Does the DresdenVerse default to Ultimate Good or Ultimate Evil (or Ultimate Chaos)? Is God, Himself, eventually to be trumped by Those from Outside?My interpretation of DF convention is there are many gods (several are mentioned in the books) who (may) derive some measure of power from believers but aren't constrained by those beliefs. The "God" isn't a Christian god or even an Abrahamic god - his function / goal is primarily about preserving Choice.
...they subvert what should be inviolable tenets of the DresdenVerse...To be honest, the Dresdenverse is one man's vision. I suspect we subvert that in some way every time we play. ;)
So, unless Choice is "ultimate good" neither it nor "ultimate evil" exist in the setting. I think it's more along the lines of balancing between maximum entropy and complete chaos.
To be honest, the Dresdenverse is one man's vision. I suspect we subvert that in some way every time we play. ;)
I'm happy to shift to that paradigm, but my question of escalation remains. All things being equal, if we affirm the existence of the established terrestrial gods, and place them on a fairly even level, is there any level of agency which goes above that level?If you accept my paradigm, it implies at least two powers are at least equal to the God(s) - entropy and chaos. Not sure either has been completely personified in the setting but you can make a case for Outsiders representing chaos...possibly entropy as well if Outside is more than one 'place'. (Not sure "place" is the right term for beyond the outer gates.)
Should there be anything so powerful in this plane or another that it trumps that agency which has been set up in the DresdenVerse as "God" for which "All Creatures Are Equal Before"?I think that's going to depend on individual groups' views of the setting. Is there one God or many gods? Is said God Abrahamic? Do gods exist outside of belief? Are they constrained by belief? Are they constrained by anything? Or are they the constraints on 'lesser' individuals populating the setting?
There is a surprisingly elegant solution to this question that can be extrapolated by some of the things we find out about in the short story 'Sidekick'.My interpretation of the setting is heavily based upon the truthes revealed by Sidekick mentioned above.A being's ability to influence the physical world is limited and dependent on its connection to the world, a connection which is entirely based on MORTAL knowledge and belief. Thanks to the fact that the white god and his angels have become a major part of virtually every culture on earth for the last few thousand years, that makes him the defacto top of the totem in terms of power on earth.(click to show/hide)
I don't care much about the deeper metaphysics of the setting. They're rarely relevant to anything that I care about.
But All Creatures Are Equal Before God is mechanically problematic, and Powers that negate it might be a good way to make it less so.
If anybody's wondering, the problem with ACAEBG is that once it's introduced into high-level combat things get a bit rocket-tag-like. Pretty sure it's not much of a problem at normal power levels though.
The problems with ACAEBG arise when you grant the power to those who already have other powers at their disposal.
A Human with a Sword (Weapon:3), decent to masterful skill and ACAEBG is a challange to most supernatural creatures.
A being with enhanced strength, speed and toughness wielding such a blade is totally off the scale.
The intent of the power is to make it possible for a non-powered human to stand up to the powered creatures.
That's why it doesn't balance well when used by powered characters.
But surely Uriel and Mab can put out that kind of power too. I doubt an archangel would have much trouble with a Loup-Garou.
You do realize that minor consequences don't actually give you any net extra protection the +2 soak also gives your enemies +2 to damage you next hit. So filling multiple minor consequence slots is a good way to get a character taken out in the next attack.
Sure in the next attack. Meanwhile it (super zombie I mentioned earlier) had time to kill hostages, or attack my other party members. And whilst we're being kinda rude... You do realize that having more endurance and stunts that grant you more mild consequences are designed to help you stay in the fight longer?
I see being at that level as plot devices - but I'm not sure that the Loup-Garou we saw could be killed by an Archangel. At least not without archangel falling.
If a Saint decreed the curse then I don't see an agent of God ending it. I can see Uriel sending the Loup-Garou far away or not being there when the Loup-Garou was raging, but I can't see him killing the Loup-Garou.
Which brings my thoughts back to the original topic, with a slight twist - that McFinn couldn't be killed unless he had a child to pass the curse onto (which leads into Terra being pregnant at the end of Fool Moon and Fritz maybe being her son). That since it was decreed that the curse run until the end of days an all powerful God will shape events so that the line survives...
Unless (of course) a demon was misleading Harry with the whole "a Saint is at the root of this" bit - which is possible. If you look at the exact wording the demon used he doesn't say "a Saint channeled the Power of God to..." but something along the lines of "the legends say..." - making it possible that the demon truthfully related a false legend.
Richard
I generally assume just because someone is a Saint it doesn't make them an agent of "The White God" it is just as likely that the Saint who cursed the Finn line was just a powerful wizard who could provide miracles on demand (got to love magic) and took a dislike to the family.
ACaEBG is extraordinarily powerful if you regularly fight opponents with Toughness above Inhuman and non-easy Catches.It's supposed to be powerful. As written, the power is supposed to even the odds between a Knight and -anything- with a toughness power.
And Mr. Death, Becq, you really need to let go of this narrative power balance idea. It will seriously cripple your understanding of this game.I think I understand the game as written pretty well. Narrative is as important to the game as mechanics.
PS: The rules don't say that ACaEBG is limited to Knights. RAW, anyone can use it.The only place the power shows up on the Swords of the Cross. So you have to have one of those Swords to use it--implying you're a Knight, or at least close enough to one.
PPS: Divine Purpose isn't a limiting factor.It certainly was when Harry tried to use it against Lea.
And Mr. Death, Becq, you really need to let go of this narrative power balance idea. It will seriously cripple your understanding of this game.Can we skip the "one true way-isms"? Seriously, there are probably more ways to interpret and play than there are groups.
And Mr. Death, Becq, you really need to let go of this narrative power balance idea. It will seriously cripple your understanding of this game.I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're saying here in the context of my recent comment on this thread...?
PS: The rules don't say that ACaEBG is limited to Knights. RAW, anyone can use it.Not really. Per RAW, it isn't a power. It's a feature of a sample weapon, and that sample weapon is packaged with Divine Purpose. When I've seen refresh breakdowns of the Sword of the Cross before, I think I've seen ACAEBG priced at -3, but Divine Purpose is generally not accounted for at all. Given the significant limitations it imposes, I would argue that you are really paying -3 for "All Creatures Are Equal Before God's Divine Purpose", and a customized version of the power with less restricts would be priced higher.
PPS: Divine Purpose isn't a limiting factor.
Maybe just have Sacred Guardian confined to Temple Dogs, since it's not listed among the regular powers in Your Story, and the justification for the power is that it's a result of the dog's Foo Dog parentage.
Unless a Temple Dog somehow became a Knight of the Cross. Which is just awesome enough for me to allow.
Meh, whether or not you give gods ACaEBG is not that important right now. I have decent reasons for wanting to do so, but that can wait for another thread.
What's important is that ACaEBG is just too strong in a number of different scenarios.
Not on a mortal knight.
This should be fixed.
Which can be done easily enough, either by changing ACaEBG so that it's not usable with the things that break it or by creating countermeasures.
Mortal knights only...?
Giving Mab and Titania one another's Catch is just as bad as giving them both uncountered ACeEBG. Any fight between them will end in one turn, in favour of whoever got initiative.
They already do... it's called trappings of summer and winter
Now, you could just say that the game isn't supposed to be interesting or fun at such a high power level. But I don't know why you'd want to do that. The game should be fun in as wide a variety of circumstances as possible.
Not all Knights should have Sacred Guardian, but if we take an imaginary player with no mechanical knowledge and have him look for powers and stunts to customize his Knight with, he's likely to take Sacred Guardian. It's totally thematic.
