ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Denarian Stormborn on November 21, 2013, 01:53:10 AM
-
Hello, I'm pretty green about RPGs (Level 5 of my first ever d&d campaign) but I've gotten hooked. I've been a Dresden files fan for years and knew there was an RPG but never looked into it. Basically I have two questions:
1. Are Your Story and Our World the only books I'll need to competently DM a campaign?
2. How involved should my players be in selecting a city, making faces, setting type decisions?
-
1. Yup. Although people here might recommend some of the pre-made adventures to get your feet wet. I don't know them, off-hand....maybe someone could provide a link?.....
Also, check out the DFRPG Resource Collection (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/board,45.0.html) page...it's a sticky topic on this board
It has lots of NPC's, Powers, Monsters and anything you might need.
There's also lots of people here who will answer any questions you have...for those ambiguously worded rules...
2. I would have them go through the whole thing. It gets them more invested in the NPC's/world etc...
I usually ask my players to make at least one NPC and one location they see their character interacting with. More is better if your players like to do those kinds of things.
Obviously, you'd keep some stuff secret. You want some things to be a surprise.
-
Hello, I'm pretty green about RPGs (Level 5 of my first ever d&d campaign) but I've gotten hooked. I've been a Dresden files fan for years and knew there was an RPG but never looked into it. Basically I have two questions:
1. Are Your Story and Our World the only books I'll need to competently DM a campaign?
2. How involved should my players be in selecting a city, making faces, setting type decisions?
1. Alright, take all those lessons you learned from D&D, got them? Throw them away. You won't need them. You only need Your Story. Our World is Neat if you (Like me) work by Example, something Evil hat is um...lacking on sometimes. Like heres a bunch of "Examples" but we won't really explain how or why they work together (MAKE AN OFFICIAL VIDEO OF HOW DRESEN IS PLAYED)
2. World Creation IS PART OF THE PLAYING. Making all your characters TOGETHER avoids some common pitfalls of gaming. If everyone knows each other, you don't have to deal with "why would I help the Paladin if i'm a thief" also, it avoids having your PCs meet in a Bar. Try this, avoid having your PCs meet at a bar the whole campaign. Also, if you and your group spend 10-15 minutes making a "Night Club" it avoids this "I'm going to burn it down" really? REALLY? We spent 15 minutes making that bar, you're not going to burn it down. Really spend like 10-15 minutes on EACH aspect, like REALLY think about them. I also played in a campaign from hell where the GM had maybe 15-30 Plot threads going on at any given time, the problem? We didn't know who HALF the NPCs were, and the GM had the memory of a GOLDFISH and couldn't remember who they were. If I, as a player, have a had in making characters, it gives me a "Clue" of who they are, and why I should care about them.
Personal Tips.
*7 Aspects, are 2 too many. Start off with 5. "Unlock" aspects as you play (make it part of the major and minor milestone).
*Start off lower refresh , like feet in the water. If this is your first Dresden game, maybe have everyone start off as pure mortal, and work from there.
*The Rules are the Rules are the Rules, expect when they're not. I personally don't like the part in character creation where you and ME have to take an aspect from the same "story" I'm fine Guest starring in your story in a way, but you getting attacked by a troll while getting a Pizza, might not be that big of a deal to my character, but it's fine that i'm there and I helped.
*Rules Lawyering is fun for none. If theres a "rules" question, save it for the end of the game, seriously, make note of it and get back to it. But nothing "ruins the fun" like having to sit through a 45 discussion on White Court Feeding blah blah blah when you're not a White Court Vampire, and don't care.
*Scene Aspects, Campaign Aspects. Make them taggable for free the first time, it really encourages people to USE them and to PLAY THEM.
*Fate Points are a currency, that means if your characters don't spend them and horde them, they become worthless.
*Social and Mental conflicts are real things. If you DO burn down that night club, thats a social hit, think of the show Firefly, basically they had a reputation that effected them. Maybe have Social consequences clear at the end of a session instead of at the end of a scene.
*NPCS don't fight to the death. They will try and run, or call in back up.
*If you have a magic user in the group, and they are throwing shift 3 fireballs at mortals, their need to be consequences. It's been talked about, but have an NPC Concede before your wizard throws a fireball, his concession? Death. I wouldn't have your Wizard take a law breaker the first time, but I would mention, next time you're going to have to.
* Remember that Dresden is a Mystery, what makes a mystery? One of the best Mysteries? The Big Lebowski. Use it.
-
I want to touch on something fantazero said.
