Calling up HWWB in Blood Rites could possibly be considered a common ritual if it weren't for the rule book example and the fact that the people performing it were practitioners.
Common rituals use the "temporary access" rules from YS289, not the temporary power rules. Though there are similarities.
Also the rules for common rituals do differ slightly from the normal temporary power rules.
Is anybody else slightly surprised by the fact that common rituals use Conviction and Discipline? I figured from what Harry says that they require no real strength or talent.
Common rituals use the "temporary access" rules from YS289, not the temporary power rules. Though there are similarities.
As for skills used, I'm not convinced any thaumaturgy requires strength or talent. They just need declarations. That's one issue with those rules. :/
To perform Thaumaturgy safely takes a modified discipline of 5, be that from raw talent or having done enough preparation, above and beyond that needed for complexity, that you have tags and aspects to handle the low rolls. To do it quickly without melting your brain, you also need reasonably conviction. To do it really quickly takes high conviction and a willingness to eat consequences just to control it.Not really. It just takes dedicating a couple declarations to each given roll.
Declarations require GM approval, moreso than most things. The GM has to actually allow them rather than simply not ban them.
Speaking personally, I use scaling difficulties and I generally don't let tags last into the casting part. So skill is still needed.
The issue with Thaumaturgy isn't that the RAW forces people to take a particular approach...quite the opposite actually, the main issue is a lack of guidance.
I think you're thinking of the Spirit Of The Century rules.
The difficulties for declarations should,
honestly, be based on how interesting the
proposed fact or aspect is. Ideas that would
disrupt the game or are just unreasonable should
simply be vetoed. These are the questions to ask
yourself when determining difficulty:
1. Is the declaration interesting (or funny)?
2. Will the declaration have interesting
consequences if it’s acted upon, whether
it’s right or wrong?
3. Does the declaration propose a specific
and interesting course of action?
Each “no” adds 2 to the base difficulty of
Mediocre. If the proposed fact is very amusing,
proposes an interesting course of action, and
has interesting consequences (three “yes”-es), a
Mediocre difficulty is appropriate—you want
to provide a good chance that the detail is true.
Huh, go figure.
Huh, go figure.Yeah.
You can and, technically, you need to for thaumaturgy. I tend to treat them as maneuvers - helps keep things simple.
Well, my question stems from what happens if i want the cultists to be trying to get a ritual off, as the PC's are trying to stop it. If they make a maneuver each exchange, they won't be able to Chanel any energy into the ritual will they?While I do sometimes choose to spend an action, that wasn't what I meant by 'treat as maneuvers'. There I was referring to how target numbers are selected.
Honestly, though, by that difficulty set literally the entire game is about talking your GM into not shutting down your Declarations. The only thing standing between you and infinite power is your GM saying "don't be a prick".By those rules, most declarations, for doing thaumaturgy, are going to be 6.
Given the sketchy definition of prickishness and how unpleasant playing policeman is, that's a bad thing.
By those rules, most declarations, for doing thaumaturgy, are going to be 6.
"I use Discipline to focus my mind" (I hate this declaration, btw)
1. unfunny
2. Nothing interesting will come of it
3. boring
So what's your system?
I ask because I have someone in my group who can really push the limits of the written rules.
It's pretty weird, I know, but it's pretty explicitly stated in YS that Thaumaturgy Declarations are often the sort of thing you'd call a Maneuver.
It's pretty weird, I know, but it's pretty explicitly stated in YS that Thaumaturgy Declarations are often the sort of thing you'd call a Maneuver.Can you point to a specific passage? The one on page 269 says it functions like normal declarations.
By my reading, maneuvers are only possible in certain special situations like conflicts.Here's why I tend to disagree (http://www.faterpg.com/2011/the-grand-unified-theory-of-maneuvers/) if it matters. In the end it's just creating or identifying temporary aspects - doesn't really matter what we call it. However, Fred states it better than I do. ;)
Attempts to establish Aspects outside of those situations are Declarations.
The Make Declarations entry on page 269 of YS backs me up on this. But in the interest of fairness, I should point out that this interpretation isn't universal. IIRC UmbraLux disagrees strenuously.
