ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: ways and means on June 07, 2012, 03:41:32 PM
-
In order of ease;
Kill 5 People (20 shifts a piece)
Kill 50 Animals (2 shifts a piece)
Make 30-50 decelerations and sacrifice yourself up to a severe.
Spend 99 scenes doing nothing.
So how do you balance against this?
-
Expect more from your players than to constantly abuse thaumaturgy; is my first answer. Ask how they'd like thaumaturgy abused in games they run.
This is because that is how we "balance" it in our game.
Thaumaturgy is hard to balance and I likely don't have good answers. Others on here might though.
1.) That is close to or smack dab in the middle of dark magic. Send in Wardens. Warn the player that this will happen, before they start doing this magic. If they continue, have Wardens show up and end him/her. Doesn't balance it but it sets up a deterrent system.
2.) Make your scenes tak a long time, players won't likely want to sit out several games for one ritual, especially if the problem thye are trying to solve is already solved.
3.) Give them a law breaker for killing for a ritual. Justify this by saying killing for magic is a short step away from killing with magic. (Shody way of doing it, but it may deter this stuff)
4.) Limit the number of declarations for spells in your games as a house rule at the beginning.
-
I wouldn't balance against that. I would not allow a PC to pull off a 100 shift ritual in the first place. Worst case scenario, somewhere around 50 shifts in, every single local major power would converge on your location to see who's throwing around stupid amounts of power and shut you down. But in practical terms, I wouldn't even let a PC try such a ritual in the first place.
Kill 5 people: Congrats, you are now an NPC warlock with too many lawbreaker powers. While there may be some game concepts where this would be acceptable ("Hey, lets play as evil monsters!"), those aren't the sorts of games I run. Such games would need other balancing factors, like attention from mortal authorities and/or wardens.
Kill 50 animals: I wouldn't let this work; at best you'd get just a few aspects, like "animal sacrifices", "too much blood", "hecatomb"; I wouldn't give just two shifts per animal.
Make ludicrous piles of declarations: Also wouldn't work; declarations are against whatever target number the GM thinks is reasonable, and after the first few, I'd start adding in stacking penalties. Or, better yet, as you start to declare how conditions are coincidentally just perfect for your uber-ritual, I'd start throwing compels at the aspects you've declared - as every other major power in the area wants to make use of the same conflux of energies you're declaring exists.
Spend 99 scenes doing nothing: If you've been gone for 99 scenes, you're not a player in my game anymore; that's over a year of real-time not playing.
-
I wouldn't balance against that. I would not allow a PC to pull off a 100 shift ritual in the first place. Worst case scenario, somewhere around 50 shifts in, every single local major power would converge on your location to see who's throwing around stupid amounts of power and shut you down. But in practical terms, I wouldn't even let a PC try such a ritual in the first place.
Kill 5 people: Congrats, you are now an NPC warlock with too many lawbreaker powers. While there may be some game concepts where this would be acceptable ("Hey, lets play as evil monsters!"), those aren't the sorts of games I run. Such games would need other balancing factors, like attention from mortal authorities and/or wardens.
Kill 50 animals: I wouldn't let this work; at best you'd get just a few aspects, like "animal sacrifices", "too much blood", "hecatomb"; I wouldn't give just two shifts per animal.
Make ludicrous piles of declarations: Also wouldn't work; declarations are against whatever target number the GM thinks is reasonable, and after the first few, I'd start adding in stacking penalties. Or, better yet, as you start to declare how conditions are coincidentally just perfect for your uber-ritual, I'd start throwing compels at the aspects you've declared - as every other major power in the area wants to make use of the same conflux of energies you're declaring exists.
Spend 99 scenes doing nothing: If you've been gone for 99 scenes, you're not a player in my game anymore; that's over a year of real-time not playing.
This is the only point I have any issue with. Scenes much like zones vary in time. I really don't see 99 scenes being that long. 99 scenes shouldn't be more than 99 in game days at maximum. (Just my opinion mind you).
However, since scenes have variable length, it becomes hard to assume how long hte spell caster is out of play for.
Though I will say your way of telling them that that takes too long works fine as a balance factor/deterrent.
-
Sorry I was running on the assumption that no one would try a sacrificial ritual without lawbreaker 2 (any +2 control is nice), I was also assuming any pc trying such a ritual would have high contacts , resources and would know how to cover their own tracks or have the right people to do it for them. Making 5 people disappear without a trace is hardly a hard trick to pull off for someone with a reasonable contacts (for example the Red court party).
-
I have a PC in one of my games that pulled something like this in the backstory: clearing a building of Red Court vamps out with a ritual, using New York's garlic festival as a source of power--there were somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 people there the year the player picked for it, and the player liked the idea of killing vampires with a celebration of garlic.
Much of the power gathered was by the character sneaking into the building every day for months, getting materials to make sort of a Little Chicago-esque focus in order to make sure the spell only hit the vampires in the building. In fact, the vast majority of the power for the ritual probably went into excluding targets while the actual "attack" portion of the spell was comparatively small.
Naturally, the character's ability to do something like this scared the crap out of pretty much everyone who knew about it, which is why the Big Apple is more or less off limits to her now.
But, like I said, it's the character's backstory--I almost certainly wouldn't allow it to go off--not easily, at least--if the player tried something like it in-game.
-
This is the only point I have any issue with. Scenes much like zones vary in time. I really don't see 99 scenes being that long. 99 scenes shouldn't be more than 99 in game days at maximum. (Just my opinion mind you).
However, since scenes have variable length, it becomes hard to assume how long hte spell caster is out of play for.
Though I will say your way of telling them that that takes too long works fine as a balance factor/deterrent.
I'm guessing based off of games I've run / played in; most sessions include about three distinct scenes. Sometimes more (the GM is going from player to player with "It's been X months in-game since last session; what have you been up to?), sometimes less (climactic battle!). Game roughly every other week, and that's over a year of not playing to skip 99 scenes. The important distinction here is that, to get the "I skipped a scene" bonus, you have to miss an actual scene of play; simple passage of in-game time doesn't count.Sorry I was running on the assumption that no one would try a sacrificial ritual without lawbreaker 2 (any +2 control is nice), I was also assuming any pc trying such a ritual would have high contacts , resources and would know how to cover their own tracks or have the right to do it for them. Making 5 people disappear without a trace is hardly a hard trick to pull off for someone with a reasonable contacts (for example the Red court party).
