ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Crion on January 30, 2013, 07:16:04 PM
-
One of my fellow GMs I'm working with on a convention game brought up the topic of Evocation Blocks and felt that they were a bit underpowered, and didn't agree with the idea of replacing blocks with Aspects in FateCore.
Spin rules don't really fit with it very well, and the extra Aspects for amazing rolls from FateCore are a 50/50 (I might have a way to win him over on that one).
One suggestion was to use Evocation Blocks like Evocation attacks, where you gain the Block Value equal to the shifts of power AND the margin of success over the baseline. For example, Harry brings 4 shifts of power into his shield and rolls +6, giving his Block a rating of 6 (baseline of 4, +2 for being over).
It makes it work closer to a standard block without having to take the boatload of extra stress to break out a decent Block.
Has anyone done anything like this before, or made any changes of their own to Blocks with Evocation?
--Crion
-
My parties wizard made all his blocks from an enchanted item. He'd invest plenty of uses into it, and then call them up when he was attacked. That fixed the balance issues I've noticed on Evocation blocks.
-
I really don't see how they're underpowered. Really, few antagonists that aren't named major NPCs should be attacking from more than 3, so a 4-shift block on its own is pretty effective against most things. If a caster is equipped properly, they should be able to pull off 8-10 shift shields fairly easily.
-
I really don't see how they're underpowered. Really, few antagonists that aren't named major NPCs should be attacking from more than 3, so a 4-shift block on its own is pretty effective against most things. If a caster is equipped properly, they should be able to pull off 8-10 shift shields fairly easily.
Yes, but the cost of that shield is stress, offensive opportunity, and the fact that once it gets thrown up odds are the attack will just head towards somebody else.
Basically, they are almost always a waste.
-
I don't feel they are underpowered, I do however feel they are aren't practical. All it does is make the GM focus his efforts on the other players (assuming the block is only for the caster), effectivly making the wizard waste their action.
A houserule I offered to my players was allowing them to pull up blocks as a reactionary action when they are attacked. The catch being they need to be able to tag/invoke an appropriate aspect to do so.
Though I plan on using a modified version of the Gain Advantage mechanic in Fate Core. If it ends up working well that will probably the new standard for the games I run.
-
Yes, but the cost of that shield is stress, offensive opportunity, and the fact that once it gets thrown up odds are the attack will just head towards somebody else.
Basically, they are almost always a waste.
How is it a waste if the block is ensuring that you (or whoever the block is defending) doesn't get hit? Isn't that why you threw up a block in the first place?
-
Because a defensive action should be nullifying the attack, not sending it at somebody else in the party. This is a team oriented game. Throwing up a powerful block to guard yourself at the expense of everybody else is not good teamplay.
So sure, in a duel it's fine. But in general they just aren't strategically sound.
-
They aren't weak, but they're rarely tactically sound. A character with an evocation block is virtually impervious, but they are also virtually ineffective.
My players use targeted blocks a lot though. They pick an enemy and block them from attacking (illusions, darkness, etc) at all. Other enemies are still a danger, but that one's been more or less neutralized for a bit.
-
Because a defensive action should be nullifying the attack, not sending it at somebody else in the party. This is a team oriented game. Throwing up a powerful block to guard yourself at the expense of everybody else is not good teamplay.
So sure, in a duel it's fine. But in general they just aren't strategically sound.
A block isn't wasted just because nobody attacked it. It's doing its job: Ensuring whoever's under it doesn't get hit. In fact, a block that deters someone from even trying is doing its job better than a block that is getting pummeled.
Speaking of teamplay, most groups have some kind of tank, someone who's set up to be able to withstand attacks better than the rest of the group. If the block is shielding one of the more fragile members (like, say, the wizard), in favor of the tank, then it works out.
And don't forget to factor in shielding your team and duration.
-
My parties wizard made all his blocks from an enchanted item. He'd invest plenty of uses into it, and then call them up when he was attacked. That fixed the balance issues I've noticed on Evocation blocks.
A player of mine used to have an item for a Veil that didn't see too much use. She had a Lore +5, and she didn't throw any extra item slots into it (due to wanting focus items for her Thaumaturgy). A +5 block worked well for the faceless mooks with only a +1, but any "trained" mook with a +2 or even a +3 was something to be aware of.
I really don't see how they're underpowered. Really, few antagonists that aren't named major NPCs should be attacking from more than 3, so a 4-shift block on its own is pretty effective against most things. If a caster is equipped properly, they should be able to pull off 8-10 shift shields fairly easily.