A) Only if they are part temple dog.
B) only if you let the player see Our World and give that player the idea they can take powers a dog has
It's supposed to be powerful. As written, the power is supposed to even the odds between a Knight and -anything- with a toughness power.
I think I understand the game as written pretty well. Narrative is as important to the game as mechanics.
The only place the power shows up on the Swords of the Cross. So you have to have one of those Swords to use it--implying you're a Knight, or at least close enough to one.It certainly was when Harry tried to use it against Lea.
There's no wrong way to play.
But there are many, many, wrong ways to design rules.
This is one of them. I've seen rules written from the perspective Mr. Death and Becq are proposing, and they're pretty much always bad. Adopting the opposite view will more-or-less instantly make you a better writer.
I'm sorry; that comes off as unbelievably arrogant. I've helped design currently published MMO's (as beta tester and employee both) and the powers within and aided in at leat one homebrew system that was published with limited release. Yes, you need to ignore narrative in many situtations, but you see this as far too black and white. Ignoring the narrative is just as bad as using it too much. Of taht i can assure you. In fact, taking a nice median route will always make you a better writer/designer. I understand game balance just fine. If anything I am too strict with it, to avoid OP situations
If a power breaks when used outside of its planned context, put that context in the Power's musts. Otherwise you create a balance landmine.
Agreed. Both sacred guardian and ACAEBG needed to say they have certain requirements. Hopefully errata will exist in the new supplement to be published.
Incidentally...I really dislike it when people say that "it's the table's fault" if some issue with the rules arises. Basically, that's the same as saying that a group deserves to have their game damaged because of their lack of skill. Plus it's a step away from the Rule 0 fallacy, so that's not great either.
Most balance problems don't arise because people munchkin out intentionally. Most of them come from people who don't know how to avoid the flaws in their games.
Have you played "One World By Night" - an organization of LARP players almost world wide for White Wolf publishing? (Sorry, that is mostly a jest, but...) Most of the games I've played in over many states in the US - I found more purposeful munchkin players there than anywhere. It is why my notions of game balance came from. I saw what could be done with seemingly innocent powers. The combinations people came up with were actually staggering.
PS: Divine Purpose should be handled through compels, as I've said before. It's unbalanced to provide a rebate for it and making it work without compels screws over whoever takes it. Really, this kind of stuff is what aspects are for. People should be free to add whatever weird narrative limits they want without hurting their characters. And if that doesn't convince you, reread the description of Divine Purpose and pay special attention to the second paragraph's first sentence.
PPS: YS specifically says that you don't need the Knight template to use a Sword. High Concept or template, it says. An appropriate HC is justification enough.
PPPS: I generally rate the badness of a rules problem by the amount of work that avoiding it requires. This is a fairly minor problem since you can just restrict the availability of ACaEBG. But the fact that you have to do so means that it is a problem.
PS: I agree...mostly. Some compels added would be nice. It also could very well be the built in way to destroy the weapon (you know all IoP have those, that is the Sword's) which could mean ACAEBG must come with a way for it to disappear.
PPPS: The simplest solution has already been mentioned really. Also, it was likely a mistake/oversight from a creation standpoint on behalf od Evil Hat. There is also a chance, that they assumed people would jump to the conclusion only certain beings should have the power listed. Example: Super Potent Emotion, Sacred Guardian, The Bark, Myrk, ACAEBG.
But there are many, many, wrong ways to design rules.If that's even remotely true, why are there so many different systems? Don't you think they'd evolve towards that one perfect system you seem to be postulating?
Sounds like a combination of poorly-written mechanics and jerk players, to me.
And of course some people are jerks. Best solution is to not play with them, but that's not always practical.
If we say that you need God's favour to have ACaEBG, then those jerks will try to describe their character as God's chosen regardless of whether it fits. But if we say that you need Guide My Hand, Righteousness, and Holy Touch to have ACaEBG, then we avoid all that.
Yeah, White Wolf mechanics tend towards the awful.
As an Exalted fan, I've seen some of their worst work up close.
PS: Giving strict prereqs to ACaEBG is really just a band-aid. It makes it harder to use the power with the things that break it, but it doesn't really solve the issue. To do that, you need to make it incompatible with a number of other things.
I'd personally put the White God on equal footing with whatever makes up the top of the Outsider pyramid, above their Walkers. They probably outnumber Him, so keeping them on the other side of the Gate is really, really important. This is my personal canon, but it makes sense to me - putting the White God above even the Outsiders is too close to omnipotence. Once the players start asking why the White God doesn't step in and fix X, he becomes Elminster and it breaks versimilitude.
As for the tangential arguments: arguing for narrative balance is a functional argument in a system that supports it. DFRPG, which specifically encourages players to build their own Stunts and Powers and spell rotes and such from existing mechanics, is not such a system. Narrative balance is 0-weight because you are straight-up told "mess with it and make it yours", and so an argument that All Creatures are Equal is limited by narrative is absolutely nonfunctional.
What it is ACTUALLY limited by is "one Fate Point". What a Sword is limited by is "a context approximately as restrictive as a Sword's agenda" but that's already an inherent trait of IoPs and doesn't cross over to All Creatures are Equal. If there is a balance problem here, it needs to be addressed, because Dresden is not a locked setting where only Knights can have such a power, it is an open toolkit by design. It goes against the grain of DFRPG to assume that anything is limited to its original context. It goes against the RPG itself, which is 100% sufficient, but also against the Dresdenverse setting, which is a narrative kitchen sink with very few absolutes in the first place.
I almost worked for them as an intern in Georgia. Then they announced they were ending their universe at Gen Con.
i opted out a that point.
Point is I own most of their books. Yeah lots of their stuff needed some mechanics work.
Well, you guys win. Perhaps win is the wrong word. I already said that by system all powers can be reskinned. I knew that. I just disagree with it and don't care for it. I'll just have to shut my trap and live in my safe, secure, balanced, house ruled setting. I accept this. Think I'll hide in my bunker now :P
EDIT: One thing to point out first:
I know Sanctaphrax and I agree that ACAEBG should not be stacked on Evocation.
However, this is allowed by cannon rules when any power can be reskinned and ported to anything else.
-6 to 8 (cost is immaterial at this point -12) Sponsored Reaping Magic
Like Death Himself, Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse, you would reap God were it His time. (Supernatural referrence) With this power you surely could. By spending a Fate Point or the equivalent thereof, you may satisfy any or all Catches with your evocations or Thaumaturgy spells. This effect functions the same as ACAEBG and TCATWEGMD.
Now of course, you can still get your discounts for Evocation or Thaumaturgy. Coming up with a concept to use this is pretty easy. It is totally legal by RAW, save a bit of nitpicking and adding some fluff; it is even ready for our Custom Sponsored Magic thread.
This just leads to infinite escalation. -3 power "The Catch and Nothing but the Catch" has already been created here to ignore ACAEBG.
Well I want a power called:
-??? "There Comes a Time When Even Gods Must Die" - that is a Lex Luthor quote btw. I have your catch even if you have that paltry, silly power known as "The Catch and Nothing but hte Catch." Also mine has a cooler and longer name so it trumps yours... :P
My heart is all twitterpated just thinking about it!
Well, you guys win. Perhaps win is the wrong word. I already said that by system all powers can be reskinned. I knew that. I just disagree with it and don't care for it. I'll just have to shut my trap and live in my safe, secure, balanced, house ruled setting. I accept this. Think I'll hide in my bunker now :P
However, this is allowed by cannon rules when any power can be reskinned and ported to anything else.
There's that sidebar that says not all the powers listed on pages 160-161 are appropriate for PCs. I agree with that.
