Harder because some people like to be unique. The option of every power being just a tool and able to be remade to fit any build removes such unique-ness (um, yeah, that is a word now 8) ) possibilities.
It could be argued that context is what provides the uniqueness not the mechanic of the power which is the same whoever uses it. Toughness, strength and speed powers (one or all) are almost universal to the non-casting supernaturals yet you couldn't call a werewolf the same as a red court vampire just because they share inhuman speed.
It has already been said that some powers are quite generic. Strength, Speed, Toughness for example are so basic that their expression in the game can vary a great deal. Others are a lot more loaded with innate "flavor". Blood Drinker or Addictive Saliva for example.Well, if I was to mimick the Blood Bond from World of Darkness vampires, I'd use Addictive Saliva to mimic that. Same for Stargate SG-1-esque mind-control devices (melee range, little physical harm, sometimes addictive).
The Swords of the cross are a good example here, as is the Sacred Guardian power mentioned by the op.Actually, if people have a proper concept and are willing to pay an increased price, I'd gladly let them buy, for example, All Creatures are Equal Before God.
I'll Reap God should be With strange eons even death may die instead. Though that might be construed as too emo.
Personally, I think that if a power wasn't meant to be a generic power for it's price, or be out of the hands of PCs, there should be a note saying so.
Also, there should be such a note on ACAEBG and Sacred Guardian.
Interestingly Greater Glamors has such a note (limiting it to true fae) and it is the only power that does have an explicit restriction on who can use it.
As the game is written, 'context' is actually part of the balance for powers. The game designers included ACAEBG as a component power of the Sword of the Cross, balancing it with a "Catch" making it useable only when God deemed it fitting. Can a custom power/IoP/whatever recycle this concept? Sure, but the balance of the resulting power still needs to be examined carefully. I've seen ACAEBG priced generically at -3 refresh, but I'd say it's more accurately a -4 to -5 refresh power with a +1 to +2 refresh Catch.
I only use that as a convenient example, but on a more general note there are balances built into RAW in terms of character template, too. No character was intended to have free reign to shop at will through the power list; character concept (template and/or high concept) was meant to limit the choices there. A wizard with Toughness powers might be appealing, but that's not an option on the wizard template. (Take a wizard in a high refresh game and add in the Winter Knight as a second template -- along with all of the baggage that entails -- and the situation changes.)
So yes, players should feel free to customize the power list and build new templates/concepts beyond those listed examples in the book, but the table needs to look at the result and decide if it fits as written into their game, or if it needs to be revised/balanced.
(Just my thoughts.)
...powers are tool to achieve an effect and the context is up to the individual character to describe the context for how he has that power.
I only use that as a convenient example, but on a more general note there are balances built into RAW in terms of character template, too. No character was intended to have free reign to shop at will through the power list; character concept (template and/or high concept) was meant to limit the choices there. A wizard with Toughness powers might be appealing, but that's not an option on the wizard template. (Take a wizard in a high refresh game and add in the Winter Knight as a second template -- along with all of the baggage that entails -- and the situation changes.)
Well a wizard could take an IoP to get his toughness, if Madrigal can find a IoP with physical immunity over the net then a Wizard who has been round a while could almost certainly have found one that grants toughness.
Or gain it by way of skill with transmutation magic, possibly even as represented by Modular Powers (alongside True Shapeshifting) to represent the kind of skill seen from LTW.
@Silverblaze: You're mostly right, but there are a couple of problems with what you just said.
First, making all powers available with various flavourings does not diminish uniqueness. No matter how you flavour Strength and Toughness, the dude with them is a tank.
Second, there's no danger to game balance from reflavoured powers. Because balance is mechanical, and flavour is flavour.
The danger comes from unintended interactions, which should be stopped with mechanical techniques. If ACaEBG is unbalanced when used with spellcasting (and I think it probably is) then not being usable with spellcasting should be part of ACaEBG's mechanics. Using narrative things to keep it away from casters is not a good solution at all, since players have the freedom to narrate as they wish. They shouldn't have to worry about having the mechanics crap out on them as a result.
Sometimes a mechanical limitation can look like a narrative one. As an example, I present to you the possibility that spellcasters be prohibited from taking ACaEBG. Looks narrative, but it's mechanical.
@Becq: That just isn't true, dude. Divine Purpose isn't a Catch, it's a guide to Compels. It says so right in the description!I guess I was hoping that putting "Catch" in parentheses would be enough to make it clear that I wasn't talking about a literal The Catch but rather a more mitigating Catch-like feature. I guess not. But in any case, I agree that Divine Purpose is not a The Catch (heck, only Toughness powers officially have The Catch, amirite?) and I agree that compels are the mechanism by which Divine Purpose operates. But I absolutely think that Divine Purpose is a balancing feature that plays a role in making the Swords work right. Ie, a balancing feature.
Also, the templates aren't balanced. At all.Also, I never claimed that the templates were entirely balanced (or even nearly so). I'm claiming that the use of templates is a balancing feature. You know, as opposed to not having them. Because a optimal wizard with Inhuman Recovery would be far worse than an optimal wizard without, and an optimal wizard with Inhuman Mental Recovery would be worse than either. Luckily, both of those require house rules and/or an additional template added to the character.
Adhering strictly to the templates given makes the game less balanced, not more.This bit mystifies me entirely. Noting that I have never supported "adhering strictly to the templates given" (RAW allows for custom templates, dual templates, and changing templates, all of which I'm fine with if done judiciously and with an eye to preserving both fun and fairness as best possible), how does putting thought into balancing a character concept (in terms of the template used for the concept) in advance make it less likely to result in a balanced character than not giving even a moment's thought to it?
This fact is quite important to the game's balance. If you include templates in the game's balance, then people making non-traditional characters have to be careful lest they accidentally break the game.
I can agree with everythign you said but this:
"I'm saying that no character concept should be prohibited from taking any power by the rules."
We'll have to agree to disagree. Perfectly fine at your table for a random guy to have temple dog powers reskinned. Not at mine. Some rare circumstances sure...not just any concept.
PS: At my table, I don't think I'd allow anyone to take Sacred Guardian. I did once, and I think it was a mistake. So even Temple Dogs will have to do without.
I don't really agree.
Its defensive and Catch-satisfying effects are huge.
And it's super cheap. 1 Refresh!
Plus, casters can't boost accuracy with stress.
Wait, it doesn't specify physical attacks and defences?
Holy cow. I must have blocked that out because it's so unreasonable. Take what I said about it being broken and double it.
Wait, it doesn't specify physical attacks and defences?
Holy cow. I must have blocked that out because it's so unreasonable. Take what I said about it being broken and double it.
Is it really that terrible to look at a power that's described as something a Foo dog can do, not listed anywhere else, and appears to be an entirely custom power for the foo dog, and saying, "You know, I think it's only supposed to be on foo dogs."?
It is not a bad thing to assume what ever you want, though I would disagree with the logic that just because something only shows up once in the book means that it is unique in world.
Ability to use tools -?None. Note even -0. Buttloads of compels.
Walking upright -?None. Note even -0. Maybe a compel once in a blue moon.
Human Speech-?None. Note even -0. Buttloads of compels assuming that the character doesn't have equally effective means of communication.
Curious.Beast Change and Human Form would do that job.
How much should a PC cost a Foo Dog to have the following powers?
Ability to use tools -?
Walking upright -?
Human Speech-?
I need refresh costs.
So by that logic. Other people should be able to use :
The Bark?
I'm sure that was not intentional. Sometimes players need to look at the spirit of the rules and assume the writers just had an oversight.
If you can modify every "race" (fae, vampire, foo dog, uh...human..etc.) why ever play the base ones at all? Why play a Fae that has a catch of iron? Why not just play a human with glamours? Why play a white court who feeds on emotions, when you cna just play a mutant who can incite lust or fear? Then you don't have to worry about True Love or Courage shutting you down or protecting people.
I know the narrative isn't supposed to serve a purpose in game balance, but.. it seems it does. If you step far enough from the narrative and setting there are no limits. Ergo, there is no game balance.
If someone wants everythign a Foo Dog does but wants to be a person...your first instinct isn't to ask them why they don't wanna play a foo dog? I know the were form food dog works, in fact i like it but...
I apply the KISS and duck principles as well as occam's razor.
This line of thinkign only applies to those who don't have a use for templates. I know plenty of people do.
If there is no reason to use templates. Why bother with the setting at all? I'm sure some people don't, I guess. I just find it odd that people want to play the DFRPG, if everything/most everything they play is either not in the cannon setting or modifies the cannon setting drastically. There may be better systems to create the things they want.
If it's a valid compel, giving you fate points, for simply being unable to do something your concept doesn't support... taken to the logical extreme, it's going to get a little silly.
This line of thinkign only applies to those who don't have a use for templates. I know plenty of people do.
If there is no reason to use templates. Why bother with the setting at all? I'm sure some people don't, I guess. I just find it odd that people want to play the DFRPG, if everything/most everything they play is either not in the cannon setting or modifies the cannon setting drastically. There may be better systems to create the things they want.
Person C: likes the Dresdenverse vampires, Fae, monsters, or wizards. They make a template character and feel underpowered since custom powers and reskinned powers mixed on non template characters are usually more powerful.
Person C: likes the Dresdenverse vampires, Fae, monsters, or wizards. They make a template character and feel underpowered since custom powers and reskinned powers mixed on non template characters are usually more powerful.
How do you fix a character who played a character for a long time and was left in the dust, mechanically? They matter to the story too much to make an all new character.
They may have follishly played a cannon archtype.
(foolishly, seriously foolishly so it seems at times)
They may have been awesome at the start, but can't justify buying the powers they need to get tougher.
