ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: sinker on November 15, 2011, 05:37:42 AM
-
Hey guys, I've finally got enough questions of my own that I think I'm going to email to Fred. Anyone want me to ask anything? I'll post my answers here when I get them.
-
If you post the questions you're planning to ask here, it might spark some ideas, or we might be able to refine the questions to better reflect the community's concerns.
-
I plan to ask his opinion on the stunt and power lists once they're done.
But right now I have nothing to ask him.
-
Hey guys, I've finally got enough questions of my own that I think I'm going to email to Fred. Anyone want me to ask anything? I'll post my answers here when I get them.
Just in case your question is one that he has been asked before (possibly numerous times), I recommend posting it to the forums first. Then if nobody knows or can point you in the right direction, you'll have done your due diligence.
Ideally, we should be sharing any feedback we get from him, but we currently lack a stickynote on this forum in which to compile such Word of Fred/Leonard/Evil Hat items.
-
I plan to ask his opinion on the stunt and power lists once they're done.
But right now I have nothing to ask him.
I don't know what Fred's intentions are, but many authors prefer to avoid looking at such lists and avoid any potential legal issues with having something similar show up in a published book.
-
Yeah, I know.
But it doesn't hurt to try.
-
I'm fairly certain that these questions are unanswered, as they have been floating around here for a long time.
The issues I'm asking about are:
-Sponsored magic and lawbreaker (also pure mortals and lawbreaker)
-Non-lawbreaking mental attacks
-How specific rotes/enchanted items need to be
-Evocation maneuver duration
-Transformation on a willing target
These are all things that we've argued about ad infinitum, so I figure an answer might be good.
-
Perhaps he has a few suggestions of using "objects that store power" as a source of power for Evocation spells.
-
FYI, from an email exchange with Evil Hat awhile back:
"The Fate community relies heavily on peer authority. That means your fellow players and readers' answers are more readily available and just as good as ones we might be able to provide.
So the forum you're already on? Official. Peer authority.
The other places I could point you, like the FateRPG Yahoo Group? Official. Peer authority.
Official word-from-the-publisher? That concept doesn't play, here."
-
@computerking:i
Say what? Not sure if I've heard this question before.
@devonapple:
I still take Evil Hat commentary more seriously than I take that of most people, though. They wrote the books, they ought to have a pretty good understanding of the game.
By the same token, I take the commentary of some posters around here with a bit of extra weight. Peer authority systems are actually pretty hierarchical in practice.
-
I still take Evil Hat commentary more seriously than I take that of most people, though. They wrote the books, they ought to have a pretty good understanding of the game.
Agreed. I've seen that quote before, but Fred (and evil hat) have a greater understanding of both the system (having written and tested it) and the setting (given their relationship with the author). Remember Devonapple, I've been around. These aren't just questions that I'm unsure about. They're questions that we have argued and argued about, and have not come to a decent consensus about (or at least most of them are).
-
The issues I'm asking about are:
-Sponsored magic and lawbreaker (also pure mortals and lawbreaker)
-Non-lawbreaking mental attacks
-How specific rotes/enchanted items need to be
-Evocation maneuver duration
-Transformation on a willing target
A couple of questions and comments for clarification, to either uncover the answer or improve the question so that Fred can give something definitive (if he will...)
With the non-lawbreaker mental attack question, are you asking about using some kind of magic (Sponsored, Evocation, Thaumaturgy, etc) to make the mental attack? Or are you also lumping in the supernatural power Incite Emotion and its various derivatives and expansions?
With the question about Rotes and Enchanted Items, I came across this thread where Fred had commented about both things.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18247.msg825578.html#msg825578
The important (from my POV) part of his reply I've quoted below:
What's the official ruling on what constitutes a rote? Whatever your GM is comfortable with allowing as a rote.
Sorry to disappoint, there. But we expect everyone to make decisions for their games based on what they want to see in their games.
What might be worth asking about regarding Rotes, is just when Rotes can be changed around, either in terms of raising/lowering power levels, the effects, etc since that isn't mentioned in the RAW. Also there is no mention on whether or not Ritual/Thaumaturgy spells can be Rotes, or if it only applies to Channeling/Evocation and Sponsored Magic.