Then it comes back to, with you trying to gather 100 shifts of power, everyone even vaguely nearby with a lore skill is going to notice what you're doing. What's the perception penalty for being a dozen miles away? I'll bet it's less than -100. And again, that's not the sort of game I run - and if I were going to run a game where that was expected, I'd houserule down the number of shifts you can get from a sacrifice; something like, say, you can only tag consequences the character would be allowed to use in a conflict, plus extreme, and +2 shifts for doubling the number of sacrifices. What I would not do is try to balance the game around 100+ shift rituals (edit: as a normal thing; as the occasional plot device that takes many sessions to set up they might be ok) - because the only way to do that is have enemies who also use 100+ shift rituals, and that would just get boring.
-
Honestly, is 100 shifts really that much? Victor Sells' heart-exploding spell is more than 1/3 of that, and he managed to pull it off three times over the course of about a week.
-
However, since scenes have variable length, it becomes hard to assume how long hte spell caster is out of play for.
Well, it's true you wouldn't know ahead of time, but since there's no such thing as a non-narrative scene it would be the next 99 scenes the group plays. My group probably averages about 5-10 per night, so say 15 gaming sessions? Not really doable.
-
Kill 5 people: Congrats, you are now an NPC warlock with too many lawbreaker powers.
Barring substantial houseruling, that's not how Lawbreaker works. Killing 5 people with/for magic will cost, at most 2 refresh (assuming that the spell itself does not have a lawbreaking effect/purpose, which might bring it up to 3), not 5.
-
In order of ease;
Kill 5 People (20 shifts a piece)
Kill 50 Animals (2 shifts a piece)
Stuff like this is one of the main problems with the RAW for Thaumaturgy.
Sacrificing 2 guys should not be twice as good as sacrificing 1.
Make 30-50 decelerations and sacrifice yourself up to a severe.
I approve.
If you can pull off that many Declarations, you deserve a 100-shift ritual.
Spend 99 scenes doing nothing.
I approve in theory, but in practice...you're not actually playing the game anymore.
Honestly, is 100 shifts really that much?
Yes.
Sells' spell was noted in-story as being unreasonably powerful. And Thaumaturgy scales exponentially in difficulty, or at least it should.
100 shifts is enough to do almost anything.
-
Spend 99 scenes doing nothing.
Technically true, but since there's no such thing as a non-narrative scene that player might have to sit out of over a dozen sessions. Not really worth it.
-
The best solution to this issue (in my opinion) is to rewrite the Thaum rules. My current favority concept involves increasing the control roll difficulty every several rolls, resulting in an incentive to control more than a single shift per roll and a soft practical limit on the total complexity of the spell. (And it also rewards those taking specializations/focii that improve Thaum control.)
Short of a full rewrite, here are a couple of 'patches' that you could apply:
1) Each of those sacrifices counts as a miniscene, so they take time. You can't just have your victims stand in a group and then throw a grenade in amoung them, you have to slowly leech their life-force into the spell. (This might actually be what was intented; the rules don't specify.)
2) Sacrifices only count for the number of consequences they can actually suffer. Minor extras count for a mild consequence only; to get 'ideal' sacrificial victims you have to steal the protagonist's girlfriend. (This would be a change to RAW, which does say sacrifice grants a full 20 shifts.)
3) Anyone with The Sight can detect magic, and the nearest visual anologue to detecting a spell of this magnitude would be trying to spot a nuclear bomb exploding. The details as to how this works would need to be built, but at the root would be that 'nearby' characters with the Sight would have at least a chance to feel the power building up, and 'nearby' should scale exponentially with total shifts of power (ie, spells of a few shifts might be detectable only by people within a few zones, but spells of a hundred shifts might well be felt satewide or even nationwide). Note that this would only require passive use of the Sight; not the full third-eye opening variety.
4) Recall that the rules tell you to set difficulty for declarations based inversely on interest value. Fifty declarations are unlikely to be interesting -- at least not after the first couple.
-
Technically true, but since there's no such thing as a non-narrative scene that player might have to sit out of over a dozen sessions. Not really worth it.
Yeah, the only way I can see this happening is if a player goes on an extended leave of the campaign, but for whatever reason their character doesn't. Which seems an unlikely scenario at best.
I mean, assuming a weekly game, 2-3 scenes a game, that's the better part of a year the person would be away.
-
Also, honestly, "normal" people in game aren't going to provide 20 shifts of power. IMO it's like mook opponents. You can get 20 shifts from a major NPC who, during conflict, would be willing to suffer the entire range of consequences, AND you've gotta put in the work to kidnap them so you CAN sacrifice them. Kidnapping some hobo off-screen who doesn't put up a fight? No shifts, or at best, it's a Maneuver or Declaration for 2 shifts.
-
To your 4 methods
1) Mass sacrifice well this works per the rules pretty clearly, and easily if you can catch the 5 people. Worse, you can even sacrifice WVC, ghouls, or like as far as I can tell. And you can do similar by mass inflicting consequences.
2) I don't think 10 rabbits counts as a person, if they did no one would sacrifice anyone when they can buy stuff at the pet store. At best with sufficient rolls I would let declarations like ANIMAL SACRIFICE, LOTS OF ANIMAL SACRIFICE, ENDLESS BLOOD, BlOOD MAGIC, but those are really just declarations.
3) 50 declarations is hard. I know someone here made a system to adjudicate the difficulty and time requirements of declarations. Just use that, or similar.
4) It technically works, but at 4 scenes a game, your wizard comes back 25 games later. ... Its really not going to happen.
So most of these ways don't really work. Now how do you balance against big rituals? Well what can you even do with a 100 shift ritual that a 40ish shift can't? (Lore +5 Moderate +5 Mild + Change) I suppose you can help punch through wards and such, or make it area of effect to zot a city block, but really? A lot of baddies won't have wards. (No threshold). An aspect pile can be done just as well with 10 20ish shift rituals. What is seriously going to mess with a 30 strength ward? Even a patently inane healing spell would top out before 40...
So whats the big problem? Its just Thaumaturgy doing what it does. If the PC's are really dedicated and have a symbolic link they can asplode the targets brain. If they really want they can aspect pile. So what is the problem going from 40ish to 100ish?
-
Also, honestly, "normal" people in game aren't going to provide 20 shifts of power. IMO it's like mook opponents. You can get 20 shifts from a major NPC who, during conflict, would be willing to suffer the entire range of consequences, AND you've gotta put in the work to kidnap them so you CAN sacrifice them. Kidnapping some hobo off-screen who doesn't put up a fight? No shifts, or at best, it's a Maneuver or Declaration for 2 shifts.
This probably should be true, but it's not. Last paragraph, page 269 of Your Story.
I like the sound of Becq's revisions.
