ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Crion on May 03, 2011, 07:12:02 PM
-
Hello everyone! Before I begin, let me set the stage:
The game is set in London, 1867, with a power level sitting at Chest Deep. My party is currently working against a villain of my creation that is a supposed Chinese "Princess" that is to be wed to a family of some standing. They've realized that said "Princess" is not of noble birth, and she seems to be no more than a plant for the local opium ring.
In order to avoid a scandal, they need to "defeat" their villain without physical violence and without putting the family's reputation at risk. (And yes, my party DID string all this together to fit with the time of the story). The current goal is simple: get the "Princess" to be away from home, and either convince her that it's best to leave, admit her goals and politely surrender, or to discreetly "remove" her.
To achieve this goal, the two major casters (Thaumaturgists) want to lay a pretty big whammy on her to make her "uncomfortable with the familiar," which they want to use to get her away from home and come to them (since they are closely tied). Originally, they wanted her to simply admit the truth to everyone, but I ruled that as being the equivalent of being Taken Out, and the party shuddered at the 32+ complexity.
This is where I am still trying to determine the best way for this to work. For this set situation, would it be better to:
A) deal enough stress to apply a minor and moderate complication (and one extra stress) to make this stay around for a while. (Complexity 20; 8 for the highest potential roll, 8 to have it high enough to deal at least a moderate consequence, 4 to overcome whatever threshold she is sitting behind)
B) Perform this as a manuever to apply a sticky aspect (or multiple sticky aspects) of being "Uncomfortable with the familiar." (Complexity of 10; 8 to overcome her estimated best roll, +2 to make the Aspect stick. Can add more for potential thresholds)
C) Stick with the original and make it worth being "Taken Out"
Any thoughts?
Currently, we are sitting on the first one, but as I think about it, the manuevers just seem like the better overall choice. Any suggestions and/or similar situations would be greatly appreciated.
--Crion
-
Thing with manoeuvres is that the target can get rid of them with a single roll, if it beats the number of shifts on the manoeuvre itself. That's why a Consequence may be a tactically better choice.
OTOH, it's harder to target consequences- doesn't the Princess's player get to pick precisely what consequence she takes?
-
Thing with manoeuvres is that the target can get rid of them with a single roll, if it beats the number of shifts on the manoeuvre itself. That's why a Consequence may be a tactically better choice.
OTOH, it's harder to target consequences- doesn't the Princess's player get to pick precisely what consequence she takes?
Said "Princess" is an NPC, and this is a mental attack of sorts with the goal of her leaving. With the way I've read the rules (which is why I'm asking here for other opinions), the consequence taken must coincide with what caused it. You can't simply walk away with "bruised ribs" when someone blasted you with a fireball, after all. In this case, it would be a mental attack to instill a certain degree of fear or discomfort with the familiar, so any consequence taken must somehow align with it. And since I'm the GM, I figured I'd award the players for having a good idea by making that the consequence.
Again, just my thoughts, so any extra opinions would be great.
--Crion
-
You can't simply walk away with "bruised ribs" when someone blasted you with a fireball, after all.
Quite the contrary. You obviously bruised your ribs while diving for cover in a desperate bid to avoid that fireball - a bid that was successful, but that came at a cost.
-
Quite the contrary. You obviously bruised your ribs while diving for cover in a desperate bid to avoid that fireball - a bid that was successful, but that came at a cost.
^Yup. I find it fun thinking of unique tie in consequences. With things like this particular scenario it seems to paint a better picture (at least for me).
The original question though: I'd say "B" or "C", personally leaning towards "B". But if your casters are concerned with that many shifts, "B" is where I'd go. "A" is too close in shifts to "C" to make a difference for me, and "C" seems to quick and easy. Additionally, Are they not worried about the 3rd and 4th Laws? 'Cause all three scenarios breech those Laws. IMHO
-
Yeah at the very least these spells are grey leaning towards black....
-
Additionally, Are they not worried about the 3rd and 4th Laws? 'Cause all three scenarios breech those Laws. IMHO
In short: No.
Slight longer story: The game I am running is basically powered by the rules for Dresden, but not fitting in the Dresdenverse. I was running a different game that was too clunky with the magic when compared to the rest of the setting, so a few of my group members that were familiar with the DFRPG agreed that it would probably work better in the long run. As the original setting didn't have anything equivalent to the Laws (as the Guild only really frowns on Necromancy and Demonology), most of the Laws from the Dresdenverse were rather moot points. I felt that they would detract from the original setting, so I essentially removed them for the purposes of this game, and instead added setting-specific notes (usually Aspect oriented) to get the proper feeling across.
The original question though: I'd say "B" or "C", personally leaning towards "B". But if your casters are concerned with that many shifts, "B" is where I'd go. "A" is too close in shifts to "C" to make a difference for me, and "C" seems to quick and easy.