I meant in the books there's a part where Mouse does something that makes him able to hit supernatural creatures harder. The "like St. Elmo's Fire" just describes what it looks like.
There's got to be some reason that Nicodemus is scared of Mouse, and I doubt it's his ability to be an alarm clock on demand.
what powers do you use to represent the cannon archetype?
Powers do not.
Templates represent cannon archtypes.
Oh, you don't...oh.
The word is canon. You keep saying cannon, which is a form of gunpowder-based artillery. I was making a joke.
This never happens, though, since custom and reskinned powers are not more powerful on non-template characters. It's not an issue. Person C never feels unhappy, and goes on to have a great game with Person A and B, if his only concerns are how powerful his character is.
If he has narrative issues with Person B's Blue Court Vampire, that's a different thing entirely. Person C should probably lighten up in that case, since Butcher has noted there are several smaller Courts he hasn't introduced, and since in a kitchen-sink setting it's hardly unreasonable to make up your own breed of vampire.
EDIT: Also, let's please not throw the term munchkin around. It's as insulting and pointless as calling narrativists "drama queens". Understanding how to play a game well does not need a perjorative. Being good at chess doesn't make you a munchkin, and neither does being good at DFRPG. It's a skill, not a failing.
If someone uses that skill to be disruptive to the party, that's another thing entirely.
Well, the same way you help any player who's falling behind - ask them if they'd like help, and offer guidance as to how they can play more effectively. I have never actually had this problem in FATE, but it comes up a lot in systems with notoriously wonky balance like DnD. Roleplaying games do require skill and intelligence, but usually not too much.
And, of course, you can always make use of forums like this one to improve your playing.
I do have a question, though: what powers do you use to represent the cannon archetype? Channeling (Artillery)? I think a sentient cannon would be an interesting character, but I'm not really sure how you'd define them beyond the moment of bombardment.
I actually was surprised that Mouse doesn't have All Creatures are Equal. I think that would have been much more elegant then Sacred Guardian.
This does happen in our current game. The disagreements between players A,B, and C. for, for hte most part those very reasons. I'm speaking from experience not just pulling random scenarios out of thin air. So obviously it can/does happen.
I actually was surprised that Mouse doesn't have All Creatures are Equal. I think that would have been much more elegant then Sacred Guardian.On the contrary, it is way more fitting this way. ACAEBG is an outside power, the white god is leveling the playing field for his champions. Sacred Guardian on the other hand is an inherent power of the Temple dogs, because of what they are and where they come from.
Templates represent canon archtypes.Hmm, I would have to disagree here. To me, the aspects (especially the high concept) represents the archetype. You usually are a "Warden of the White Council" or a "Werecat investigator" or things like that. The main traits of the archetype are defined in this concept. The reason I would not stop there, is that I would also allow things like "Wereparrot Wizard" or "Werewolf by night, Sylph changeling by day". They are not allowed if you strictly keep to the templates in the book, but they could be fun to play, so if a player would come to me and asked to play something like this, I would look at my toolbox (aka the powers list) to see how we may manage to realise such a concept.
I'm not saying that a reflavored power has to have the same description--just an equivalent one.
I meant in the books there's a part where Mouse does something that makes him able to hit supernatural creatures harder. The "like St. Elmo's Fire" just describes what it looks like.
There's got to be some reason that Nicodemus is scared of Mouse, and I doubt it's his ability to be an alarm clock on demand.
Sacred Guardian is less efficient
Restricting things to canon archetypes DOES NOT PRODUCE A BALANCED GAME. Wizards are far more powerful then other archetypes - four times a fight (much more with consequences and enchanted items), they can produce nearly any effect imaginable at 7 to 12+ shifts of power, depending on how they're built. Nobody can keep up with that combination of overwhelming power and freeform versatility except another wizard. White Court Vampires can destroy incredibly powerful enemies in a few exchanges with mental assaults; they get to ignore all Toughness powers and attack an area in which only dedicated spellcasters have a good defense (and even then, they have an offensive advantage). A shapeshifter can't keep up in combat with either of them, even with more room for stunts and powers. These are totally canon characters!
Are you trying to say that reflavouring can make a power stronger? Or is it that people who reflavour in ways that you dislike are playing wrong?I'm saying that powers, like the ability to completely negate any toughness power at the cost of only one fate point, should have adequate justification for working within the fiction. If the powers were meant to just be cost vs. effect, that's all that would be listed and the Sword of the Cross wouldn't come with a whole list of guidelines for how a character could and couldn't use it.
Because both are completely false.
But that has nothing to do with Sacred Guardian. Sacred Guardian cannot harm Nicodemus.I'm assuming that's just referring to the second line, otherwise I'd have to question why you think an ability Mouse has in the novels to hit things harder with his spiritual abilities has nothing to do with the ability on the Foo Dog's character sheet that lets them use their spiritual abilities to hit things harder.
(Swords Of The Cross can, though, which probably isn't how it is in the novels.)
I'm saying that powers, like the ability to completely negate any toughness power at the cost of only one fate point, should have adequate justification for working within the fiction. If the powers were meant to just be cost vs. effect, that's all that would be listed and the Sword of the Cross wouldn't come with a whole list of guidelines for how a character could and couldn't use it.
Other character types can compete with wizards. They're very strong, but not necessarily the strongest thing around. White Court Vampire is a weak template. Shapeshifters can be pretty hardcore.Spellcasters can be very powerful if given time to prepare. WCVamps can be very powerful psychic attackers, they can do it without prep and can do it all day long, whereas wizards have limited ammo. Shapeshifters run the gamut though; Beast Change type shifters aren't really all that powerful IMO, but True Shapeshifting and Modular Abilities are very versatile and loses only to spellcasters in terms of versatility but beat them hands down in terms of prep time and usage frequency.
Swords are Items of Power, which have agendas.Correction. All Creatures are Equal is a power that is part of the Sword of the Cross (and described as pretty much the whole purpose of the Sword of the Cross), which has an agenda.
All Creatures are Equal is a power, which does not.
Spellcasters can be very powerful if given time to prepare. WCVamps can be very powerful psychic attackers, they can do it without prep and can do it all day long, whereas wizards have limited ammo. Shapeshifters run the gamut though; Beast Change type shifters aren't really all that powerful IMO, but True Shapeshifting and Modular Abilities are very versatile and loses only to spellcasters in terms of versatility but beat them hands down in terms of prep time and usage frequency.
Correction. All Creatures are Equal is a power that is part of the Sword of the Cross (and described as pretty much the whole purpose of the Sword of the Cross), which has an agenda.
Or are you saying that you would allow someone to take a power that lets them completely ignore, at will, any and all supernatural toughness as well as mundane armor, without any justification beyond "I just can, okay?"
If all you need is to spend 3 refresh to be able to bypass every single defense in the game without consequence, restriction, or anything limiting its use beyond spending one fate point, then I ask you, why would anyone ever not take the power?
How do people feel about this approach?
Um, until Changes Harry had only had the Wizard Template - then (since Changes is beyond the game I'll spoiler it)I guess those are the only templates proper. He's also been(click to show/hide)
I don't lay out anything. I work with the players as they build and gain more Refresh. If something comes up that appears to be problematic, I talk about that specific thing.
I will even work with a player who wants to go outside template. If they want to start as a Wizard in a Chest-Deep game but eventually be cursed as a werewolf so they can play with Beast Change and the like, I'll work with them to arrange that. So long as they don't harm game balance and I can make narrative sense of it within the Dresdenverse (which, as a kitchen sink, is very easy - look at Harry, he's crossed at least five or six templates and maintained multiple of those at the same time) it's all fair game. Whatever's fun.
I guess those are the only templates proper. He's also been(click to show/hide)
What nickelhead template, Richard?
I thought you were of the opinion that the existence of custom templates equated to 'house rules'. Was there a miscommunication, here?
That's what I'm talking about. The power has to come from somewhere. Something powerful enough to let a mortal bring down a Dragon has to come from something extremely powerful.
If all you need is to spend 3 refresh to be able to bypass every single defense in the game without consequence, restriction, or anything limiting its use beyond spending one fate point, then I ask you, why would anyone ever not take the power?
Because 3 Refresh is the same cost as Thaumaturgy, or a bunch of cool Social Stunts, or Spirit Form? Not everyone is looking for what it does. It's not even useful to the average "hunter" character because you could get more effective abilities for dealing with lesser horrors for the same Refresh. It only really starts to pull its weight once we're talking Mythic levels of defense. It's a power I expect on dragonslayers, not everyone.
I like the latter point, I use it often to demonstrate that something is undercosted or unbalanced.Yes. It's unbalanced if you take it out of its normal context (used by an otherwise-non-powered Mortal, putting aside the Faith powers of the template because as I recall none of them affect damage or defense)
Which is what you've demonstrated here. (As stated before, the power needs to be prevented from being used with massive damage effects.)
But the former point is problematic. You see, what constitutes an appropriate justification for a power is not something that should be dictated. It should be left up to the people playing.Agreed. But it should still be there.
Would you allow someone to have ACaEBG with the justification that their attacks were actually aimed at the target's Fate? I would, it sounds cool.With an appropriate reason for how someone can actually aim at Fate, yes (probably some ancestry or sponsorship by a major deity of some kind).
Would you allow someone to have ACaEBG for no clear reason, with the source of the character's abilities intentionally mysterious? I would, it'd be a good plot hook.Definitely yes--but it should be in someone's mind where the power comes from, and the source of that power should come into play.
Definitely yes--but it should be in someone's mind where the power comes from, and the source of that power should come into play.
Not in one of my games. I'm fine with making something up later. And if it never comes up, then whatever. No damage has been done.
