ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Deadmanwalking on April 08, 2010, 06:28:32 AM
-
So, I was looking on RPGnet, and they were discussing a potential problem in realism for FATE, which can be summed up as follows: You can maneuver to place the Aspect "On Fire!" on someone, and yet they will not take damage from it by default. Thinking about it, that actually bothered me so I tried to come up with a solution. I also found the section on ongoing damage on p. 325. These together gave me an idea:
If you have put an appropriate aspect on an individual (such as "On Fire!", or "Slowly Dissolving" with Water Evocation) with a Maneuver you may immediately give up your free tag on the Aspect to have the individual take a 1 stress hit every exchange until they successfully take an action to maneuver to remove the Aspect in question. The aspect still exists and may be used, you've just given up your free tag.
Does that sound workable? It'd solve the believability issue in a mechanically supported manner, and it doesn't look too unbalanced either.
-
Sounds reasonable to me, but I'm still learning the system...
-
That's firmly in house rule territory -- remember, generally stress tracks are still pretty short things, so successive 1-stress hits are a big deal (though easily obviated by the presence of applicable armor, I suppose) -- but it does have a bit of elegance to it. I like the pressure it creates to take an action to get that damn temporary aspect off of ya!
-
I think you're onto a win :)
-
I like it, though I might make it slightly more complicated.
Something like: For every shift you get over their roll, it'll last one round (unless they remove it). So if you roll a Superb (+5) and they roll a Good (+3), it'll last 2 rounds. Less, if they spend a maneuver trying to remove the thing.
-
That's firmly in house rule territory -- but it does have a bit of elegance to it. I like the pressure it creates to take an action to get that damn temporary aspect off of ya!
We have a house rule to create continuing damage you reverse the block maneuver. It continues afterward until they do a maneuver to eliminate it.
-
I like it, though I might make it slightly more complicated.
Something like: For every shift you get over their roll, it'll last one round (unless they remove it). So if you roll a Superb (+5) and they roll a Good (+3), it'll last 2 rounds. Less, if they spend a maneuver trying to remove the thing.
That would work too I suppose. Does your method give you the level of continuing damage or is it always +1?
-
I think 1 point of stress per round works well for most effects, myself.
-
So, I was looking on RPGnet, and they were discussing a potential problem in realism for FATE, which can be summed up as follows: You can maneuver to place the Aspect "On Fire!" on someone, and yet they will not take damage from it by default.
Okay, so, here's the problem I have with this argument - it assumes that the people at the table aren't evaluating the aspects they want to place in terms of intent and circumstance.
As a mechanic that functions primarily off of conversation, I can't honestly see how in play, the group would accept any aspect as a maneuver that didn't make sense in context. Intent precedes mechanics, right? The idea that you'd say, "Oh, I want to burn this dude up, so I'm going to place a maneuver on him that says 'On Fire!'" is kind of ridiculous on the face of it, because the clear intent of setting someone on fire is to continually inflict stress and consequences, which a maneuver by itself does not do.
On Fire! is, by contrast, a great scene aspect, because it can logically function to do all the things a scene aspect needs to do - modify and restrict certain actions and color the narrative.
So, if I wanted to set someone on fire, I would look to create a "targeted" environmental hazard using the rules in Running the Game, because that's the tool the rules have to match my intent. Asking the GM if I can do that with a maneuver instead of inflicting an aspect? That's fertile ground for an at-the-table call. (I'd allow it, but I'd prolly make it hard.) Or, I'd try to modify a grapple to apply, because that can also do stress every round. It'd depend if I had a flamethrower, or if I was just setting someone on fire.
Just sayin'. The fact that you can describe anything as an aspect doesn't mean it's always the best tool for the situation.
-L
-
remember, generally stress tracks are still pretty short things, so successive 1-stress hits are a big deal.....I like the pressure it creates to take an action to get that damn temporary aspect off of ya!
We are talking about being ON FIRE!!!! here right? That would be more than a "big deal" and what else would you be able to do until you put it out. I like this rule however it is up to the GM to mitigate its use as a combat tactic with collateral damage by expressing the horror of what is being done.