100 shifts is way better than 40. With 100 shifts you can kill things right through Mythic Toughness and oodles of Fate Points. You can kill a whole bunch of people at once. You can ward an area so securely that a nuclear bomb would bounce off harmlessly. You can conjure an entire city out of thin air. You can summon up a demon that's stronger than a Senior Council member. You can do almost anything.
-
So whats the big problem? Its just Thaumaturgy doing what it does. If the PC's are really dedicated and have a symbolic link they can asplode the targets brain. If they really want they can aspect pile. So what is the problem going from 40ish to 100ish?
I would say that the problem is that it turns Thaumaturgy into "You can do literally anything you want -- blow up the planet, turn yourself into a god, anything -- so long as you commit a handful of homeless people or a couple of days of meditation to it. In the novels, Dresden talks about those head-explodie types of spells as being mind-bogglingly difficult (though typically, sacrifice makes them approachable). He mentions spells that maybe the Merlin could do, but that he himself could only hope to someday manage.
But with the existing system, there are no limits. Any caster with a decent control (total of +5 from skill/specialization/focus) can control a spell of unlimited complexity with no risk of failure. And I think this is Bad, because it makes Thaumaturgy ridiculous.
- Bad guy has a massive, Fort Knox-grade ward around his Ebil Lair (10-shifts!)? No problem, that'll just take us a few hours of meditation to wipe out. Or maybe we'll have each member of the group contribute a mild consequence, then take a full scene to get there so they heal up.
- Ok, so now the bad guy kills a few homeless people to make his ward 100 shifts. No problem, we'll just have to meditate longer.
- Money tight? Ok, we'll just teleport all of the gold from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's underground vault into our basement. How many shifts do we need, so we can calculate the meditation time?
- Want to seduce <insert supermodel of choice here>? Well, Thaumatugy can be used to generate skill rolls, so ... heck, a seduction roll of 50 ought to be plenty, right?
It's just silly, and I think it makes the game less fun when accomplishing anything becomes this trivial.
So yes, I do see it as a problem.
-
This probably should be true, but it's not. Last paragraph, page 269 of Your Story.
I like the sound of Becq's revisions.
Heh. Count my post as a vote for Becq's revision #2, then, since they're pretty much saying the same thing.
-
I think it boils down to GM fiat, and really, really enforcing the stipulation that declarations and invoking aspects has to be reasonable. Personally, I'd limit declarations to only being able to roll each skill once for a given spell. That way, Scrooge McDuck can't just roll his absurd Resources score a dozen times to build up 20+ extra shifts for Magica De Spell's big damn ritual--he'd need to get his nephews, pilot, and maybe a rival or two to contribute as well.
Places a soft limit on the total power a spell can generate and encourages teamwork.
The problem with the making sacrifices who're nameless count for less is, well, in-universe, what makes Lt. Murphy a more potent sacrifice for a particular spell than the nameless Lieutenant heading up Homicide? It's kind of implying that a named character's life is worth more than the extras. I kinda like the idea that stopping Evil McBadguy from sacrificing a random innocent victim is just as important as saving Lois Lane.
-
This probably should be true, but it's not. Last paragraph, page 269 of Your Story.
I like the sound of Becq's revisions.
100 shifts is way better than 40. With 100 shifts you can kill things right through Mythic Toughness and oodles of Fate Points. You can kill a whole bunch of people at once. You can ward an area so securely that a nuclear bomb would bounce off harmlessly. You can conjure an entire city out of thin air. You can summon up a demon that's stronger than a Senior Council member. You can do almost anything.
A nukes a plot device. In fact lets try statting up a similarly powerful thaumaturgy landmine. It would need to affect say 100 zones, giving it a roll of 200. That 100 shift ward is melted.
If they have mythic toughness use psychomancy. They aren't a human in all likelihood. Now oodles of fate points might help, but oodles of fate points can save you against the 100 shift ritual too. You may even be able to compel something. (Don't forget about declaring aspects.)
I suppose mass summoning is a nice niche.
Summoning that demon is much better done with the smaller rituals. One big containment spell, one big ward, then either one nice binding/conflict victory. Much better done with three 40 shift rituals.
@Becq: Notice how the PC's never got around to killing people? The problems with thaumaturgy aren't from sacrificing 5 people, most of the problems have already arisen by the time you are at 40.
-
@Becq: Notice how the PC's never got around to killing people? The problems with thaumaturgy aren't from sacrificing 5 people, most of the problems have already arisen by the time you are at 40.
I agree that Warden interaction provides a defense against the players using sacrifice. But you don't need to resort to that under the RAW. All you have to do is spend, say, a half hour or so meditating per shift desired (ie, sitting out a do-nothing scene). Given the rules, why wouldn't any self-respecting wizard have a 50 armor spell lasting his lifetime (call it 70 shifts for good measure, 35 hours of meditation to prep, guaranteed successful with Discipline 5) cast on himself, so he doesn't have to worry about those pesky snipers? And is the ability to do that good for the game?
I don't believe it is.
-
Okay, here's what I'm thinking to create a soft upper limit of a thaumaturgy spell:
A. Each skill can only be rolled once per spell, per player for declarations.
B. Each aspect can only be invoked once per spell to make declarations.
C. Additional shifts (not gained through the 'wait offscreen' method) have to be obtained via scenes played out in-game.
A, I think, will solve what I'm going to dub the Scrooge McDuck problem--one character can't carry a whole spell by rolling their apex skill to make declarations over and over. B would put a limit on someone saving up their fate points and invoking them scene after scene. And C would bring risk to really high-powered spells--that +2 shifts might now end up costing you consequences and other resources in the course of obtaining it.
Provided the GM is assigning reasonably stringent difficulties, this would limit each person to, maybe, 3-4 declarations via skill roll for a Submerged game, and force them to spend more significant resources to build up power beyond that.
-
The one thing I've done (and it was targeted at combat rather than thaumaturgy) is put an explicit preference (limit if you prefer) on Declarations. I try to allow one Declaration per character skill per scene and prefer only one per exchange. It's not a hard limit, it's simply where they should expect difficulties to go up.
When it comes to thaumaturgy, you also need to remember the limitations of Declarations - duration. How many exchanges are they going to last and how many exchanges will they need to channel the power? This tends to keep most stuff in the teens and makes it a group effort somewhere in the twenties to thirties.
As for sacrifice driven rituals, they tend to have their own drawbacks. Legal, ethical, etc. If you're playing an evil version of the game where those don't matter, I'd make the Wardens a major threat. If they're not already. After all, power is detectable.