When it comes to the powers from OW - those ones were looked at less than the main powers. Someone tried to model a creature and invented a power on the fly, not necessarily taking the time to ensure that it meshed with the existing powers.
Richard
Right, which is bad design. Blatantly overpowered combinations made by rules finagling I understand are hard to screen for, but a -1 Power should not be a gamebreaker because someone wasn't paying much attention to it.
My take was that they weighed listing PC powers and NPC powers separately and decided to list them all in one place. In my mind that was a mistake - that listing them all together blurred the lines between the two categories. Then again, they seem okay with people mixing and matching if the table wants to.
Richard
If they'd wanted NPC powers to exist, they should have made such a distinction. As it stands, there's no such thing as an NPC power, just powers.
That is a matter of willfulling ignoring intent in my opinion.
I didn't seem them listed under the powers section in Your Story. That is where the inference came from.
Looks like everything in the Powers section was meant for PCs to be able to use to me. Otherwise, there'd be a line like "this power is not for PC use, PCs cannot have this power". Their internal designations are meaningless; in fact, they point out in that quoted section that they are meaningless.
I don't see your argument here. That's text explaining that there's no such thing as an NPC power. "Powers that we think are typically NPC but will allow players to have anyway if they want to" are not NPC powers. They're not restricted in any way, and author intent is not to bar them from PCs, they just feel that those powers are unlikely (their word) to show up in a PC.
A power tagged by UNAVAILABLE FOR PCS is an NPC power. Anything that a PC can have is a PC power.
Looks like everything in the Powers section was meant for PCs to be able to use to me. Otherwise, there'd be a line like "this power is not for PC use, PCs cannot have this power". Their internal designations are meaningless; in fact, they point out in that quoted section that they are meaningless.
No, they don't say that it is meaningless. They say that if you want to break the rules, then that's fine with them, but that some of these powers aren't meant for PCs. If they didn't want to say that then they wouldn't have wasted word count on sidebar saying that.
Domination - any mortal with this power is going lawbreaker his Aspects into negative ones. That looks like NPC to me.
Greater Glamours - since full Fae lack freewill and thus are not PC types, the description is basically saying NPC only.
see Harry Dresden - he's a supposedly free-willed mortal who never resists Compels or otherwise exercises his power of choice. In nearly every situation, his reaction is predictable: he will do "the right thing" or make a grab for power to get himself closer to doing "the right thing". He never deviates. Playing a true fae is no different.
This is another way that playing without Templates can break the game. Without Templates, there are no limits on the mix and match powers - even those that were never meant to be mixed and matched.
Tedronai is right about compels, as usual.
Er, no, there's nothing in there about breaking rules or powers not being meant for PCs. As you...quoted directly...they just note that they find it unlikely. 0 rules implementation. It's just a friendly sidebar. Doesn't even present "optional rule: this list of powers is off-limits to PCs", all it is is developer commentary.
Your reading is off. Let's talk about that.
1) Domination does not cause Lawbreaker. It is not a Spellcasting Power. The Wardens might cite and behead you, but the universe doesn't care.
Now, Greater Glamours. Only true fae may take the power, yes. True fae don't usually have free will, ehhh...putting aside an Aspect like "Cursed With A Soul" or whatever, which is totally valid, not having free will doesn't make you "not a PC".
In short: as Richard has quoted and the Powers section confirms, nothing is barred from PC use in the rules or by implication,
Did we read the same text?
They talk about powers that aren't player focused. That in their opinion, players shouldn't have these powers. They directly refer to “typically NPC” power.
Powers the game designers looked at and said "those are for NPCs".</quote>
Your line break here is very appropriate because it involves skipping from one thing straight to another. A power typically granted to NPCs is not the same as the developers saying the following two things, for which there is no support other then your own conjuring:
1) Some powers SHOULD NOT be had by PCs.
2) Some powers ARE ONLY MEANT for NPCs.
What they state, instead, is that some of the powers they made, they find (one more time, class) unlikely to be of use to PCs. There are no shoulds or should nots. In fact, what exactly is that entire sidebar about? It's ABOUT "we are not imposing any shoulds or should nots". So there's no hardset rule, AND no author intent. Neither exist in DFRPG.QuoteYou get the Lawbreaker stunt for breaking the laws of magic. YS 172 "which break the hell out of the Laws of Magic (Domination being a good example)."
Please explain to me how you can make a Renfield without "Fourth: You’ve enthralled or otherwise laid a compulsion upon another being with magic, likely causing long-term psychological trauma to your victim."
Super-easily, by not using magic. Domination is not a Spellcasting Power. Domination does not, and cannot, cause Lawbreaker. Or do you think Claws inflicts First Law violation? Does Living Dead mean you're a Fifth Lawbreaker? These are rhetorical, of course. Lawbreaker results from magic caused by mortals. Magic is defined by Spellcasting Powers.
And mortality is optional, which you're conveniently skipping over. You can play a non-mortal, which has its own benefits and drawbacks just as mortality does.QuoteYes it does. Not having Free Will makes you a monster, not a person. It eliminates your ability to choose to do anything except follow your nature. It is why Mab wasn't a suspect in Summer Knight - Harry saw her nature and knew that she couldn't have acted contrary to it.
Wow, that's racist! But seriously, it's not a helpful distinction. PCs tend to follow their nature anyway. Since you, as a player, define that nature - and how it expresses itself - all you have to do is play the character like any other. If you can play a Paladin in DnD, you can manage a true fae in DFRPG. It just involves less IC deliberation - your character knows their path, even before you've decided whether they go through door A or door B.
Your quotes are just echoing me, which seems like a pattern now. You lose your PC status when your Refresh drops to 0 or below. Not because your PC does or doesn't have free will. If it bothers you so much, take it as an Aspect: "So You're, Like, That Guy From Buffy?" on a Black Court Vampire, for instance.Quote"A number of the powers presented in this chapter aren’t really player character focused."
"she might even see a few “typically NPC” powers she’d be entirely happy to let the players get access to."
implying that some powers aren't PC focused or that some powers aren't typically NPC (unless a GM decides otherwise) then we really have nothing to talk about.
Okay, then we have nothing to talk about? You're making up nonsense about the authors wanting to control the powers they explicitly do not put any restrictions on, and you're basing it off the sidebar where the authors talk about how you're free to play as you like. It's like me saying Dresden is a book series about Harry Potter, and then referencing a Jim Butcher quote that Dresden is nothing like Harry Potter.
You're unsupported. Quoting my side of the argument and then extrapolating new ideas from it is not impressing me that you have a view worth considering. In fact, prior to this, I would have said "it's up for debate" in regards to players taking some of the weirder powers, but upon reading that sidebar and re-examining the system I can say with utter confidence "there is no debate; you are intended by the designers to play freely and without restriction on template or power selection. I know this, because they say so."
It's ABOUT "we are not imposing any shoulds or should nots".
Super-easily, by not using magic. Domination is not a Spellcasting Power. Domination does not, and cannot, cause Lawbreaker.The text of the book says that it breaks the law.
Or do you think Claws inflicts First Law violation? Does Living Dead mean you're a Fifth Lawbreaker? These are rhetorical, of course. Lawbreaker results from magic caused by mortals. Magic is defined by Spellcasting Powers.Wow, that's racist!
Maybe, but it's the setting.
In the world that Jim has made there are those who have free will and those who don't. Those who don't follow their natures and are monsters. Creatures like Mab. Creatures like Uriel. Yes, Uriel - I didn't say that all monsters are bad and since Uriel lacks free will he qualifies.But seriously, it's not a helpful distinction. PCs tend to follow their nature anyway. Since you, as a player, define that nature - and how it expresses itself - all you have to do is play the character like any other. If you can play a Paladin in DnD, you can manage a true fae in DFRPG. It just involves less IC deliberation - your character knows their path, even before you've decided whether they go through door A or door B.