-
That's firmly in house rule territory -- remember, generally stress tracks are still pretty short things, so successive 1-stress hits are a big deal (though easily obviated by the presence of applicable armor, I suppose) -- but it does have a bit of elegance to it. I like the pressure it creates to take an action to get that damn temporary aspect off of ya!
Oh, I'm aware. And actually, that's one of the thigs that worried me about the idea. Until I saw this:
I like it, though I might make it slightly more complicated.
Something like: For every shift you get over their roll, it'll last one round (unless they remove it). So if you roll a Superb (+5) and they roll a Good (+3), it'll last 2 rounds. Less, if they spend a maneuver trying to remove the thing.
That sounds like a great idea to keep things from getting out of hand. Though I'd add any Weapon rating to the number of rounds in question just to make Fire evocation and flamethrowers appropriately scary. I'd also set the difficulty of a maeuver to get rid of the Aspect (and thus the damage) at a difficulty of the original attack.
Okay, so, here's the problem I have with this argument - it assumes that the people at the table aren't evaluating the aspects they want to place in terms of intent and circumstance.
As a mechanic that functions primarily off of conversation, I can't honestly see how in play, the group would accept any aspect as a maneuver that didn't make sense in context. Intent precedes mechanics, right? The idea that you'd say, "Oh, I want to burn this dude up, so I'm going to place a maneuver on him that says 'On Fire!'" is kind of ridiculous on the face of it, because the clear intent of setting someone on fire is to continually inflict stress and consequences, which a maneuver by itself does not do.
On Fire! is, by contrast, a great scene aspect, because it can logically function to do all the things a scene aspect needs to do - modify and restrict certain actions and color the narrative.
So, if I wanted to set someone on fire, I would look to create a "targeted" environmental hazard using the rules in Running the Game, because that's the tool the rules have to match my intent. Asking the GM if I can do that with a maneuver instead of inflicting an aspect? That's fertile ground for an at-the-table call. (I'd allow it, but I'd prolly make it hard.) Or, I'd try to modify a grapple to apply, because that can also do stress every round. It'd depend if I had a flamethrower, or if I was just setting someone on fire.
Just sayin'. The fact that you can describe anything as an aspect doesn't mean it's always the best tool for the situation.
-L
I don't disagree exactly...but "On Fire!" is totally an Aspect you should be able to put on people with a maneuver if you have, well, somthing you can set people on fire with. I mean, it's not exactly easy to fight when you're on fire.
Ongoing damage also just seems like it should be something theoretically available to PCs without needing a workaround. Particularly PCs with Evocation.
-
I'd also add the proviso that you can't have multiple ongoing effects on something at the same time. Being burned by fire AND dissolved by acid isn't an accelerator (it just means it might take longer to shake off the ongoing 1-stress-per-exchange effect). That'll prevent this from becoming the killer app that everyone and their brother piles onto an unarmored foe at the first opportunity. Ongoing effects should only ever inflict at most 1 stress per exchange per target.
That said, pay close attention to what Lenny (LCDarkwood) says about this above. He's the lead system developer on the game after all.
-
I'd also add the proviso that you can't have multiple ongoing effects on something at the same time. Being burned by fire AND dissolved by acid isn't an accelerator (it just means it might take longer to shake off the ongoing 1-stress-per-exchange effect). That'll prevent this from becoming the killer app that everyone and their brother piles onto an unarmored foe at the first opportunity. Ongoing effects should only ever inflict at most 1 stress per exchange per target.
Oh, absolutely! Stacking is definitely a bad idea.
That said, pay close attention to what Lenny (LCDarkwood) says about this above. He's the lead system developer on the game after all.
I'll bear that in mind.
-
Ongoing damage also just seems like it should be something theoretically available to PCs without needing a workaround. Particularly PCs with Evocation.
Right, my point being, I wouldn't call it a workaround. The tools are available. You just have to make sure your intent tracks to them. The models given are just that - models.