-
As for sacrifice driven rituals, they tend to have their own drawbacks. Legal, ethical, etc. If you're playing an evil version of the game where those don't matter, I'd make the Wardens a major threat. If they're not already. After all, power is detectable.
The problem with sacrifice driven rituals is it doesn't need to be other people.
Consider a group of five people. They have 5 mild consequences, between them. Probably a bit more from recovery powers, or extra mild consequences. A lore skill of 4, can probably make a couple declarations and its already a ritual of 20ish. Everyone throws in a moderate consequence and its at 40. Then you do a mass version of that healing spell (10 shifts, easy), and it will only take one more scene to get back to full health. I recommend going to a casino and trying to make some money from the other patrons in a social conflict. Or possibly an convention and trying a social conflict to make friends with your favorite actors via a social conflict. Or possibly a conversation convincing the wardens that you really didn't kill anyone for the sacrifice powered spell.
-
The problem with sacrifice driven rituals is it doesn't need to be other people.
Consider a group of five people. They have 5 mild consequences, between them. Probably a bit more from recovery powers, or extra mild consequences. A lore skill of 4, can probably make a couple declarations and its already a ritual of 20ish. Everyone throws in a moderate consequence and its at 40.
See, I'm pretty much ok with what you're describing so far. They could do close to the same thing with temporary aspects.
Then you do a mass version of that healing spell (10 shifts, easy), and it will only take one more scene to get back to full health.
This isn't nearly as easy as you'd like it to be though. ;)
-
This isn't nearly as easy as you'd like it to be though. ;)
I suppose if you didn't allow that damn spell (or not allow it for sacrifice inflicted injuries) they wouldn't be able to pull it off. But other than that its fairly easy to accomplish. Worst case scenario you get a +4 complexity biomancy item, and do everyone one at a time.
-
I recommend going to a casino and trying to make some money from the other patrons in a social conflict. Or possibly an convention and trying a social conflict to make friends with your favorite actors via a social conflict. Or possibly a conversation convincing the wardens that you really didn't kill anyone for the sacrifice powered spell.
Physical consequences can and should interfere meaningfully with social conflict actions.
-
Which is why you try very hard for the social conflict to be something nice and safe like making friends at a convention. Not convincing the vampire's your fully capable of taking them in a fight. Oh and do note that unless your spell was a pile of aspects type spell, things will go down hill really quickly in any ambush after/fight the spell. If it was a pile of aspects thing you'll be fine though. (7 free tags really help)
-
I'm going to be running a campaign in the near future and this is something I've thought about alot.
One thought I've had, is to do something like the point buy in 3.5e, and require 2 shifts for every 1 shift of effect past a certain point.
Another is compels. Yes, you can do a 100 shift ritual. But horrible scary monsters A, B and C are all very interested/threatened by you and your magic. Hopefully after the first Skinwalker bursts in to try and eat you in the middle of the ritual the players learn their lesson.
The final one is just saying to the players, "Look guys, please don't break my campaign with your ubermagic." Really no different than asking the wizard/cleric player not to cast instant win spells everytime.
-
Alternatively, mandating that some minimum proportion of shifts (probably scaling non-linearly) are channeled into the spell in a given exchange, or limiting the number of exchanges available in which to channel those shifts (a different direction taken to the same end) works well to put a 'soft' limit on the power of thaumaturgic rituals, while also substantially increasing the (normally lacking) usefulness of thaumaturgy control bonuses.
-
To go along with that, you could probably compel them to put more than the minimum shifts in, due to issues of concentration or endurance. If each exchange is lasting x amount of time, eventually they will presumably get tired/hungry/lose concentration/lose shifts from sunrise/etc.
-
Personally, I like the constant threat that failure poses-- especially in the big rituals. The problem in RAW is that once you hit 5 Discipline, this danger essentially vanishes*. I think building in a mechanic to preserve this threat would be sufficient enough to prevent abuse while keeping all the flavor of the declarations/co-operative atmosphere described in the books. It would also limit the number of different places we would need to inject additional, restrictive rules into.
If we go this route, this could be something simple, such as simply hand-waving that a roll of [-,-,-,-] is always a failure (though, I've never been a big fan of such things). Or, by obfuscating it a little more, something like limiting the maximum number of exchanges before energy starts to bleed-off out of the spell based on their Discipine skill versus the difficulty of the ritual.
EDIT: Tedronai already more clearly stated this concept, above:Alternatively, mandating that some minimum proportion of shifts (probably scaling non-linearly) are channeled into the spell in a given exchange, or limiting the number of exchanges available in which to channel those shifts (a different direction taken to the same end) works well to put a 'soft' limit on the power of thaumaturgic rituals, while also substantially increasing the (normally lacking) usefulness of thaumaturgy control bonuses.
I'm not convinced, though, that this is the only way. I really like some of the other ideas people have posted so far. When I get a minute, I'll respond to them directly.
*Unless you're trying Thaum while under pressure. In which case, wtf is wrong with you?
-
See, the balance to those massive rituals is narrative, not mechanical. If a player is using a massive ritual there’s no reason not to impose some sort of time constraint that will prevent him from breaking up the casting into X rolls that he can’t fail. Alternatively you could an assault on the party during the casting, depriving them of their artillery while the sweating caster desperately tries to finish the spell in time.
-
See, the balance to those massive rituals is narrative, not mechanical. If a player is using a massive ritual there’s no reason not to impose some sort of time constraint that will prevent him from breaking up the casting into X rolls that he can’t fail. Alternatively you could an assault on the party during the casting, depriving them of their artillery while the sweating caster desperately tries to finish the spell in time.
I know that's the intention, but it shouldn't require a masterful GM to always spackle a massive mechanical hole on-the-fly.
Besides, doesn't it stretch credulity that every time the party starts to cast ritual X, someone comes by to throw a wrench in their plans? After the second or third time, wouldn't they start taking more actions to prevent random passerby N from showing up? If they do, do you still try to interrupt them, no matter how improbable they make an interruption?
-
...
Kill 5 People (20 shifts a piece)
I like the ideas posed above for having a character's "value" (their number of consequences, and thereby their plot importance) determine the amount they provide to a ritual.
The problem with the making sacrifices who're nameless count for less is, well, in-universe, what makes Lt. Murphy a more potent sacrifice for a particular spell than the nameless Lieutenant heading up Homicide? It's kind of implying that a named character's life is worth more than the extras. I kinda like the idea that stopping Evil McBadguy from sacrificing a random innocent victim is just as important as saving Lois Lane.
That depends-- is the ritual using Lt. Murphy targeting Dresden (or someone who cares for her)? Or is it targeting someone who doesn't know Lt. Murphy?