That's a sensible viewpoint, but it directly contradicts what Your Story says.
In Your Story, character actions like buying stuff and browbeating people qualify as Declarations for Thaumaturgy. The same passage also says that Conviction and Discipline are standard skills for Thaumaturgy Declarations. Given what those skills do, it's pretty obvious that your standard power-gathering Declaration is intended to work.
There's no Maneuver option when it comes to gathering power for a ritual. But there is a Declaration one.
You can call those action Maneuvers if you want, but you can also call them ostriches. It won't change what they are.
Invoke Aspects
An easy way to ease spellcasting is to invoke
aspects and describe the invocations as being
tied to a part of the preparation process. This
gives you two shifts toward the deficit for every
aspect invoked.
You can call those action Maneuvers if you want, but you can also call them ostriches. It won't change what they are.
A subset of Declarations will consist of actions by the character in the past that are being revealed now.
Here's why I tend to disagree (http://www.faterpg.com/2011/the-grand-unified-theory-of-maneuvers/) if it matters. In the end it's just creating or identifying temporary aspects - doesn't really matter what we call it. However, Fred states it better than I do. ;)
The only thing I don't like about this is that a very large thaumaturgical spell can be whipped up in one scene. Players don't need to aquire pixy dust because they just declared that they already had it.
I always interpreted the declarations as being a summing up of events. So instead of role-playing out an entire exchange between you and the pixy, you just role the dice and say it happens. I still like to tell the player it'll take a week to do that, though. If they role well it'll take less time. IF they role REALLY well, then maybe they really do already have it.
IT's supposed to take lots of time and prep, but the way declarations work, it takes no time at all.
This got ranty. TL;dr. It matters because of the way you come up with Target number, and Declarations are inherently better for Thaum.I find it mildly amusing, but you're reacting to something I didn't say. I said it doesn't matter what we call it...and it doesn't. It's just a label made up for a game. We could rename assessments, declarations, and maneuvers to ssamessents, tedioclarans, and vermaneus without changing anything about how they work. A name is nothing more than a label! ;)
This is actually supported in the rules:
As maneuvers generate aspects (and tags!) and tags are consumed to create invokes that don't eat Fate points.
You could say the same about Declarations, but there's still a section on them. A section that says nothing, incidentally, about the actions in question being in the past.
PS: Addicted2aa, I'm pretty sure I disagree with you. But I'm having trouble deciphering your post so it's hard to be sure.
I find it mildly amusing, but you're reacting to something I didn't say. I said it doesn't matter what we call it...and it doesn't. It's just a label made up for a game. We could rename assessments, declarations, and maneuvers to ssamessents, tedioclarans, and vermaneus without changing anything about how they work. A name is nothing more than a label! ;)
Snip SNip snip.
Regarding navel gazing declarations...what is "I took a bath to Purify Myself" if not an aspect applied to yourself? You don't have to call it 'navel gazing' but see previous comments on labels. ;)
But none of that matters - using maneuvers and other non-declaration temporary aspect rules for thaumaturgy isn't enshrined in the text. It's simply something I do so the entire party can be involved when a spell becomes important enough to be a scene.
It kinda does though. It says they are truths, or facts being revealed. That kinda implies it has to be in the past.
Basically I'm arguing the only important difference is whether you're using the declaration model of coming up with a TN or Maneuver model. You should be using the Declaration model because it rewards interesting concepts with easier TN.
I reacted to the article that said assessments, Declarations, and Maneuvers are inherently the same thing. Which isn't true. Well, it true in the same way a Cat is inherently the same thing as a dog, a domesticated mammal, but there are important differences between them, so we give them different names. I understand Fred's point, but for this application there is an important distinction. Declarations have an incentive to be interesting. The other 2 don’t. The authority model matters this time, to use his terms.
Purifying yourself is a maneuver. You’re not revealing a truth, you’re performing an action. I would take I have a bath, or I have a purification ritual that I use each time. Both of those would be declarations If you want to call that navel gazing fine, the point is that it isn’t an action, cause it takes no time, and establishes a fact. Yes, splitting hairs. Important hairs though.
