Also, do players know all the obvious aspects on a scene, or do they have to discover them? What about the NPCs (not that these guys had any fate points anyway, but I'm just curious)?
2) They tracked the ambush to a drug dealer on Broadway. He didn't give up much information (due to a stunning success on his conviction roll to defend against intimidation), but they decided to follow him. The meteomancer wanted to use her magic to use cloud cover to make it darker, putting an aspect on the scene that she could tag to improve her stealth roll. She ended up spending a fate point and making a declaration, but could she have done it with a skill roll? If so, what?
I'm sure I'll have more questions as I think of them throughout the day, but this is what I have off the top of my head. Again, any help is appreciated. I really love this system, but I'm having a hard time with it. It's been a long time since I had to learn a system from scratch!
I believe that your character would have gotten her first tag on the Foggy aspect free, because she created it with a maneuver (through magic). If it was a sticky aspect (i.e. she got extra shifts on her roll), she and others could tag as normal, by paying an FP. She would have made a Thaumaturgy (or possibly Evocation) roll to make a maneuver and place the Foggy aspect on the scene and get a free tag for it. (Maneuvers, YS207)
Here's where I'm not sure about things. We played the intimidate as a mental attack against the thugs' conviction. I'm not sure if that was right.I'd probably have classified the intimidation as a maneuver rather than an attack - though that does depend on how the player describes it. As a maneuver your players could have tagged it for a bonus on a future attack.
We also couldn't figure out how to adjust the shifts needed for her to target all of the enemies in the zone. I looked and looked, but couldn't find it. In the end, I just used the same rules used for putting a block in front of multiple allies.There are basically two methods of targeting multiple people: spray attacks and zone wide attacks. With a magical spray attack you split the power of the spell between targets. A zone wide magical attack would cost two shifts of power...and potentially affect allies.
Can someone tell me if this should have been a mental attack? If so, did we use the right skill for defense (which the thugs had at mediocre), and what should I have done about her targeting multiple opponents?Discipline is the default mental defense but there is no "single right answer" to defensive skill choice. It really depends on trappings. If the thugs were cultists using faith to resist fear Conviction would be appropriate.
Also, do players know all the obvious aspects on a scene, or do they have to discover them? What about the NPCs (not that these guys had any fate points anyway, but I'm just curious)?They should know the obvious aspects. Raining, darkness, slippery concrete, narrow alley, on fire, etc - those are obvious to anyone. The "camera over the restaurant's back door" may not be obvious if concealed.
2) They tracked the ambush to a drug dealer on Broadway. He didn't give up much information (due to a stunning success on his conviction roll to defend against intimidation), but they decided to follow him. The meteomancer wanted to use her magic to use cloud cover to make it darker, putting an aspect on the scene that she could tag to improve her stealth roll. She ended up spending a fate point and making a declaration, but could she have done it with a skill roll? If so, what?QuoteA declaration as you did it works well. Presuming she has some amount of weather magic it could also have been a spell to create an aspect by maneuver. Assuming she had a few minutes, it would have been a good moment for a quick thaumaturgy spell calling the clouds.So if she used magic for it, how would the roll play out? Unlike a combat spell, she's not really rolling against anything (she would have been using evocation based on time constraints). So she would have decided how many shifts to power the spell with and then make her discipline roll, and anything above the power would make it sticky?Using evocation, I'd recommend a weather based veil. You could run it as a maneuver if you preferred, that would cost 3 for the aspect plus 1 to make it sticky giving you a plus two on your stealth roll. The veil on the other hand would create a 4 (if using the same number of power shifts as the maneuver) block against perception...and you take the better of the veil or your stealth roll when someone attempts to penetrate the veil.
I'd probably have classified the intimidation as a maneuver rather than an attack - though that does depend on how the player describes it.
There are basically two methods of targeting multiple people: spray attacks and zone wide attacks. With a magical spray attack you split the power of the spell between targets. A zone wide magical attack would cost two shifts of power...and potentially affect allies.
Discipline is the default mental defense but there is no "single right answer" to defensive skill choice. It really depends on trappings. If the thugs were cultists using faith to resist fear Conviction would be appropriate.