You miss the point - a monster MUST follow his nature. A Paladin could decide to go on a murder spree, killing countless innocents and becoming a Blackguard, but a True Fae cannot do anything except follow its nature.
For example, there are times that Lea wants to help Harry but she can't unless he bargains for her help OR Mab gives her an order to help him. Why? Because she lacks freewill and thus must follow her nature. As a True Fae she could no more help Harry for free than she can lie.Your quotes are just echoing me, which seems like a pattern now. You lose your PC status when your Refresh drops to 0 or below. Not because your PC does or doesn't have free will.
You are ignoring the link to Freewill.Okay, then we have nothing to talk about?
Apparently - since you maintain that there is no implication there while ignoring everything that isn't a hard rule mechanic.
The core of the DFRPG is that it apes the setting. Ignore the setting and you're playing Urban Fantasy FATE 2.0 - which is fine, but I prefer the DFRPG.
Richard
Non-Spellcasting Enthrallment
As enforced, the Laws of Magic are applied
where human victims are involved, but similarly,
they’re primarily applied where human
spellcasters are the ones doing the deeds. This
means that a White Court vampire laying her
sex mojo on a tasty little morsel is not technically
breaking the Fourth Law. This doesn’t mean that
the White Council has to like it, but usually this
is a case where the Accords trump the Laws, at
least as far as the politics and legal maneuverings
are involved.
For the purposes of game rules, such powers
are already assumed to have assessed the costs
for holding such sway over another’s mind. No
Red Court vampire is going to get slapped with
a Lawbreaker stunt for addicting someone to his
narcotic saliva.
Hrm. An editing oversight it appears. We've got a passing comment in "Your Story" about how Domination is Lawbreaking, and a full paragraph in "Our World" about how it is not.
We have a few ways to resolve this:
1) Oops. Editing error. Ummm, go with "Our World." It's a whole paragraph.
2) Oops. Editing error. Ummm, go with "Your Story." It's the primary rulesbook.
3) Well, go with "Your Story" for player characters and "Our World" for NPCs. That's what "Our World" is: a compendium of NPCs.
I'm inclined to choose 1, albeit with the provision that I'm not inclined to let a PC have the Domination power.
Folks, it seems sometimes people want to pick and choose which parts of the book to hold up as "the rules" and which parts to dismiss as "noise."
All things being equal (that is, barring an editing oversight or other actual error), this game isn't a list of combat rules attached to a bunch of noise that you can safely ignore (except insofar as "Your Table, Your Rules" applies). It is a deliberate attempt to marry a game system (FATE) with a setting (Dresden Files), and I feel that the recommendations, guidelines, marginal comments, and suggestions are all placed there with care and intent, to inform how you play the game.
If the book explains that some powers aren't appropriate for PCs, trust that there *is* a line, and while they didn't explicitly draw one in the sand, they did put that there so that player and GM both know that there should be one, and that the GM is going to exercise some control over what characters a player can make.
People are going to make custom powers.
People are going to make custom templates.
The DFRPG setting has a whole suite of playable templates which can, on their own, provide a variety of fun roleplaying opportunities.
And the DFRPG setting implies a whole secret world of unknown perils that lurk just beyond sight, waiting until the PCs start poking into the shadows to find out what happened to some poor innocent human.
Embrace the power of "and". But don't pretend that there isn't a line.
Because if you take nothing else from the Dresden Files, you should take this: it is about looking good and hard at that line, blood dripping into your eyes, as you stand up one more time against the darkness, knowing that just one step over that line - so simple to do: just a breath, a promise, a whispered name, a quiet surrender to an inhuman agency, or answering the call of the blood - would be to escape all your present troubles, provide succor for your friends or loved ones, or deliver on that promise you made, but in so doing, bringing a heap of new troubles on your head. What kind of a person are you going to be?
You still do not see that they implying that there are "shoulds". Ones that they are not imposing, but ones that they have pointed out,
The text of the book says that it breaks the law.
Where (for that law) does it say that magic must be used?
You miss the point - a monster MUST follow his nature. A Paladin could decide to go on a murder spree, killing countless innocents and becoming a Blackguard, but a True Fae cannot do anything except follow its nature.
The core of the DFRPG is that it apes the setting. Ignore the setting and you're playing Urban Fantasy FATE 2.0 - which is fine, but I prefer the DFRPG.*
3) Well, go with "Your Story" for player characters and "Our World" for NPCs. That's what "Our World" is: a compendium of NPCs.
Well agreeing with the rest of your post - I see option 3 working best. Something along the lines of "No, you don't have to worry about giving lawbreaker to these NPCs".
Yes, a Paladin could. Many don't.
Yes, a Paladin could. Many don't.While a Paladin could make that decision, Mab can't. Lea can't. The Erlking can't.
Because they lack freewill and follow their nature as opposed to choosing their paths.
Here is where we disagree: in the DV setting, True Fae have no freewill.
Ergo, if something is flagged as "True Fae only" then it is flagged as NPC only.
Richard
True Fae have no free will, yup, check. Not sure how that translates into NPC status. You can
A) play a character without free will and still have a rich, rewarding roleplaying experience.
Is not the Leanansidhe an interesting character? Doesn't she achieve her goals, even when they're at odds with her Court, because Faerie is tricksy?
since Fae are slaves to their natures.
Not under the RAW. That's why I keep repeating myself.
No freewill = not available as a PC.
No freewill = no ability to "tilt that see-saw one way or another with our actions".
There is no RAW on playing characters who don't have free will in the first place, due to their inherent nature or some variety of curse. It's not covered, because it's a nebulous metaconcept with no place or purpose in game mechanics.
The book does say dropping to ZERO or less refresh makes your chracter unplayable. It is now an NPC.
There are a few problems with what you just said.
1. You apparently didn't read or chose to disregard the sixth sentence of Silverblaze's post.
2. Negative refresh characters can still refuse compels if they get FP somehow.
3. Compels don't work that way. See Tedronai's posting history for an explanation.
4. Refresh is an out-of-game thing and free will is an in-game thing. The way they connect is malleable.
Ah. Well, my bad, then.
Hmm. Come to think of it, has these boards come to a conclusion on how negative refresh characters can get FP? Compels, yes, but then there is the matter of negative refresh..
I disagree about that. We always disagreed this much.
Once more:To quote OW:
1) There is no extant rule text barring playing a character without free will.
2) You can play a non-mortal character with free will.
An extrapolated guess about developer intent is not the same as sidebar text, sidebar text is not the same as RAW, and RAW is mostly about enabling the player - the restrictions you're championing just aren't in there.
To quote OW:
Does that -4 refresh mean that I could play a spectre with free will or something?
Not really. These things are low refresh-cost, but don’ t take that as an indication that they have free will. They’re tools, wielded by a binding necromancer.
---
Which seems clear - no freewill = not something you can play.
With homebrew, yes. Show me the template that allows non-mortals other than WCV.
The fact that WCV need their own template demonstrates the need of a custom template for non-humans.
Since the sidebar is in the rules it is part of the RAW. No, it isn't something that covers hard mechanics, but it is the RAW.
You can still play one without free will, and you can still take an Aspect for free will. Free will remains a metaconcept. Gangsters can lose it and fallen angels can gain it.
Why would I need a template other then WCV to show you?Because I asked you to show me a template in the RAW that allows you to play a True Fae. To connect the dots:
Okay, no problem. So make one. You can do that.