If they spend 15 minutes making a bar, they won't burn it down.
The same goes with NPC's. I played in a game where a player treated EVERY NPC like shit. Like they were nobody's that could be abused. This would often back-fire (since you can't go around treating everyone like shit), but my point being this:
If I work hard to make an NPC and give him aspects and a personality with friends and enemies, I'll have more invested when interacting with said NPC.
Lots of people give D&D a bad rap on this board. I like D&D. My personal opinion is that a lot can be learned about GMing any game by playing DFRPG.
D&D can sometimes have a GM vs Player atmosphere especially when designing challenges etc.(especially if you play the old Gygax games). and it's very mechanics/crunch focused (IMO). Honestly, my D&D GMing improved significantly after playing this game. It's a different animal but take the lessons to heart and carry them into all your other games.
In any case, I don't want to talk too much about the differences about the games, since it can become a touchy subject here.
-
1. You just need Your Story. Our World is an optional extra.
2. The more the better, generally.
*If you have a magic user in the group, and they are throwing shift 3 fireballs at mortals, their need to be consequences. It's been talked about, but have an NPC Concede before your wizard throws a fireball, his concession? Death. I wouldn't have your Wizard take a law breaker the first time, but I would mention, next time you're going to have to.
You can't be serious. That sounds terrible.
-
regarding 2:
I've tried 2 sessions of fate with different settings, where I alone was responsible for building the setting, because the players didn't want to in one session, and time restrictions made it necessary on the other. Both games went pretty meh.
A big part of the city creation stuff is not necessarily creating locations and NPCs, but getting on the same page about what type of game it's going to be. The type of characters and locations you create will influence that, of course, but it will also be influenced by talking about the ideas you have. Once those ideas are spoken out loud, everyone is on the same page, and the games can begin.
Difficulty in communication is something I've seen a lot of gaming groups struggle with, and the creation phase of the game addresses this really beautifully, by making you talk to each other about what you expect or want from the game. Skipping it is not a good idea.
-
*If you have a magic user in the group, and they are throwing shift 3 fireballs at mortals, their need to be consequences. It's been talked about, but have an NPC Concede before your wizard throws a fireball, his concession? Death. I wouldn't have your Wizard take a law breaker the first time, but I would mention, next time you're going to have to.
Agreed with Sancta -- this is a terrible suggestion. There are dozens of better ways to enforce lawbreaker without yanking the rug out from under a PC like this.
-
Agreed with Sancta -- this is a terrible suggestion. There are dozens of better ways to enforce lawbreaker without yanking the rug out from under a PC like this.
you don't MAKE them take Lawbreaker, I meant it more of a "if your wizard is going nuts and not worrying enough about magic use, this is what you do"
-
you don't MAKE them take Lawbreaker, I meant it more of a "if your wizard is going nuts and not worrying enough about magic use, this is what you do"
It's still a terrible suggestion. There are many different ways to do this--starting with compels intended to curb it while giving the player a choice rather than slapping him with, "Well, you're a Lawbreaker now because you won the fight."
-
It's still a terrible suggestion. There are many different ways to do this--starting with compels intended to curb it while giving the player a choice rather than slapping him with, "Well, you're a Lawbreaker now because you won the fight."
No, you're not reading correctly. You don't MAKE them take it, the first time, it's a warning.
Anyway, we've gotten off topic.
As not to get too far into D&D and such, D&D is a really really great Combat system, It just loses points (mechanically) when it comes to things like Role Playing
-
No, you're not reading correctly. You don't MAKE them take it, the first time, it's a warning.
The whole thing is a misuse of concessions and is completely toothless anyway. For starters, a concession is not supposed to make things worse for the other party. A concession means the other party still wins. So it really cannot be used to screw the guy who "won" the fight without breaking the word and spirit of the rule.
And it's toothless because concessions have to be negotiated and accepted, and the player is never going to accept this concession unless the GM forces him to, at which point the GM is just railroading.
As I said, there's numerous better, fairer, and, most importantly, actually effective ways to curb wizards blasting people and to enforce the first law.
-
As not to get too far into D&D and such, D&D is a really really great Combat system, It just loses points (mechanically) when it comes to things like Role Playing
Fantazero, you're trying hard to de-rail this thread!
I disagree. D&D is a great role playing system. I actually think its combat system stinks. It's too crunchy. Some of my BEST rp sessions were playing D&D. There's way more to D&D than combat.
Maybe you weren't playing right...
Then again, my group Role-Played. Even playing D&D. I'm sorry, but Role playing is not exclusive to FATE or DFRPG.