Sure, the average joe is as important as Lois Lane-- but not if you're Superman. If the ritual is targeting Superman, using his love/girlfriend/wife (depending on your story arc) would reasonably add more to the ritual in-question. There's a metaphysical connection there.
Also, there should probably be diminishing returns applied. The first sacrifice is worth the most, each one after it is diminished by 10% or what-have-you. That way, you never reach a point where killing additional people is pointless, but it becomes necessary to kill more and more people to get the same benefit. See: Chicken Pizza.
Kill 50 Animals (2 shifts a piece)
This should, wihtout a doubt, suffer diminishing returns.
Make 30-50 decelerations and sacrifice yourself up to a severe.
Seems legit... but I do think a set of general guidelines should have been worded into the RPG about limiting the number of times each character can use each skill for declarations. Or imposing diminishing returns on those declarations. Or imposing ever-higher difficulties on the successive declarations on the same skill, showing ever-increasing difficulty of getting high enough quality components or whatever.
Spend 99 scenes doing nothing.
I think people misinterpret the developers' intention with the "sit out a scene" option-- and I honestly wonder why. Of all the stuff in DFRPG that isn't spelled out explicitly, I seem to remember there being a couple paragraphs or even a whole sidebar on when this is and why it isn't appropriate. It seems like it was intended more as a "I have 1 or two odd shifts left and we need someone to run for pizza anyway. Rather than sit here and figure out the 20th convoluted way I can augment my abilities, can we just say I finish it while I'm gone?" and not as a "Haha, I can simply join the game two years into the campaign as an unstoppable, ascended deity!"
Finally, as others have already pointed out, your interpretation rewards people for un-fun. Sitting out is un-fun. Don't allow it.
-
I know that's the intention, but it shouldn't require a masterful GM to always spackle a massive mechanical hole on-the-fly.
Besides, doesn't it stretch credulity that every time the party starts to cast ritual X, someone comes by to throw a wrench in their plans? After the second or third time, wouldn't they start taking more actions to prevent random passerby N from showing up? If they do, do you still try to interrupt them, no matter how improbable they make an interruption?
I think that's where my idea can help--if you limit the number of declarations and invokes they can make, that means they have to go out and get them, so the attacks/wrench throwings can also come in before the casting starts. If the party has to literally fight for every +2 after a certain point (because one can assume that gathering up the first bunch of components is going to get someone's attention), that's going to limit how much they can gather.
As for the Lois Lane thing, it would add a connection factor, but not necessarily any more power.
But, I would argue that maybe a pure mortal sacrifice might be worth less than a wizard--in Death Masks, Nicodemus says he grabbed Harry because he needed a sacrifice of a particular metaphysical mass. So maybe sacrifices with supernatural powers might add to the shift count.
-
Besides, doesn't it stretch credulity that every time the party starts to cast ritual X, someone comes by to throw a wrench in their plans?
Depends on the ritual and how important it is to the plot. If completing the ritual is necessary for the story to continue then why worry about it? Let it happen and narrate it effectively with the help of the players to make it seem cool and fun. If it's a giant "I win" button then yeah, it needs to be stoppable, because that's how stories work. Now, maybe the ritual is basically the denouement and collecting the various components was the meat of the story. If that's the case then, again, just let it happen, as above. But if the completion of the spell is the climax of the story then yes, there should be "rising action" leading up to it, and your players will probably expect that.
From the sound of things people are afraid of or have experience with players who use massive thaumaturgical workings to derail the game, and "win" at no cost to their characters. If that's the case, then it's the players who're an issue. Yes, it's unfortunate that the mechanics give them the opportunity to do so, but that same freedom empowers good players to do cool things in service to the story they tell with the GM.
After the second or third time, wouldn't they start taking more actions to prevent random passerby N from showing up? If they do, do you still try to interrupt them, no matter how improbable they make an interruption?
This depends on the nature of ritual x. Is it some sort of good luck ritual that the players cast before every important conflict? If so, let it happen, who cares. If it’s the magical head exploding ritual they use whenever they come into conflict with non-humans then yeah, there should be some pushback. As above, if getting the link is the hard part then the ritual should be easy. If the link is easy to obtain then yeah, there should be complications during the casting. Maybe it was a trap, or maybe the nasty in question has a guardian demon who can sense those sorts of energies building and reroute them, say into an orphanage. Whatever makes for a good and fun story works.
-
Besides, doesn't it stretch credulity that every time the party starts to cast ritual X, someone comes by to throw a wrench in their plans? After the second or third time, wouldn't they start taking more actions to prevent random passerby N from showing up? If they do, do you still try to interrupt them, no matter how improbable they make an interruption?
How about people calling for donations for charities or selling double-paned windows or some such at the point in the ritual where the most concentration is required? And amazingly, their calls always come through loud and clear, despite the odds of being hexed...
Even if the caster doesn't own a working phone.
-
I'll put these (http://dresden-sanfran.wikidot.com/sample-thaumaturgy) up again, since I see some new names that might not have seen them before.
-
I like a lot fo the ideas here.
My take on it so far:
Make declarations increasing harder.
Have sentient sacrifices matter to varying degrees. (I kinda like Oralddin's view on this)
Sacrificing animals should have diminishing returns and be useless in some cases...maybe more potent in others. The sacrifice needs to fit the spell.
Sacrificing random animals to increase the impact of a city wide lust spell - likely not useufl. (certain animals maybe)
Sacrificing people to get folks horny should only effect a select few (creepy!) people.
The GM really needs to figure out what will work and what won't in regards to each spell. Thaumaturgy may let a player do anything...doesn't mean it should be as easy as a numbers game. It also doesn't mean the Gm doesn't get a say. I think Thaum requires a lot of give and take on behalf of the GM and players.
sit out 99 scenes. Scenes have arbitrary length. Each table is going to have to settle this one - however orladdin made a good point about this.
I think it isn't always about scenes - I'm willing to go on a soda/pizza/beer run. I'll spend my gas and to some extent my money to not break up the flow of game and acquire much needed sustenance or vices for my fellow players and GM. I will be gone for 10 minutes to an hour. Please let me finish my last X shifts. Now I know X should be a reasonable number, but if the group is okay with getting 50 shifts of power for free pizza/smokes/beer/soda/ whatever; then that is their (foolish imo) choice.
I know to some small extent this is getting into bribery, however what games don't support that to some small extent? "Hey so and so, I am lazy you seem to need 97 exp to level up in the D&D game i am current;y running. I'll grant this exp if you go grab me a soda from the fridge." This game itself has a built in bribery system in compells and escalation of compells. " You don't wanna take my compel? How about 2 fate points? No.... how about 3?"