That's not what RAW is. Sidebars are never RAW.
It doesn't matter in this case since despite your relentless distortion that sidebar supports an argument which is not yours, but knowing what the RAW is is probably important. RAW is rules-as-written. Not rules-as-written-plus-interviews-plus-commentaries-plus-homebrew. It's just the hard mechanical rules (and any "soft" mechanics used to talk about those rules, like the guidelines to creating a stunt).
As to taking an Aspect to gain freewill, I see that as rules breaking as taking an aspect to fly. "I have freewill" is just as alien to Fae as "I can flap my wings and fly" is to a Pure Mortal.
Because I asked you to show me a template in the RAW that allows you to play a True Fae. To connect the dots:
There is no Template in the RAW that allows you to play a True Fae.
There is a power that is restricted to True Fae.
Therefore there are powers designed for NPCs only.
Again, we are at the point where there in a power in the RAW that no PC can take in the RAW.
But I now understand where you are coming from. You feel that if it isn't a mechanic then it is not part of the RAW. And I'll explain where I'm coming from: I feel that if it's in the rule book it's part of the RAW.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion and your suggested houserules.
Oh, come on. Now you're just insulting yourself and me at the same time. No, that's not what you asked. No, those dots don't even connect ANYWAY. Let's not play those reindeer games. I can look at your previous post.Let me save you the time:
Show me the template that allows non-mortals other than WCV.
Where you're coming from is not a definition of RAW. It doesn't even make sense. RAW literally stands for rules as written, not "whatever text is in the corebook". A rule doesn't have to be a mechanic, but it does need to be a rule. Sidebar commentary supporting my argument is, sadly, not a rule (nor does it propose to be a rule), or I would just point to it and end the conversation. It's just sidebar commentary supporting my argument with RAI, which is rules as intended. And while it makes a strong case for me, I can't say that it's absolute RAW.
Can we agree that an aspect is not a power? That an aspect cannot allow you to do things that are impossible - such as flying by flapping your arms?
If we can, then what I am saying that it is impossible to grant a non-freewilled creature freewill with an aspect.
Can we agree that there are no templates in the RAW that allow you to play True Fae. You could make one, but currently none exist?
We are talking about a rule book - and what is in that book? Rules.
That's still not what you asked, is it? You asked for an example of a template that let you play a non-mortal other then a WCV. You realized halfway into asking that there was already a core example of a non-mortal, but rather then discard your flawed point, you forged ahead and tried to label it as a special exception, which it isn't.
That's disingenuous, dude.
You can just...make Templates. That's in the RAW. And...you don't have to use a Template at all. That's also in the RAW. It is, in fact, the very first sentence of chapter 5.
This ain't DND. You don't have to pick a class at level 1.
templates
Which brings me back to:
What template in the RAW can you take and then take Greater Glamor?
(the reasoning behind that question hasn't changed.)
Richard
If you're doing quick character creation, yes. The actual section you go to to look at templates notes that you don't need one.Not that it really matters, but ... read that section again, please. It says that you need not restrict yourself to one of the sample templates. But if you know of a place where it discusses templates being optional, I'd be interested to see it. I can point you to several places where it says that you do need a template of some form, starting with this one, which seems rather unambiguous:
The template is crucial to creating your character; even with Quick Character Creation (page 68), this step is necessary.
If you're doing quick character creation, yes. The actual section you go to to look at templates notes that you don't need one.
Any RAW-designed custom template. Also, any extant template applied to a true fae such as Emissary of Power.
One says you must pick a template, the other says that templates are pre-packaged character designs you don't need to use. Looks like whether or not you need a template will be house rule territory, barring errata. Probably a miscommunication between writers.
1) There is no distinction between "allowed by RAW" and "within RAW". RAW allows you to build custom templates.
2) Sure, you can build a True Fae template by RAW.
For those who don't like flexibility and versatility templates are probably preferable though I still believe that agreeing what is appropriate with your gm for powers and stunts rather than following the book to the letter is more optimal. Really the debate on templates comes down to the fact fixed templates curtail choice (that is their role) those who like templates like this those who don't do not.The emboldened words lead me to believe you read little if any of my post above. Ah, well, I tried.
I did read it I just didn't agree the purpose of a template is to limit a players choice in how they create a character and how it grows even if you allow some flexibility they are always going to be less flexible and versatile than no template. Templates don't support you if you want to create a unique character who can grow in any way.
I'm sure that a BCV who uses his Sword of the Cross to aid in the return of the Outsiders so that they can wipe humanity off the Earth would make a fun PC to play - I just don't think that it belongs in the DV..
I'm sure that a BCV who uses his Sword of the Cross to aid in the return of the Outsiders so that they can wipe humanity off the Earth would make a fun PC to play - I just don't think that it belongs in the DV..
Richard
My observation of the critical, fundamental conflicts going the rounds lately boil down to three flashpoints:
1. Are there powers that players (assuming a canonical or canon-aligned game) shouldn't have?
2. Are there character concepts that players (assuming a canonical or canon-aligned game) shouldn't play?
3. What is the value of the canon and precedence in coming up with an answer to the first two questions?
Templates have gotten tangled up in the discussions because templates are tangentially associated with all three issues, but templates aren't the real battleground, and because they can be fluid, they are not, ultimately, a determining factor.
Refresh has also gotten tangled up in the discussion because it has been made part of an equation about free will, but the actual conflict there is whether that relationship is commutative (by which I mean: if 0-Refresh = "no free will", does "no free will" = 0-Refresh?). If you believe that a character type which has no free will in the canonical setting should still be playable, you're going to say "no, it is not a commutative relationship," no matter how much sense it seems to make to the naysayers.
But the crux which has informed all of these disagreements has been about the value one should assign to (and thank you for the subtle satire in the NPCs thread, ways and means) canonical precedence when figuring out what and how to play.
The canon is constraint, it is true. Some rebel against constraint as a habit. But constraint inspires creativity. I see it all the time when playing "Fiasco": how do we make these weird plot elements fit together? That's creativity. And there is no shortage of creativity on these boards.
The canon also ensures that we are all speaking a similar language, and sharing a similar vision when we come together to discuss how we want to play our game. Some have said that ignoring the canon is tantamount to playing "urban fantasy" as opposed to Dresden Files. And maybe that's what some people prefer to do.
But for most of this board, I imagine that the canon is at least somewhat influential on how people play and run their Dresden Files games. And the truth is that a lot of the setting remains unexplored - a matter of guesswork. Which is why established elements of the setting take on a great deal of significance, because we can point to these pillars and say "no matter what else, these things are certain."
I could enumerate the things which are ostensibly canon but are disputed on the grounds that we can't know everything about the setting, or that Harry Dresden is an unreliable narrator, or that there will always be exceptions to what seem like cosmic rules.
But at the end of the day, the point of the game is to have fun.
And for some, part of that fun is cleaving as closely as possible to the setting as it is established. That means a lot of things just won't be valid for a player characters. And they aren't wrong to believe that Angels or Fae, having no free will according to the setting, shouldn't be on the table as a character concept. They'll probably accept an Angelic Scion. They would certainly accept a Changeling. And who knows: maybe in game, that Changeling embraces the Fae side but still has Refresh left over. Boom! Grandfathered in!
And for others, the canon is a nice guideline - a good starting point - but ultimately second to the rule of fun. And they aren't wrong to want to play Angels or Fae who, despite the setting's clear establishment that both lack free will, have as much roleplaying possibility as any of the "preferred" archetypes, even though the free will issue is going to come up a lot.