As for the question about an enchanted item acting as a power source...
Perhaps he has a few suggestions of using "objects that store power" as a source of power for Evocation spells.
The first thing which comes to my mind to do, it try and model such an item with the RAW. I've not been able to come up with a way to do so, using an Enchanted Item. These items are used to store 'energy' to achieve a particular effect, and the owner/wielder can channel power through the item to get additional uses if the 'normal' # of uses/energy has already been expended. Unfortunately with the RAW nothing exists to have an enchanted item function as a 'battery' if you will, for one's normal evocation spellcasting.
However, depending on how you wish to interpret some of the supernatural powers RAW, and with a GM's permission, it could be possible for a wizard to have an Item of Power which could function in a similar fashion to a magic 'battery' mechanically, but would cost Refresh to purchase/upgrade. I would such an item like this:
IoP: Wizard's Staff (+2 Refresh discount)
Holding 3 or more Refresh, specifically in Refinements (Specialization)
This would potentially allow the IoP/Wizard's Staff to hold 6 or more specialization slots and depending on how it was structured, could give a +3 to Power when casting a particular type of Evocation. The caster would still be taking at least the minimum of 1 point of mental stress like normal when using Evocation, but for 1 point of Refresh, the wizard could get a +3 bonus to their Conviction or Discipline when casting with a particular element, in addition to whatever they'd get for using a focus item.
I do definitely think we should ask a Word of Fred/Evil Hat sticky or category be started, so that responses to specific questions could be archived.
-Cheers
-
With the question about Rotes and Enchanted Items, I came across this thread where Fred had commented about both things.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18247.msg825578.html#msg825578
Thanks for that, it actually does help.
With the non-lawbreaker mental attack question, are you asking about using some kind of magic (Sponsored, Evocation, Thaumaturgy, etc) to make the mental attack? Or are you also lumping in the supernatural power Incite Emotion and its various derivatives and expansions?
The question is clarified in the email. It's spellcasting specifically, since innate powers can't break the laws of magic.
As for the question about an enchanted item acting as a power source...
Something that occurred to me was very similar. Since often that's a plot device kind of thing I was thinking temporary powers with refinement.
IoP: Wizard's Staff (+2 Refresh discount)
Holding 3 or more Refresh, specifically in Refinements (Specialization)
There is a common house rule that IoPs can't grant Refinements. I don't remember why though. It may have been thematic, or I can see issues when those refinements are spent on items.
-
There is a common house rule that IoPs can't grant Refinements. I don't remember why though. It may have been thematic, or I can see issues when those refinements are spent on items.
Actually the section on IoP in YS167 specifically mentions that powers outside of the Minor Abilities, Strength, Toughness and Speed categories "must be examined closely by the GM and maybe disallowed."
That's why I mentioned such an item would need a GM's permission. From my perspective, allowing a character to create such an item over the course of a long story arc, with the IoP entering service at the end of the story for use against the big baddie/baddies would be interesting and potentially worthwhile.
At the start of the arc if the player wanted, I'd likely allow it, but they'd need to pay (invest) the net Refresh up front, with the IoP entering service at the end. Of course once the story was finished, the item itself would be 'retired' and the character would get the Refresh back to either bank or spend on other things. The IoP itself would either be destroyed, used up, or perhaps just kept in the background to occasionally be allowed back into service when things need 'spicing up'. Or alternately, it could become the target of repeated theft attempts as others seek to seize the power for themselves.
That story could in and of itself be interesting, especially if the supposed potent Wizard's Staff/IoP was nothing more than a regular wooden staff at that point...
-Cheers
-
A little clarification on that would be great, as all I have to go on in RAW is the vague statement in The Art of The Spell (Around Page 250) that one of the sources a wizard can use to draw power is:
Objects that Store Power that can be tapped for later use; items that are very potent in some way, like religious relics.
I find the concept reminiscent of "Tass" from Mage: The Ascension. Tass was basically solidified magical energy (Called quintessence) that could be drawn upon by a mage.
-
The question is clarified in the email. It's spellcasting specifically, since innate powers can't break the laws of magic.