-
This may have been mentioned already, but one way to prevent insane spell casting is to have the GM say that if I let you do this once, I get to do this when ever I can. My GM is scary, therefore that threat works.
-
This may have been mentioned already, but one way to prevent insane spell casting is to have the GM say that if I let you do this once, I get to do this when ever I can. My GM is scary, therefore that threat works.
Yeah. That works in many games also. I don't so much like players vs DM/GM mentality...but making sure the players know that turnabout is fairplay can be a deterrent.
-
I'll put these (http://dresden-sanfran.wikidot.com/sample-thaumaturgy) up again, since I see some new names that might not have seen them before.
Yeah, something like that deals with the declaration issue, and it also makes control bonuses really helpful, since you need 6 for perfect control. It doesn't address the mass sacrifice issue. Either real lives, or a bunch of consequences from the party.
-
I feel that as sacrifices go, there should be diminishing to no returns on creatures/beings that have no link to your target. Ie. gacking random homeless guys will not help you prepare a spell to target the Merlin. Which we maybe see in action at Chicken Pizza.
Another thing that sort of bothers me about the magic system is that it doesnt really take range into account. I'm working on a distance scale for my games which wouldnt really decrease the power of thaumaturgy, but it does put extra potential shifts of backlash/fallout into play. Does anyone else require shifts of power to increase spell range?
-
Yeah. That works in many games also. I don't so much like players vs DM/GM mentality...but making sure the players know that turnabout is fairplay can be a deterrent.
We dont play against him per se, he lets us do what we want within reason; this just makes sure it doesnt turn into too big of a gong show.
As for the idea of going after specific sacrifices, I like the idea of some characters making better sacrifices than others, but only in the order of sacrificing power such as a Wizard does better than a vanilla. I dont think sacrifices having a link to the target is the best idea other then adding to the horror of the spell, unless its a bloodline curse in which case the last sacrifice provides the link. The sacrifices in Changes other then Maggie had no connection to Eb other than being human.
-
I agree that sacrifices can vary in strength depending on the victim's life force. It shouldn't matter if there is a link to the target though. Usually a sacrifice is all about payment to some scary being for power. Now if there were a link between the victim and said scary being THAT might come in handy. Of course that kind of stuff could be handled as aspects too.
-
I agree that sacrifices can vary in strength depending on the victim's life force. It shouldn't matter if there is a link to the target though. Usually a sacrifice is all about payment to some scary being for power. Now if there were a link between the victim and said scary being THAT might come in handy. Of course that kind of stuff could be handled as aspects too.
This. The sacrifice(s) aren't there to connect to the target, that's what the material link is for. If we use the ritual = gun metaphor the sacrifices are the gunpowder, the more you use the bigger the bang.
-
Except when the explicitly ARE the link to the target (see Changes)
-
That was the last sacrifice, and it was more the material link. The few hundred other poor bastards who got slaughtered were the gunpowder.
-
And yet the last sacrifice was a sacrifice, that just happened to also serve as the 'material link'.
In other words, most sacrifices serve only to fuel a spell, but some sacrifices can also serve in other capacities as well, such as to provide a means for the targeting of a spell.
-
I wouldn't call the final death a sacrifice, it was the sympathetic link. Mechanically they could have used just a drop of blood, the fact that the person was actually slain on the altar was more of a flourish.
-
If it was anything like Sells's spell, someone had to die as the final sacrifice--their plan was basically to have the last victim be a voodoo doll representing her whole family.
-
If it was anything like Sells's spell, someone had to die as the final sacrifice--their plan was basically to have the last victim be a voodoo doll representing her whole family.
Yeah, I was going to revise it once I thought about it a bit, but the fact that the final death targets and shapes the spell rather than contributes power is the point.
-
Sufficient Sacrifices can create overpowered ritual this true both in game and in the setting the Dark Hallow, the stone table and the blood curse all show what can be achieved by such magic.
-
rather than contributes power
I'm not seeing the support for this conclusion.
Surely, what power might have been contributed by that single final sacrifice would be largely dwarfed by those that went before, but a conclusion that it contributed no power?
You've got a substantial uphill battle if you want to demonstrate that.
-
I'm not seeing the support for this conclusion.
Surely, what power might have been contributed by that single final sacrifice would be largely dwarfed by those that went before, but a conclusion that it contributed no power?
You've got a substantial uphill battle if you want to demonstrate that.
Because when doing that last sacrifice you are no longer gathering power, you are in the process of casting the spell. In the case of the Shadowman it was a symbolic act representing what he wanted to happen to the remote victim of the ritual.
-
I don't think Tedronai is objecting to the "sacrifice as symbolic link". If I understand correctly, he's simply saying it doesn't have to be one or the other, it may well have been both symbol and power source.
As for gathering power vs casting / controlling - gathered power has to last through the control. At least that's my interpretation. It's also a major limitation on thaumaturgy if enforced. A fragile aspect won't help if you're channeling one shift at a time.
The discussion on sacrifice as symbol does bring another potential limitation to mind - if anyone is still looking for house rule fodder. Perhaps symbolic links need to be 'robust' enough to handle power...so you'd need better links for more powerful spells. Hair might work for tracking but maybe it takes blood for a death spell and a child for a 'kill all your ancestors spell'. Just a thought.
-
That's a good point. The more potent the spell the more significant your symbol should be to make it work properly.
-
I don't think Tedronai is objecting to the "sacrifice as symbolic link". If I understand correctly, he's simply saying it doesn't have to be one or the other, it may well have been both symbol and power source.
If you mean “could a different ritual use the same human sacrifice as a source of power and as the symbolic link?” Sure, I’m not aware of any reason why not. Hell, you can probably tag it for +2 as well. However, from the way Bob describes the actual ritual we’re discussing, as a crossbow that just needs to be aimed by the final sacrifice I’d say that the specific sacrifice in question (sorry for the tortured language, I’m trying to avoid spoilers here) didn’t contribute power.
The discussion on sacrifice as symbol does bring another potential limitation to mind - if anyone is still looking for house rule fodder. Perhaps symbolic links need to be 'robust' enough to handle power...so you'd need better links for more powerful spells. Hair might work for tracking but maybe it takes blood for a death spell and a child for a 'kill all your ancestors spell'. Just a thought.