My experience with D&D is, often, people make these long background stories which, if the GM is good, will use to add plot and excitement to the game.
What I like about Fate is that they take things like "background" and incorporate it into the mechanics of the game.
I actually think the combat system is way better in DFRPG. Consequences are better than HP's (IMO) and so are maneuvers (instead of static bonuses and penalties that you see in D&D).
Edit:
I'd also like to add that I've played 1st/2nd ed D&D where things like SOCIAL SKILLS didn't exist. In fact, Skills didn't exist. We still rp'd. When certain decisions needed to be made, sometimes we rolled our stats. Mostly, though, we just put the dice away and played our characters.
DFRPG has social combat. So, really, an argument can be made that the game has turned rping into a mechanic that can be min/maxed. Why role-play when you can just roll your +7 rapport and win?
GM: The man is asking you to leave.
Player: "I attack with Rapport"
Sorry if this has come across too strong, but I think you should leave your prejudices out of your posts.
-
I actually had the most fun in the game using the 3x5 cards with story ideas on them as the group started up. Talk about six degrees of separation...!
-
Fantazero, you're trying hard to de-rail this thread!
I disagree. D&D is a great role playing system. I actually think its combat system stinks. It's too crunchy. Some of my BEST rp sessions were playing D&D. There's way more to D&D than combat.
Maybe you weren't playing right...
Then again, my group Role-Played. Even playing D&D. I'm sorry, but Role playing is not exclusive to FATE or DFRPG.
My experience with D&D is, often, people make these long background stories which, if the GM is good, will use to add plot and excitement to the game.
What I like about Fate is that they take things like "background" and incorporate it into the mechanics of the game.
I actually think the combat system is way better in DFRPG. Consequences are better than HP's (IMO) and so are maneuvers (instead of static bonuses and penalties that you see in D&D).
Edit:
I'd also like to add that I've played 1st/2nd ed D&D where things like SOCIAL SKILLS didn't exist. In fact, Skills didn't exist. We still rp'd. When certain decisions needed to be made, sometimes we rolled our stats. Mostly, though, we just put the dice away and played our characters.
DFRPG has social combat. So, really, an argument can be made that the game has turned rping into a mechanic that can be min/maxed. Why role-play when you can just roll your +7 rapport and win?
GM: The man is asking you to leave.
Player: "I attack with Rapport"
Sorry if this has come across too strong, but I think you should leave your prejudices out of your posts.
so much fail in one post
-
so much fail in one post
It'd be a bit nicer if you actually addressed what he said instead of dismissing and insulting his post.
-
so much fail in one post
That comment is absolutely unnecessary and just poisoning the discussion. You should watch your tone.
-
so much fail in one post
The fact that you can't come up with anything constructive to say leads me to believe that the opposite of your statement is true.
I didn't mean to be insulting but, in case you actually didn't get my point, I'll summarize:
Just because you don't like another gaming system doesn't mean other people don't. It's also not a failing in the system because lots of people bring different gaming styles to all kinds of systems. I've seen gamers play DFRPG as a hack n' slash.
Telling someone that D&D isn't (in your opinion) fun isn't addressing the OP's question. He's asking for helpful hints for GMing DFRPG. Saying, "don't do it like D&D" is not constructive and I don't think it's necessarily true. It's different but it doesn't mean the skills he's learned DMing won't cross over to DFRPG.
I'll leave it at that.
-
Maybe you weren't playing right...
Ad hominem attacks.
-
Ad hominem attacks.
I apologize for that. I suppose it was a shot, although, when I wrote it, it wasn't intended to be.
I think my point still stands.
-
DFRPG has social combat. So, really, an argument can be made that the game has turned rping into a mechanic that can be min/maxed. Why role-play when you can just roll your +7 rapport and win?
GM: The man is asking you to leave.
Player: "I attack with Rapport"
Sorry if this has come across too strong, but I think you should leave your prejudices out of your posts.
If you rolled REALLY well you MIGHT get to a 7 Rapport, or you tagged a lot of aspects.
"I attack with rapport" if you're playing the game like that, you're doing it wrong. "I try and convince the White Court lord that our party is there to sell him Cookies /roll rapport (You fail) "My lord we're here to sell...um....cookies?"
Can you point to the social mechanic in D&D? Can you point out in D&D how you're encouraged to Role Play? So good for your group, you were able to Roleplay "around" the board game that is D&D.
-
If you rolled REALLY well you MIGHT get to a 7 Rapport, or you tagged a lot of aspects.