Why is it important? Because most of the time, Thaumaturgy isn’t worth a scene, it's boring. If it is worth it, allow maneuvers, assessments, hell, allow combat. Because then it’s already interesting. If it isn't worth a scene by itself, don’t allow anything but declarations, make the players work to come up with interesting bits of setting and background, so that things don’t become even more stale when performing thaumaturgy.
That said there’s no reason you can’t apply the same criteria for judging a declaration to an assessment and just move on from there. If the actions are as interesting as the revealed facts, then the same issue has been solved. That requires changing the rules, which may be worthwhile, and may not. Once you accept the declaration criteria, than I have no more dog in the fight. At that point, the names really are meaningless.
In the general section on Declarations, yes. But the section on Thaumaturgy Declarations contradicts that.I don't see that. It says you can make declarations to say you have things. As in you already have them. Is there something I'm missing?
No, no, no. Interesting concepts are easier with maneuvers, too, since the difficulty of a maneuver is whatever the GM says it is.
Which, incidentally, is a much better way to determine Thaumaturgy Declaration difficulty than the normal Declaration method.Agree to disagree. That's essentially GM fiat. Fiat is fine in a game about GM fiat. This isn't that game. A player may ask, why is this the TN? With declarations you can point and explain your logic. With Maneuvers, you can point to an adjective and say, it seems that activity would be this hard, due to these factors. If you add in how interesting the Maneuver is, you say the above and add in, I thought it was boring so I added a 2 to your target. Be more funny. And to some one else, I thought that aspect was great, I'll subtract 1 from your target. Can it work that way without GM's being a dick? Of course. The RAW solution is simply neater and probably more fair.
This just is not true.
If you don't like Thaumaturgy, don't use it. Don't pretend that the rules are different in order to make it less painful, just don't use it.When did I say I don't like it? I said it isn't worth a scene and boring. I did leave out the implied "Prepping" Thaumaturgy, and for that I apologize. Casting can in fact be interesting.
Again, I don't follow.
I don't see that. It says you can make declarations to say you have things. As in you already have them. Is there something I'm missing?
Yeah. This is what I have trouble with. I've said it before in the same thread. Using contacts to get that illegal Dolphin Heart. So yeah, you're not going to waste time rping that out. It's handled by a roll which is played out as a "mini-scene". This doesn't mean you already have a dolphin heart sitting in your fridge. Which is why I think declarations for Thaumaturgy work slightly differently.
The truth revealed is that "I have a contact that can get me dolphin hearts" with the aspect Fishy friends or something, as opposed the the truth being "I have a dolphin heart in my fridge."
Invoke aspects: Every aspect you can invoke to narrate a part of preparation adds two shifts toward the deficit.
Make declarations: You can declarea mini-scene relevant to preparation,
where you use a skill and create a temporary aspect to tag. When successful, this is worth two shifts toward the deficit. If the effort fails, the spell isn’t automatically a bust, but no forward progress is
made, either.
Accept or inflict consequences: For every consequence you are willing to take or inflict on others for the sake of preparation, add the value of the consequence in shifts toward the deficit: so, a mild consequence would add two shifts. (Blood sacrifice is a dark but very potent path many a black magic practitioner can take.)
Skip a scene – For every scene you can participate in during a session and choose to skip in favor of preparing the spell, you can add one shift toward the deficit.
Either way, the point is that you have the dolphin heart at the time of the Thaumaturgy, which is why the delcaration can be made to improve your spell in regards to being prepared for it. There is also no way to do maneuvers based on RAW.
Invoke aspects: Every aspect you can invoke to narrate a part of preparation adds two shifts toward the deficit.
These aspects may come from any relevant
source: personal aspects the wizard already
has, temporary aspects that are in place, or even
previously taken consequences that the wizard
might be able to use in a clever way.
You quoted how to do maneuvers:I did not quote how to do maneuvers at all, actually. A maneuver cant be done durring a thaumaturgical ritual preparation, you can only invoke (which means that you have to spend a fate point) aspects that are already on you.