We need to stop talking across each other and come together in our shared appreciation of this setting/game/whatever reason you happen to be here.
If that means the people who show preference for canonical precedence don't think your idea would be appropriate for a canonical game, that's the way they choose to play, and the feedback they are going to give. And if you don't care about canon or setting constraints, be honest about it, and factor that into your discourse.
Likewise, canon enthusiasts, not everyone cares that Jim Butcher denied the possibility of a gold coin floating around with Lucifer in it. They want to put it in their game. Heck, a bunch of us dealing with Jade Court are presumably also canon enthusiasts, and we're going to get a little heartbroken over how we opted to build them when Jim finally raises the curtain and puts that faction into play, right?
Let's all have some pie.
I did read it I just didn't agree the purpose of a template is to limit a players choice in how they create a character and how it grows even if you allow some flexibility they are always going to be less flexible and versatile than no template. Templates don't support you if you want to create a unique character who can grow in any way.
Please reread that section. What is says is that you don't have to use these templates - not that you don't have to use templates.
So all custom stunts are the RAW, all custom powers are the RAW - even though they aren't in the rules and your version of X will be different from my version of X? All the custom stunts and powers on this forum are in the RAW?
It's quite specific. A template is defined as something (a pre-packaged design) and you do not need to have it.
No, the concept of custom stunts, powers, and templates are RAW. Just like the rulebook doesn't list an Aspect of Dragon's Ex-Girlfriend, but you can have that Aspect. You're given license to write your own Aspects. Also, your own stunts, powers, and templates. That LICENSE is RAW, not any specific result of it. When a player says "I made this custom X, what do you think?" he's acting within the license of the RAW.
1) There is no distinction between "allowed by RAW" and "within RAW".as you are clearly making a distinction between the two.
A template is a character type. As in
"While you and your GM can work together to devise new and strange character types for your own campaign if you wish,"
If the rule was "templates are optional" then it would be started at all the places where RAW says that they are not optional. Or the wording would be something like "While you and your GM can disregard character types for your own campaign if you wish".
Which still leaves us with a power you cannot take without expanding on the RAW with a custom template. A power that therefore must be intended in the RAW as NPC only.
Anything that allows and promotes freewill is good. Interfering with freewill is bad. Reducing freewill is evil. Oh, and the point of freewill is that you live with the results of your actions.
I disagree strongly with this sentiment and the concepts that flow from it.
No, a template is a "pre-packaged" character type. A new and strange character type is not a template, which is a term reserved for the "pre-packaged" ones. As has been pointed out, it's a useless argument anyway: "you don't need a template" and "you can make a custom template" are for this purpose statements of identical consequence. Since we know one to be factually true...
I honestly cannot tell a difference between using custom templates and not using templates, except that with custom templates you make the decision of what powers fit the concept in advance whereas when not using templates you make the decision when it comes up.
Are there any other differences?
Really, I'd like an answer to this.
I take it, by your lack of the restatement that was expressly requested, that your previous objections would not apply in this case? (ie. a second player choosing to play a 'child of a Troll' character would be copying the first no more so than a second player choosing to play a Changeling with a Troll parent)
Once you confirm or correct this, I will address your new objections.
I'm sorry, but it took me a few minutes to figure out what you are trying to say here. After checking back on a previous message I believe I know what you are trying to communicate - but I could be wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.
Next time this happens, could you just say something along the lines of "I think you missed the point of my question, which was...."?
Unless, of course, you enjoy obfuscating your meaning by using debate jargon.
Bob says: I want to play a guy who's the son a troll.
Bob then begins taking powers. Since he isn't using the Changeling template and he has a connection to the Fae he decides that his first power will be Glamours. Bob then loads up on Deceit and Deceit stunts.
Bob has now defined for that group what it means to be the son of a Troll. He has done so without much input from the GM or the rest of the table.
Richard
Please read what I wrote.
without much input != no input
When someone decides to create a custom template, generally speaking a lot of thought is put into it by the player, the GM, and often the rest of the table.
Someone saying "Hey, can I buy blah" as everyone is applying a milestone is different than "I'm interested in playing X - can we work out a custom template for it?".
Richard
I'm sorry, but it took me a few minutes to figure out what you are trying to say here. After checking back on a previous message I believe I know what you are trying to communicate - but I could be wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.
Next time this happens, could you just say something along the lines of "I think you missed the point of my question, which was...."?
Unless, of course, you enjoy obfuscating your meaning by using debate jargon.
Bob says: I want to play a guy who's the son a troll.
Bob then begins taking powers. Since he isn't using the Changeling template and he has a connection to the Fae he decides that his first power will be Glamours. Bob then loads up on Deceit and Deceit stunts.
Bob has now defined for that group what it means to be the son of a Troll. He has done so without much input from the GM or the rest of the table.
Richard
Forethought and planning vs when it comes up we'll deal with it - which is the better design technique?That is a matter of opinion and context.
I use the language I believe best and most concisely delivers the desired message.
This objection, I believe, is sufficiently addressed by w&m.
Character creation and advancement is overseen by the GM and table; if they neglect that role, with or without templates, some players will abuse the vacuum.
That is a matter of opinion and context.
The objection I had been referring to was the one of 'copying the first player's choices', which is still unaddressed.
And I'm surprised that you do not believe in forethought or planning.
Billy decides to play a human scion of a Foo Cat. There is no Template for it and (because you're the one running the game) no template will be developed for it. Billy decides that Foo Cats have Supernatural Toughness (catch: Gold - well known, rare, total +3) and buys it. Over the course of play, Billy picks up supernatural recovery, inhuman speed, Mana Static, Spider Walk, and Claws. He picks these powers up as needed without giving the issue much thought. Billy then decides to that on buying claws he had completed the Foo Cat package - in effect becoming a Human Foo Cat.
Sally decides that she is going to play a Foo Cat. Her options for doing so are "Me too" to the powers that Billy took as needed. How does Mana Static apply to Foo Cats? Shrug - no one took notes but Billy must have made a good case for it at the time. Spider Walk before claws? Well, Billy's PC had to find someone way into the death trap and since the ceiling wasn't trapped we all decided that Spider Walk made sense for him to have.
Richard
You may have noticed that this is not a debate. The lack of a moderator, etc would be the giveaway. Why do you continue to treat these discussions as debates?I apologize for the imprecision in my choice of words. In my experience, the two are used largely synonymously with one having the option to indicate a more formal structure.
We differ on that.That is not my 'central theme'. If anything, my 'theme' is that the distinction is superficial and ultimately meaningless in a well-run game with a cooperative group (that is to say, a game that doesn't likely already suffer from greater underlying problems).
I'm sorry - but I do not see how this ties into your central theme that templates are too limiting on players. That templates should be discarded to give the players "freedom".
Are you saying that losing templates means that they are "free" to be watched like hawks, never knowing if the GM will allow or deny a power? That does not seem like freedom to me.Again you conflate my position with that of others.
You seem to disagree - but yet you also say that the GM's role is to oversee character creation and advancement. That if he is in anyway negligent in his duties "some players will abuse the vacuum".
And I'm surprised that you do not believe in forethought or planning.
I did address it, but I will go into greater details since you seemed to have missed it.See above re: defining aspects.
Billy decides to play a human scion of a Foo Cat. There is no Template for it and (because you're the one running the game) no template will be developed for it. Billy decides that Foo Cats have Supernatural Toughness (catch: Gold - well known, rare, total +3) and buys it. Over the course of play, Billy picks up supernatural recovery, inhuman speed, Mana Static, Spider Walk, and Claws. He picks these powers up as needed without giving the issue much thought. Billy then decides to that on buying claws he had completed the Foo Cat package - in effect becoming a Human Foo Cat.