So you think something like this would be chalked up to one (or numerous) maneuvers that they would tag immediately, or invoke with a certain trigger?
"A" is relatively close to "C," but the casters believe that 20 shifts are doable within their time limit: they have 4 due to Lore, +2 for a "Proper Symbolic Link" aspect (other party members RPed a rather interesting scene to get this, so I gave it to them as something to tag), and +2 for sitting out for a scene. The player also wants to use his Lore to apply "Well Researched Ritual" to the pool, which puts them halfway to the 20-shift mark. At this point, they'll be hard pressed to reach Option C for their first big spell, Option A is plausible but will involve more teamwork, and Option B is already feasible.
Quite the contrary. You obviously bruised your ribs while diving for cover in a desperate bid to avoid that fireball - a bid that was successful, but that came at a cost.
Normally, I would agree with this kind of approach to consequences, as it really does help paint the picture of the scene. But with what the task is and for purposes of the story, would you disagree with my thought process?
Thanks again for the input, everyone!
--Crion
-
So you think something like this would be chalked up to one (or numerous) maneuvers that they would tag immediately, or invoke with a certain trigger?
I think this is how I would do it. It just feels better than simply taking her out. YMMV.
"Proper Symbolic Link" aspect (other party members RPed a rather interesting scene to get this, so I gave it to them as something to tag)
Props, that sounds real cool.
It's great that they got their Lore up to those levels, but with Thaumaturgy Discipline is just as important. How does multiple casters work? Can you just pool their Discipline together if so then it doesn't sound like 30 would be the worst thing for multiple casters plus aspects and all.
-
Props, that sounds real cool.
It's great that they got their Lore up to those levels, but with Thaumaturgy Discipline is just as important. How does multiple casters work? Can you just pool their Discipline together if so then it doesn't sound like 30 would be the worst thing for multiple casters plus aspects and all.
Actually, the idea of the spell was a joint-effort, but they are not casting it together. There may be support from the other caster (i.e. "Support from X" as described in YS), but all of the casting is being done by one character. The other players, including the non-casters, may offer some form of supporting role or even create Aspects of their own to assist with this.
Discipline and Conviction are important when you have cast the spell then and there, like when the undead are kicking down your door. As you may remember, Thaumaturgy spells can just be assumed to succeed, as long as the complexity can be met. I'm still debating if I want to interrupt the casting of the spell, but considering the work they are already doing, and the potential fight scene they'll have because of this, I'm thinking of allowing the spell to be cast unhindered, with the greater part of the RP being in how they prepare.
So far, they are having fun with the preparation side of things; getting the Symbolic Link was a rather ornate plan, involving getting the "Princess" to the theatre where one of the characters is well known as a donor (and given a private box for him and his companions), having the foreigner of the party speaking with the "princess" to distract her, and the one caster walking in while under a veil to snag a lock of hair. While that kind of work is almost expected and mandatory for Thaumaturgy, I thought the how and why was just priceless, and they seem to enjoy how not everything has to be based on the caster in question (which we often see with Dresden).
-
Offhand, it seems as though the scenario you described is hand-crafted to be resolved by way of a social conflict. It could be one of seevral sorts: the players could try to spread (possibly true) rumors about the 'princess' to discredit her (taken out means the family calls off the wedding), or it could be the players trying to manipulate the 'princess' into backing down (taken out means the princess back out, disappears, etc).
As to your specific question, it seems as though you'd probably need to inflict a consequence of some sort. For example, a social consequence of 'Trusts character X' or 'Is attracted to character X' or some variation thereof, which the character then tags to initiate a compel. This could be done via a maneuver, but as others have mentioned, maneuvers might be too fragile and temporary -- whereas even a mild consequence would remain in effect for a full scene.
-
Offhand, it seems as though the scenario you described is hand-crafted to be resolved by way of a social conflict. It could be one of seevral sorts: the players could try to spread (possibly true) rumors about the 'princess' to discredit her (taken out means the family calls off the wedding), or it could be the players trying to manipulate the 'princess' into backing down (taken out means the princess back out, disappears, etc).
This is actually something my party has been working on, but wanted an extra "oomph" to ensure she wouldn't want to just lock herself in her room or potentially turn this high-standing family against them. They also considered spreading the rumors to discredit the "princess," but one of the PCs (an army captain who follows certain codes of conduct) thought this would hurt the family's standing, so suggested against it.