Or spelled out in more detail:
Maneuvers create temporary aspects with a free tag, you can consume a free tag to invoke it's associated aspect, you can reduce the complexity deficit by two by invoking aspects (even, explicitly, temporary ones). Ergo, you can Manauver as part of Thaumaturgical Ritual Preparation.
I did not quote how to do maneuvers at all, actually. A maneuver cant be done durring a thaumaturgical ritual preparation, you can only invoke (which means that you have to spend a fate point) aspects that are already on you.
You can maneuver, just not toward the complexity of the spell--meditation, personal cleansing, removing distractions, those are all maneuvers you would do not to help the complexity of the spell, but to give yourself something to tag if you need to boost a roll.
Can you find somewhere in the book that talks about maneuvers outside of conflicts? I've done alot of double checking recently and feel lazy, but I don't remember them being for anything besides combat. Except for assessments, which are kinda different from other Maneuvers.Found it.
Where are you two getting this from? As part of the complexity, you can invoke aspects (including temporary aspects, it's spelled out on 269). A Maneuver creates a temporary aspect and provides a tag, a tag can be expended in lieu of a fate point to invoke an aspect.I got it mostly from the book mentioning that when doing a ritual, it pays to have a few maneuvers you can tag beforehand.
Can you find somewhere in the book that talks about maneuvers outside of conflicts? I've done alot of double checking recently and feel lazy, but I don't remember them being for anything besides combat. Except for assessments, which are kinda different from other Maneuvers.
Where are you two getting this from? As part of the complexity, you can invoke aspects (including temporary aspects, it's spelled out on 269). A Maneuver creates a temporary aspect and provides a tag, a tag can be expended in lieu of a fate point to invoke an aspect.
Right but in your same quote it said that you may invoke temporary aspects that are already in place, not maneuver new aspects. Unless I am reading it wrong.
I got it mostly from the book mentioning that when doing a ritual, it pays to have a few maneuvers you can tag beforehand.
The way I look at it, what you need to build complexity are components. Objects of power or linked to the spell's outcome or structure, or significant changes (consequences). Whatever it is, it has to be solid or lasting in some way, not transient like a maneuver.
Can you do maneuvers in order to improve your declaration roll??
Yes and no (but really maybe). Yes in as much as you can create aspects with maneuvers and use those aspects on appropriate rolls. No in as much as most aspects you can create shouldn't impact most deceleration rolls. So, mechanically, yes, table willingness? Probably not in most cases.
The basic idea behind running preparation is that you’re making a kind of über-declaration (page 116)—namely, that the wizard is set to cast the spell.
All scenes are conflicts, at a minimum you have the Scene itself and your own Character. You can perform navel gazing maneuvers with no opponent and scene maneuvers with the environment as your opponent. Additionally, Maneuvers are one of the things Thaumaturgy can explicitly do (in fact, you can explicitly stack multiple maneuvers in a single spell, paying complexity for each individually), so to the extent that Maneuvers require a conflict, Thaumaturgy itself constitutes a conflict.
I reacted to the article...In that case you'd be better off quoting the article.
...that said assessments, Declarations, and Maneuvers are inherently the same thing. Which isn't true. Well, it true in the same way a Cat is inherently the same thing as a dog, a domesticated mammal, but there are important differences between them, so we give them different names. I understand Fred's point, but for this application there is an important distinction. Declarations have an incentive to be interesting. The other 2 don’t. The authority model matters this time, to use his terms.Mechanics differ, the end result doesn't. I suspect Fred's point is simply that - an aspect is an aspect is an aspect and assessments, declarations, and maneuvers are all "a skill roll that gives rise to an aspect, which offers a free invocation (tag) out of respect to the successfully skill roll.". The similarities far outnumber the differences.
Purifying yourself is a maneuver. You’re not revealing a truth, you’re performing an action. I would take I have a bath, or I have a purification ritual that I use each time. Both of those would be declarations If you want to call that navel gazing fine, the point is that it isn’t an action, cause it takes no time, and establishes a fact. Yes, splitting hairs. Important hairs though."I took a bath" is a statement of fact which happened in the past - a declaration.