I'm not so sure this is true. Consider, for example, the description for the Psychic Abilities section on YS172, which says:
"Psychic abilities seem to divide into two types—ones which are more trouble than they’re worth (using the Sight can drive you mad; Cassandra’s Tears is more a source of sorrow than solace), and those which break the hell out of the Laws of Magic (Domination being a good example)."
Generally speaking, humans don't have access to the later category of powers ... but this indicates to me that a human who somehow learned Domination (which would metaphysically be treated as a very specialized form of magic) would be subject to gaining Lawbreakers. (The Laws don't apply to monsters such as Black Court Vamps, who are abherrations to the natural order by there very existence.)
-
Hmm, weird.
-
but this indicates to me that a human who somehow learned Domination (which would metaphysically be treated as a very specialized form of magic)
(bolding added)
'Magic', in this context, meaning 'spellcasting', this is not much of an argument against the claim that only spellcasting is affected.
-
(bolding added)
'Magic', in this context, meaning 'spellcasting', this is not much of an argument against the claim that only spellcasting is affected.
Perhaps if you ignore the text you emphasized (which is just me inferring flavor text to the rules as written) and read the part I quoted, you'll see in bold text (emphasis mine, though the text is per the RAW) that Domination is "a good example" of an admittedly non-spellcasting power that nonetheless "breaks the hell out of the Laws of Magic".
This is a very good argument against the claim that only spellcasting is covered by the Laws for the purposes of gaining Lawbreakers. That said, the Lawbreaker you gained by using Domination wouldn't benefit further uses of Domination unless your table decided that Domination counted as 'spellcasting' due to the wording of the Slippery Slop trapping of the Lawbreaker power.
-
YS241, under "Non-spellcasting enthrallment" (Go read it; the full quote is more than I care to type.)
For the purposes of game rules, such powers are already assumed to have assessed the costs for holding such sway over another's mind.
Flat-out, non-spellcasting powers don't lead to Lawbreaker stunts. Now, such powers in the hands of, say, a minor practitioner, might get the Wardens involved... but it's not metaphysical Lawbreaking.
-
Which, in turn, is not only a great argument against what I wrote, but also a great example of the book contradicting itself. :)
Ok, so I guess Domination does "break the hell out of the Laws of Magic", but for purposes of Lawbreaker stunts, "the costs for holding such sway over another's mind are already assumed to have been assessed". Alrighty!
-
Which, in turn, is not only a great argument against what I wrote, but also a great example of the book contradicting itself. :)
Ok, so I guess Domination does "break the hell out of the Laws of Magic", but for purposes of Lawbreaker stunts, "the costs for holding such sway over another's mind are already assumed to have been assessed". Alrighty!
Y'know, I can't argue with any of that.
-
It does clarify one thing - any human who demonstrates (or brags about) certain powers should expect a visit from the Wardens, which is the in game consequence that happens when you "break the hell out of the Laws of Magic".
Richard
-
Was there any response from The Boss man on our questions?
-
I got distracted and never sent the email. ;D
-
Ok, here it is.
Me: How do you run sponsored magic users when it comes to lawbreaking? Since it's not their magic does it still taint them somehow?
Fred: Lawbreaking is still a cost of casting certain kinds of nature-violating magic. (But maybe the sponsor would be willing to shoulder that cost in exchange for some particularly vicious debt.)
I think you've said something like this in the past. Can you be a little more specific as to what you mean by that? Are you saying that you might simply ignore the event in exchange for debt, or is there a way of mechanically representing this (like the temporary powers rules or something)?
I mean the player wouldn't take the stunt at all, nor get its benefits, but its sponsor would absorb the 'hit' and consider the player to be constantly in at least 1-2 points of debt each session (since that lines up with the cost of the stunt).
Also can pure mortals pick up the Lawbreaker (seventh) power from the wrong knowledge?
I probably wouldn't play it that way, but as you've guessed, that's a taste thing.
Does it work any differently since they don't have magic, or is it kinda wasted refresh?
It'd be wasted; doubtful they could do something with it; but I see this as more a plot device thing revolving around someone unleashing a [whatever] after reading the wrong book. But Lawbreaker usually implies that the owner of said stunt is some kind of practitioner, since all implementations affect the casting of spells, not general everyday activities.