Instead, they are taking the second option: gathering evidence and forcing her to back down, but leaving the threat of putting everything into the open. They are actually thinking things through and weighing various consequences, which is a drastic change from my old gaming group :-D
As to your specific question, it seems as though you'd probably need to inflict a consequence of some sort. For example, a social consequence of 'Trusts character X' or 'Is attracted to character X' or some variation thereof, which the character then tags to initiate a compel. This could be done via a maneuver, but as others have mentioned, maneuvers might be too fragile and temporary -- whereas even a mild consequence would remain in effect for a full scene.
For this approach, do you think the maneuver option would be best for Evocation instead of Thaumaturgy? Kind of like laying a temporary mental whammy on someone, and have another PC act on it before the foe can remove the effect?
Also, things brings up another question: If a maneuver has a trigger, does the target know they are under the effects of magic? In this case, would the "princess" know she is the target of a spell before the trigger is met?
As a last thought: what skill would be best to remove a maneuver of mind magic? Would it be Discipline, Conviction or Lore?
--Crion
-
I think one could only be aware of the spell on them if they were a magically attuned individual.
I'd say Lore if the "princess" has any magic.
Conviction if she is aware of the spell.
Discipline other wise (will save from D&D is my thought here).
-
OTOH, it's harder to target consequences- doesn't the Princess's player get to pick precisely what consequence she takes?
Normally yes, but my reading of page 265 is that when a wizard is casting a spell whose effect is to inflict a specific consequence the wizard gets to pick it. That you are specifically cursing someone with your chosen effect.
For example, if a wizard wanted to curse a runner just before a race started the wizard could cast a rite to inflict the moderate consequence of "Sore Leg" - making him lose the race. If the spell works then the target then gets that consequence. If the target could pick a consequence then he would pick something like "Black Eye" and the spell would be useless - the curse wouldn't affect the person's running abilities at all.
I could be completely wrong about this - but unless Fred says otherwise that's the way I see the rules as written.
Richard
-
Normally yes, but my reading of page 265 is that when a wizard is casting a spell whose effect is to inflict a specific consequence the wizard gets to pick it. That you are specifically cursing someone with your chosen effect.
For example, if a wizard wanted to curse a runner just before a race started the wizard could cast a rite to inflict the moderate consequence of "Sore Leg" - making him lose the race. If the spell works then the target then gets that consequence. If the target could pick a consequence then he would pick something like "Black Eye" and the spell would be useless - the curse wouldn't affect the person's running abilities at all.
I could be completely wrong about this - but unless Fred says otherwise that's the way I see the rules as written.
Richard
I had a similar reading to this, so I'm glad to see that I am not the only one.
So, Richard, I need to ask: with your reading, would you have it deal enough Stress to only cover the equivalent of the Consequence (in this case, 4), or would you need to map it out the way I did (4 for the desired consequence plus more than enough to cover the full stress track again)?
Just curious how others are seeing it.
Thanks again for all the input, everyone!
--Crion
-
For this approach, do you think the maneuver option would be best for Evocation instead of Thaumaturgy? Kind of like laying a temporary mental whammy on someone, and have another PC act on it before the foe can remove the effect?
I think this is the way I'd look at it:
Evocation is quicker, but riskier. Evocation could fail due to a botched roll, which could be problematic. They also have to be near the target, which means that someone could notice what they are doing. This is especially true if there was a magically-attuned opponent nearby, but even without that, someone might notice that 'something is wrong' due to a sudden change in behavior by the target. Imagine, for example, that the PC casts an attraction spell at her while she's discussing wedding plans, and she slips in the PC's name in place of her fiance. On the other hand, if handled correctly, the victim might have less time to react even if she recognizes that something is going on.
Thaumaturgy can be much more subtle. The change is likely more gradual, so there's less likelihood of a sudden change being noticed. There's also little chance of it failing, assuming the PCs don't underestimate the strength needed. If, however, the victim (or someone else) notices that something is wrong, the victim has more options in foiling the PCs. For example, the staff could insure that the PCs never get near enough to the woman to exploit the spell. How likely this is to happen depends on the nature of the opposition. If the woman is being tutored in magical defense techniques by her loyal wizard friend at the time that the magic is being cast, the PCs might be in trouble.
Also, things brings up another question: If a maneuver has a trigger, does the target know they are under the effects of magic? In this case, would the "princess" know she is the target of a spell before the trigger is met?
Depending on what you mean by 'trigger', I think that it's probably not doable with Evocation. With Thaumaturgy, I see it as possible to make a spell that would, for example, do nothing until the target next saw PC "Jimmy", at which point she'd gain the "My most trusted friend Jimmy" aspect. The spell would probably be impossible to detect by mundane means before it was triggered, though a magically-attuned sort might be able to detect it.
As a last thought: what skill would be best to remove a maneuver of mind magic? Would it be Discipline, Conviction or Lore?