And with Evo, you could theoretically pay maintenance on an attack and have it last for a bunch of rounds, right? Check out the Orbius spell on 295. Why can't that be fire damage?
[EDIT: By no means do I have an issue with the house rules in this thread, by the way. They're cool. I just think the basic argument doesn't actually hold up.]
-Lenny
-
Right, my point being, I wouldn't call it a workaround. The tools are available. You just have to make sure your intent tracks to them. The models given are just that - models.
And with Evo, you could theoretically pay maintenance on an attack and have it last for a bunch of rounds, right? Check out the Orbius spell on 295. Why can't that be fire damage?
-Lenny
Ah, the sample spells, one of the few areas of the book I haven't read yet. :-[
Yeah, that'd definitely work, probably better than anything I was thinking of, though not so much for people without Evocation.
And I do see what you're talking about with the models and the potential use of environmental effects, it just strkes me that nowhere are there rules for inflicting environmental effects (as per the section) on people...making allowing a maneuver to do so essentially a workaround since you have to come up with the idea and completely wing it sans guidance for how to set up the action. It's a good workaround, that many people might think of, but it still works around the rules rather than with them, since it's an entirely unique action type (not really a maneuver, block, or attack, for example, at least not any of those as written)...unlike just about everything else in combat.
I should note that this stands out so much to me as a problem because it's the only thing I can think of that the normal action types don't cover fairly well. Which is a really impressive feat for a combat system, by the way. I usually run into loads of these things with a new system.
-
Sure, sure. I agree, there are some interpretive voids in the text. Some of that comes from my value judgment and from the spirit of the books - how often do people just set each other on fire and wait for them to die? Like, it just isn't a case that comes up, even when you have a wizard who liberally uses fire magic. And it's a pretty anticlimactic ending for a fight - fitting for a group of henchies/thugs, maybe, but certainly not for named characters. For all that Jim sometimes uses verisimilitude to make his hero look smart, the Dresden Files still has a bunch of conceits from adventure fiction in it.
(Here's the funny part - we could bring this full circle and say that if you're going to set the "On Fire!" aspect on someone, the purpose of it should be to compel it to end the fight without doing any more rolls, or to compel someone to take action to put out the fire before attending to any smart combat stuff.)
-L
-
A further note I'd like to present is that this RPG isn't meant to simulate combat in particular. That's just one type of conflict that can be managed by the narrative flow toolkit FATE 3 provides.
Trying to get fiddly about certain balance concerns, certain types of specific damage management, and trying to fret about EXACTLY how much more powerful one thing is than another, and whether something is COMPLETELY modelled by the ruleset is... kind of misapplying the amazing toolset we've been given.
Some specificity is lost, because it often isn't narratively interesting. We're building a story. The rules that we have are about splitting the influence -- more particularly, the types and timing of that influence -- on how that story unfolds.
-
Yeah. I mean, I think Lenny's made the best point, that these sorts of things should really be about tagging for effect and compels and whatnot. Someone lays down ON FIRE on a dude, as the GM I'm going to be compelling the crap out of that in order to make him deal with this whole FIRE BAD thing, and *that's* the effect the fire has. Damage? Meh. It made this guy run around like a headless chicken on LSD. THAT is the effect.
-
Headless chicken on LSD.
I can't stop giggling.
-
You liked that? I liked that. I was pretty damn proud of it. If I was GMing I'd be running all around the room shrieking as I'm talking about this guy too. Antics: they're what's for dinner.
-
Wow. I REALLY need to find an ongoing game to watch sometime to see how it's done.
-
A further note I'd like to present is that this RPG isn't meant to simulate combat in particular. That's just one type of conflict that can be managed by the narrative flow toolkit FATE 3 provides.
Trying to get fiddly about certain balance concerns, certain types of specific damage management, and trying to fret about EXACTLY how much more powerful one thing is than another, and whether something is COMPLETELY modelled by the ruleset is... kind of misapplying the amazing toolset we've been given.
