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 - Tedronai

Pages: 1 ... 146 147 [148] 149 150 ... 152
2206
DFRPG / Re: What to do with my Lawbreaker Wizards Apprentice
« on: March 02, 2011, 07:03:48 AM »
Quote from: sinker on March 02, 2011, 06:48:54 AM
At this point I'm only playing the devil's advocate. My real opinion can be read further above. Just stating that Jim seems pretty clear about his opinion in the post.

Jim presents a pretty clear opinion on situations that are, frankly, pretty clear.

In less certain situations, we have less certain opinions to go on.

As I said, we've yet to have anything of the sort for situations where the practitioner was working from a reasonable conclusion that s/he was attacking non-humans not subject to the protections of the Laws.

2207
DFRPG / Re: Red Court Vampire Catch
« on: March 02, 2011, 06:36:00 AM »
Quote from: Nyarlathotep5150 on March 02, 2011, 06:29:23 AM
  Thats not how feeding dependency works. It only comes up after an encounter. At the end of the encounter you make a discipline roll versus a difficulty of the total refresh cost of powers tied to your feeding dependency, that you used in the encounter, to see if you can clear your stress track.
   Thats all it means when a power is tied to feeding dependency.

The issue comes not from the content of the Feeding Dependency 'power', but from OW's generic-RCV' "weakness" section


Quote from: Nyarlathotep5150 on March 02, 2011, 06:29:23 AM
  As far as the bellies, I'd just let people make called shots to the belly, with a penalty for the called shot and an even bigger penalty if the RCV still has its flesh mask on. There are two reasons for this. 1) Its not hard to overcome a vampires catch to begin with. 2) the description of RCVs in the novels made that weakness pretty obvious before it ever even came up.

what does that 'called shot' do and how is it accomplished?

2208
DFRPG / Re: What to do with my Lawbreaker Wizards Apprentice
« on: March 02, 2011, 06:31:43 AM »
Quote from: sinker on March 02, 2011, 06:15:32 AM
Except as Jim said in that very post it's the end result that matters, not the intention that led to that result. So even if he thought he was killing zombies the fact is that he took a life.

All of the official and semi-official examples of this, however, have been scenarios where the target is KNOWN to be a mortal.

The Lawbreaker stunt is gained because the character, apparently, truly believes, 'deep within their heart', that using that kind of magic against a mortal is allowable.
But it's well established that using such magic against NON-mortals IS allowable.
As such, if the character truly believes that s/he is using their magic against a NON-mortal, then their actions do not demonstrate the kind of belief that Lawbreaker represents.

2209
DFRPG / Re: Red Court Vampire Catch
« on: March 02, 2011, 06:25:58 AM »
true
forgot about that part

I'd recommend paying attention to the 'hard enough' clause of their weakness, and say, then, that this (the loss of blood as fuel for their powers) is the product of a consequence of sufficient magnitude (probably at least a moderate consequence)

so:
succeed (or have previously succeeded) on a Lore Declaration that you know about the weakness
spend a Fate point to tag the resultant aspect so that any successful hits the weak spot, bypassing the toughness powers and having the potential to nerf their powers
any resultant consequences get themed appropriately; sufficient consequences nerf the vamp's powers by way of a Compel

2210
DFRPG / Re: Red Court Vampire Catch
« on: March 02, 2011, 06:09:51 AM »
Even if the catch were avoidable simply by knowing about it, only the Toughness powers would be voided
Strength and Speed powers don't have catches

Personally, I don't think it would require a stunt to target the weak spot, but simply knowledge of it's presence
ie. change it from a stunt to a Lore declaration (once it's established that you know about it, I wouldn't require rolls in the future)

a related stunt might allow you an extra free tag per scene on aspects related to the knowledge of weak points

2211
DFRPG / Re: How to model a horde of nameless ghouls
« on: March 02, 2011, 05:39:11 AM »
Quote from: bitterpill on March 01, 2011, 09:56:18 PM
I really like this mechanism but what stops a pc going right this horde is getting annoying I am going to wipe them out with one area of effect spell.

nothing that wouldn't stop them from doing the same thing in a game where the scenario was modeled more conventionally (ie. independently, and attacking normally)

2212
DFRPG / Re: Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws
« on: March 02, 2011, 05:21:36 AM »
Quote from: toturi on March 02, 2011, 05:16:18 AM
Concerning the OP's scenario: Isn't there some rule about conceding before the dice are rolled?

you can't concede after the dice are rolled in an attack that would mandate a 'taken out' result
the OP's scenario specified an attack of equal to or less than 13 stress: not enough to mandate such a result on a previously un-consequenced target

there is, however, a rule about concessions being negotiated, and refusable

2213
DFRPG / Re: Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws
« on: March 02, 2011, 05:04:06 AM »
Quote from: Ophidimancer on March 02, 2011, 04:48:30 AM
Horrible burns are a reasonable outcome, horrible burns that absolutely cannot lead to death are not.