I don't see that. It says you can make declarations to say you have things. As in you already have them. Is there something I'm missing?Declarations are statements of fact not just statements of possession or existence. Knowing something or having accomplished something in the past are both facts...as are buckets in hallways and having your favorite pipe with you.
If the GM allows maneuvers to be easier because things are interesting, people will just be Errol Flynning all over the place. Which is fine, if you want to leave the feel of Dresden behind. I would argue you should be playing a game where that type of thing is more encouraged, like Wushu, or fits the theme better like SoTC, but eh, whatever works.Perhaps I've missed a post or two but who was advocating making maneuvers easier? I think many should be more difficult than the "target of 3" you mentioned. It's context that matters. Lighting a fire in a downpour is difficult while lighting a fire with dry wood and good tender is comparatively easy.
You can maneuver, just not toward the complexity of the spell--meditation, personal cleansing, removing distractions, those are all maneuvers you would do not to help the complexity of the spell, but to give yourself something to tag if you need to boost a roll.If you're talking about boosting your Discipline rolls it's technically possible but functionally difficult...as long as you're paying attention to aspect duration. Most will go away long before you finish casting a spell of any complexity.
In that case you'd be better off quoting the article.Well, since you linked the article and said Fred said it better than you, I figured I didn't have too. It was kinda implied that you were using his words.
Mechanics differ, the end result doesn't. I suspect Fred's point is simply that - an aspect is an aspect is an aspect and assessments, declarations, and maneuvers are all "a skill roll that gives rise to an aspect, which offers a free invocation (tag) out of respect to the successfully skill roll.". The similarities far outnumber the differences.
"I took a bath" is a statement of fact which happened in the past - a declaration.
Perhaps I've missed a post or two but who was advocating making maneuvers easier? I think many should be more difficult than the "target of 3" you mentioned. It's context that matters. Lighting a fire in a downpour is difficult while lighting a fire with dry wood and good tender is comparatively easy.Sancta did. I was wrong about 3. Not sure where I pulled it from yet, some one mentioned it might have been in the magic chapter, but I haven't gone to look. Sancta was advocating judging maneuvers based on how interesting they were. Read response 50 in this thread if your interested. I may be putting words in his mouth as he was kinda vague in his statement.
If you're talking about boosting your Discipline rolls it's technically possible but functionally difficult...as long as you're paying attention to aspect duration. Most will go away long before you finish casting a spell of any complexity.
If you're talking about boosting declaration rolls I don't see it. I'm open to being convinced though...can you describe an action you take now which makes a fact from yesterday (or even a minute ago) more likely? Have to admit I'm skeptical. ;)
ehh, kinda. It is a fact, I agree, but I'm not sure it's a declaration. I come back to a specific passage on page 269...Need to look at YS116 first - that's where they describe declarations in detail. The specific text states "But in The Dresden Files RPG, these skills also allow for declarations. That is to say, using these skills successfully can allow you to introduce entirely new facts into play and then use those facts to your advantage. These new facts might also take the form of an aspect." Emphasis added.
"I took a bath" is a statement of fact which happened in the past - a declaration.So is "I killed you". That doesn't mean we stop asking for attacks and just let people Declare their actions in combat.
I think many should be more difficult than the "target of 3" you mentioned. It's context that matters. Lighting a fire in a downpour is difficult while lighting a fire with dry wood and good tender is comparatively easy.Given that you'd be fine with 'I lit a fire' using Declaration rules that entirely bypass that difficulty or ease, I'm not sure I understand this objection.
If you're talking about boosting declaration rolls I don't see it. I'm open to being convinced though...can you describe an action you take now which makes a fact from yesterday (or even a minute ago) more likely? Have to admit I'm skeptical. ;)Failure of a Declaration roll does not necessarily mean that the Aspect is not true, but merely that it does not come to the forefront as a truth known to the character.
I don't see that. It says you can make declarations to say you have things. As in you already have them. Is there something I'm missing?
