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 - ryanroyce

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
46
DFRPG / Re: More Minor/ Mundane Effects
« on: June 20, 2010, 06:40:05 PM »
If we ignore the fact the Harry has never used magic in this way, despite ample incentive, on the basis that his "blue collar legitimacy complex" makes him believe that such a spell is a form of "cheating", then how about a thaumaturgic spell that warms your clothes as if they were just pulled out of the dryer and/or cools your clothes as if they had just spent the night in the freezer.  It's the perfect spell for making Chicago winters or Atlanta summers bearable by technology-impaired wizards.

47
DFRPG / Re: Problems With Social Conflicts
« on: June 19, 2010, 06:54:05 PM »
Quote from: toturi on June 19, 2010, 03:32:07 PM
Thus we get down to who is quicker on the draw. Character A is a social character, therefore it is in his favor if there is a social conflict. Character B is a physical character, it is in his favor to make the conflict physical.

So it gets down to who gets to decide which type of conflict it is. Remember pure mundane social skills aren't magic or mind control. An intimidated person can still behave irrationally and punch the other guy out of fear. A tricked person may just attack anyway out of sheer viciousness or "you might not be Bob the Witness, but I will kill you anyway just to be safe."

Um... unless I've missed a rule somewhere, there isn't a strict line between the different types of conflict.  Sure, your social guy may try to intimidate my combat guy on his initiative, but there's nothing stopping my combat guy from cutting you up on his turn in the exchange.  The stakes would be "talk me out of hurting you VS me hurting you anyway", more or less.  If your guy succeeds well enough to Take Him Out on the first hit, then you win the stakes and talk me out of it somehow.  If you don't, then things get bloody.

Yes, it may seem unfair that physical combat can so easily overshadow social conflict but, well, that's just how reality works.  In the words of Al Capone, "You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."

48
DFRPG / Re: Venatori Umbrorum
« on: June 19, 2010, 04:20:50 PM »
Quote from: Papa Gruff
@ryanroyce: just out of interest. Are you playing a Venator or a member of the Venatori Umbrorum? It's a difference you only get if you have read Backup and that's all the spoiling I'm comfortable with here

I hadn't yet read Backup when I created the character, so
(click to show/hide)

Quote from: Lanodantheon on June 18, 2010, 09:11:29 AM
One of my first character ideas for Magical Spokane was a "Friendly Neighborhood Venatori" Here's my take on them:

We know they are like the Masons, a secret brotherhood of sorts and we know they use human legal systems to fight the monsters.

My personal spin uses those 2 elements and combined with the idea that when Harry describes them as having machineguns and flamethrowers, he's not exaggerating.

They are represented in Magical Spokane by the Smyth (still pronounced Smith) family. The Smyth family began protecting people from darkness when the Pilgrims settled in Jamestown and then protected the expansion West. The y in their name is a tradition to tell apart the monster hunters from everyone else in the family tree. How many people in profession x do you know with the last name of Smith?

BOth of these traits are usually represented by the Aspects unique to every Smyth: 15th Generation Monster Hunter and the Trouble You Can Pick You Friends, but Not Your Relatives...

The Spokane Smyths are Gunsmiths, with grandfathered permits for weapons from before the Assault Weapons Ban(creative license given WA gun laws) . I represent that with Aspects like, I Have a Permit For That since I would figure that Venatori would have their members ordained so they can make holy water or marriages in a pinch

Their claim to fame in Supernatural Spokane came in the 1950's, when the Dutch Black Court had dug in and bought up half of Downtown after the Great  Fire. The Smyth patriarch found out the Spokane Count didn't like to pay his taxes....
Nothing quite like serving an eviction notice at mid day....  ;D

Heh, my character is similar to yours, right down to the high concept: he's a 7th Generation Venatori Umbrorum.  For seven generations, his extended family has comprised a cell of the "flamethrowers and machine guns" side of the Venatori, roaming North America while using "applied ferromancy" to defend humanity from supernatural threats.  However, his immediate family took things a bit too far and fell into negative refresh territory, subtly changing their mission from "protect the mortals" to "kill the monsters".  To make a long story short, my character called it quits when they attempted to kill a 12yo white court virgin.