Sally decides that she is going to play a Foo Cat. Her options for doing so are "Me too" to the powers that Billy took as needed. How does Mana Static apply to Foo Cats? Shrug - no one took notes but Billy must have made a good case for it at the time. Spider Walk before claws? Well, Billy's PC had to find someone way into the death trap and since the ceiling wasn't trapped we all decided that Spider Walk made sense for him to have.
Richard
One (a template) maps out a character type and once established other players can use it. Usually a bit of forethought gets included as it is mapped out - with the musts and options worked out.
The other (no template) all comes down to "let's do this now". Other players can't really play that type without imitating the first one.
Example: Someone does up a template for Buffy Style Vampires (BSV). After the template is written out, anyone who wants to can play a BSV.
As opposed to someone taking this power, then that power, and so on until he ends up with a BSV. Any other player who wants to wants to play it is effectively copying the first player's choices.
Richard
Unless you let a Knight of the Cross spontaneously sprout wings and barbed tongues and breath weapons without any reason at all other than "I wanted to". If that is indeed the case...we pretty much have little to talk about. It may be fun in some rare cases to come up with why they gained these powers later, but if no reason ever comes up...no reason for the power at all...ever...that strikes me as simply ridiculous. My apologies.
I have not ever come a cross a maximizer who didn't come up with a perfectly decent in game reason why their character has the abilities they have, actually they usually have much better (or at least more interesting) reasons than the average player because they had to think about it more.
See above re: my actual position and not your misrepresentations.
Forethought and planning vs when it comes up we'll deal with it - which is the better design technique?That is a matter of opinion and context.
I honestly cannot tell a difference between using custom templates and not using templates, except that with custom templates you make the decision of what powers fit the concept in advance whereas when not using templates you make the decision when it comes up.If everyone at your table always agrees about such decisions when they're made, then perhaps there will be no difference. Or if your table opts to play in a "canon-lite" sort of a game in which there really are no limits to what powers a given character can aspire to (which is perfectly fine to do, by the way, if that's your bag), then there's really no need for templates.
Are there any other differences?
So is there any difference between using templates and not using them beyond the time that you make decisions at?
Personally, I'd require some kind of justification for a flying werewolf. But I'd say that justifying a flying werewolf is easy since werewolves don't actually turn into wolves. They turn into mental approximations of wolves, and slapping wings on a mental approximation is hardly implausible.And I probably wouldn't, based on how canon treats such things. Werewolves do is turn into their mental concept of 'wolfness', which is hard enough even with a somewhat instinctual understanding of what 'wolfness' is. And while slapping wings onto that mental concept is technically possible, forcing yourself into a foreign shape is difficult enough without complicating it further. Its kind of similar to the reason many forms of shapeshifting are not intended for use by mortals (ex: YS174, YS237).
I'd be mildly annoyed if the rules were to make my opinions in this matter canonical. This stuff should not be mandated.I hate to disappoint you, but the rules do take a canon take on this. They state what powers a great many of the more common templates are allowed to develop, while leaving the option to customize others. They talk about the practical (canon-based) limits of shapeshifting, and so on. And ignoring the RAW in these matters is perfectly fine.
The RAW also fully endorses the creation of custom templates, which as has been discussed and demonstrated, is very nearly indistinguishable in its end result from simply requiring that purchased powers are linked to a permanent aspect, the most common of which for this purpose being the High Concept.So you disagree with the RAW, and endorse, but often do not choose to play by house rules with a result you feel is similar to (or even very nearly indistinguishable from) RAW. Great! Did you miss the part where I said I absolutely support your right to make such decisions at your table?
In that way, the RAW makes a statement (the one you quoted) which is demonstrably incorrect. Templates are NOT crucial. Removing them from your game, while retaining the associated safeguard mentioned above, results in only minute changes.
The RAW states as fact a claim that is demonstrably false.
You misrepresent my position. Please do not do this. If it was unintentional, please be more careful.*blink*
Okay, I'll bit. What do the RAW state as a fact when it demonstrably false?The RAW claim of templates being crucial to character creation, when, as we have discussed, their removal changes character creation in a well run game to a negligible degree.
Am I correctly representing your position now?Except insofar is disagreeing with what one knows to be a demonstrably false statement is implied to be a decision.
The RAW claim of templates being crucial to character creation, when, as we have discussed, their removal changes character creation in a well run game to a negligible degree
I hate to disappoint you, but the rules do take a canon take on this. They state what powers a great many of the more common templates are allowed to develop, while leaving the option to customize others. They talk about the practical (canon-based) limits of shapeshifting, and so on.
It is crucial to character creation when playing with the RAW.This is so absurdly fallacious that I'm honestly shocked you included it here.
As for how a game works when there are no templates, it really depends on the group.Assuming the group follows the rest of the RAW (most notably including the requirement that powers be justified in light of the characters' aspects), and cooperates for the good of the story and the fun of everyone involved rather than trying to 'win' or otherwise 'game the system', then the result is more-or-less as I have described: negligibly different.
Not quite true. By RAW, I can stack another template onto the Werewolf template without issue. So I can make Werewolves fly and shoot lightning from their buttocks without changing the rules at all.
A custom one. RAW includes the possibility.
Or maybe just Changeling or Emissary Of Power. Both permit you to take more or less whatever powers seem appropriate.
Failing that, Were-Form. You can turn into any animal, with Were-Form. Magical animals are no exception.
How do you go from the Were-Form template to "oh, I was always only half human"? Looking at the game I don't see adding Changeling, Scion, WCV, or WC Virgin onto a character's existing template. Those are things that you are born and struggle with that heritage, not acquire mid play.You could say you were always such a being but simply didn't know about it until your powers manifested recently. Or just start the game with the template, possibly claiming you can shapeshift becuse of your lineage. Failing that, there's still Emissary of Power, for taking whatever powers you feel like.
You could say you were always such a being but simply didn't know about it until your powers manifested recently.
But a custom template isn't part of the RAW. By creating a custom template you are changing the rules.
This does not work with the setting. Changelings and Scions start to get their powers during early adolescence (or earlier).Do you have a reference?
White Court Virgins get their powers during adolescence and become White Court Vampires the first time they have sex.I thought it was 'first time they killed by feeding' - do you have a reference to sex causing the change?
But a custom template isn't part of the RAW. By creating a custom template you are changing the rules.
How do you go from the Were-Form template to "oh, I was always only half human"? Looking at the game I don't see adding Changeling, Scion, WCV, or WC Virgin onto a character's existing template. Those are things that you are born and struggle with that heritage, not acquire mid play.
So yes, magical animals are an exception. You could create a custom template that allows weredragons etc but again, we would be departing from the RAW.
How do you go from the Were-Form template to "oh, I was always only half human"? Looking at the game I don't see adding Changeling, Scion, WCV, or WC Virgin onto a character's existing template. Those are things that you are born and struggle with that heritage, not acquire mid play.
The animal in question isn’t supercharged or innately magical...
I don't have a lot of interest in the argument but, some things are being asserted as fact that I'm curious about...Do you have a reference?I thought it was 'first time they killed by feeding' - do you have a reference to sex causing the change?
Yup, I was born a WCV Changeling Werewolf Emissary of Power.
I do have a reference. For Changelings, please see Summer Knight. For White Court Virgins, please see Blood Rites.
"Want doesn't matter," Bob said. "They feed on pure reflex. It's what they are."
"Let me guess," I said. "The first feeding is lethal."
"Always," Thomas said.