See, this sort of benign difference between players is the second-biggest problem with such narrative requirements. I'm not playing the game wrong here. The game shouldn't get in my way.
Bolded section: You may well be in the minority. Rules should not be written and costs changed just for your games. You can house rule the cost in your games if you like.
Underlined section: Not wrong, but very possibly contary to intent of creators. Please keep in mind I said possibly. Very much outside the setting the rules are based on.
Er, he's the one NOT advocating house rules - game as written, they're unnecessary. You would need a houserule and a setting alteration to STOP someone from taking ACaE on a Faerie Knight. I would suspect the majority of people use the game mechanics as designed and written, which would put Sanctaphrax in the majority.
No, it's perfectly in-setting. There is absolutely no narrative contradiction because it's just a power, it can be reskinned to model parts of the setting without changing anything.
I do not feel that is factual in all circumstances, even in the game. I know only Swords of the Cross have this function in the Dresdenverse. Therefore it is not canon setting the game is based on. I feel you express your opinion as fact. It is clearly not.
No you don't there could be all kind of Ultimate Weapons lying around the Dresden Verse that we haven't seen yet.
I know it as well as I know Harry Dresden is not a drug dealing murderer psychopath who targets schoolgirls.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,29901.msg1269254.html#msg1269254 (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,29901.msg1269254.html#msg1269254)
-Thanks Richard btw.
I know it as well as the fact that nicodemus is the only one with the Noose.
I know it as well as Ferrovax is the strongest of his kind.
I know it as well as I know the Laws of magic.
I know it as well as : etc etc etc (facts from novels insert here).
If it changes later, then sure, the setting and rules change...currently. My assessment is true.
But what you don't seem to know is that ACaE is a power. Anyone with 3 Refresh to spare can take it. That is factual, not anyone's opinions. It's rules as written. Your assessment is irrelevant; there's no canon on who might have a given generic power.
Well, technically, the 3 refresh cost was extrapolated from the swords write up, and is not RAW. Also, technically, you need at least 4 refresh, even if you could take it as a [-3] power.
But what you don't seem to know is that ACaE is a power. Anyone with 3 Refresh to spare can take it. That is factual, not anyone's opinions. It's rules as written. Your assessment is irrelevant; there's no canon on who might have a given generic power.
In order yes we know Nicodemus is the only one with the noose though we certainly don't know he is the only one with a invulnerability artifact (actually given how many ways there are to become invulnerable in Dresden files it seems unlikely).
As for Ferrovax is the strongest of his kind that is debatable given there is every hint that Drakul (Dragon) might by a Dragon and might be stronger or at least more menacing.
This is supposition. Not yet fact, may never be fact.
As for the laws of magic we have seen both the enforcement and the corruption directly in the books so yes we know it exists as far anyone know anything exists in the setting.
What we know about the Swords of the Cross is that they are very important holy artifacts which can equalize a fight between incredible powerful individuals nothing about that knowledge precludes the existence of other very important holy artifacts (Spear of Loginus, Angel Weapon etc) which fulfill a similar function, actually given what we know of the setting there are probably some very powerful relic of the outsider wars floating about somewhere which could even be more powerful than the swords.
Thank you. Then we also know every other statement written in the books as factual to the setting until something proves it otherwise.
You seem to like to ignore that text states many powers are designed for NPCs and may not be appropraite for PCs.
Why can't I assess things opposite to you? Because you don't like my viewpointor opinion?
You also seem to think that things that can exist on an item translate well to a character without an item to grant the power.
Therefore your assessments are equally irrelevant, in that they are opinions and interpretations of what you have read.
Thank you. Then we also know every other statement written in the books as factual to the setting until something proves it otherwise.
How conversations like this used to go:
Poster 1: I want to do this cool thing. What do folks think?
Poster 2: Well, it sounds like it wouldn't work for [insert reason]
Poster 1: Gosh. Well, how about this modified cool thing?
Poster 2: Well, I wouldn't allow it at my table, but this seems alright.
Poster 3: That's great! I want to use that.
My observation lately:
Poster 1: I want to do this cool thing. What do folks think?
Poster 2: Well, it sounds like it wouldn't work for [insert reason].
Poster 1: You are wrong! There is no rule specifically forbidding this cool thing!
Poster 2: Well, there wouldn't be. You can't write rules forbidding the infinite variety of things people can invent.
Poster 1: Then this cool thing is allowed by RAW by the fact that it isn't disallowed!
Poster 2: Well, no, it shouldn't be allowed because of [insert reason].
Poster 1: That's just setting and has no impact on mechanics! This cool thing is allowed by RAW!
Poster 2: Umm... why are you playing in this setting again?
[interminable argument]
Poster 1: Fine. How about this?
Poster 2: Well, I wouldn't allow it at my table, but this seems alright.
Poster 3: That's great! I want to use that.
My observation lately:
Poster 1: You are wrong! There is no rule specifically forbidding this cool thing!
Poster 2: Well, there wouldn't be. You can't write rules forbidding the infinite variety of things people can invent.
My observation lately:
Poster 2: Well, it sounds like it wouldn't work for [insert reason].
Poster 2: Umm... why are you playing in this setting again?
[interminable argument]
I think Our World has a sidebar somewhere along the lines of, "Hey, Zombies are only -8 refresh, does that mean I can play one?" "Not really. Just because it's possible to have positive refresh doesn't mean it has free will."
What text is this? The text quoted by Richard, which exists to actively enforce the reality that any power is appropriate for a PC if they want it? The text written to explain that clearly, lest anyone get the wrong idea that NPC-only powers existed? That text?
You can houserule differently, but that's literally all an IoP is. It's built with the same rules characters use.
For example, that a wizard can take True Shapeshifting orActually, in the RAW wizards cannot take True Shapeshifting. Assigning True Shapeshifting was a work around suggestion from Fred when Small Favors came out. A "the rules don't allow someone to do that, so you can adopt them this way to reflect the change in canon" type thing.(click to show/hide)
I am pretty certain the debate hasn't been about custom powers (I have made a fair few broken power I am not defending them) but powers the Dev's built themselves which should be balanced.
What I'm going at is that there are some powers that were written with NPCs in mind. I'm basing it off of this sentence:
"the GM will be looking at this chapter when building creatures and foes to oppose the PCs—and in some games, she might even see a few “typically NPC” powers she’d be entirely happy to let the players get access to."
- which clearly implies that in most games (as opposed to some) she won't.
- even in the games where she sees a few powers she's happy to allow the PCs to, "few" implies that that there are many such powers that she won't let the players have access to.
Feel free to PM me with your opinion if you feel it is too offensive for the board. I'd like to know what problem you have with the above argument.
Richard
Jim's canon is not important. There's seriously no good reason for it to matter.
You put far too much stock in implication. If it's not stated outright, it probably isn't a rule.
Wizards can certainly take True Shapeshifting, even when using templates. They just need a second template. I suggest calling it Druid, after the D&D class.
Jim's canon is not important. There's seriously no good reason for it to matter.
We once again run into the setting verses the hard mechanics debate. That sidebar makes it clear that there are “typically NPC” powers. The rules only explicitly identify one such power (Greater Glamour), but there are others that would be covered by the "Look but don’t touch?" sidebar.
In short, the game is completely dependent on the setting and as Jim changes the setting (rapid shapeshifting in Small Favors) it affects the game (Fred saying to use Shapeshifting to simulate the power - and explaining it as internalised Thaumaturgy rituals).
Query: where in the RAW does it allow you to take multiple Templates? There's some text on switching templates - Changeling to Pure Mortal, Pure Mortal to something else - but nothing on having more than one template at a time.
Yes, that sidebar makes it clear that there are "typically NPC" powers in the same breath that it makes clear that PCs can have them. Keep that in context at all times: that is the sidebar that says PCs can have those powers. You keep using language to talk about it that creates false implications nowhere extant in the text. Refer to your own post if need be, but you're getting way off course with that.
No, the game is not dependent on the setting. No, changes to the setting do not affect the game as it exists. Where are you getting this? Because Fred thought up a way using the existing rules to model something players wanted?
YS 72: "It may be possible to combine some of these templates, if you can afford each template’s musts. However, it will be rare that those costs work out. We haven’t seen a Wizard-Lycanthrope-Red-Court-Infected-Changelingpotamus in Harry’s casefiles, and you certainly won’t see one as a playable character in this game. For good reason—bring that much mashed-up mojo to bear in one character and you’re on a fast train to negative refreshville."
Also, while I'm on YS 72:
"Regardless, while the [template] choices listed here are hardly the only ones available in the Dresdenverse, they represent what we think are the best options for the would-be heroes of your game world. Enjoy!"
There. Game designer intent AND latitude to design new templates.
I've never said that new templates were not allow.
But I'll never know what your group wrote for a custom template for X, and that may not be (well, probably won't be) identical to what another group wrote for X.
Which is another way of saying the RAW is the only common ground we have for that discussion.
If someone says "Can I take Evocation, ACaE, and Domination on one character" you can say with absolute confidence "Yes, either play a Scion or make a template for it" and then maybe add helpful things like "but ACaE doesn't mix very well with Evocation or things like Inhuman Strength, so here are some alternatives your GM might prefer" or "but Domination is difficult to use in actual play, if you want mind-invading powers you might find a modification of Incite Emotion more your speed".
And here is where the community comes in.
You *could* say yes, but you, as a GM, are not obligated to.
Edit: also, to make sure I'm crystal clear on this - are folks advocating lifting the ACaEBG trapping from the Sword of the Cross and treating it as a -3 Refresh power? Or just making an alternate version of the Sword of the Cross (like the Spear of Longinus)?
Both, actually. "Alternate version" also includes artifacts not powered by the White God - a tooth of Ferrovax, an Unmaking from a Faerie Mother, the scythe of Death, et cetera.