"I attack with rapport" if you're playing the game like that, you're doing it wrong. "I try and convince the White Court lord that our party is there to sell him Cookies /roll rapport (You fail) "My lord we're here to sell...um....cookies?"
What's the trope for D&D? "I attack". next round "I attack"
I've seen lots of groups get very creative with combat and very descriptive.
Meanwhile, I've seen that exact type of playing in DFRPG
"I attack him with Rapport"
Can you point to the social mechanic in D&D? Can you point out in D&D how you're encouraged to Role Play? So good for your group, you were able to Roleplay "around" the board game that is D&D.
D&D skills:
Gather information
sense motive
Diplomacy
Bluff
Intimidate
Forgery
Decipher script
pick pocets
These skills are the ones you use for intrigue and social interactions.
You want to convince someone to give you safe passage: diplomacy
You want to question someone or scare them enough to avoid combat: intimidate
You want convince the local government that you're Aristocracy with Titles to land?: Forgery
You want to lie to someone or convince them of something outlandish?: Bluff
Etc...etc...
The GM sets the difficulty or is opposed by the NPC/Player. (just like every mechanic in D&D)
It can be done as a single roll or as a series of rolls depending on how big the conflict is going to be.
If you want to convince someone your name is Gunther, it might be a single opposed role
If you want to convince someone to "lend" you their prize-winning, pure-bred horse, it might be an extended conflict where you have to succeed on a few rolls.
When you use these skills, generally, you have Role-play it because there is no stress-track to attack. Usually a GM modifies the roll based on how you RP'd it. If you're insulting someone and then tell the GM you want to use diplomacy, you're unlikely to succeed since the penalties will be too high. This encourages role-playing to the skill you're going to use. Whole sessions can get played without any combat. Also, the "board-game" you mentioned doesn't exist because you can't use mini's for social interactions.
I find it hard to believe you've actually played if you didn't even know these skills and mechanics existed.
If we're going to have a drawn-out discussion, we should move it to PM.
-
This post is getting back on keel; don't tip it over again in the future, please.
-
One thing to keep in mind as a 1st-time GM is that the players get to have a more significant say in what happens in game, especially with Declarations. I strongly recommend reading up on those.
Also keep in mind that unlike some games (regardless of genre) rewards won't be in the form of vast monies or firearms but in solving things. Also keep in mind that in the Dresdenverse combat is fast and deadly and that there are NO MEdbots or clerics to help you should you become badly hurt.
More to come when my sleep-deprived mind thinks of them.
-
What helped me a lot when I GMed the Dresden Files for the first time, is asking my players to describe what they are doing. This sounds like a no-brainer, but many players have trouble with this.
Sometimes they struggle with a description and then the other players pipe in with awesome suggestions. Especially in those situations where my players work together to create something cool, they have the most fun. It's not the story YOU want to tell, it's the story your PLAYERS (plural, don't let one person dominate the game) want to tell.
That's the best advice I can give a starting DFRPG GM!
PS. Someone said something in the line of "when you throw a fireball at a mortal, have the mortal concede to die. But as far as I know concessions need to be accepted by the other party. Wouldn't the wizard simply not accept the concession?
-
The way magic is portrayed takes a little while to get used to but is well worth it. Just be prepared for some very flexible spell-casting (I personally favor "element" flavored/themed stuff for my Thaumaturgy rather than specialize in one particular area (cryo/pyro/geo-mancies instead of Ward, Summoning or Way-making specialists).
-
I forgot who said it here in the Forums, but the poster said, "The best way to describe your High Concept is to ask what other people would describe your character as."
Person A: "Who's he?"
Person B: (describing your PC) "Oh her. She's (Insert High Concept here)."
-
PS. Someone said something in the line of "when you throw a fireball at a mortal, have the mortal concede to die. But as far as I know concessions need to be accepted by the other party. Wouldn't the wizard simply not accept the concession?
???
So far as I know, a "concession" is entirely under the control of the conceding party... no "acceptance" (by the winner) is needed. It's an alternative to "Taken Out" -- letting the conceding party retain narrative control of his character's fate... at the cost of a "sure loss" of the conflict at hand.
Or am I mistaken in this?
-
A concession usually happens before a taken out result, not instead. If you see a fight not going your way, instead of fighting until you are taken out, at which point the winner can do pretty much whatever he pleases with you, you can offer a concession.
