My thoughts using the Sword of the Cross as a benchmark.
The sword costs -3 and bypasses pretty much everything for a scene for a fate point. The flip side is that the actions of the person wielding it are very limited by the belief set. My opinion is to reduce the cost by 1 and remove the actions restrictions. To offset this, limit what it can bypass. Remove the bypassing of mundane armor, and limit the Catch bypassing a bit.
Here would be my version:
Runic Bullets [-2]
When facing an opponent, the Agent may spend a fate point to treat the bullets as satisfying the Catch of the opponent for the rest of the scene. The limitation is that these bullets were crafted as broad spectrum deterrent. This causes the bullets to be unable to mimic the specialized nature of a very rare or personal Catch. Mechanically, if an opponent has a Catch that refunds zero refresh then the bullets are unable to fulfill that Catch.
Having to act perfect to make the Sword work is not a drawback. It's compel-fuel, and therefore useful to the character.
Your Runic Bullets power might still be okay, though.
Good afternoon everyone!
Long story short I have an item of power that I need some help stating out.
It's an item of equipment I want to borrow from Reality Blur's "Agents of Oblivion" Savage Worlds setting and make use of for a Dresden Super Spy.
The item is called "Runic Bullets".
Effectively you put these bullets into a normal gun and fire them.
They do not increase the amount of damage of the gun or change its profile in anyway save for that they can hurt Anything.
That's right, Vampires, Werewolves, Angels, Old Ones, Tomato Monster Mk. IV's...
Basically they would allow your gun attacks to satisfy* the catch of all Toughness, Recovery and Immunity powers.
Is something like this feasible? I realized it would probably be easiest to make it an item of power but im not sure how much refresh something like that would be worth?
Does anyone have any thoughts about how to approach that concept?
Not all Catches can be bypassed by a specific material, and sometimes Declarations will fail. So this does need to be a power.I'd suggest crafting for bullet 'potions' then, plus a Refinement to give you more room.
I'd suggest crafting for bullet 'potions' then, plus a Refinement to give you more room.
That wouldn't work. Not all Catches can be bypassed with potions. Furthermore, you won't always have an appropriate potion.I agree with the first statement - some catches aren't based on physical items. However, within their capabilities, you can always have an appropriate potion. Just leave the potion slots open and declare them as needed.
That wouldn't work. Not all Catches can be bypassed with potions. Furthermore, you won't always have an appropriate potion.It doesn't have to be a literal potion, just a magic item that acts like one--like the 'sunshine in a hanky' example in the book.
Not sure why people are so keen to avoid the current version of this item. Could someone explain?
That wouldn't work. Not all Catches can be bypassed with potions. Furthermore, you won't always have an appropriate potion.
Not sure why people are so keen to avoid the current version of this item. Could someone explain?
@Mr. Death: Fate Points are made out of BS and handwavium. That's how they work. No point protesting it now if you've accepted it until now.I'm not protesting anything about how Fate Points work. My point was that the powers shouldn't be solely about mechanical benefit and mechanical cost--there should be a reason that a power works the way it does, and I don't see how a mortal agency could produce something that functions, in the fiction, because God literally said so.
And making the bullets occasionally fail kinda defeats the purpose of the power. It satisfies all non-0-value Catches. That's what the player is spending his Refresh on. If you don't like it, buy a different power.And yet having to spend a fate point is exactly what's going to make the bullets occasionally fail, because sometimes you won't have fate points to spend. It means there has to be some explanation for why the same bullets from the same gun that just put down a Loup Garou are now bouncing off a Red Court Vampire.
Oh, and even if you can satisfy its Catch a Loup-Garou is reasonably tough. It's not like the fight suddenly turns into a non-event because you have the Catch.Perhaps not, but having the catch for damn near anything at your instant disposal without having to even find out what the catch might be takes the bite out of a lot of creatures in the series. It turns any fight into, "Just shoot it a bunch of times."