Yeah, alternate versions, maybe. Trying to untangle elements from the Sword of the Cross and make something else? I'd have to see your math first.
Edit: excuse me, your RAW math.
True Aim and ACaEBG have a combined cost of -4 Refresh. True Aim must be at least -1 and thus ACaEBG cannot be higher then -3. Given that True Aim is exactly designed (notably more powerful then a stunt, but with two moderate drawbacks, must use *that* weapon and must be in accordance with purpose) according to the RAW guideline for building a -1 power, assigning the remaining -3 to ACaEBG is logical.
But honestly, even if canon was important, I'm not really sure what it would have to do with the topic at hand here.
We are treating ACaEBG as a -3 Refresh Power because given the -5 cost for IoPs and the presence of Holy and True Aim, that's the cost that makes the most sense. It could also be a -4 Refresh Power if you think that Holy is free, but that's not terribly relevant right now.
Also, narrative balance is a terrible thing. Warden Swords, honestly, are more narrative than I like.
No, they have a combined Refresh of -5 (as Sanctaphrax points out).
Also, the "Divine Purpose" trapping is a clear limitation, but provides no listed deduction. So the isolated Refresh value of ACaEBG could be as high as -4 to -6.
Also, some of these things were balanced based on narrative impact and not just point balance. Do you know why Warden Swords are Enchanted Items and not Items of Power? Because no Warden could afford them otherwise.
No, Warden Swords are Enchanted Items because someone wasn't paying attention during editing. They make no sense within the rules.
Bold statement.
Is that sort of restriction worth +1? +3? Because each point of refresh it is worth is another that can be added to the cost of ACaeBG.
Richard
You can't dismiss a rule you don't like as "someone wasn't paying attention." Especially when they clearly were, as evidenced by the margin comments addressing your exact complaint.
It's my most charitable interpretation of how that passed printing.
Wow if we assumed the purpose thing was worth a rebate (a disadvantage which isn't all that disadvantageous for the sort of character that would own such a weapon) and you applied it to other IoP that could be quite broken especially the +3 (+5 total rebate more than the difference in refresh between the weakest and the strongest template). I like that idea a lot ;)
It doesn't say that you can't assign a positive refresh to represent a bargain that dramatically limits who can and cannot use it...
But you see the sort of person who would have the sword would also be the sort of person who could use it, so the refresh rebate would give a massive bonus merely for playing in character.
It's my most charitable interpretation of how that passed printing.I think, and I know this might be a long shot, that the writers figured the players and GMs could look at something called the Warden Sword, the description about how they're in short supply and made for the Wardens, by a powerful Warden, and conclude that you'd have to be a Warden to use one.
The sidebar isn't even helpful. "Comes with job responsibilities" except it doesn't, no Must: Aspect or note that only Wardens can have them. They're limited in supply and only get GIVEN to Wardens. Great. But Wardens die, lose things, offer their loved ones some tangible form of protection...there's another bit of commentary I really wish had a rule attached.
"I'm part of an ancient order of riflemages who get AK-47s that make Weapon:12 attacks against any three zones of my choosing."Also, can we please avoid this needless, ridiculous hyperbole and at least take it as a given that we're intelligent enough that we wouldn't allow something so utterly broken and, again, ridiculous?
...
By RAW it's there, yes. Can't fight city hall. Warden Swords for every PC with Channeling or better. Just note that you found one or killed a Warden or made out with a Warden or whatever.
Also, can we please avoid this needless, ridiculous hyperbole and at least take it as a given that we're intelligent enough that we wouldn't allow something so utterly broken and, again, ridiculous?Can we not? I'd allow it.
I'm looking at the stated mechanics behind the power.
Speaking of the point cost, how many positive refresh is Divine Purpose worth?
It is what it is. It's in the book, it's RAW. You don't have to like it, but if the RAW drum gets beat, it gets beat for those, too.
If you assign a mechanical value to a narrative decision, then everyone ought to make that decision. So you don't do that, ever, unless you're trying to force people in a certain direction for some reason.
That isn't mechanics, it's fluff. There are no rules associated with it.
Thing is, even though it's an altered version of FATE, it's still FATE. There are many setting elements, but the core of it is still a generic system. Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Eberron, etc are all sperate games, but in the end use a generic system.
See, I don't particularly like the Warden Sword. But I understand the reason for the way it was made, I think. (And no, it's not overpowered to balance out the job requirements. Harry has those with no Sword.)Yeah, but that's Harry. The world exists to make his life painful. Him having the responsibilities without the sword is just another symptom of that.
The Warden Sword is probably the way it is in order to push people in the direction of being a sword-swinging Warden. It kind of has to be overpowered to do so, because taking Weapons on a character with Evocation is not a great idea.Inasmuch as the sword is part of what sets a Warden apart from your average Wizard, yes. Though I'd also add that it's probably the way it is to reflect (as nearly as possible) its affect in the stories.
If you take it as a precedent, then the whole thing collapses. Which is part of why I dislike the thing.Depends on what you're taking as precedent. If the precedent is "A wizard can have a really powerful enchanted item without the stats to justify it," yes, that's bad. But if the precedent is, "A wizard can have a really powerful enchanted item without the stats to justify it, provided a very good reason for that item," that's not so bad.
Honestly, once again I feel compelled to suggest that if a problem arises from taking a power or item out of its narrative context, the thing to do would be not to take it out of that narrative context.
Thing is, even though it's an altered version of FATE, it's still FATE. There are many setting elements, but the core of it is still a generic system. Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Eberron, etc are all sperate games, but in the end use a generic system.
Depends on what you're taking as precedent. If the precedent is "A wizard can have a really powerful enchanted item without the stats to justify it," yes, that's bad. But if the precedent is, "A wizard can have a really powerful enchanted item without the stats to justify it, provided a very good reason for that item," that's not so bad.
Honestly, once again I feel compelled to suggest that if a problem arises from taking a power or item out of its narrative context, the thing to do would be not to take it out of that narrative context.
Alright. Can you provide an example of an RPG in which the setting and game system ARE completely intertwined, so we know how to draw a difference between that and DFRPG?
They spent seven years rewriting FATE to produce a game that could model the DV - that's not a generic system but one modeled around a specific setting.
In this setting, I tend to agree, despite assertions that a system and a setting are and/or need to be considered separate entities.
Exalted.
A long development cycle does not make a game non-generic. What about the system is modelled around the setting? I can think of the Lawbreaker powers and that's about it. Maybe Addictive Saliva or the Warden Sword? But those are all kind of tacked-on.
If your Lore is +3 and you want a Warden Sword, you can make an enchanted item that functions as a Weapon:3 and counterspell +3. That's fair. The +6 for literally no drawback or downside of any kind is not.
@Richard: Not convinced that that stuff is actually Dresden-specific. That's exactly how I'd go about converting FATE to a generic supernatural game. But I admit, I'm biased.
All I can say is that if FATE Generic Urban Fantasy was what they were aiming at the game would have been out in 2006.
Richard
I'm sure they spent a lot of time editorializing about the Dresdenverse and statting up canon NPCs. And I'm sure that Dresdenverse canon had an effect on what Powers were included in the core book. But the system itself is almost completely setting-agnostic.
You can tell because you can use another setting with the system, without significantly changing the rules.
Not sure I see your point here.
Storyteller and d20 are, without a shadow of a doubt, generic systems. So's GURPS. Not sure what MEGS is so I won't comment on that.
I'm not trying to say that DFRPG is more generic than d20 or anything. It's probably more generic than D&D, though. Non-D&D d20 games use significantly different rules, right?
But not every system can be used for everything. Using Exalted to play the Dresdenverse would be a resounding failure. Using d20 to play a game of politics wouldn't work all that well. Using Unknown Armies to play your standard D&D setting would be awful.
Every system has limits. A generic system is one with few. And this one has few.
I guess what I'm saying, is that in my opinion. Games with fewer limits do indeed fit more settings and genres. Certain systems fit certain settings/genres better than others. I think DFRPG fits the Dresdenverse better than many things people try to apply it to.
Prove it.
Or at least provide some piece of evidence for what you just said.
Because all you have there is blind assertion.
I provided evidence, pretty good evidence. That's what you do when full proof is impossible.
You're welcome to use the setting material and adapt it however you see fit. But please, let's avoid making this a thread about bitching about systems. 99% of the Internet is for that (and is about that, honestly); let's make this place the 1%.
Could you explain the quote? I don't follow it's relevance.
Anyway, Tedronai is right; a long development cycle does not mean that a game is non-generic.
But the long time taken to modify SotC does mean (assuming that nothing weird is going on) that at least one of SotC and DFRPG is non-generic.
I posit that the one is SotC, which so far as I can tell does not model supernatural powers very well. I'm still in the process of reading it, though, so I could be surprised.
SotC also seems flawed in a few other ways. It feels more rigid than DFRPG. So far, DFRPG seems like an improvement. Which makes sense, since it was made by people who were undoubtedly looking to improve upon the failings of SotC.
Prove it.Was this responding to my post? If so, I'm surprised that it isn't fairly self-evident. It seems silly to try to offer "proof" of this, however, if you insist:
Or at least provide some piece of evidence for what you just said.
Because all you have there is blind assertion.
Fate is a story-oriented roleplaying game system. Though it is a full-fledged standalone system, Fate can also be incorporated into a variety of popular roleplaying systems.
Because Fate is designed to be plugged into a setting and reflect its specifics...One might also look at the multiple sample magic systems, each tailored to different game worlds, as evidence. Interestingly, one of them ("Interpretive Magic: Sorcery on a Budget") is evidently a (very) early prototype of a Dresden-style magic system.