I wouldn’t even call this a house rule, just an interpretation, and one I heartily agree with. Magic is all about moving energy around, and you can only push so much energy down any given conductor, remember the thread and the ducky in Death Masks? Also, since stronger links would in all probability be harder to come by and better protected it helps solve the “OMG my players just keep nuking the BBEG from orbit!” issue.
Come to think of it, has anyone ever had a player or group attempt to resolve an otherwise sticky and interesting issue with the hammer of thaumaturgy? It’s literally never been an issue for my games, which may be why I was so dismissive of the need to nerf it.
-
If you mean “could a different ritual use the same human sacrifice as a source of power and as the symbolic link?” Sure, I’m not aware of any reason why not. Hell, you can probably tag it for +2 as well. However, from the way Bob describes the actual ritual we’re discussing, as a crossbow that just needs to be aimed by the final sacrifice I’d say that the specific sacrifice in question (sorry for the tortured language, I’m trying to avoid spoilers here) didn’t contribute power.
I think you're reading rather more precision into Bob's explanations than they were formulated to convey.
Remember, he's generally explaining these things for the benefit of Harry. That means he has to dumb things down. Regularly. A lot.
I wouldn’t even call this a house rule, just an interpretation, and one I heartily agree with. Magic is all about moving energy around, and you can only push so much energy down any given conductor
Definitely agreed.
I think this falls under the same category as 'bottling sunshine requires happiness', though.
Also, since stronger links would in all probability be harder to come by and better protected it helps solve the “OMG my players just keep nuking the BBEG from orbit!” issue.
If the PCs are getting a reputation for this sort of thing (which multiple instances should produce if their targets are at all noteworthy), might I suggest a BBEG who's mobile? Or sits behind a substantial threshold? Or has some beefy wards on his secret lair?
-
If the PCs are getting a reputation for this sort of thing (which multiple instances should produce if their targets are at all noteworthy), might I suggest a BBEG who's mobile? Or sits behind a substantial threshold? Or has some beefy wards on his secret lair?
The fact that a couple middle weight casters working in concert with good information and the right materials can produce effects that are usually associated with future generations “all busted up and everyone talking about hard rain” is probably the reason that people step carefully around the White Council.
-
Come to think of it, has anyone ever had a player or group attempt to resolve an otherwise sticky and interesting issue with the hammer of thaumaturgy? It’s literally never been an issue for my games, which may be why I was so dismissive of the need to nerf it.
Yep. Had one player who, for any problem, tried to solve it with "build a bigger ritual". I tried the bog-standard "if you can do this, so can the NPCs" approach to resolving things, and the result was that player quitting the game (because obviously he, with two refresh spent on rituals, should be able to out-magic a fae lord.)
Aside from that one player, though, I haven't had problems with it. But I'd prefer a system that didn't require so much heavy-handed balancing - one where that player wouldn't have thought to try out-ritual-ing something with higher spellcasting skills, refinement, allies, etc, and one where my other spellcasting players wouldn't have to be concerned about accidentally overstepping the limits of what's reasonable.
-
Yep. Had one player who, for any problem, tried to solve it with "build a bigger ritual". I tried the bog-standard "if you can do this, so can the NPCs" approach to resolving things, and the result was that player quitting the game (because obviously he, with two refresh spent on rituals, should be able to out-magic a fae lord.)
Aside from that one player, though, I haven't had problems with it. But I'd prefer a system that didn't require so much heavy-handed balancing - one where that player wouldn't have thought to try out-ritual-ing something with higher spellcasting skills, refinement, allies, etc, and one where my other spellcasting players wouldn't have to be concerned about accidentally overstepping the limits of what's reasonable.
The problem with the if I could do it so can they approach for thaumaturgy it is pretty much rocks fall everyone dies, its like saying stop using wail of the banshee and decimating all my opposition before the rest of the party gets a chance to act or I will have someone do the same to you. Which if you follow through becomes "yer I totally wiped out all of my PCs in one spell".
-
And yet if only the PCs can do that sort of thing, it strangles the suspension of disbelief in an alley on its way home from work, wraps the corpse in a tarp, takes it out into the countryside, chops it to bits, dumps it in an oil drum along with the few cubic feet of dirt that may have soaked up some bodily fluids, lights the whole thing on fire, mixes the ashes into a batch of concrete, and then, in an act of pure brazen arrogance, uses that concrete to form a statue commemorating the murder and secrets that statue onto the steps of the local courthouse during the night with a note that reads 'Who wants to be next?'
-
Yep. Had one player who, for any problem, tried to solve it with "build a bigger ritual". I tried the bog-standard "if you can do this, so can the NPCs" approach to resolving things, and the result was that player quitting the game (because obviously he, with two refresh spent on rituals, should be able to out-magic a fae lord.)
Aside from that one player, though, I haven't had problems with it. But I'd prefer a system that didn't require so much heavy-handed balancing - one where that player wouldn't have thought to try out-ritual-ing something with higher spellcasting skills, refinement, allies, etc, and one where my other spellcasting players wouldn't have to be concerned about accidentally overstepping the limits of what's reasonable.
Could you supply some more details? Specifically, how did your player get a link to the fae lord in question? I hate to reiterate my comments from earlier, but getting a link to someone that old, powerful, and knowledgeable should be hard as shit. If the player does manage to get that link and then gather the massive number of shifts that would be necessary to penetrate the barrier between this world and the Nevernever, the fae lord’s stress and consequences, and all the various defensive magics that an ancient and wily being would have piled on his person without breaking any laws or being utterly cheap I’d say congratulations are in order.
-
Could you supply some more details? Specifically, how did your player get a link to the fae lord in question?
Link? Why would he need a link to them, when he can just cast a ritual to put a whole pile of aspects on himself? Or use the ritual as a skill roll substitute to allow him to make a single devastating attack? Or, etc.The problem with the if I could do it so can they approach for thaumaturgy it is pretty much rocks fall everyone dies, its like saying stop using wail of the banshee and decimating all my opposition before the rest of the party gets a chance to act or I will have someone do the same to you. Which if you follow through becomes "yer I totally wiped out all of my PCs in one spell".
Well, not quite - the fae lord would've had far more fun throwing a geas at the PC than just dropping rocks on him. And there were plenty of opportunities to be sneaky about things, or call in allies of his own, or etc - I would've had no problem with the PC coming out ahead in the conflict; just that - like a fight between Harry and Cowl - it wasn't going to happen by application of raw power.
-
Link? Why would he need a link to them, when he can just cast a ritual to put a whole pile of aspects on himself?
Aspects are double-edged swords. Compel them. Also, who says he can pile thirty three different Aspects onto his character? Give him one aspect with 33 free tags (or fewer, if he'd like it to last) so he can only invoke it once per roll. This would actually be really cool, with your usually small-fry PC suddenly able to fight out of his weight class, at least until is juice runs out.