PS: Needing to put effort and thought into things isn't always fun and engaging. Sometimes it's just a pain. Suppose I wanted you to find the second derivatives of a multivariant function to work out the results of an attack roll. Wouldn't that be irritating? Whether it's good to need strategy depends on the situation.Well, yes, if you pick the most extreme end of the 'fun/not fun' spectrum, then it's going to be a pain. Neither would it be a fair argument if I said, "Suppose I had the cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue* giving you a massage while you researched the badguy's weaknesses. Wouldn't that be awesome?"
Well, yes, if you pick the most extreme end of the 'fun/not fun' spectrum, then it's going to be a pain. Neither would it be a fair argument if I said, "Suppose I had the cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue* giving you a massage while you researched the badguy's weaknesses. Wouldn't that be awesome?"
*Replace with Chippendale dancer, Playboy Bunny, body builder, or the stereotypical fetish object of your choice.
"Narrative" generally means the same as "handwavey". Whether an aspect applies or not depends on the direction the GM waves his hand in.Yes, but it still has to make some sense--a bookworm without any real combat skills or aspects relating to fighting ability shouldn't be able to invoke something to make him kick the ass of a ghoul, for instance.
Anyway, your last post contains the answer I was looking for. So thanks. But supposing that the Runic Bullets are for whatever reason more special and more powerful than God and all his angels, would you still have a problem with them?Basically, no, I wouldn't have a problem with them then. In my previous post I said if the runic bullets were empowered by a similarly powerful deity or Faerie, that would make sense--and it should come with similar duties and obligations to said Deity or Faerie in return for that power as well. But I was getting the sense that this was intended for a human/mortal organization, as a regular standard issue tool, rather than an artifact specifically empowered by such a being.
PS: Powers should be balanced by their costs, not by the templates that allow them. Otherwise you introduce mechanical landmines that make it dangerous to think outside the box.But the powers should still have a narrative justification for how and why they work the way they do, and that goes for any power--even something as basic as Claws needs some kind of justification beyond "I want my fists to do Weapon:2 damage, and I have the refresh to spend," even if it's as mundane and basic as "I'm a kung fu master."
Seriously, though, your objection has no real connection to the power. It just has to do with this item being an IoP. Which is fine, but not what I'm talking about at all.Actually, it has to do with the power being available without the baggage, limits, and responsibilities that restrict its use as part of the Sword of the Cross's powerset.
Incidentally, your comment about baggage is exactly what I'm arguing against. Baggage comes in the form of compels, which are good. If a power is too strong and needs something to balance it, it should cost more. It shouldn't have some kind of narrative drawback. Because narrative drawbacks do not work in this game.Yes, they do. The inability of Claws to be concealed without a shapeshifting power is a narrative drawback. The fact that a Knight of the Cross can't use his sword for selfish and petty reasons is a narrative drawback. Narrative drawbacks are the fuel for compels.
Compels aren't meaningless, but they aren't bad either. Ok, so: Compels have meaning. Compels are good.
They aren't drawbacks. Ok. Compels != drawbacks.
So narrative drawbacks aren't drawbacks at all in this game. <-- here. Thus far, you have not posited points to reach this conclusion. All we know so far in your proof is that (Compels != drawbacks).
Which means that they aren't important to the game's balance. Example of Petitio Principii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)
Which means they can be freely added and removed. Not Q.E.D.
Compels aren't meaningless, but they aren't bad either. They aren't drawbacks. So narrative drawbacks aren't drawbacks at all in this game. Which means that they aren't important to the game's balance. Which means they can be freely added and removed.Put it this way: Would you let someone have one of the Swords and use it regularly in contrast to its purpose without suffering the consequences of losing the sword and risking its destruction?
@Silverblaze: Drawback for the character yes. They should have that. But from the player's perspective, compels are good. I don't care if my character is happy, he's not me. In fact, I recently self-compelled to drink a potion of despair.I think this here is the crux of the disagreement we have here. You're looking at it purely from a player's perspective, while we're (or at least, I'm) considering the narrative with most every character decision I make.