So, this game is built on a free core system called Fate (www.faterpg.com). It seems a good choice—flexible, dramatic, fairly popular, FREE. Rather than reinvent the wheel, we figured we’d just modify the hell out of it for our purposes.
the Dresden Files ROL E P L A Y ING G AME(Note: I'm not responsible for the formatting except for the bolding, other than that I just cut-n-pasted it exactly as it appears in the PDF.)
Whether you’re a champion of God, changeling, vampire, werewolf, wizard, or plain “vanilla” mortal human being, this volume of The Dresden Files RPG gives you all the rules you need to build characters and tell your own stories in the Dresdenverse.
Together with Volume Two: Our World, The Dresden Files RPG: Your Story gives you everything you need to make your own adventures in the thrilling and dangerous world of New York Times best-selling author Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files series!
Based on The Dresden Files Books by Jim Butcher
In a roleplaying game (or RPG), you and the rest of the group imagine fictional scenarios and events, and then play them out. Because this is the Dresdenverse, these scenarios will involve solving or resolving supernaturally-related crimes or problems in a city of your choice—it could be your home town, it could be some place you’ve never been.
•Additional material “genericized” from the Dresden Files RPG
Evil Hat has released the first version of Fate 3.0 in the form of Spirit of the Century, and has also released The Dresden Files RPG. Both feature major revisions to the system, and will lead to a release of a revised core rule-set, which we hope to provide — free as always — once the Dresden Files RPG is completed, on the Official FateRPG Website.And, if you go all the way back to the initial launch of the dresdenfilesrpg website, back in 2004, you find that the intention of the DFRPG has been to provide a setting-specific game all along:
The Dresden Files RPG is scheduled for release in the(Note: Clearly there are several facts contained in that sentence that have since proved inaccurate, but the intention stated is clear.)summer of 2006. Fred Hicks and Rob Donoghue, the co-designers of Fate, will write the game. Thesingle core bookwill provide all players will need and more, to run their own games in the setting.
Oh, and if SotC is so generic, how would it handle the Dresdenverse? Because that's how you test this stuff. I'm fairly certain that DFRPG can do the SotC-style pulp stuff without issue, so if SotC can't do the same back then that makes DFRPG the generic game.
One last try:
Name all the settings out there with Knights of the Cross whose swords work the way the ones in the DV do. That is, they channel the belief christian around the world to Make All Creatures Equal... Wait, I forgot that you completely disregard anything that isn't in the rules section.
DnD Paladins do this. They Smite Evil, channeling the power of Good to smash Evil's face in.
In Exalted, Solars do this. They have access to Holy effects, which deal aggravated damage to Creatures of Darkness and can pierce some of their defenses.
In (new) World of Darkness, blessed objects are one of the few weapons effective against ghosts. Blessed objects and ghosts are the only supernatural elements statted out in the core book.
Knights of the Cross are just about as generic as you can get, actually. They're just guys with holy swords, one of the oldest tropes in the book from which ideas like the paladin first gestated. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HolyHandGrenade Here's an article on people who use that kind of mechanic from various forms of media.
Terry Pratchett God's function like that, so do a lot of God's in fantasy settings (God's being an exponent of belief), the Emperor in 40k derives a massive amount of power from the worship he receives every day. Doctor Who used an exponent of massed belief to will the master away (don't know how that work didn't ask) and the are numerous other settings where belief equals power (Wrath of the Titans film recently).
And while it is true that the Knights of the Cross draw on a variety of pre-existing tropes, all of which have been identified, that does not make them "generic."
Holy Knights who wield the power of God are generic according to Richard (I think sorry if I am misinterpreting your statement) in the Dresden Files setting Belief = Power and there is some hints that a God's power comes from the belief people have in them, therefor using the power of people's belief in a God is the same as using that God's power.
How would it handle generic Urban Fantasy? With stunt trees. There is character that is hundreds (if not thousands) of years old who disproves thing mathematical - causing them to disappear. The SotS book has a couple of wizard types. There's a character who commands dinosaurs to do his bidding - living Sues, not zombie ones.
It can be done - but using that system doesn't capture the flavour of...
I could go on, but why? You reject every statement out of hand. Even when Becq various parts of the rulebook you rejected that with little comment...
Wait, I forgot that you completely disregard anything that isn't in the rules section.
Hmm... Since you reject all the setting material as meaningless fluff, you reject all the things that tie the powers to the DV.
PS: I don't consider setting material to be meaningless at all and I'm kind of suprised that anyone thinks that I do. Seriously, what gives you that impression?
If it isn't specified in the actual mechanic of a thing (be it a power or another thing), then it's not part of the mechanics. Which means that it has no bearing on discussions like this one.
Maybe I'm misreading things, but when I read your posts I often see you saying that if a part of the setting not specified in the actual mechanic of a power then it is irrelevant. That having it mentioned elsewhere in the book doesn't count.
...especially since this isn't, for example, an OGL game in which certain rules and artifacts are highlighted as either OGL or proprietary.Isn't it? (http://www.faterpg.com/2011/some-new-additions-to-fates-open-content/) My understanding is Evil Hat intends to distil DFRPG into an open FATE 3. They've got a fairly good start.
And that's why I feel you "consider setting material to be meaningless".
The full write up for ACAEBG does not exist. It was not included in the rules. We can guess at the power costs (because it's included in an IoP) but those are only guesses. I think that the RAW suggests that items that have the ACAEBG power:
1) Can only be wielded by a "Righteous man" (i.e. someone with the Champion of God template) OR by playing a FATE chip to temporarily use the IoP.
2) Should only exist in Earth moving IoPs such as the Swords.
These limitations are not explicitly stated in the RAW because the power does not have its own writeup. If it did, then I believe that it would have those extra crunchy bits added - much like how the RAW say that Warden Swords can only be made by Luccio.
But if you want to look at powers away from the setting, then here's a question about Thaumaturgy:
How many Thaumaturgy steps does a wizard need to repair the damaged caused by Domination in order to return a Renfield to his old self?
Personally, I'd say that you can't, that no human has the knowledge or power to do either. It might be that certain ancient and powerful Fae know how to do that, but the most legendary wizard in history (the original Merlin, founder of the White Council) couldn't do it nor could any of the Saints who have tried.
The setting material says it can't be done (any more than an angel can exercise freewill) but the rules for Thaumaturgy is silent on the matter. If you feel that the silence means that it can be done, then we are back to why I feel that you "consider setting material to be meaningless".
Richard
The full write up for ACAEBG does not exist. It was not included in the rules. We can guess at the power costs (because it's included in an IoP) but those are only guesses. I think that the RAW suggests that items that have the ACAEBG power:
1) Can only be wielded by a "Righteous man" (i.e. someone with the Champion of God template) OR by playing a FATE chip to temporarily use the IoP.
2) Should only exist in Earth moving IoPs such as the Swords.
These limitations are not explicitly stated in the RAW because the power does not have its own writeup. If it did, then I believe that it would have those extra crunchy bits added - much like how the RAW say that Warden Swords can only be made by Luccio.
Isn't it? (http://www.faterpg.com/2011/some-new-additions-to-fates-open-content/) My understanding is Evil Hat intends to distil DFRPG into an open FATE 3. They've got a fairly good start.
Anyway...ACaEBG says nothing about being usable only by righteous people or by people with Items Of Power. This might just be because it was left out, but that's unimportant because the balance problems with ACaEBG have nothing to do with people who are not righteous or not using Items Of Power. They have to do with using sources of extra damage.
PS: What does the OGL have to do with anything?
Looking at the front of the DFRPG:
There is an open game license - but:
I'm of the agreement that ACAEBG isn't a power. It's a trapping of a power. The power is "Sword of the Cross."Read the Item of Power entry in the Powers section, and get back to us when you're espousing a position that is not patently absurd.
The RAW gives a trapping of an IoP that can only be used by those with a pure heart (and linked to the Champion of God Template) that is fueled by focusing the Faith of billions. That's the ACaEBG I'm taking about. Dismissing all of those linked thing is what breaks the power.
Your approach would be sensible, but it's not compatible with the rules we have.
How much does it cost to do what with an Aspect and an IoP?
And what I said in your quote doesn't actually have anything to do with ACaEBG. It has to do with the way that Items Of Power work.
Simply possessing the Item of Power is not enough to use the abilities. Rules just be followed, bargains must be made.
Aspects are generally free.
Glamours does not work that way.A fairy can't cast a Seeming on a beacon to make it look like the Holy Grail?
Also, there's no solid reason to believe that faith is the only way to get a Sword-like item. The Swords got their power that way, but another item could get its power another way.
And I reiterate: the problem here has nothing to do with the narrative behind ACaEBG. A saintly Christian hero has the exact same problems with the power's balance as everyone else does.
Permanent aspects that you can tag are generally free on equipment?Insofar as there is no mechanic in the RAW whatsoever that costs refresh in exchange for the mere existence of an aspect.
A fairy can't cast a Seeming on a beacon to make it look like the Holy Grail?For a certain value of 'the Holy Grail', they could. However, whether that 'looks like the object of a quest' or not would be in the eye of the beholder.
Which is why some of us embrace templates so closely. Without them you have "My HC is a Guy with Claws and ACaEBG" type characters running around.And any GM worth their salt will demand a more flavourful and sensible character concept than that.
And you can't tag those aspects. Tagging does not work that way.
What other faiths have Billion+ believers AND a link to something like the crucifixion (with the nails) to focus their belief?
Three saintly heroes in the world can use that power - which is why they are on the heavy hitter chart. They don't have to be Christian - agnostic will do as long as they are men (or women) of Faith.
A narrative that says: "There are up to three people in the world who can use this power, only in the cause of good, and only if they've first invested 5 refresh in the Champion of God template before buying that IoP." is a sever limit on the power.