Some specificity is lost, because it often isn't narratively interesting. We're building a story. The rules that we have are about splitting the influence -- more particularly, the types and timing of that influence -- on how that story unfolds.
Actually, I've been trying to think of anything that the system culdn't model...and I couldn't come up with anything but this. So, as I see it, no you don't have to lose specificity. As long as I can come up with something for this, everything's cool.
And I would absolutely apply these rules to appropriate social or mental situations, the one that immediately comes to mind is applying an Aspect like "Freaking the Hell Out!" at a high class party or other formal social situation, which would cause continuous damage until they managed a Discipline maneuver to remove the Aspect and calm down.
Actually, thinking about it, that might be why I'm so unwilling to limit it to a use of environmental damage on a case by case basis, because making the criteria "appropriate Aspect based" seems like it would open a variety of really cool options. There'd need to be an appropriate situation, but it seems like players who come up with creative ways to arrange something like that should be able to.
And I'm not saying you can't tag the Aspect for effect, or shouldn't be able to do that instead of damage, I just think you should have damage as an option.
And yeah, the 'headless chicken on LSD thing is hilarious. :)
-
I thought of an possible problem with ongoing damage.
Thaumaturgie
At the moment you need what?
>30 shifts to kill someone with thaumaturgie?
How many shifts would you need with the ongoing damage houserule?
-
And I'm not saying you can't tag the Aspect for effect, or shouldn't be able to do that instead of damage, I just think you should have damage as an option.
The thing is, we HAVE damage as an option. it's already there. Both as burst and continuous damage.
The idea is.. Either you're using fire to hurt them (applying physical stress), or you're using fire to cause some other effect (applying an aspect).
The effects of stress are pretty straightforward, but a temporary aspect is, itself, a form of plot momentum. The story will trend towards certain directions with certain aspects in play.
You're looking to get both stress and an aspect, which gets you double the narrative effect from a single modeled action.
-
I thought of an possible problem with ongoing damage.
Thaumaturgie
At the moment you need what?
>30 shifts to kill someone with thaumaturgie?
How many shifts would you need with the ongoing damage houserule?
I already mentioned having a maximum number of rounds (something I'd totally do, as well as limiting it to one per round maximum)...in Thaumaturgy's case it'd be limited to one round per shift. So it would still take the full 30+ to kill a guy, you'd just have him dissolve or burn over a minute or so as opposed to explode. Probably a less eficient use all things considered. That's assuming I didn't use Orbius, of course (which I likely would).
The thing is, we HAVE damage as an option. it's already there. Both as burst and continuous damage.
The idea is.. Either you're using fire to hurt them (applying physical stress), or you're using fire to cause some other effect (applying an aspect).
The effects of stress are pretty straightforward, but a temporary aspect is, itself, a form of plot momentum. The story will trend towards certain directions with certain aspects in play.
You're looking to get both stress and an aspect, which gets you double the narrative effect from a single modeled action.
No, that's not what I'm doing at all (and a poisoned weapon already does that, by the way), it's a side effect of what I'm trying to do, which is work ongoing damage in as an aspect of the core system, applicable to as wide a range of different effects as anything else.
-
How many shifts would you need with the ongoing damage houserule?
For a normal guy? (Two stress boxes, Mediocre Endurance skill.) Not a whole lot, if we take the Orbius spell as an example. 5 shifts for Superb effect, so he can't resist even with a +4 roll. 7 more for stress track, Mild, Moderate, Severe, and Extreme consequences, then taken out. So, 12 shifts total.
Here's the counterbalance, though: concession. With the killing spell, you do not cash out, pass go, or any of that - you just die. With gradual damage, the option of concession exists to say, "I don't die, but I'm out for the foreseeable future," any time before you succumb to the final blow.
-L
-
No, that's not what I'm doing at all (and a poisoned weapon already does that, by the way), it's a side effect of what I'm trying to do, which is work ongoing damage in as an aspect of the core system, applicable to as wide a range of different effects as anything else.