As you noted, even faceless NPCs are sitting around a +3, so there is a 50% chance for an attack to get through. We often see Harry blocking bullets pretty easily and capable of handling submachine gun fire.
I am curious: how can they easily pull off the 8-10 shift shields if they are properly equipped? If you are a starting character and only taking the 1 Mental Stress and no consequences, and didn't have a round or two to do a navel gazing maneuver, you'll need a Conviction of 5, a specialty in the element, and two focus item slots in the Conviction area just to get the 8 shifts, making the control roll of +8 horribly difficult.
-
A block isn't wasted just because nobody attacked it. It's doing its job: Ensuring whoever's under it doesn't get hit. In fact, a block that deters someone from even trying is doing its job better than a block that is getting pummeled.
Speaking of teamplay, most groups have some kind of tank, someone who's set up to be able to withstand attacks better than the rest of the group. If the block is shielding one of the more fragile members (like, say, the wizard), in favor of the tank, then it works out.
And don't forget to factor in shielding your team and duration.
No it isn't. A block that takes an attack before it fizzles is much more affective than a block that stands there and does nothing. Because it took a turn to put up. A whole action wasted while the other side loses nothing.
Let's take a sample battle here.
4 v 4. 1 Wizard, 1 WC Vampire, 1 Vanilla Mortal, 1 Werewolf.
Team 1 Wizard puts up a powerful block defending himself.
Team 2 Wizard Aims a powerful spell at Team 1's Vanilla Mortal.
Team 1 is down a person.
Team 1 WCV attacks Team 2 Wizard and takes him out.
Team 2 WCV and Team 2 Vanilla Mortal Team up on Team 1 Wizard and deal with him before he can manage another spell because WCV's own Wizards because the block doesn't defend against mental attacks.
Team 1 and Team 2 Werewolves handle eachother.
End of Round 1, Team 1 has 1 Shapeshifter and 1 WCV verse a Vanilla Mortal, a WCV and a shapeshifter. Who wins?
Hint, the team that didn't mess around with a block.
Next Scenario.
Instead of a global Block Wizard 1 Blocks off Wizard 2 from doing anything but leaves himself open. It's a net Zero result.
Wizards are better served being blasty cannons than making evocation blocks because they have the highest accuracy and the most damage. Sacrificing even 1 turn of that can doom the party.
As for the uninvested shield. That's her fault for not spending the time to make it worthwhile. a 1 slot enchanted item isn't super reliable for defense purposes.
-
As you noted, even faceless NPCs are sitting around a +3, so there is a 50% chance for an attack to get through. We often see Harry blocking bullets pretty easily and capable of handling submachine gun fire.
Not really. Check this (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_rBThBzjhXveU4yWHNYZWdSaGlscmNSOWVEaHVGZw/edit) for some numbers. If someone's rolling from 3, there's only a 38% chance that they're going to get a +1 on top of that. Which means a 4-shift block is going to be effective against a Good attack rating more than 60% of the time. For mooks with Fair ratings, there's only about 18% chance of it succeeding. Remember that 3 is the best that most mooks will have. Your usual unnamed human is going to top out at 2.
And you don't think that Harry always only casts it at 4, do you? Remember that write-up is from the first book in the series. By the time he's coming under machinegun fire, I wouldn't be surprised if he was regularly casting it from 5 and 6.
I am curious: how can they easily pull off the 8-10 shift shields if they are properly equipped? If you are a starting character and only taking the 1 Mental Stress and no consequences, and didn't have a round or two to do a navel gazing maneuver, you'll need a Conviction of 5, a specialty in the element, and two focus item slots in the Conviction area just to get the 8 shifts, making the control roll of +8 horribly difficult.
Conviction 5. Specialization+1; Focus Items: +2 to Conviction means you start at 8. A properly equipped caster will also likely have his control roll starting from 5 meaning--even without a focus item to help--he can reasonably expect to cast the spell with only 3-4 shifts of backlash. That seems fairly easy to me. And that's assuming no refinements put into it.
No it isn't. A block that takes an attack before it fizzles is much more affective than a block that stands there and does nothing. Because it took a turn to put up. A whole action wasted while the other side loses nothing.
Question: Why did you put up the block? To avoid getting hit, right? If the enemy isn't attacking the block, that means you did not get hit. Ergo, the block did what it was supposed to, which was keeping you from getting hit.
I'm not going to bother addressing the sample battle because it's obviously going to be set up to prove your point. I could easily manufacture a way for the exact same scenario to be worthwhile the other way, since you don't mention or appear to take into account relative skill levels.