Which is why some of us embrace templates so closely. Without them you have "My HC is a Guy with Claws and ACaEBG" type characters running around.
Why would you need any of that? Items of Power need impressive stories, sure, but the devotion of a lone Sikh who tempered a blade to save his family in his own heartsblood sounds sufficient. Part of the reason the Swords have so much behind them, in my opinion, is because they're cop-outs. They don't HAVE stories. They're just normal swords with a nail forged in, and the story of the nail doesn't relate to their purpose at all. The combined mass of Abrahamic faith is necessary to compensate for how mundane they are.
Well, an infinite number of people can use them, actually. Every PC and NPC can have an IoP which is, mechanically, a Sword - even if ACaEBG isn't costed, the entire package is. Heck, you can make an eight-armed Scion of Durga who octowields Sword-equivalent items in the shape of different weapons.
So, there's no limit on the power beyond its attachment to the Swords, and even that is negotiable given that we know the effect can exist for somewhere between 0 and 4 Refresh.
I'm not sure if you've been following the discussion. To reiterate: The RAW say that the Swords work as focus items - focusing the faith of those who believe in the crucifixion.
And the Nail is the focus and power source of the blade.
No, not everyone can use them. If you can't hit this mental state: "may only be swung with true selfless purpose in mind and heart; if this is not the case, the bond between the Knight and the Sword is broken and may only be restored by undergoing some sort of trial of faith."
then you can't use one. Personally, I think that the vast majority of the world's population couldn't swing a sword without hatred (or at least revenge) in their hearts - meaning that they couldn't use it.
Do we? Personally, until/unless we see the breakout I'm of the opinion that there are prerequisites to use the blade and that the ACaEBG "power" exists only in the Swords of the Cross. That's what makes them so special.
Richard
I'm not sure if you've been following the discussion. To reiterate: The RAW say that the Swords work as focus items - focusing the faith of those who believe in the crucifixion.
And the Nail is the focus and power source of the blade.
No, not everyone can use them. If you can't hit this mental state: "may only be swung with true selfless purpose in mind and heart; if this is not the case, the bond between the Knight and the Sword is broken and may only be restored by undergoing some sort of trial of faith."
then you can't use one. Personally, I think that the vast majority of the world's population couldn't swing a sword without hatred (or at least revenge) in their hearts - meaning that they couldn't use it.
Do we? Personally, until/unless we see the breakout I'm of the opinion that there are prerequisites to use the blade and that the ACaEBG "power" exists only in the Swords of the Cross. That's what makes them so special.
Richard
In my example, the sword is still the focus - focusing the extreme love and devotion and desire to protect his family possessed by our unknown Sikh; his heartsblood invigorates and empowers the blade. Why would that not be good enough? IoPs can be made at the whim of random gods or sidhe or your player character if you really work for it.
We're in a fantasy gaming environment, and you're allowed to have aspects like PURE AND SELFLESS HEART. So every single PC and NPC could use one, yes. I doubt that such games are run very often (although it could be interesting: DnD's Blood War with Evil switched to Good meets Stepford Wives kind of thing?) but they're possible. I grant not likely.
But I'm illustrating the extreme of the range because it's important to understand its full scope. To use a more reasonable example, the PCs form a seven-man Blessed Scooby Gang each wielding a Sword-equivalent attuned to one of the seven holy virtues, and their antagonists include a demonic Knight Templar who dual-wields Sword-equivalents which require the same devotion to evil that regular Swords require to good.
I mean, you can hold that opinion, but it's unsubstantiated. We can't definitively say it's X Refresh, but we know what range it's in, and we know the effect is allowable and has no Musts, which provides a strong basis for argument.
Having re-read the item of power section in Your Story the raw doesn't actually say anything about the sword of the cross being a focus for mass-belief (well at least not in the IoP section).YS page 278
YS page 278
Bob:This is a good cursory breakdown, William, and it’s probably good enough for the layman, but there are things that fall between the cracks. My skull, for example, is technically an enchanted item—it’s just meant to store my energy, instead of a spell. And then there are the Swords of the Cross, which are—conceptually speaking—just very powerful foci.
Billy: I thought the Swords were like an artifact or something?
Bob: Well, consider what you can channel when your power source is the faith of all Christians—and possibly other faiths as well—on the face of the earth.
Billy: Uh… I think you just broke my brain.
Richard
You would think if this was supposed to affect the IoP in any mechanical way it would be in the IoP section rather than another section entirely in an easily missed side box.
Actually it kind of sides with my argument in the begging of this post that the fluff of power and the mechanics
You'd think that if ACaEBG was mean to be a power that anyone could take (as opposed to something specific for the Swords) they would have written it as a power - complete with costs and the rest.
We are back to the "fluff" vs "mechanics". I maintain that since DFRPG was written to model the DV that the "Fluff" is either equally or more important than the mechanics. That the entire two books are the RAW, not isolated portions of them. You hold the opposing view.
I've explained my position and I understand yours. Is there anything more to say on this subject?
Richard
I agree these threads do seem an exercise in futility as you cannot persuade someone who believes themselves right and isn't willing to compromise as a point of principal.
Adam
Here are your problems, Richard:
1. You seem to think that the problems with ACaEBG come from taking it out of the Sword. They don't. Even if you make ACaEBG require all the other powers and narrative elements of the Sword, the balance problems are still there.
2. You have conflated a passing mention of the Swords being faith-powered into a rule stating that all Sword-like items must be powered by massive Faith.
3. You seem to believe that the Rules As Written includes things that are not rules.
4. You seem to believe that anything that does not exist within the canon of the Dresden Files is contrary to the RAW. Which is preposterous, since that makes following the RAW into an impossibility. After all, your PCs probably aren't going to be canon characters. And if they are, then they won't re-enact the canon stories.
Regardless of whether the rules are world-specific, the world is still not the rules.
Amusingly enough, I vaguely recall an explicit allowance for multiple Summer Knights in the RAW. I'll see if I can track it down.
I don't understand statements that boil down to "this debate is pointless, we should end it". Obviously neither of us believes that, since if we did we would not be here.
What I'm trying to say is that I strongly doubt that I will change your mind during this discuss or that you will change mine. I have pointed to various parts of the books, you have disregarded them. Just as I disregard your implied assertion that the DFRPG is a generic game that happens to loosely linked to the DV.
The problem is that one position (ignoring the DV where it exists outside DFRPG) is supported by the game book.
...gives you all the rules you need to build characters and tell your own stories in the Dresdenverse. Inside, you’ll uncover the secrets of spellcasting, the extents of mortal and supernatural power, and the hidden occult reality of the unfamiliar city you call home.
Together with Volume Two: Our World, The Dresden Files RPG: Your Story gives you everything you need to make your own adventures in the thrilling and dangerous world of New York Times best-selling author Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files series!
(Richard's side vs Viatos side [these two people are not being picked on, they simply seem to be quite vocal and it was easier than listing every name on both sides fo the debate, I can edit later if you all like...no offense was intended])
I feel both sides are unwilling to budge nor compromise, not just one.
I wholeheartedly agree with this point.
Richard
But it's literally undebateable, you can't make a logical argument that DFRPG extends beyond the purchased product any more then you can make a logical argument that the Dresdenverse also extends to Star Wars and thus Jar Jar Binks is part of Jim Butcher's canon.
But you can make that argument by citing the rulebook. Specifically, some of the places where it says that the game is set in the DV.
Name of the Game: Dresden Files RPG
Cover:Whether you’re a champion of God, changeling, vampire, werewolf, wizard, or plain “vanilla” mortal human being, this volume of The Dresden Files RPG gives you all the rules you need to build characters and tell your own stories in the Dresdenverse. Inside, you’ll uncover the secrets of spellcasting, the extents of mortal and supernatural power, and the hidden occult reality of the unfamiliar city you call home.
Together with Volume Two: Our World, The Dresden Files RPG: Your Story gives you everything you need to make your own adventures in the thrilling and dangerous world of New York Times best-selling author Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files series!
Pg 8: I Want to Learn…
…about the Dresdenverse: see Chapter 1 and maybe Chapter 12 in Your Story and, well, all of Our World.
Pg 10: the heading of Harry's World, then the Maxims of the Dresdenverse, and basically the entire chapter.
I could go on, but if can you look at those references and "We aren't playing in the DV" then what's the point of me pasting more and more lines of text?
Table X has purchased Your Story and Our World. No one at Table X has read a Jim Butcher novel. They own a complete game and may play it in a complete fashion. They have 100% of the RAW. This is what you want to debate, but it can't be challenged, and I don't understand your DESIRE to do so. It helps no one and only serves to detract from the value of the product.
When it is put this way, then I have to disagree: as I mentioned in the other thread, it would be a bad precedent to establish that playing DFRPG requires reading the entire series.
It's not a generic game. It is a licensed product set in Jim's world.
Why do you think it isn't?
I have never said that you need to know the entire series before you can play
It is a licensed product set in Jim's world.Actually, I think it's a product licensing some of Jim B's material to create a setting in our world. Hence the titles of the two RPG books. ;)
(I don't, but that's another issue.)
I really like that term. Is there something wrong with it?
We have different values here. I consider the game to be generic because I consider the Dresdenverse to be a generic urban fantasy setting.
This is the problem, because actually yes, you are taking that position.
You're attempting to use novel canon to dictate game rules, and even worse, you're attempting to refer to such canon as RAW when it's not even part of the DFRPG. This is a really bad thing because it's totally untrue and very confusing for people reading the forums to have to parse.
When you stop using the acronym RAW to refer to things that are not even in the DFRPG, let alone rules text, and stop referencing novels as substitutes for the game's actual mechanics, this problem will go away.