A concession first and foremost means that your character loses the fight. But the big difference to a taken out result is, that you can negotiate the terms. So your opponent gets the McGuffin, but you get away alive, would be an example of that. But you can also offer up something in exchange for the actual goal. Say the McGuffin is important enough for your character to die over. In a concession, you could offer your life as the price for the McGuffin to stay with your side. Or something else, if it is something that your opponent might want.
It is important to note, that a concession is not a character decision, it's a player decision. And the players negotiate it, not the characters. It can bleed into the narrative of course (the typical "take me instead"), but it can have nothing to do with it as well. So when you say you sacrifice your character to safe the McGuffin, you could be holding on to it, while part of the cliff breaks and you plummet to your death, without any doing of your character. Your allies can retrieve the McGuffin later, as they fish your lifeless body out of the sea.
-
It is important to note, that a concession is not a character decision, it's a player decision. And the players negotiate it, not the characters.
I think this is a pretty important thing to think about in other situations aswell. Other RPG's I've played haven't really spelled out like DFRPG the fact that you really want to keep in mind the two different "levels" of playing - there's what the characters knows and acts on, and there's what the players knows and acts on.
Concessions are firmly on the Player level (can of course bleed over like Haru wrote); Invokes and Compels sort of straddle the line, they are mostly player-level negotiations, but has a higher tendency to be "visible" on the character level - think all compels Harry takes on his "Chivalry is not Dead, Dammit" aspect. As the books go on, he gets more and more aware that he has issues making him do thoughtless things (in game terms - accepts a lot of compels on that aspect). But even when they are visible on the character level, they are negotiated between Player and GM - out of character does not mean it's out of game.
Personally, I would say that both Taken Out and Concessions take some amount of negotiation in order to make it fun for everyone. The difference is how much, and most of all - who has the upper hand in that negotiation.
Also, on timing of Concessions: I've understood it like this - a Concession can be offered any time between the moment your character has suffered stress/consequences and the moment the dice hits the table for another attack on him/her. Once that attack is rolled you follow through on whatever stress is inflicted, including the risk of a Taken Out result. Basically - you can't Concede in response to an attack that will take you out, but you can do it as a response to the declared (but not yet performed) attack.
-
A concession usually happens before a taken out result, not instead. If you see a fight not going your way, instead of fighting until you are taken out, at which point the winner can do pretty much whatever he pleases with you, you can offer a concession.
Of course -- I phrased that badly, implying otherwise!
I looked up the rule (YS p.206) and I see that I was mistaken, sort of. It's not specifically that the winning party gets to negotiate the terms of the concession -- the entire GROUP at the table has to agree to it. The conceding player, the player whose PC won, and everyone else too.
I guess this implies that the terms of such negotiations had best be pre-agreed-to by the group... does a simple majority vote "ratify" a concession? Can the "winner" veto any insufficiently-victorious-to-them concession? Does the GM get any special vote or narrative power? Etc...
-
Of course -- I phrased that badly, implying otherwise!
I looked up the rule (YS p.206) and I see that I was mistaken, sort of. It's not specifically that the winning party gets to negotiate the terms of the concession -- the entire GROUP at the table has to agree to it. The conceding player, the player whose PC won, and everyone else too.
I guess this implies that the terms of such negotiations had best be pre-agreed-to by the group... does a simple majority vote "ratify" a concession? Can the "winner" veto any insufficiently-victorious-to-them concession? Does the GM get any special vote or narrative power? Etc...
Given that the /group/ has to agree to it, RAW would state that there cannot be a single person who doesn't want the concession.
-
Given that the /group/ has to agree to it, RAW would state that there cannot be a single person who doesn't want the concession.
Though that assumes you have a group of people who are all reasonable all the time. And we all know how often that happens. ;)
Sometimes you just don't want bad things to happen to your character, but the dice are against you, its late and you had a bad day and all good intentions go right out the window. That happens, and that's not a good thing, but to get the game moving again, the GM can invoke his role as the final arbiter and just make a ruling, if a consensus can't be reached. Or maybe a break is in order.
But in a well oiled gaming group, situations like that should be relatively few. Nearly anything is subject to negotiation, but taken out results and concessions are the main things, I think. If someone is not satisfied with the outcome, the concern should be stated as clearly as possible, so it can be changed accordingly. "I don't like it" isn't going to get you anywhere near a solution. Again, communication is key, like with any RPG really, but some of the mechanics of Fate actually require and encourage it.
-
When you mentioned story prototypes, I remembered, that we had a similar thread not too long ago. Not all tips in there are good, but there is a lot of useful stuff in that thread.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,39211.0.html