party.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: traeki on February 10, 2010, 11:18:01 PM
5+ points gives you an extra mild consequence slot of that type only on top of your 4 stress boxes.

Aha!  Very cool, that has a nice flavor to it (kind of like getting a free stunt for taking a somewhat passive skill as one of your peak investments).

But what does Wizard's Constitution actually impact, then?  From a balance standpoint I should have guessed it wasn't where the consequence was coming from ("zero cost?  I'll take three!"), but it's not obvious what else a "constitution" stunt would impact.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: SoulCatcher78 on February 10, 2010, 11:20:02 PM
Conviction ties to mental stress, Presence to social, Endurance to physical.

Base length of each track is 2.

1-2 points in a skill gives you 3 boxes instead of 2.
3-4 points gives you 4.
5+ points gives you an extra mild consequence slot of that type only on top of your 4 stress boxes.

That makes sense now.  I was trying to figure that one out and I just kept scratching my head.  Having the additional mild consequence box allows the character to take even more of a beating (either mentally, physically, or social (HA, take that cripling shame)) which will come in handy if you're someone like Dresden who gets beat on regularly.  If the additional mild consequence doesn't have to be dedicated to the type of skill it came from that's even better.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: iago on February 10, 2010, 11:27:19 PM
Aha!  Very cool, that has a nice flavor to it (kind of like getting a free stunt for taking a somewhat passive skill as one of your peak investments).

But what does Wizard's Constitution actually impact, then?  From a balance standpoint I should have guessed it wasn't where the consequence was coming from ("zero cost?  I'll take three!"), but it's not obvious what else a "constitution" stunt would impact.

Wizard's constitution means you can heal *slightly* faster than a normal person, you can heal over a very long time from some kinds of injuries that would be permanent for normal people, and you live real long. Mostly window-dressing, which is why it has no cost.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: SoulCatcher78 on February 10, 2010, 11:28:21 PM
Holy crap. I thought that they lasted until you got something like, well, rest. They last an entire session? Even if say, there's downtime (like in the books, where there's the period Harry gets a bit of sleep and can eat a sandwich)?

This means you can only have like maybe three conflicts per scenario, or else you're going to kill your party.

Given the examples (belly slash, 2nd degree burns, etc) the healing time frame seems reasonable.  If someone hits you with a fire attack and deals 4 stress you can avoid touching the stress track by taking a Moderate Consequence.  Your stress track is still wide open but now you take on "2nd degree burns" which can be exploited by an opponent grappling with you (that'd freaking hurt) but otherwise allows you to keep on moving through the scenario.   There might also be options for speeding up healing for Moderate and Mild Consequences so that you don't have to carry that all the way this session and the next.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: iago on February 10, 2010, 11:29:18 PM
Holy crap. I thought that they lasted until you got something like, well, rest. They last an entire session? Even if say, there's downtime (like in the books, where there's the period Harry gets a bit of sleep and can eat a sandwich)?

This means you can only have like maybe three conflicts per adventure, or else you're going to kill your party.

You may be leaping to conclusions about what qualifies as recovery starting -- but I'll give you a mildly inaccurate yes to your last conclusion.  You've gotta pick your fights in the Dresdenverse, or you'll end up screwed.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: Rechan on February 11, 2010, 12:37:57 AM
You've gotta pick your fights in the Dresdenverse, or you'll end up screwed.
I wasn't making that connection as a player, but as a GM. The GM has to know when to make those unavoidable or "hard to avoid" conflicts, or pepper his adventure with only a few.

After all, PCs might very well understand to be wary, but that also depends on the adventure. If the enemies are hellbent on fightin', or the only way to resolve things is going through the villain's face...

Compare this to the Novels. Using Dead Beat as an example:
(click to show/hide)

Only the first was avoidable, and only that would've occurred had Harry slipped out the back instead of defending Bach.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: Bosh on February 11, 2010, 12:39:08 AM
Also in most of the books, Dresden just barely crawls across the finish line with a nasty nasty set of consequences. In fact in some of the books is seems like he has that stunt in SotC that lets you delay being taken out by spending Fate points. The Dresdenverse is pretty hard on PCs so although the death rate is pretty low, the consequences get piled on pretty high and characters should end a lot of their adventures in the hospital.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: TheMouse on February 11, 2010, 02:28:54 AM
Oh, of course. My point was that those consequences had mechanical effects, but not of the "apply this modifier every time you roll dice" variety.

We're on the same page. I just don't like using the word "penalty" with something Consequences, since we're talking about a hobby which has had flaws/ disadvantages/ death spirals/ whatever for a long time. It carries some weight that simply doesn't apply to Consequences, or at least not in a straight forward, transparent way.
Title: Re: Game Balance and the Laws
Post by: LCDarkwood on February 12, 2010, 02:18:15 AM
This means you can only have like maybe three conflicts per adventure, or else you're going to kill your party.

No. This means that if you have a lot of consequences, you're going to be conceding a lot of fights. Stress clears out at the end of the scene, so you can usually keep yourself in a conflict with fate points and whatnot even if all your consequences are filled for at least a couple of exchanges. And if you concede before the roll that takes you out, you can dictate the terms of your defeat. So, in this sense, TPK is a pretty impossible outcome unless you're actively gunning for it... but it is possible that you might have a group that spends a certain amount of the story getting beaten back and suffering setbacks and complications as a result of engaging in conflict.

Which, of course, would make them precisely like this wizard PI that I know...


-L