Richard, the cover text there shows that the game can be used for the DV. It does not show that the game cannot be used for anything else.
Which is pointless, because we all know that. The question of whether the system can be used for other settings has gone completely un-addressed by you.
So I have to admit, I have trouble taking your arguments seriously.
Actually, I think it's a product licensing some of Jim B's material to create a setting in our world. Hence the titles of the two RPG books. ;)
I do tend to think the books can be useful adjuncts to discussion - but they're not rules. They're setting background. Flavor text...fluff if you prefer that term. (I don't, but that's another issue.)
Yeah, it promotes the idea that such information is easily dismissed, or unimportant to the game. It casts a divisive shadow on any discussion in which there is some conflict along setting/mechanics lines, and it feeds into the misconception that there are two kinds of role-players in the gaming community.
What's wrong with fluff? Fluff is comfy!
One of us has read the OGL in regards to Jim's work.And another one of us read the RPG books...and titles. ;)
And I feel that if it can happen in the books then the rules can (and should) be stretched so it can happen in the game. That they rule out certain things while encouraging others.I think that's a good starting point. Once the game begins it takes priority for me. Or perhaps more correctly, our game will end up being our interpretation and expression of the Dresdenverse. It's no longer Jim's or Fred's version, it's our groups' version.
That the game exists to model the books.
But I have a feeling that this unending bickering is leading nowhere. I know I'll never convince some people how utterly wrong they are, just as I know that they are not going to shift me from my position. So why don't we let this argument die a natural death and get on with life?I agree with the latter statement but I don't understand the need to call one 'wrong' just because you differ. They're simply different.
I really like that term. Is there something wrong with it?It carries a connotation of 'less important' or 'afterthought'. "Something of no consequence" is one of the definitions.
I think that's a good starting point. Once the game begins it takes priority for me. Or perhaps more correctly, our game will end up being our interpretation and expression of the Dresdenverse. It's no longer Jim's or Fred's version, it's our groups' version.
I agree with the latter statement but I don't understand the need to call one 'wrong' just because you differ. They're simply different.
Setting elements are not rules, and nobody except you is talking about them here.
Anita Blake does not fit in the DV.
I've stated my position openly. Please quote the message where I said you had to read all the novels.
Your problem is that you refuse to accept that the Dresden Files RPG is based in the DV.
So why don't we let this argument die a natural death and get on with life?
If you want to be taken seriously, it's important to know to whom you're speaking and what it is they've written. For instance, if you read the post to which you are replying, you'd understand how silly saying this makes you look. I suspect this persistent belief you've got going on is falsely attributed to me after you saw someone else write it while skimming.
Furthermore, nobody except maybe vultur really seems to believe that the problems with ACaEBG are anything but real.
@vultur: It's actually less powerful with Claws than with the Sword, since the Sword is probably weapon 3 and Claws are only weapon 2.
The problem is that a Sword + Strength/a stunt makes for attacks that absolutely nothing can survive a hit from without consequences. Armour doesn't work, extra stress boxes don't work, Immunity doesn't work, nothing works.
Some sort of cost-scaling mechanism might balance out the power, though, just as you suggest. Perhaps you could make something like that?
I do know who I am taking to.
Maybe you should re-read your own messages as you continue to insist that elements of the setting (the "fluff" as some call it) are not what the rules are trying to reflect.
If something has been established as an element of the DV then is part of the setting - and is something that the rules reflect.
For example: angels lack freewill, the Swords of the Cross are powered by focusing the belief of billions, etc.
You reject those elements as (to paraphrase) "not part of the rules" when in many ways they are the game.
In short, "Your problem is that you refuse to accept that the Dresden Files RPG is based in the DV."
No, Richard. That won't do at all, I'm afraid. You're wrong and you're confused.
The DFRPG is based in the DV, and represents a complete subset with known content which remains internally consistent regardless of how the external DV changes and expands. The only thing that affects DFRPG is DFRPG content, which includes select material taken from the DV by Evil Hat. If it's not part of the game, it's not part of the game, unless and until it's added by homebrew or by future Evil Hat releases. I hope this clarifies things for you. It'll save us all time if we consider each poster as a distinct individual, rather then part of a collective faction based on who agrees with who every now and then.
You reject those elements as (to paraphrase) "not part of the rules" when in many ways they are the game. In short, "Your problem is that you refuse to accept that the Dresden Files RPG is based in the DV."
Untrue. I was also treating the fiction as rules until Viatos made a very good point.
I still prefer to treat the setting and background elements as laid out in "Your Story" as part of the RAW, and I use the descriptions and plot elements as context to inform the mechanics and the more rule-like rules.
At one point I believe the majority of people here were concerned with the game as a whole (i.e. how to effectively model the DV) as opposed to focusing on isolated rules.
"Beating a Catch" is stronger, yes. But ACAEBG, as such, not so sure - since a hypothetical SotC without ACAEBG is already going to beat a huge proportion of Catches in the setting, being both holy and steel. Demons, Blampires, Rampires, fae, Denarians (except Nic), ghouls...
Because of the above, however, how many things does that affect that a non-ACAEBG-bearing steel, holy item wouldn't? White Court Vampires (who generally lack Toughness anyway) and the real heavyweights (HWWB-style Outsiders, Nic, Dragons, etc.) ... anything else?
So it's really only that powerful if you regularly fight the very big powers (and not even all of those, even the highest-end Faeries still are vulnerable to iron, the Black Court Elders had most of the same weaknesses - though less to sunlight, etc.) So yes, I can see why it'd be worst in a really high-Refresh game.
Possibly -3 in situations like the Sword where its use would be fairly rare because most common Catches would already be covered; -4 in a situation such as just-Holy (a being with Holy Touch maybe) or on a non-Holy steel weapon; maybe -5 totally on its own?
Something like:
All Creatures Are Equal Before God [-5].
You can make attacks so infused with holy power that they pierce the mightiest defenses.
Musts: This power is generally found on an appropriate Item of Power (in the canon Dresdenverse, this means the Swords of the Cross, though in your campaign others may exist). To take this power directly (without an Item), a character must have a High Concept denoting a 'heavyweight' power of the Light, such as AVENGING ANGEL. It's possible that in your particular setting certain other beings or mythoi might possess or grant equivalent powers, though so far there's no evidence of that in the Dresdenverse as we know it; in such a case, an appropriate High Concept is still required. (For example, Surtur's apocalyptic flaming sword might well be capable of destroying its target through any possible defense.)
Benefit: The character may spend a fate point (in the case of an Item of Power, when used in accordance with the Item's purpose) to negate the supernatural defenses (Recovery/Toughness powers and Physical Immunity - as if the character had satisfied the Catch), as well as mundane Armor*, of one opponent for the scene. Extra stress boxes without a Catch such as those provided by Hulking Size, and extra consequence slots from skills or stunts, are unaffected.
Cost: Normally, this power costs -5 Refresh. When applied to an item that will already satisfy a very common Catch (such as a holy item, or an iron/steel item), or a creature with equivalent powers (such as Holy Touch), its cost is reduced to -4. When applied to an item that will satisfy several common Catches (such as an item that is both holy and iron/steel), its cost drops to -3.
*Maybe this should go away; I'm not sure it's actually necessary for the Swords to do what they should do. What do you think?
Anyway, please don't use the term RAW to refer to setting and background elements. The whole value of the term RAW is based off of excluding such things. The term Canon might be more useful in such a situation.
They are canon, but they're not RAW. The difference is important.
And calling something not RAW is leagues away from dismissing that thing. The RAW is not perfect. It's not even good sometimes.
I am not trying to out shout you, nor am I confused. I have constantly stated the same position.
How can you possibly see the bold text as different from:
So I won't paraphrase. Your issue is that you feel that "The only thing that affects DFRPG is DFRPG content, which includes select material taken from the DV by Evil Hat." when the game includes the entirety of the DV.
I am looking at the big picture and saying that "this is the game" while you are focusing on a teeny tiny piece (one that was limited by space constrants) and saying that is the game.
Why is an element of the setting *not* a rule? How is text which informs the setting and how the game is played not a consideration? How can you justify privileging content from one paragraph over content from another, in the actual rulebook?
Is it your express opinion, then, that a group having not read the novels, but having read YS and OW, cannot then properly or actually ever play the DFrpg?
But the distinction between rules and setting is very useful. It's not a rule of the game that there's a war against vampires happening. It's part of the setting.I agree, important difference when you're discussing like this.
If I choose to make Claws weapon 3, I'm not changing the setting. And if I choose to say that Harry Dresden died during Blood Rites, I'm not changing the rules.
If you don't distinguish between rules and setting, it becomes extremely difficult to discuss variations on the game. It also becomes incredibly difficult to discuss the quality of the rules and the setting. Because the rules or the setting often function as noise in the discussion of the other.
But the distinction between rules and setting is very useful. It's not a rule of the game that there's a war against vampires happening. It's part of the setting.
If you don't distinguish between rules and setting, it becomes extremely difficult to discuss variations on the game.
It also becomes incredibly difficult to discuss the quality of the rules and the setting. Because the rules or the setting often function as noise in the discussion of the other.
Since the game books give enough information to run a game in the DV then anyone who buys them can run a game in the DV . Other facts can add to the game, but (as advertised on the book cover) the game "gives you everything you need to make your own adventures in the thrilling and dangerous world of New York Times best-selling author Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files series!"
And since the inclusion of those 'facts' is wholly discretionary, it would not be accurate to claim that they are a part of the game, and certainly not truthful to claim that they are part of the rules of that game.
people using Enchanted Items .. people using protective spells
It's not a short list.
I still think that a weapon-value related adjustment should be included.