But we already have 'ongoing damage' in the system, as Lenny pointed out.
-
But we already have 'ongoing damage' in the system, as Lenny pointed out.
Right, but no solid way for non-magical types to do it. Which is the problem I'm trying to fix.
-
Like I said, it basically looks like a grapple to me, in terms of a combat application for normals. You establish block X, person rolls to defeat block X, takes stress every time they can't. The only "drift" from the rules is the idea of giving the hazard a life of its own, which I'd adjudicate as "the shifts you get on the establishing roll set the difficulty for the block". Grapple even requires, in the RAW, some kind of justifying aspect, so there's your "On Fire!"
So, I want to cover you with napalm. We finally get to the part where we're rolling off. I fire and get an Epic (+7), and you roll a Great (+4) defense. So the hazard is Good (+3), and it hits you until you can overcome it. Maybe I can try to establish it again at higher strength by hitting you again in a later round.
So, that'd be how I'd do it, if it were me, and I controlled a character who wanted to slowly burn people to death. :)
-Lenny
-
Right, but no solid way for non-magical types to do it. Which is the problem I'm trying to fix.
I feel compelled to note that YS325, on environmental effects, explicitly mentions a flamethrower.
-
Like I said, it basically looks like a grapple to me, in terms of a combat application for normals. You establish block X, person rolls to defeat block X, takes stress every time they can't. The only "drift" from the rules is the idea of giving the hazard a life of its own, which I'd adjudicate as "the shifts you get on the establishing roll set the difficulty for the block". Grapple even requires, in the RAW, some kind of justifying aspect, so there's your "On Fire!"
So, I want to cover you with napalm. We finally get to the part where we're rolling off. I fire and get an Epic (+7), and you roll a Great (+4) defense. So the hazard is Good (+3), and it hits you until you can overcome it. Maybe I can try to establish it again at higher strength by hitting you again in a later round.
So, that'd be how I'd do it, if it were me, and I controlled a character who wanted to slowly burn people to death. :)
-Lenny
That actually sounds perfect, more or less. Better handled than my basic idea anyway. Thanks alot! :)
-
I feel compelled to note that YS325, on environmental effects, explicitly mentions a flamethrower.
Yes, as a nod to the idea that a willfully targeted hazard should just be resolved as an attack most of the time, according to me. But that's just it, right? According to me. I get where Deadmanwalking is coming from - he wants what he wants. And that's awesome. I'm just happy that the system can hold up to the demand thus far.
-Lenny
-
I thought of an possible problem with ongoing damage.
Thaumaturgie
At the moment you need what?
>30 shifts to kill someone with thaumaturgie?
How many shifts would you need with the ongoing damage houserule?
The damage from this sort of thing is environmental. As GM, I'd just have them pass out or something. Not required to kill by the rules.
-
Like I said, it basically looks like a grapple to me, in terms of a combat application for normals. You establish block X, person rolls to defeat block X, takes stress every time they can't. The only "drift" from the rules is the idea of giving the hazard a life of its own, which I'd adjudicate as "the shifts you get on the establishing roll set the difficulty for the block". Grapple even requires, in the RAW, some kind of justifying aspect, so there's your "On Fire!"
So, I want to cover you with napalm. We finally get to the part where we're rolling off. I fire and get an Epic (+7), and you roll a Great (+4) defense. So the hazard is Good (+3), and it hits you until you can overcome it. Maybe I can try to establish it again at higher strength by hitting you again in a later round.
So, that'd be how I'd do it, if it were me, and I controlled a character who wanted to slowly burn people to death. :)
-Lenny
This was basically our solution. Works well, isn't overpowered, but gives someone a solid reason to want to maneuver this off them
B-)
-
I can see it now... Do a maneuver to add break a natural gas line to add the "Powder Keg" aspect to the scene. Then hexing the villain's gun so that it creates a spark.
That would totally violate the First Law though (hexing an electronic to cause an explosion). :(
-
What about the Poison rules. Those allow continuous Damage...
Or was that allready covered in the thread?