@Mr. Death: No, of course I wouldn't allow that. I'd compel 'em left and right, and they'd both benefit and suffer as a result.There's the thing, though. The powers of the Sword are a package deal with the aspects of the sword, and the role associated with the sword. You don't think it's unbalanced to have one character with a -3 refresh cost (plus fate point) power that is significantly restricted in what his character can and cannot smite, and another character with almost the same -3 refresh (plus fate point) power that he can use on anything without consequence?
If someone wanted to use ACAEBG with some other justification, though, I'd let them. And the other justification would not have to be a burdensome one. Something as simple as "I'm Death's son and I can kill anything" would be enough for me.
If this isn't balanced, the fault lies in the power and its cost.
There's the thing, though. The powers of the Sword are a package deal with the aspects of the sword, and the role associated with the sword. You don't think it's unbalanced to have one character with a -3 refresh cost (plus fate point) power that is significantly restricted in what his character can and cannot smite, and another character with almost the same -3 refresh (plus fate point) power that he can use on anything without consequence?
The aspects and narrative role of a power are as important to its balance as the fact that it lets you do X for Y amount of refresh.
I think this here is the crux of the disagreement we have here. You're looking at it purely from a player's perspective, while we're (or at least, I'm) considering the narrative with most every character decision I make.
That would do it, yeah, but it still doesn't address my other point, explaining why the power is A. so powerful as to affect a wide range of totally unrelated monsters' weaknesses (everything from elves, to vampires, to demons) and B. finicky enough that it sometimes just doesn't work ("Didn't that gun blow right through an Ogre yesterday? Why can't it scratch this troll?" "I ran out of fate points.")
The former suggests that whatever powers the gun is extremely powerful, the latter suggests that whatever powers the gun has some kind of consciousness and agenda that the user might sometimes not align with. Both together suggest this would be an item in short supply, or even unique--remember that the White God only has three of them to hand out.
That would do it, yeah, but it still doesn't address my other point, explaining why the power is A. so powerful as to affect a wide range of totally unrelated monsters' weaknesses (everything from elves, to vampires, to demons) and B. finicky enough that it sometimes just doesn't work ("Didn't that gun blow right through an Ogre yesterday? Why can't it scratch this troll?" "I ran out of fate points.")
The former suggests that whatever powers the gun is extremely powerful, the latter suggests that whatever powers the gun has some kind of consciousness and agenda that the user might sometimes not align with. Both together suggest this would be an item in short supply, or even unique--remember that the White God only has three of them to hand out.
Maybe the group is tapping into an unexplained power source that they aren't sure how to properly harness (outsiders, maybe?).Now that's an idea I can get behind. Gives some plausibility for both the bullets working and for why they sometimes fail, and provides the 'bite you in the ass' plot hook that such a powerful power ought to come with.
I think this here is the crux of the disagreement we have here. You're looking at it purely from a player's perspective, while we're (or at least, I'm) considering the narrative with most every character decision I make.
There's the thing, though. The powers of the Sword are a package deal with the aspects of the sword, and the role associated with the sword. You don't think it's unbalanced to have one character with a -3 refresh cost (plus fate point) power that is significantly restricted in what his character can and cannot smite, and another character with almost the same -3 refresh (plus fate point) power that he can use on anything without consequence?
The aspects and narrative role of a power are as important to its balance as the fact that it lets you do X for Y amount of refresh.
Considering the narrative is a good idea in play. But when working on the game and trying to keep things balanced, it's a mistake.It's not all about how many fate points it generates, as I've said.
No.
See, those restrictions pay for themselves with Fate Points. Getting rid of them means getting rid of some of your power.
So, was Silverblaze mistaken when a narrative effect (the sword's power breaking when he harmed an innocent) had a concrete reality to it (he couldn't use the sword and lost a significant part of his mechanical capability in battle)? If that restriction on the sword had not been enforced--or if Silverblaze had instead taken a power that was exactly the same in every mechanical sense but lost the Sword's aspects--that would have resulted in a completely different scenario and outcome both narratively and mechanically.The aspects and narrative role of a power are as important to its balance as the fact that it lets you do X for Y amount of refresh.
This is absolutely incorrect.