Nice character concept, but it's not what we are talking about. An assertion was made that a PC could go from "I have the were form Template" to "I now fly and shoot lightning from my butt" using the RAW.
A custom template could do it. Maybe a Changeling or Scion could develop a were form. That's fine. But I still can't see how a PC can go from "I have the were form Template" to "I now fly and shoot lightning from my butt" using the RAW.
Richard
It's part of the RAW. By creating a custom template, you remain within the rules and change nothing.
Nope, they're specifically allowed by RAW. There's a note about it and everything. You are absolutely allowed to make a weredragon. 100% RAW, and it's literally like three lines under the text you quote. What I find helpful is, when I reference a rule, I read the section the rule is in just to be sure of the context. Doesn't take long, and avoids misunderstandings.
Take the flying lightning shooting item of power, if your gm's ok with it then it is fine by the rules.
Amusingly, there are no actual rules for acquiring templates. (IIRC.) So by the RAW, Harry arguably can't become the Winter Knight.
Nice character concept, but it's not what we are talking about. An assertion was made that a PC could go from "I have the were form Template" to "I now fly and shoot lightning from my butt" using the RAW.You'd just have to become an Emissary of the right Power. I don't know what Power that would be, specifically, but I'm sure a sufficiently creative player could think of a story.
A custom template could do it. Maybe a Changeling or Scion could develop a were form. That's fine. But I still can't see how a PC can go from "I have the were form Template" to "I now fly and shoot lightning from my butt" using the RAW.
You could say you were always such a being but simply didn't know about it until your powers manifested recently. Or just start the game with the template, possibly claiming you can shapeshift becuse of your lineage. Failing that, there's still Emissary of Power, for taking whatever powers you feel like.My emphasis
"Billy, wouldn't Vittorio Malvora qualify as an Emissary of Power in the WHITE NIGHT casefile?" "Probably but he would already have the White Court Vampire template, so I thought that might be confusing as an example." "Real life doesn't always fit into neat little boxes."
Here is the line I quoted - with the stuff underneath it. Please point out the weredragon line:
The Dresdenverse is rife with shapeshifters of all stripes (many nonhuman). Some humans have learned (or were simply born with the capability) to take on the form of a beast; when that beast is a wolf, we call them werewolves, but there are many other were-forms out there. The animal in question isn’t supercharged or innately magical (other than the fact that it has a human intellect kicking around in its noggin), but with some practice, the shapeshifter can use it as easily as his human form, within the limits of what that animal can do. Unlike lycanthropes, loupgaroux, and some other types of shapechangers, most were-form shifters are entirely in control of their change. There’s no full moon business going on with us.
I do have a reference. For Changelings, please see Summer Knight.Where?
For White Court Virgins, please see Blood Rites.Err, this states "feeding" - as I'd thought. Do you have a reference stating "sex"? Perhaps it's worth noting, the act of sex isn't what they feed on. WCVs feed on emotion.
"Want doesn't matter," Bob said. "They feed on pure reflex. It's what they are."
"Let me guess," I said. "The first feeding is lethal."
"Always," Thomas said.
Ummm, RIGHT below that (on YS 82, for those following at home), there is a note from Bob explaining "William, just as a note, there are some wereforms that are supercharged or innately magical." It's in red.
Darn, I just went to the end of the section and stopped. Sorry, you're right.
Where?
Err, this states "feeding" - as I'd thought. Do you have a reference stating "sex"? Perhaps it's worth noting, the act of sex isn't what they feed on. WCVs feed on emotion.
Just because the RAW allows you to make custom <x> does not mean that custom X is part of the RAW. It means that you can add to the RAW in your way and I can add to the RAW in my way.
I'm sorry, if you haven't read the book then I can't quote the entire "what changelings are" section for you. A few lines, sure, but after that copyright kicks in.Could have sworn I'd asked "Where?" - that usually consists of directions on how to find something. Not wholesale copying. ;) Shrug.
As for the other, sex != feeding - even if there is often a correlation. (True love comes to mind as an obvious exception - thought not necessarily the only one.)
Could have sworn I'd asked "Where?" - that usually consists of directions on how to find something. Not wholesale copying. ;) Shrug.
As for the other, sex != feeding - even if there is often a correlation. (True love comes to mind as an obvious exception - thought not necessarily the only one.)
They can feed in other ways but sex = feeding.
Where? Summer Knight. A big chunk of it is when Meryl and the others ambush Harry then offer him a job, but Changelings are mentioned in several places.It really took a "big chunk" of a book to state changelings and scions always find out / gain powers in puberty?
YS 72: "It may be possible to combine some of these templates, if you can afford each template’s musts. However, it will be rare that those costs work out. We haven’t seen a Wizard-Lycanthrope-Red-Court-Infected-Changelingpotamus in Harry’s casefiles, and you certainly won’t see one as a playable character in this game. For good reason—bring that much mashed-up mojo to bear in one character and you’re on a fast train to negative refreshville."
It really took a "big chunk" of a book to state changelings and scions always find out / gain powers in puberty?
I'll look but I don't remember any such emphasis. I suspect I would if the book had really devoted large sections to the subject.
So far, the case for that assertion is even weaker than the second.
READ THE BOOK.Read it. Enjoyed it. Didn't see support for the absolute assertion you made.
Then give me all the evidence you find that Changelings discover what they are during their adult life.I'm not the one making an assertion. ;) I simply recognize that seeing green leaves doesn't mean every leaf is green.
I'm not the one making an assertion. ;) I simply recognize that seeing green leaves doesn't mean every leaf is green.
Because (to quote Lady Gaga) scions are born that way. If you're born that way then you are that way. If you aren't born that way you can't become a scion.
Richard
The character could be many generations removed from his or her supernatural progenitor but some mystical whatsit awakens the blood within. Or something. The books doesn't go in for "never" much, but nor does it go in for "always." If the table is comfortable with a character "becoming" a scion later in life and finds the narrative justification reasonable, why not? If the group isn't okay with it then don't do it. Pretty simple.
The character could be many generations removed from his or her supernatural progenitor but some mystical whatsit awakens the blood within. Or something. The books doesn't go in for "never" much, but nor does it go in for "always." If the table is comfortable with a character "becoming" a scion later in life and finds the narrative justification reasonable, why not? If the group isn't okay with it then don't do it. Pretty simple.
Richard, if it's not a rule then it isn't part of the RAW. And novels are not rulebooks.
So you're saying that a ritual that produces 28 steps of effect will reverse the Domination effect that creates a Renfield? Or is it 30?
The novels are not RAW and do not apply to the game. Between the front and back covers of YS and OW exists the entirety of DFRPG.
The novels are not RAW and do not apply to the game.
And that is where we differ. Oddly enough, I seem to saying that a lot recently...
This isn't Urban Fantasy FATE but the Dresden Files RPG. That is, a game based off of the book. One that the game designer spent years working on because he wanted to be as close to the books as possible.
A person who has never read so much as the introduction to Storm Front can own and play DFRPG. They have all the RAW there is to have. There is no more RAW beyond that.
I would like to add a fourth designation: what the rules recommend. And I would like it to be given some weight, because even when it isn't outright forbidding or allowing a particular thing, it is still in the book and intended to inform how the game is played.I agree with this. An understanding of the rules shouldn't be only about whether something is explicitly forbidden or explicitly allowed. There are several parts of the rulebook that read along the lines of, "Well, technically you can do that, but..." which should be given attention as well.
I would say that, in the case where a situation that arises which is not covered by the RAW, but is handled in the novels, what happens in the novels should have some weight, even if only as a consideration.
I don't want to have to decode your posts because you insist on redefining things at random.