He now resides in Atlanta, running a kendo dojo and playing the local hero.  He is a superb athlete and swordsman, on par with Luccio and Morgan (I checked), with lots of ferromancy at his disposal.  One of his aspects is Pocket Full of Kryptonite, which he can invoke when he needs to have just the right piece of gear in his Batman-esque gym bag.

49
DFRPG / Re: Problems With Social Conflicts
« on: June 19, 2010, 05:22:38 AM »
To take a page from Dogs in the Vineyard, Step One of a conflict is to establish what's at stake.  The stakes should be agreed upon by the GM and the players before initiative is rolled, so to speak, informed by the circumstances that surround the conflict and the personalities of the participants.  Sometimes, one side has the other at a disadvantage and can get away with seeking higher stakes, but that's just another factor to consider when negotiating.  For example, if a pair of insane vampires have captured a wounded PC, they have the advantage and can seek high stakes.  However, if the PC knows that help will be on the way very soon and he merely needs to stall, then the PC's player can refuse to accept those high stakes and negotiate something more acceptable. Role-playing is a significant factor at this stage.

Once the Stakes are agreed upon, then the die-rolling portion of the conflict should take place.  If one side Concedes or gets Taken Out, then the other side wins those Stakes.  If, for any reason, one side decides mid-scene that they want to fight for a different set of Stakes, then another conflict would need to be initiated, possibly with a cleared social stress track.

It is also important to remember that mere force of personality (as represented by a character's social skills) sometimes just isn't enough to win certain stakes.  Without genuine bargaining chips, some stakes will simply be out-of-reach, no matter how superb their Intimidation or Rapport skills are.  As with the above example, if the player decided that nothing short of bloody violence would convince their PC to give up their quest to rescue a loved one (i.e., "I'll save her or die trying") and the GM doesn't have any additional bargaining chips to put on the table, then simple social conflict cannot be used to win that stake.

50
DFRPG / Re: Venatori Umbrorum
« on: June 18, 2010, 04:01:30 AM »
Quote from: Papa Gruff on June 16, 2010, 07:47:15 PM
Actually I think it's sad that Jim hasn't shown us more of the Venatori Umbrorum in the books so far. Masons with flame throwers is such a nice picture in my head. I think a Vanatori Umbrorum special weapons and tactics unit would be a pretty nice theme for a all vanilla mortal group too.

 I'd also like to learn more about the Venatori Umbrorum, especially since I'm playing a Venator swordsman at the moment.  While it is somewhat liberating to have free reign to depict them however we (my fellow players and I) like, it's also frustrating to know that whatever we create in the meantime could be completely invalidated in the next novel or short story.  As it is, I see the Venatori as having huge archives of occult counter-measures and lore (possibly even info on Nicodemus that the Knights have lost and common rituals that haven't been diluted through WC publishing), extensive political/financial influence, and being masters of "applied ferromancy" versus the supernatural.

Also, this...
Quote from: jimbutcher
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,15416.msg728651.html#msg728651
6) ... And not all the witch hunters were in it for the money.  There was a class of men who knew all about the various forces of the supernatural, out there in the darkness, and who made themselves as able to contend with them as any mortal could be.  If a wizard went all kaboomy on mortals, he knew that there was someone who was going to hunt him, striking in a moment of vulnerability.

(I'll leave it to you to deduce who they grew up into, eventually.  It isn't complicated or hard to see.)

End of the day, even wizards bleed.  And as the wise Governor of California says, if it bleeds, you can kill it.

This tells me that the Venatori (obviously the group he's referring to, IMO) weren't always allies of the White Council and actually posed a credible threat to them, even back when "ferromancy" was far more limited.  What kind of threat could they pose now?

Much like Harry, I'm curious as hell to learn more about them.

51
DFRPG / Re: Writeable/Safeable Char. Sheet?
« on: June 18, 2010, 01:49:17 AM »
Seems like CableRouter's version only works with Foxit, not Adobe.  Not a big deal, but something worth noting.