Using evocation, I'd recommend a weather based veil. You could run it as a maneuver if you preferred, that would cost 3 for the aspect plus 1 to make it sticky giving you a plus two on your stealth roll. The veil on the other hand would create a 4 (if using the same number of power shifts as the maneuver) block against perception...and you take the better of the veil or your stealth roll when someone attempts to penetrate the veil.
And since they had no mental bubbles, any success automatically takes them out, right?They should have at least 2 stress even with 0 Discipline. As for "taken out" - that's a possibility though I usually call it a concession unless they're going through all of their consequences. Low level mooks conceding rather than taking consequences does make sense. It's like the ganger looking around, not seeing the backup he wanted, and taking off with one last comment...
Damn... a veil would have made sense. I wish I'd thought of that. There's just so much to keep track of.There can be a lot of details to track. Just remember, there are really only three possible actions: attack, block, and create / discover an aspect. Just about everything can be broken down to one or more of those three components.
They should have at least 2 stress even with 0 Discipline. As for "taken out" - that's a possibility though I usually call it a concession unless they're going through all of their consequences. Low level mooks conceding rather than taking consequences does make sense. It's like the ganger looking around, not seeing the backup he wanted, and taking off with one last comment...
As for intimidating others I tend to reserve mental stress for very rare occasions...
Area social attacks are just stumping me right now, however something to note is that social/mental zones are different from physical zones, so it's not all that weird to have a zone-wide social attack that doesn't effect your allies (because they aren't in the same social zone).
Something I would point out is that once a roll is made a Concession is impossible. Even if you are choosing to not take any consequences you are still being taken out and thus have no say in how that happens. You may be conceding by the definition of the word, however using the DFRPG terminology you can't "Concede" you are "Taken out."
As for intimidating others I tend to reserve mental stress for very rare occasions. If you read the section on mental conflicts on YS217-219 you get the idea that it requires one of a few things. 1) Mind magic, 2) A close relationship to the target, or 3) Specific training to be able to do so (with the intimidation skill). I see that as either coming from years of study of the human psyche, or from training in torture tactics. Likely a stunt either way. Otherwise I figure intimidation does social attacks, as explained in the skill description.
Area social attacks are just stumping me right now, however something to note is that social/mental zones are different from physical zones, so it's not all that weird to have a zone-wide social attack that doesn't effect your allies (because they aren't in the same social zone).
Interesting point. When the thugs "lost," I allowed her to choose what happened to them, so I suppose that fits the definition of "taken out" rather than "concession." Am I correct in that? Also, her decision was that three of the thugs booked out of there, but one was so terrified he just curled up by the dumpster saying, "don't hurt me" (effectively allowing them to question the thugs). That seemed reasonable to me. What do you think?Yes, taken out means that the victor decides the outcome.
Another interesting point. It walks a fine line, but I'm more inclined to go with "social" as well, only because mental attacks are so specifically defined in the book. That said, if I use real world logic (never a good idea when arbitrating game rules, from my experience), I find it hard to consider the response a social one in this situation.The way I read the example from your first post. She basically tried to scare the thugs in to running. IE by throwing around a few flashy sound effects and loud bangs. I'd treat that as a mental attack using intimidate to get them to crap their pants.
It seems to me that this would be something to determine on a case-by-case basis.Welcome to FATE.
My fear is that it could be too easily abused to let social conflicts sidestep the limitations of physical conflicts - and Social Consequences can actually be the hardest ones to work off.
Interesting point. When the thugs "lost," I allowed her to choose what happened to them, so I suppose that fits the definition of "taken out" rather than "concession." Am I correct in that? Also, her decision was that three of the thugs booked out of there, but one was so terrified he just curled up by the dumpster saying, "don't hurt me" (effectively allowing them to question the thugs). That seemed reasonable to me. What do you think?
Finally, a character cannot be saved from a
roll that takes him out by offering a concession.
You have to offer the concession before the roll
that takes out your character. Otherwise, it’s
cheating the opponent out of victory.
On the other hand if part of your concession is to offer to take a consequence then I have little issue with it, other than the fact that one could simply take the damage (and the ensuing consequence) and then offer a concession, rather than complicating matters.