Either that or explicit incompatibility with certain sources of extra damage.
I also dislike some aspects of this for semi-philosophical reasons, but I can suck that up.
I think that might be a good idea.
I am looking at the big picture and saying that "this is the game" while you are focusing on a teeny tiny piece (one that was limited by space constrants) and saying that is the game.
Right, but you understand why it's wrong to say this? The entirety of the game is within two books, soon to be three books. That's the big picture, as big as the picture can be, on what DFRPG actually is.
When you say that the DV is "part of" DFRPG, you mean "in the homebrew I've designed".
That's where the confusion comes in, you use language like "this is the game" but it's not the game proper, actually, it's the property from which the complete game was distilled.
That language is wrong and looks like it says something that's patently absurd, that Evil Hat somehow owns Jim Butcher's work or that anything in the novels automatically is part of DFRPG.
But we know for a fact that that's untrue, all Evil Hat has is the license to produce what's in DFRPG, and all that exists in DFRPG is what THEY'VE produced.
So when you imply something else it seems confusing, because, y'know, it's not the case and can't be argued. It's an untenable position, but you make it look like you're trying to take it.
The really hard part for me in approaching Dresden Files from a system design angle was nailing down what the conceptual underpinnings of the IP were. We didn't want to just take a bunch of vocab terms from the setting and attach dice to them, but instead, we wanted the design to reflect the philosophy of Jim's setting, the ideas, the kind of fiction that the Dresden Files tells.
So it didn't matter to me, for example, how much your actual PC group resembled or were different from Harry and his friends, or how much you interacted with anything that Harry knew or touched. What I wanted was an engine that applied a Jim Butcher filter onto whatever stories you wanted to tell, that could emergently create something that he might have made if he had your five brains working at the same time.
Fred, Rob, and I were very conscientious about that when we originally started talking about the design - I remember that a lot of the original discussions were about the ideas of the Dresden Files, the structure of them, how the story beats worked, what mattered about the fiction, before they were ever about "how much refresh does Supernatural Strength cost".
And I remember that being the most challenging part of the process for me - deciding on a value for "getting it right" as it applied to the Dresden Files, knowing that we had large expectations looming ahead. I think anyone who's putting together a licensed game needs to understand how powerful of a thing it is to "officially" represent that license.
Again, we differ on this.
I respect the fact that you have your opinion (one that believe is wrong) and I expect the same from you. Saying "I believe you are wrong" is one thing. Saying "you are not being truthful" is another.
Richard
If it's in the rulebook then it's a rule.Yeah....this is where you lost me.
This is the thing you keep doing that isn't going to get you anywhere: "No, you don't need to own the novels to own the game - I know that" and then "the novels are part of the game". It's one or the other. These cannot co-exist. And I'm not asking you to pick one - it's patently obvious which statement correlates to reality and which one does not.
Wasn't it inclusion of novels as rules which was being objected to?
Does anyone want to dispute that these are all part of the D&D 3.5 rules? Anyone?
Just asking for clarification - I don't think any of those are novels. Wasn't it inclusion of novels as rules which was being objected to?
This is the thing you keep doing that isn't going to get you anywhere: "No, you don't need to own the novels to own the game - I know that" and then "the novels are part of the game". It's one or the other. These cannot co-exist. And I'm not asking you to pick one - it's patently obvious which statement correlates to reality and which one does not.
Yeah, a bunch of those are 3.0 unupdated material. So you're already off to a weak start.
Not really. Ghostwalk isn't a novel.
Saying:
1) You do not need to own Ghostwalk to run D&D 3.5.
2) Ghostwalk is part of D&D 3.5.
is akin to saying:
1) you do not need to read all the novels
2) the entire DV is part of the game
Richard
Yeah, a bunch of those are 3.0 unupdated material. So you're already off to a weak start.
Where your analogy becomes so anemic that it dies of heart failure, unable even to pump its own blood, is that all the actual 3.5 material on that list is an expansion to DnD 3.5 licensed and published by WotC. Trying to compare published expansion material in DnD 3.5 to the novels DFRPG is based on is apples and oranges, no comparison possible. It's like comparing a cooking manual to a picture of a cake.
That was caustic and unnecessary. Please stop. We don't need flame wars here. We don't need mods breathing down our necks. That is where this is going.
Nor is D&D 3.5 a licensed product.It's just flipping which is licensed. WotC licensed novels, Butcher licensed the game. In both cases, novels are setting sources and game references are rule sources.
It's just flipping which is licensed. WotC licensed novels, Butcher licensed the game. In both cases, novels are setting sources and game references are rule sources.
No, this is wrong by definition. Ghostwalk is a licensed product of WotC produced for the DnD 3.5 ruleset.
It's incomparable, as I pointed out and you ignored. You remain firmly and unavoidably in the territory of apples-to-oranges. There's just no similarity between a licensed product for a gaming ruleset and a work of artistic fiction produced only for its own merit.
But you're missing the obvious correlation. Is a Drizz't novel produced for entertainment valid rules text for Forgotten Realms?
It was neither; any statement with even a hint of softness has been met with obfuscating bait-and-switch tactics.
No, it's ignoring the difference between a game and associated fiction.
Both DFRPG and DnD 3.5 have setting books. DFRPG has Our World. DnD 3.5 has campaign setting books. These are where game setting comes from. Novels are just novels. Art, entertainment, unrelated to the game itself.
It was neither; any statement with even a hint of softness has been met with obfuscating bait-and-switch tactics. This one allows no misinterpretation and is directed at no user, referencing only the strength of an argument. I hope that stating an argument is weak, even if I do so colorfully, is not expected to be a value judgment on the character of another human being. If I ever violate the ToS, I expect a moderator and not another user to note my conduct as unacceptable. While this debate has generated controversy and demanded a certain amount of directness, I see no calls for this kind of response.
So.... the answer to this thread is basically ...
"Well, like; that's your opinion dude."
I have been consistent in my replies throughout this discussion. I do not obfuscate my point of view - I proclaim it to the world.
Combined, the two rulebooks have enough info about the DV to run a game
Let's just walk away from this issue.
Would you please stop saying that I mislead people.
Well, don't, and I'll be nothing but sweetness and silence.
I have a different opinion from you. Giving a contrary opinion is not misleading people, it is expressing an opinion that you disagree with.
I gave never said any of that - nor have I changed my position.
Saying:
1) You do not need to own Ghostwalk to run D&D 3.5.
2) Ghostwalk is part of D&D 3.5.
is akin to saying:
1) you do not need to read all the novels
2) the entire DV is part of the game
This bugs me. It's one thing to get a lower price for future powers like Sponsored Magic if you have Evo or Thaum (or, I guess, a refund if you start with Sponsored, but it's the same thing as a lower price for the power bought later), but (effectively) raising the cost of Strength powers just because you also have a Sword of the Cross doesn't seem quite right.
Sounds better, but how would you word it to allow exceptional ... exceptions like Susan with the Sword in Changes?
"This item exists largely to balance the scales between mortals - for this purpose, 'mortal' includes those with True Faith supernatural powers, and perhaps (at the GM's discretion - such cases should be considered carefully) those with a minimal measure of supernatural power, such as Minor Talents or White Court Virgins. While other beings can wield a Sword under temporary and extreme circumstances - so long as they retain mortal free will - they cannot be Knights of the Cross or otherwise use the sword for a significant period of time."
But if we're treating it as a power that can exist elsewhere, what then? Assuming it's always something that is given 'from outside' (except at uberhigh refresh where it probably is irrelevant) I suppose variations of the above would work.
Can you expand on that? What else might be changed?
Yeah, the point of the Swords is to strip away supernatural invulnerability. I don't see any reason for them to beat mundane armor. And (as above) the whole matter of them beating anything but powers with Catches (Toughness/Immunity/Recovery) is kind of weird/vaguely explained anyway. So I'd leave it out.
I gave never said any of that - nor have I changed my position.
Just because you can't dispute my logic nor even attempt to refute any of the things I've quoted does not mean you can put words into my mouth.
To recap one last time:
One last time (hopefully):
The Dresden Files RPG is an attempt to model the entire DV.
The rulebooks give a great summary of the DV.
No, this is an argument as to whether setting=rules, novels=rulebooks, and many other absurdities.Ok, I'll bite. Which fallacy would that be? And what 'purpose' argument are you attributing to me?
The 'purpose' argument that you put forth was, as I understand it, merely a poor attempt to come to the above by way of fallacy.
Just say that you can't use the stress boost with the effect. You can use the power even if you have Strength, you just can't use it with Strength.
No, that wouldn't work. Papering over mechanical issues with narrative stuff is almost never a good idea.
ACaEBG could be taken in a number of different directions. It could be a Catch-satisfying power, an anti-magic power, an all-trumping killing power, or a fairness-enforcing power. The current fluff implies the last of those options, but mechanically it's more like an all-trumping killing power.
Ok, I'll bite. Which fallacy would that be? And what 'purpose' argument are you attributing to me?
Is this still the argument about...It's the full argument. Way past ten minutes. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y)
Is this still the argument about whether or not the Dresden Files Roleplaying Game was designed to play games based on the world portrayed by the Dresden Files series?
I don't understand ... what I listed would mean that nobody with Strength powers could ever wield the Sword long-term, since Minor Talents etc. don't get Strength powers.
Well, I think it can do most of what it *should* do if all it does is satisfy Catches, period. No effect on spells, mundane armor, etc. Though I can certainly see it slicing through magical defenses like they weren't there, too. I really don't see any good justification for it ignoring mundane armor, however.
In the books, I think the way it's supposed to work is that it gives you pretty much a level playing field against anything - but everything it's ever been said to do can be explained by "satisfy all Catches".