If the GM allows maneuvers to be easier because things are interesting, people will just be Errol Flynning all over the place. Which is fine, if you want to leave the feel of Dresden behind. I would argue you should be playing a game where that type of thing is more encouraged, like Wushu, or fits the theme better like SoTC, but eh, whatever works.
Per the current rules maneuvers are context dependent but the guidance is that context matters within the scene. It's a simulation mechanic, not a narrative one. I was wrong about it being a TN 3 but it's still not based on "how interesting" the aspect is. Without changing the rules.
Agree to disagree. That's essentially GM fiat. Fiat is fine in a game about GM fiat. This isn't that game.
I made a couple of points there. Care to tell me which is not true and why?
When did I say I don't like it? I said it isn't worth a scene and boring. I did leave out the implied "Prepping" Thaumaturgy, and for that I apologize. Casting can in fact be interesting.
The things you don't follow.
The first was just saying that I have no issues with declaration that acts the same as a navel gazing maneuver. I just want it to be put in terms of a declaration.
The Second, was saying that maneuvers that follow declarations rules
So is "I killed you". That doesn't mean we stop asking for attacks and just let people Declare their actions in combat.This is so obviously weak I shouldn't have to respond. Is it a statement of preexisting fact when the subject is alive in front of you?
Given that you'd be fine with 'I lit a fire' using Declaration rules that entirely bypass that difficulty or ease, I'm not sure I understand this objection.a) You're inserting your own assumptions. I've already stated a preference for using maneuver style target numbers for some declarations.
Failure of a Declaration roll does not necessarily mean that the Aspect is not true, but merely that it does not come to the forefront as a truth known to the character.In the case of a declaration, failure means you don't get to create an aspect. So yes, one similar or even identical to your intent may be available via assessment or even GM declaration...but so what? I don't see how that has anything to do with trying to make an action now affect the truth of something in the past. Unless you're playing some time travel game.
It could be not true. It could be true but the character doesn't know about it. It could be true and the character knows about it, but it just doesn't matter enough to be represented as an Aspect.
This is so obviously weak I shouldn't have to respond. Is it a statement of preexisting fact when the subject is alive in front of you?It it a statement of preexisting fact to have bathed when you are standing there unbathed?
It could be possible, I simply can't think of a situation where context fits. Perhaps maneuvering to enhance memory preparatory to a knowledge declaration? But that begs the question of what you're doing to enhance memory...which is why I asked for an example. ;)I direct you to my second case of a failed Declaration, where the would-be-Aspect is true, but the character simply doesn't know about it.
It it a statement of preexisting fact to have bathed when you are standing there unbathed?Ah, but was I bathed or unbathed? Had that fact been established? Was it relevant to the story prior to the creation of the aspect?
If the Declaration succeeds, the aspect is retroactively true.I'd phrase it differently but that's close enough I won't look for nits. However, the roll is not the only requirement when creating an aspect. It also must fit the situation / context and get agreement of the group / GM. Declaring "I own a Ferrari" isn't just a Resource roll at a TN between 2 and 6. It also needs to fit the situation (How likely is it for your character to own a Ferrari?) and the group / GM (Do they think a Ferrari fits?). Said Ferrari might actually be a kit car replica after negotiation...or perhaps just an old Pinto. ;) As a side note, aspects also have to be relevant to be used even if they've been established in the past. You can't use every aspect you have in every situation (unless you have extremely generic aspects.)
I direct you to my second case of a failed Declaration, where the would-be-Aspect is true, but the character simply doesn't know about it.Yep, not arguing this...except to remind everyone that a roll is not the only requirement.
Any aspect that could be invoked to increase a knowledge roll (such as Contacts-related aspects, research-maneuver-generated aspects, library-esque-resource aspects, intelligence/education-related aspects...) can potentially increase a Declaration roll.
So is "I killed you". That doesn't mean we stop asking for attacks and just let people Declare their actions in combat.I feel this actually would work for the Delcaration. It would impose the aspect "Dude I killed You" and now the character is dead but he is still there so probably a Zombie. Declarations aspects stay forever because they are a fact on the world (unless they are consumable aspects). But as long as the group approves of this, it can still be reasonable (as long as its not some big baddie who you would have no ability to kill on your own). There is approval from the group needed and it should move the story or create a better scene.