52
DFRPG / Re: Writeable/Safeable Char. Sheet?
« on: June 17, 2010, 10:13:50 PM »
Am I the only one getting a message saying that "This document contained certain rights [and] has been changed since it was created and these rights are no longer valid.  Please contact the author for the original version..."?

 ???

53
DFRPG / Re: Question on transitioning from social into physical conflict
« on: June 15, 2010, 12:49:15 AM »
Quote from: Papa Gruff on June 12, 2010, 12:28:31 PM
In our last session a situation came up in which I wasn't sure how to handle it. I decided to just go with what the players wanted but would like to have options if a similar situation presents its self in the future. The scene was as follows:

The group consisting of Simon the wizard, Erik the scion and William the vampire slayer. They had fought their way into the den of a pretty influential RCV, laying havoc on his property on the way in. The find them selfs outnumbered 3:1 by the retainers of said Vampire. Knowing of his strong position the Vamp starts a social conflict with the goal of intimidating the PC into leaving without rescuing the guy kidnapped by the RCV. The players are pretty much outclassed in the social conflict and quickly take social stress by the intimidation attacks. Shortly before consequences are taken, the scion decides that there has been enough talk, auto compelling one of his Aspects and making the social into a physical conflict.

Now comes the problem I am unsure of. By changing the social conflict into a physical, the player avoided consequences to him and his allies. The NPC gets cheated out of his victory in the social conflict. Should such a situation be handled as a concession since they pretty much gave up in the social conflict? What would be appropriate here? I'm at a loss of ideas and can't find anything in the rules to help me. Any ideas guys?

 Sounds to me like the conflict was already physical (breaking into the RCV den) when you tried to change it into social combat.  If the PCs played along, that's fine, but IMO it is perfectly justifiable to use a physical combat skill (say, Guns or Weapons) to "defend" against an intimidation attack, especially if violence is already on the the table.  So, when the RCV points out that "he has them outnumbered 3:1, soon you will be mine, blah, blah, blah", then the PC can reply "Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever you say die fledermaus" and riposte by shooting him in the face.  Like they say, a pair o' nines beats four aces. ;)

 Now, if the PCs agreed to a battle of wits by defending with social skills and got handed their asses, then that's another story.  They willingly engaged in social combat, so they have to accept the consequences (literally).

54
DFRPG / Re: Weapons
« on: June 14, 2010, 11:54:01 PM »
That's what I figured, but I wanted to get some feedback anyway.  Thanks.

55
DFRPG / Weapons
« on: June 14, 2010, 10:04:03 PM »
So, the weapons damage table (YS202) lists "swords" as Weapon:2 and "two-handed weapons" as Weapon:3.  What about two-handed swords?  More precisely, what about swords that can be used one-handed OR two-handed?

56
DFRPG / Re: Parsing the Laws of Magic (specifically the fourth)
« on: June 12, 2010, 03:13:18 AM »
Quote from: KOFFEYKID on June 11, 2010, 03:37:20 AM
To those of you pointing out our extreme lack of understanding of the workings in the human mind, and not even knowing whether or not something is wrong. I disagree.

If you look at something thats broken, or damage, you can usually tell that it is damaged, even if you dont know how exactly it is damaged, or how exactly to fix it.

In the same way Im guessing that a psychomancer could delve into your mind, and get a feel for the areas of trauma, stress, etcetera.

 Simply put, it isn't good enough to merely know that something is broken or wrong or damaged.  If my car breaks down and lets out the magic smoke, I know that something is wrong.  Duh.  It doesn't mean I necessarily have the tools or the mechanical knowledge to fix it.  When it comes to biomancy or psychomancy, magic can stand in for the tools, but it can't stand in for the knowledge.  With biology, science has a very, very precise understanding of exactly how things work.  Unfortunately, this isn't true when it comes to science's understanding of the mind (not just the brain), especially in Dresden-verse where willful ignorance of anything supernatural can cloud judgement.  I'm not saying that fixing a mind with psychomancy can't be done, I'm just saying that the limits of human science make it more difficult than fixing a body with biomancy.  To express this idea mechanically, I'd make the mental version of Reiki require an extra shift of complexity. 