Narrative effects have no concrete reality to them.
If I never give a Knight a moral quandary, I'm not playing the game wrong. But with your conception of the rules, I'd be breaking the game.No. I'm saying if the Knight could use the sword however he wanted (for petty and selfish reasons, for example) without any restriction or consequence that would go against the purpose of the power as it's written.
Same goes if I throw up moral quandaries nonstop.
This is bad. The more landmines people need to avoid to keep your game functional, the worse your game is.I'm not talking about putting up landmines. I'm talking about keeping the mechanical powers of a power consistent with the narrative reasons for it.
When the Knight finds himself unable to harm an innocent, that's a compel. And as such, it's not a bad thing.It's not just not being able to harm an innocent--the Sword also has to be swung with true purpose, not for personal reasons even if the target is anything but innocent (Harry trying to use it against Lea comes to mind). Bottom line is, there's things that you might want to use the sword against, but can't, because of the narrative effects. That is a concrete limiting factor on the sword's effectiveness, because it cannot be used in every fight. Removing that makes the sword that much more powerful.
If you treat it as a bad thing and use it as a balance element, then the balance of the power depends on the amount that the GM causes it to happen. Which means that a number of games, through no fault of the people in them, will be damaged when the wrong amount of narrative balance is applied.It's less about the GM causing it to happen, I'd argue, as it is the player making it happen. If the player's read the Sword's powerset (which he should if he's using it), then he'll limit himself accordingly in what he tries to use it against. If he hasn't, the GM certainly would have, and had darn well better enforce the consequences, because that, the consequences of a character's actions, are part of the game in whatever form they take--mechanical or narrative.
It's the same problem you get with exceptionally situational powers, but worse.
While mechanically speaking that gives the catches something in common, why would one bullet work the same on a Demon whose catch is Holy Stuff and on a Frost Giant whose catch is fire? Or on an Ogre with a catch of Iron in the same scene as a Black Court vampire?
There's really no commonality for all the catches this would affect that one single item would be able to latch onto through means regularly available to mortals.
Magic has to come from something. This isn't a setting where you can make something this broadly powerful and handwave it with "Well, it's magic."
Fair enough. I'm just saying that there should be a darn good in-story reason for why a power works the way it does in addition to the Refresh/fate point costs.
Actually I harmed the innocent just fine. I wasn't compelled not to, I broke the Sword much like Harry did.
Also, you don't need to know a Catch to use it. IIRC, Harry discovered Nicodemus's Catch by using it. And if I use a steel sword or a holy warhammer I'll likely satisfy all sorts of Catches by accident.As I recall, Harry half figured it out, half guessed, before he made the attempt, so he didn't just completely discover it out of the blue.
And there's nothing in the setting or the game preventing you from just saying "it's magic". Seriously, nothing.Explicitly, no. But this is a game system and setting where magic has rules--things it can and cannot do, and how.
#1 Did you get a Fate Point? Because you earned one.
The problem with using something like Divine Purpose as a drawback is twofold. First, it makes the power not usable in some games. For instance, if I'm using DFRPG for a simple dungeon crawl then Divine Purpose will never matter. Which means I'm getting something for nothing.
(The great thing about the compel system is that it avoids that problem.)
#2 Second, it means that anyone who adds flavour restrictions to their powers without being rewarded is a chump.
Also, you don't need to know a Catch to use it. IIRC, Harry discovered Nicodemus's Catch by using it. And if I use a steel sword or a holy warhammer I'll likely satisfy all sorts of Catches by accident.
And there's nothing in the setting or the game preventing you from just saying "it's magic". Seriously, nothing.
#3 A large part of D&D messed-up-ness comes from the designers trying to limit powers with uncompensated narrative drawbacks. There are oodles of Prestige Classes out there which require a certain backstory, which supposedly prevents cherrypicking. In practice, it just messes up the character concepts of cherrypickers.
Plus, the classes are balanced against the assumption that you're going to fight multiple encounters every day. Which means that if you want to play a game where fights to the death are uncommon, the system fails on you.
Those problems must be avoided.