There are some situations where a declaration isn’t appropriate, and the GM actually does have things charted out and “set in stone.”So yea
Hold on, what exactly is the disagreement here?I think it originally was can you use maneuvers on Thaumaturgy.
And I don't agree to disagree. You're wrong, and that's not okay. I might not be able to do anything about it, but I'm going to try.1) After spending close to an hour at work double checking rules, writing up examples, and editing my argument, I decided, I don't care. I understand your opinion, disagree with it, and don't think it's worth arguing over anymore, at least not in this thread. The argument has gone pretty far afield anyway and my response would have gone even farther. If my being wrong is that big an issue, feel free to start a new thread of PM.
2. That sentence means literally nothing. Did you accidentally post without finishing writing it?
So, can you use common rituals to do simple wards? Like a block against some supernaturals using Lore? Can it be used in combat?1) I would say no, or rather, it's a waste. Rituals, in general, are borrowing power from another source(though there have been people who say that making a circle should count). Put in quarter, get power. The power for a simple ward seems like a waste when drawing on ancient, and most likely not benevolent powers. Though now that I've said that, there might be some attached to benevolent gods. Maybe a forgotten saint of the catholic church.
What are the types of things a character can do with this?
Can a regular joe supe up a houses defenses against BCV's by hanging garlic over the door and sprinkiling salt in the corners? How are those kind of things adjudicated?
As to common rituals specifically, I think I'm reading it incorrectly. I just read it and it says they must do the preparation, but nothing about controlling it when cast. I have to be missing something no?
Back to the topic. 1) I would say no, or rather, it's a waste. Rituals, in general, are borrowing power from another source(though there have been people who say that making a circle should count). Put in quarter, get power. The power for a simple ward seems like a waste when drawing on ancient, and most likely not benevolent powers. Though now that I've said that, there might be some attached to benevolent gods. Maybe a forgotten saint of the catholic church.
2) pretty sure anything you can do in thaumaturgy but I could be wrong. Actually after just reading, it seems you could do evocation, but I can't think there's any ritual quick enough to be worthwhile as evocation. The trick is finding a ritual. Which is something a player can introduce if they want or something the GM can throw out as a temptation. A ritual that just happens to solve plot issue X, but at cost Y. Watch them argue over what to do.
1) After spending close to an hour at work double checking rules, writing up examples, and editing my argument, I decided, I don't care.
@Adicted2aa - Controlling the spell is covered in basic thaumaturgy. I don't think any of the themed subsets go back through all the mechanics. In general, I suggest using the basics unless specifically overridden.
Always, this is a single, specific spell with
pretty much everything other than the target
predetermined. The ritualist must still go
through the steps of preparation, and skills
such as Lore, Discipline, and Conviction do
come into play. But that and the step-bystep
ritual instructions are all that’s needed;
Highlighted the relevant part. It specifically mentions the preparation, and then says, that's all you need.
It appears to be discussing 'in character' requirements ("...the ritualist...") rather than game mechanics. It also states you still need the skills used by standard thaumaturgy - Lore, Discipline, and Conviction. I don't think you'd need all three if you weren't controlling the power.Well, not to start that whole argument up again, but those are pretty standard skills for making declarations to help summon power for thaumaturgy. I think we can all agree on that. And Lore really only comes into play in the preparation, not in the casting. So that argument could go both ways. Also they occasionally use "the wizard" or "wizards" in the thaumaturgy section when discussion mechanics
a wizard can just go straight to
casting if the complexity falls within the wizard’s
Lore.
Maybe they just mean that you don't have to go through all the declarations to make the power deficit based on your lore. So if you find a 36 shift ritual, you can just start casting it...Possible. The temporary access passage says the user pays 1 debt in order to access the sponsored magic ability. I've been reading this as, 1 to get the ability and benefits, and for any more shifts the sponsor covers, they have to continue to accrue debt. So that suggests that you would still have to make the declarations, unless I'm also reading that wrong.