 Also, just to be clear, a psychomancer could _diagnose_ mental trauma without much difficulty, especially if they had the Counselor stunt for Empathy or if it was inflicted by black magic.  It's just that their diagnosis would be expressed within the scope of mortal understanding.

 On a related note, I just reread Turn Coat and it seems very clear that consent makes the difference when it comes to psychomancy.  After the treachery is exposed, several mentions are made of examining the extent of the psychic damage inflicted on the Wardens and other Council members.



57
DFRPG / Re: Ley Lines
« on: June 11, 2010, 11:17:19 PM »
IIRC, the Nevermore chapter says that its ley line is contiguous with the Fall Line, the geological border between the piedmont (aka the Eastern Appalachian foothills) and Atlantic coastal plains.  That is far from a straight line, and by implication these other cities [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_line ] are all connected to the same ley line or at least very close to it.

58
DFRPG / Re: Parsing the Laws of Magic (specifically the fourth)
« on: June 11, 2010, 01:56:37 AM »
Quote from: ballplayer72 on June 11, 2010, 12:52:15 AM

(click to show/hide)
.

Yeah, but did she ask them for permission first?  Unless she did it to them both while they were sleeping (I can't reference the book to know for sure), she probably would have convinced them to go along with her scheme, even though they couldn't have comprehended it.  If so, then consent didn't help.

59
DFRPG / Re: Parsing the Laws of Magic (specifically the fourth)
« on: June 10, 2010, 11:55:06 PM »
 It sounds to me like this practitioner is trying to, in mechanical terms, heal mental consequences with psychomancy in the manner that biomancy may heal physical consequences.  She could use Reiki, replace physical with mental, and call it a day.

 The problem is that human science understands biology and physical trauma far, far, far more thoroughly than it understands psychology and mental trauma.  When someone has a fractured bone, a trained biologist will know exactly what needs to happen in order for that wound to be healed... and thus a trained biomancer could help speed the body along on its natural healing process.  With mental trauma, however, it is nigh impossible to have that level of certainty.  A psychomancer attempting to help a mind's natural recovery would have to tread very lightly to avoid accidentally
(click to show/hide)
something up and making things worse.  The human mind is used to being Alone in the dark space behind its eyes and it may not react well to having that solitude disrupted, regardless of what that person may have said.

 Regarding Lawbreaker, I don't have PG with me to confirm this either way, but are we certain that
(click to show/hide)
?  Part of me wants to say that informed consent will allow a PC to avoid acquiring Lawbreaker, since magic respects that sort of thing in regards to other thresholds, but it wouldn't necessarily let them avoid being tried as a warlock by the White Council anyway.

60
DFRPG / Re: How would a healing power work?
« on: June 10, 2010, 10:25:43 PM »
 I don't think anyone has suggested the ability to magically heal extreme consequences.  At best, consistently-applied therapeutic biomancy MIGHT be able to allow a full recovery from such wounds (provided that recovery is even remotely possible) in a manner similar to Wizard's Constitution allowing Harry to keep his hand, but that's about it.  Also, death is not an Extreme consequence;death is a Taken Out consequence.

 The problem stemming from these contradictory rules is that it is hard to know where the "wiggle-room" is in terms of Biomancy.  Reiki is allowed by default because it's a sample spell in the bloody book, but when it comes to creating new/different healing spells... what can you do?

 For example, say I want a spell that can temporarily suppress the pain and disability presented by a given physical consequence.  The drawback is that the injury's recovery time is increased by at least double, or more depending on how long the suppression lasted.  So, using this spell to clear out a severe consequence would increase the recovery time to at least two full scenarios, but would give the PC the ability to stay in the fight for as long as the spell lasted, possibly meaning the difference between succeeding or failing at that scenario.  Only one consequence of a given severity can be suppressed at any one time.  The inspiration for this idea comes from the bracelet of stones McCoy gave Dresden to temporarily suppress the pain in his hand, which would have been excruciating otherwise.  As the dust settled, the last of the stones shattered and the pain came back.  Is this sort of spell allowed with biomancy?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6