That's where the actual negotiating of concessions comes in, rather than the GM or player simply mandating the result, and the reasonableness clause, again

'Everyone survives with horrible burns' is not meaningfully less reasonable than 'everyone dies'


Quote from: Ophidimancer on March 02, 2011, 04:57:38 AM
Well ok yeah, but it's not just the one player.

Nor is it just the GM

2214
DFRPG / Re: Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws
« on: March 02, 2011, 04:37:47 AM »
Reasonable outcomes for a large intense fireball easily being along the lines of horrible, disfiguring burns as an extreme consequence

2215
DFRPG / Re: Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws
« on: March 02, 2011, 04:19:19 AM »
Problem 1) you don't have to describe it as anything close to a "'Corpsemaker Mk II' fireball" for it to be a weapon:6, zone-wide effect.  It's entirely reasonable to describe a weapon:6, zone-wide effect in such a way as to reasonably assure a non-lethal taken-out result
a weapon:6 sleep spell, for instance
or a weapon:6 heat-stroke spell
The spell in your example is pointedly described as being designed to cause death ('corpsemaker'), thus biasing the results against the player's intention.  The gm should point that out in his confirmation of intent, and, if it is discovered that the player does not intend to actually kill the targets, recommend that an attack method more suited to the intended results be devised.

Problem 2) even 13 shifts in a single attack is not sufficient to guarantee even a non-lethal taken out result, let alone death

Problem 3) concessions are NEGOTIATED, and can be refused by the would-be victor

2216
DFRPG / Re: Las Vegas Neutral Ground
« on: March 01, 2011, 08:56:02 PM »
Quote from: MacShidhe on March 01, 2011, 08:33:04 PM
Just to let you know, there's some IG info on Las Vegas here.  Jim Butcher isn't currently planning on taking Harry to Las Vegas so the Evil Hat team is working on it for the Paranet supplement.  Fred said something in the pod cast about the entire Strip being neutral ground on the pod cast.

Not that any of that information necessarily has to hold true for a given game, of course...

2217
DFRPG / Re: What to do with my Lawbreaker Wizards Apprentice
« on: March 01, 2011, 08:52:12 PM »
If he LOSES (is taken out or concedes) the social combat, throw on an Extreme Consequence that changes one of his aspects to Doom of Damocles (just don't let on to the player that that's what you're aiming for rather than his head).
In the unlikely event that he wins (because, let's face it, with who he's likely to be going up against in a trial like that, his victory really is quite unlikely), they conclude that all information available at the time indicated that the victims were not (or at least no longer) human (or he might even convince them that that information was TRUE), that their deaths were indisputably a matter of self-defense, etc., and he walks away with the Lawbreaker stunt and maybe a few enemies for down the road.

2218
DFRPG / Re: How much bending will Dresden Files RPG need to run with only two people?
« on: March 01, 2011, 05:49:10 AM »
Quote from: Drachasor on March 01, 2011, 05:18:38 AM
Sadly, it doesn't work with college students (my character is a professor of archeology too)...at least, it won't if I want tenure.

"Y'know, a few hundred years ago, I would've knocked a disrespectful little maggot of a student like you upside the head until you stopped back-talking..."

2219
DFRPG / Re: Offensive options for physical combat, or "Is Fists made of Fail?"
« on: March 01, 2011, 01:09:42 AM »
Not trying to suggest that that was a list of NON-lethal options, just LESS-lethal.  If you know what you're doing, a fist or foot can be quite definitively lethal.
ie. there are options for Guns and Weapons short of things that will 'put large holes in their organs' in routine use

2220
DFRPG / Re: Offensive options for physical combat, or "Is Fists made of Fail?"
« on: March 01, 2011, 12:32:52 AM »
Quote from: nearchus on March 01, 2011, 12:21:02 AM
Some Pros to Fists:

Bringing a gun or a knife to a fist fight is generally frowned upon. Also, if you'd prefer not to kill everyone you happen to get into a fight with, Fists is probably the way to go. It's true that Weapons and Guns are better for killing people/things, but not all fights are to the death. And it's much easier to accidentally kill someone with a weapon than your hands (not that it's impossible to beat someone to death, just less likely than putting large holes in their organs).

'rubber' bullets, tasers, maces, hammers, clubs, saps, etc.

Pages: 1 ... 146 147 [148] 149 150 ... 152