I would say any of them, with the proper justification. Conviction would probably be more appropriate if the character's basic beliefs were being threatened (for example, being hit by a lust effect when the target has deliberately remained chaste until getting married) and less appropriate for someone willing to 'negotiate their affections' so to speak. Lore would probably me more appropriate if used to research a potion to remove the affliction. Discipline is probably the easiest to justify.
-
Normally yes, but my reading of page 265 is that when a wizard is casting a spell whose effect is to inflict a specific consequence the wizard gets to pick it. That you are specifically cursing someone with your chosen effect.
I think this is true within reason. A good example that relates to this is the love potion example on YS281. In this example, a specific aspect is chosen at the creation of the potion, though it is the result of some negotiation between the player and GM. I think this sums to 'the wizard gets to pick it within some reasonable limit'.
So, Richard, I need to ask: with your reading, would you have it deal enough Stress to only cover the equivalent of the Consequence (in this case, 4), or would you need to map it out the way I did (4 for the desired consequence plus more than enough to cover the full stress track again)?
YS282 has the rules for this. For the spell to work, you need to beat the target's defense roll with enough shifts to bypass their stress track and inflict the consequence. To guarantee success, you would need their defense skill + 4 (max defense die roll) + stress track + 4 (for a moderate consequence). If you use a less powerful spell, then they'd make a defense roll, and you might find that you only inflicted a minor consequence, or even stress only.
-
YS282 has the rules for this. For the spell to work, you need to beat the target's defense roll with enough shifts to bypass their stress track and inflict the consequence. To guarantee success, you would need their defense skill + 4 (max defense die roll) + stress track + 4 (for a moderate consequence). If you use a less powerful spell, then they'd make a defense roll, and you might find that you only inflicted a minor consequence, or even stress only.
Ah-ha. This is what I was trying to find. Thank you for noting that one! This would mean, in this case, my player wouldn't be sitting at a 20, then. It would be base 4 (desired consequence), +8 (beat the best estimated defense skill and roll), +5 (to overflow the stress track), making this a Complexity 17 before wards/thresholds. Does that look correct?
In that case, it would still be sitting at a 20 to punch through the threshold then, unless they can get her outside, which is what this spell is for. . .
Am I misreading anything?
--Crion
-
I think this is true within reason. A good example that relates to this is the love potion example on YS281. In this example, a specific aspect is chosen at the creation of the potion, though it is the result of some negotiation between the player and GM. I think this sums to 'the wizard gets to pick it within some reasonable limit'.
That's more or less how I feel - if the effect sounds unreasonable for a mild consequence then make it a moderate one. Since every rite is more or less a custom one the wizard designing the spell is also designing the consequence.
YS282 has the rules for this. For the spell to work, you need to beat the target's defense roll with enough shifts to bypass their stress track and inflict the consequence. To guarantee success, you would need their defense skill + 4 (max defense die roll) + stress track + 4 (for a moderate consequence). If you use a less powerful spell, then they'd make a defense roll, and you might find that you only inflicted a minor consequence, or even stress only.
To me a spell meant to inflict a consequence is an all or nothing one. It either works as intended or it doesn't work at all.
For example, cursing a runner before a race to have the "Sore Leg" moderate consequence. If the defense roll is ---- then there are 8 unused steps in the spell. The caster doesn't get to add those extra steps to make it 12 steps of consequence and hit him with "Broken Leg" (severe) or "Lame for life" (extreme). If the runner happens to be behind a threshold or it's drizzling rain to the point where there's a -1 or -2 from the running water and the spell comes up two steps short, then the caster can't change his mind mid spell and hit the runner with a mild consequence.
And dropping the "maximum dice roll" steps can sometimes save a lot of prep and casting time. If you make the spell so it works when the roll is +1 or less then it will work 81.5% of the time. If you aim for +0 it works 61.7% of the time - and that's two less aspects you need to prep the spell. Of course then you risk it not working, but if you need to rush then you need to rush and hope you get lucky
-
Ah-ha. This is what I was trying to find. Thank you for noting that one! This would mean, in this case, my player wouldn't be sitting at a 20, then. It would be base 4 (desired consequence), +8 (beat the best estimated defense skill and roll), +5 (to overflow the stress track), making this a Complexity 17 before wards/thresholds. Does that look correct?
In that case, it would still be sitting at a 20 to punch through the threshold then, unless they can get her outside, which is what this spell is for. . .
Am I misreading anything?
--Crion
That looks right to me - only threshold for somewhere that people have been living for centuries (like a centuries old manner) might be higher than 3...
Richard
-
Normally yes, but my reading of page 265 is that when a wizard is casting a spell whose effect is to inflict a specific consequence the wizard gets to pick it. That you are specifically cursing someone with your chosen effect.
Ah, that makes sense. Wouldn't really want to allow that for Evocation, but Thaum? Sure...