Is there any situation where you feel that dealing mental stress with magic is ok (non-lawbreaking)? An example that keeps cropping up is that of the sleep or stun spell. Would you even consider that mental stress or would you run that as physical stress?
I'd consider it more than a little boring is what. :) I mean, really, those sorts of spells are pretty deprotagonizing when shot at the PCs and are essentially "put this target completely at my mercy" (so I can slit his throat or whatever) spells when PCs use them on NPCs. Which is pretty much the definition of a "taken out" result. Working towards that via whatever stress track is fine, I imagine -- your "sleep" or "stun" spell isn't really going to be producing a result that adds up to psychological trauma. Mental stress isn't an inherent violation. Invading someone's mind is.
Another question that came up while we were talking about this was if a mortal takes domination (or a similar power) to represent a focused and refined spell (like the Alphas' transformation) would they take lawbreaking powers or do we go with "such powers are already assumed to have assessed the costs for holding such sway over another's mind."(YS241)
Yeah, that's a little tricky, since it's all in the "soft" details rather than firmly in the system details. The rationale. I'd consider doing the Lawbreaker stunt there because the rationale says this is mortal magic rather than a "creature power".
Magic maneuvers. Do they have a duration based on the spell, or whether or not they are sticky? In other words if I maneuver is the aspect going to stick around for a number of exchanges equal to the shifts I devoted to duration, or is it going to stick around for the scene or until someone does something about it?
I'd probably treat them as a scene thing. Maneuvers are so lightweight, really. Persistence primarily matters with things like blocks and such. But I have a feeling I'm breaking the rules if I say it's so (I didn't write them).
Another question is what the book is talking about when it refers to "objects that store power" for evocation. It's fairly clear on what it's talking about thematically (relics, etc) but how would you run that mechanically? Is that a plot device kind of thing or is there a specific method that one could use?
I'd start by thinking about it in terms of ritual componentry, which is largely about objects-which-are-aspects.
Do you allow aspects to influence your evocation power? As I currently understand, aspects help with a roll, which doesn't happen for power, but it seems a little odd that a source of power would help with control.
An invoked aspect is a +2, right? Apply it to anything appropriate that has a numerical rating.
Finally transformation ritual on a willing target. Do you have to still have enough shifts of power to overcome all of their consequences, or could they technically choose not to take those consequences in which case you would only have to overcome the stress track?
One might suggest that this is a concession scenario. :)
I have to ask for a little more clarification on this one for two reasons. Firstly this is a huge one on the boards. No one seems to be able to come to a consensus on shifts necessary to transform a willing target. Secondly knowing what needs to be overcome is important for determining shifts. If we use the concession scenario, then do we simply need enough shifts to pay for the transformation effect itself without dealing any stress to the target?
No, concessions are done only in the face of stress. You'd have to deal enough stress to exceed the target's stress track for it to make sense for concessions to come into play. So that's your minimum.
This confuses me a bit. If you deal enough stress to exceed their stress track, then aren't they just taken out at that point, no concessions necessary?
That's the point at which they're:
- Taking a consequence and staying in the fight, or
- Conceding (though they could take a consequence), or
- Taken out (because they cannot take a consequence)
-
That's great. That sets up as close as one gets to precedent that a willing target can Concede a Transformation effect, so long as they are in a position to Concede.
So which of the following would represent the minimum stress needed to Transform a willing target?:
A) Target's Defense skill + Target's Stress tracks + 5 shifts (4 for the best possible defense roll, +1 to justify a Concession)
or
B) Target's Defense skill + Target's Stress tracks + 1 shifts (to justify a Concession instead of rolling a Defense check)
-
I think I get the Objects that Store Power thing now... They could be extra ritual items among the Aspects gathered for the ritual, but in addition to the Aspects gathered to meet Complexity, therefore they remain taggable during the Power Control attempts.
At least, that's what it seems like to me.
-
I mean the player wouldn't take the stunt at all, nor get its benefits, but its sponsor would absorb the 'hit' and consider the player to be constantly in at least 1-2 points of debt each session (since that lines up with the cost of the stunt).