Well, not to start that whole argument up again, but those are pretty standard skills for making declarations to help summon power for thaumaturgy. I think we can all agree on that.Eh, not really. Any skill could potentially be used for declarations. In my experience, knowledge and resource related skills are most commonly used. It would be easy to avoid using Conviction or Discipline for prep and declarations...which would make them unnecessary unless you're also controlling power.
Shrug. Interpret how you will.OK. Done. Lore counts as the trigger, so using a ritual that calls on powers from beyond as the main source works just like thaumaturgy, but lore can(doesn't have to be) substituted for either conviction or discipline, but not both. Any have any thoughts?
The way I look at it, what you need to build complexity are components. Objects of power or linked to the spell's outcome or structure, or significant changes (consequences). Whatever it is, it has to be solid or lasting in some way, not transient like a maneuver.What is transient about a maneuver? I could do a resources maneuver and buy, for example, a silver chalice. I have now created, through a character action the aspect "silver chalice", that I can tag on the ritual. But the chalice will not suddenly disappear, not even after the ritual, it will probably just become unimportant.
Just had a thought on another example of a possible common ritual. At the end of Death Masks, Marcone invokes the equivalent of an EMP on Dresden's tracking spell. He probably learned it from Gard but since he was traveling alone it's unlikely he had someone else with power to do it for him.That's pretty much my take on the preparation phase, too. If you don't have enough shifts for the complexity of the spell, you'll have to earn the rest. If the player is suggestion something that won't fit his character or the ritual or is just plain boring, I as a GM will happily veto it, until he comes up with something better. This will especially go for declarations, where I would only allow very few, and only if it actually makes sense. Lore is the number that decides how far you can go without getting something extra, it is what you are usually prepared for. Why then should you have half a dozen aspects suddenly lying around that you can tag? No, you are going to have to go and buy/steal/make/bargain for them. Sometimes, that can be resolved in a single roll, sometimes that will be a scene or even a campaign in itself, all depending on what you are trying to accomplish.
What is transient about a maneuver? [...] it will probably just become unimportant.Asked and answered.
Asked and answered.Not quite. The aspect will still be there, it just doesn't matter for what is going to happen AFTER the ritual. And up until and during the ritual, it will be an important part of the story.
What is transient about a maneuver? I could do a resources maneuver and buy, for example, a silver chalice. I have now created, through a character action the aspect "silver chalice", that I can tag on the ritual. But the chalice will not suddenly disappear, not even after the ritual, it will probably just become unimportant.That's not really a maneuver, though, at least the way I see it. That's more of a declaration--declaring true that "I have a silver chalice" or, alternatively, "I have enough money and know a store to get a silver chalice."
That's more of a declaration--declaring true that "I have a silver chalice"I would interpret that to mean "My wizard is regularly going through antique stores to find interesting things, and just last week, he's found this silver chalice, that I think would be perfect for this ritual. I'll get it out of the cabinet and add it to my ingredients."
or, alternatively, "I have enough money and know a store to get a silver chalice."This I would take as "My wizard often goes to this one goldsmith that specialized in making things for the magical community. He's probably got something that I could use, I'll visit him to see what he's got available."
What I mean by transient is that a maneuver is supposed to create a temporary advantage--things like meditating, or a ritual cleansing for thaumaturgy, or tripping someone up in combat.Yes, maneuvers can be transient, but so can declarations. The transientness (is that a word?) has nothing to do with how the aspect is created, but what the aspect is. A wet street can be declared (it rained an hour ago), or it can be maneuvered (pushing over a rain barrel). It will in effect basically the same, one will not be more transient than the other. The difference is just how you come up with the aspect, and often enough, there is a cool way and a boring way to go, and I think maneuvers tend to be more interesting than declarations, since they are an action rather than a fact. There can be cool declarations, too, don't get me wrong, but the scale tips heavily towards maneuvers in my book.
In the example above, If the roll failed, the declaration would simply not be true.Or it might be true and simply not matter, possibly because, while it will help with the ritual, it won't help enough to be represented numerically. It fades into the background to exist only as fluff, unrepresented by any mechanics.