Or use the ritual as a skill roll substitute to allow him to make a single devastating attack?
Assuming he's doing this remotely he'd still need to target the attack via a sympathetic link. Or do you mean he'd do all the prep and casting, then wait to unleash it until he could face the Lord directly? If you allow that at all (which I wouldn't,) it'd be bloody obvious that he's walking around with the thaumaturgical equivalent of a nuke gun. Remember how Lore acts as Alertness for supernatural threats? There’s no way even a mundane individual wouldn’t notice that kind of power, and someone with finely tuned magical senses would see it coming a mile away. Even assuming his much more skilled opponent wouldn't be able to turn the power on him ala Changes there's always the option of simply avoiding him until it's dissipated.
I'm still not seeing the problem, sorry.
-
Link? Why would he need a link to them, when he can just cast a ritual to put a whole pile of aspects on himself?
One of the benefits of the "pile of aspects" is it only costs 2 extra points to make it a zone wide thing. Which has the benefit of hitting the party. Now its still powerful, but if for some reason all the opposition is a bit stronger.. well the party is boosted to a higher weight class, but at least he won't overshadow the other PC's.
-
The problem was that, any such objection I raised, was met with "Ok, I'll just increase the complexity to add in some way of countering that". Yes, I could gm fiat a "No, that's not allowed", but I'd much rather have rules that didn't allow that kind of ridiculous escalation in the first place.
In other words, yourI'm still not seeing the problem, sorry.
is getting read by me as "But I can houserule / gm fiat things so they work, therefore the rules are obviously fine". Which, err, I disagree with; if you have to gm fiat a "I know the rules seem to say you can do this, but I'm not going to allow it," then the rules aren't fine, and should be fixed.
-
One of the benefits of the "pile of aspects" is it only costs 2 extra points to make it a zone wide thing. Which has the benefit of hitting the party. Now its still powerful, but if for some reason all the opposition is a bit stronger.. well the party is boosted to a higher weight class, but at least he won't overshadow the other PC's.
The zone-wide option is explicitly included in evocation attacks and, to a limited degree, evocation blocks. That it must be explicitly included indicates that in the absence of its explicit inclusion we are to assume that it is excluded
To my knowledge, such an option is not explicitly included, nor even implicitly referenced, with regards to maneuvers. Maneuvers do have the option to be placed on the scene, but then your enemy can invoke them, too (though they won't get the free tag).
-
Unless you're paying some outrageous price, even a zone aspect will only target one zone. You're not going to walk into the next room and still have it much less across the city. To have it available everywhere, you'd need to pay for all potential zones. Not just one.
For the most part, controls are in place to limit aspect fueled thaumaturgy. Sacrifice fueled thaumaturgy should, normally, be something the PCs won't do.
-
Sacrifice fueled thaumaturgy should, normally, be something the PCs won't do.
But I got all these kittens for free! what am I going to do with them now? :D
-
But I got all these kittens for free! what am I going to do with them now? :D
Hug them and pet them and call them George (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JlVqfC8-UI).
-
The zone-wide option is explicitly included in evocation attacks and, to a limited degree, evocation blocks. That it must be explicitly included indicates that in the absence of its explicit inclusion we are to assume that it is excluded
To my knowledge, such an option is not explicitly included, nor even implicitly referenced, with regards to maneuvers. Maneuvers do have the option to be placed on the scene, but then your enemy can invoke them, too (though they won't get the free tag).
The mind fog spell. Its on page 299. It even mentions you could vary it by changing the aspect.
-
Joy, one more instance of the examples flouting the rules.
If I might amend my previous comment, then:
'To my knowledge, such an option is not explicitly included, nor even implicitly referenced, in any rules with regards to maneuvers.'
-
Joy, one more instance of the examples flouting the rules.
If I might amend my previous comment, then:
'To my knowledge, such an option is not explicitly included, nor even implicitly referenced, in any rules with regards to maneuvers.'
Why would it need to be explicit? Expanding targeting to a zone for 2 shifts is kind of a core rule.
Doesn't really matter though - you still need symbolic links for thaumaturgy. If you don't have a symbol for the zone at the time of casting, said zone isn't a valid target. Zone targeted thaumaturgy simply isn't going to walk around with you...
-
Why would it need to be explicit? Expanding targeting to a zone for 2 shifts is kind of a core rule.
No, it isn't.
-
No, it isn't.
I don't have much interest in playing "Yes it is." --> "No it isn't." so I'll just ask - why would you not keep consistent mechanics? Including targeting a zone for two shifts.
-
I don't have much interest in playing "Yes it is." --> "No it isn't." so I'll just ask - why would you not keep consistent mechanics? Including targeting a zone for two shifts.
It's not a matter of what mechanics I would keep. It's a matter of what mechanics are presented in the RAW.
And zone-wide effects for 2 additional shifts are not presented in the RAW as a 'core mechanic'. They are presented as exceptions in two locations.
If you would care to present evidence for your 'core mechanic' claim, though, I would be quite willing to hear it out.
-
If you would care to present evidence for your 'core mechanic' claim, though, I would be quite willing to hear it out.
Part of what I like about FATE is the 'fractal' concept. Everything can be treated as a character to one degree or another...an individual, a scene, a city, a chase...even a zone. The re-usability is built in - one off rules are avoided. See Fred's comments here (http://www.faterpg.com/tag/fractal/).
-
Do you have anything located in a DFRPG book, in a section describing the default rules of the DFRPG, rather than, say, a discussion about FATE games and systems in general and possible houserules that could be applied to them?
-
Why? I'm talking about FATE. It's not like targeting a zone is only done in DFRPG.
Shrug, other than a personal preference for consistent mechanics I don't have any stake in convincing you or anyone else. I think it's easiest to be consistent, if you prefer lots of separate subsystems I'm glad you found it in FATE. Just shows how flexible the system can be.
-
The DFRPG is a self-contained ruleset. Rules not found in the DFRPG do not apply to the DFRPG unless they are added by means of a Houserule. And I'm not talking about Houserules.
-
If you would care to present evidence for your 'core mechanic' claim, though, I would be quite willing to hear it out.
It's in the core rule book, highlighted for easy reading, amoung other core rules. Therefore by definition, for determining zones of effect, it kind of makes it a core mechanic. As opposed to a mechanic suggested elsewhere, such as a rules suppliment or addon, or places such as these forums suggesting houserules. They would then not be core mechanics, they would be houserules or suggestions.