Debt refresh! I kind of like the concept... :)
Also can pure mortals pick up the Lawbreaker (seventh) power from the wrong knowledge?
I probably wouldn't play it that way, but as you've guessed, that's a taste thing.
Getting Lawbreakers as a Pure Mortal would be harsh. Not only do you get an *entirely useless* -1 refresh power, but it costs you -3 refresh to get it due to the loss of the Pure Mortal bonus.
Hm. Perhaps (as a house rule for those who want to enforce the 7th on mortals) you could make this one a stunt. Maybe:
Knowledge Man Was Not Meant To Know (Lore stunt): You have delved into knowledge from beyond the Outer Gates, and have been ... changed by it. Performing further research is inexplicably easier, but your soul feels somehow connected to the darkess you've learned about. Gain a +1 to Lore when researching further into knowledge of this nature, and you also count as having the (additional) aspect "Knowledge Man Was Not Meant To Know" on your character sheet (and can be used for appropriate invokes or compels).
Or, heck, just replace the whole stunt with a point worth of that debt refresh Fred was mentioning, noting that the debt refresh is linked to forbidden knowledge of the outer planes.
your "sleep" or "stun" spell isn't really going to be producing a result that adds up to psychological trauma.
This.
Interesting answers. The answer regarding friendly transformations makes such things quite a lot easier to do...
-
I think I get the Objects that Store Power thing now... They could be extra ritual items among the Aspects gathered for the ritual, but in addition to the Aspects gathered to meet Complexity, therefore they remain taggable during the Power Control attempts.
At least, that's what it seems like to me.
For ritual I would think that an object that stored power would only serve in meeting the complexity, as the object is unlikely to help you control power.
What he is talking about though is in evocation, these objects would serve as a +2 shifts of power available without needing to spend additional mental stress (sort of like debt). This is interesting because it seems that we could use this to boost the power of spells in a number of ways. Many of the things Dresden does in the books could be emulated with this, like pulling heat from a source to power a fire spell.
-
That's great. That sets up as close as one gets to precedent that a willing target can Concede a Transformation effect, so long as they are in a position to Concede.
So which of the following would represent the minimum stress needed to Transform a willing target?:
A) Target's Defense skill + Target's Stress tracks + 5 shifts (4 for the best possible defense roll, +1 to justify a Concession)
or
B) Target's Defense skill + Target's Stress tracks + 1 shifts (to justify a Concession instead of rolling a Defense check)
I think B's your technical minimum, but A is your minimum in practice. I see the "4 shifts needed to overcome a defense roll" as simple insurance.
-
I think B's your technical minimum, but A is your minimum in practice. I see the "4 shifts needed to overcome a defense roll" as simple insurance.
One does need to Concede before rolling the defense roll, if I read YS 206 correctly:
Finally, a character cannot be saved from a roll that takes him out by offering a concession. You have to offer the concession before the roll that takes out your character. Otherwise, it’s cheating the opponent out of victory.
-
As a note on YS206: I read that a bit differently. It doesn't mean you need to concede before rolling defense. It does mean that if you literally can't soak all the shifts of an attack (defense rolled yet or not), concession is no longer on the table. However, I could totally see a player saying "Yeah, I could keep fighting if I took a severe consequence... but I don't think this conflict is worth that; can we work out a reasonable concession instead?" - and that'd be perfectly OK in my games. Of course, the terms of such a concession would be rather less favorable than if they'd conceded before the attack (and thus before a severe consequence was on the line)... but it'd still be a concession, not a take-out.
This even goes for extreme consequences - but if a PC would need to take an extreme to stay in the fight, all that conceding will really buy them is that they're not going to die.
-
That actually seems more in line with what Fred said here.
No, concessions are done only in the face of stress. You'd have to deal enough stress to exceed the target's stress track for it to make sense for concessions to come into play. So that's your minimum.
This confuses me a bit. If you deal enough stress to exceed their stress track, then aren't they just taken out at that point, no concessions necessary?
That's the point at which they're:
- Taking a consequence and staying in the fight, or
- Conceding (though they could take a consequence), or
- Taken out (because they cannot take a consequence)
Sounds like a concession is an option in the face of taking a consequence, and that a taken out result can only occur when all available consequences are filled.