-
Not really. Check this (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_rBThBzjhXveU4yWHNYZWdSaGlscmNSOWVEaHVGZw/edit) for some numbers. If someone's rolling from 3, there's only a 38% chance that they're going to get a +1 on top of that. Which means a 4-shift block is going to be effective against a Good attack rating more than 60% of the time. For mooks with Fair ratings, there's only about 18% chance of it succeeding. Remember that 3 is the best that most mooks will have. Your usual unnamed human is going to top out at 2.
And you don't think that Harry always only casts it at 4, do you? Remember that write-up is from the first book in the series. By the time he's coming under machinegun fire, I wouldn't be surprised if he was regularly casting it from 5 and 6.
Conviction 5. Specialization+1; Focus Items: +2 to Conviction means you start at 8. A properly equipped caster will also likely have his control roll starting from 5 meaning--even without a focus item to help--he can reasonably expect to cast the spell with only 3-4 shifts of backlash. That seems fairly easy to me. And that's assuming no refinements put into it.
Question: Why did you put up the block? To avoid getting hit, right? If the enemy isn't attacking the block, that means you did not get hit. Ergo, the block did what it was supposed to, which was keeping you from getting hit.
I'm not going to bother addressing the sample battle because it's obviously going to be set up to prove your point. I could easily manufacture a way for the exact same scenario to be worthwhile the other way, since you don't mention or appear to take into account relative skill levels.
Wrong. I put up Blocks to nullify an attack. If it doesn't do that it's not actually doing anything. Every urn I put up a block might as well be a turn I did nothing but couldn't be attacked either. It's like phasing out of the battle while the rest of the group gets hammered on by a superior force.
If I'm defending a guy while he takes some extra time to prepare a better attack then sure. But battles are won on who hits most often. Not who doesn't get hit. And as a GMI should be playing smarter than the video game AI that will attack the guy behind the nigh invincible barrier.
-
Wrong. I put up Blocks to nullify an attack. If it doesn't do that it's not actually doing anything.
If you do not put up a block, you are the target of the attack. If you do put up the block, you are not the target of the attack. That sorta seems like doing something to me.
Every urn I put up a block might as well be a turn I did nothing but couldn't be attacked either.
It's a turn where nobody on the other side is attacking what's likely the group's strongest attacker--the enemy wizard is spending stress and potentially backlash to attack someone who is, in all likelihood, better equipped to dodge or deal with his attack than the wizard would be unprotected.
It's like phasing out of the battle while the rest of the group gets hammered on by a superior force.
And the rest of the group are such defenseless lambs that it's preferable if the wizard gets ganked instead?
If I'm defending a guy while he takes some extra time to prepare a better attack then sure. But battles are won on who hits most often. Not who doesn't get hit. And as a GM I should be playing smarter than the video game AI that will attack the guy behind the nigh invincible barrier.
If you're not getting hit, then by default, you're ahead of the game. The other side is going to be spending effort and resources while you don't.
And you're right. A smart GM wouldn't attack the guy behind the nigh-invincible barrier. He would have his side maneuver and support one another to get through that barrier--which still results in fewer successful attacks against the wizard's side.
So putting up a shield around the wizard results in either A. the wizard taking a breather while the other side spends stress, effort, and resources attacking everyone else, allowing him to use his own stress and resources when everyone else is already getting tired; or B. the other side focuses on the wizard's shield with maneuvers, in which case they're not attacking the wizard's team and may not even get through the shield.
-
If you do not put up a block, you are the target of the attack. If you do put up the block, you are not the target of the attack. That sorta seems like doing something to me.
It's a turn where nobody on the other side is attacking what's likely the group's strongest attacker--the enemy wizard is spending stress and potentially backlash to attack someone who is, in all likelihood, better equipped to dodge or deal with his attack than the wizard would be unprotected.
And the rest of the group are such defenseless lambs that it's preferable if the wizard gets ganked instead?
If you're not getting hit, then by default, you're ahead of the game. The other side is going to be spending effort and resources while you don't.
And you're right. A smart GM wouldn't attack the guy behind the nigh-invincible barrier. He would have his side maneuver and support one another to get through that barrier--which still results in fewer successful attacks against the wizard's side.
So putting up a shield around the wizard results in either A. the wizard taking a breather while the other side spends stress, effort, and resources attacking everyone else, allowing him to use his own stress and resources when everyone else is already getting tired; or B. the other side focuses on the wizard's shield with maneuvers, in which case they're not attacking the wizard's team and may not even get through the shield.
No. The Clever GM Blitzes the weakest party memebers first, crippling the parties action economy and eventually leaving the party Glass Cannon alone while he hides in his shield. Mooks who can't manuever worth crap don't belong manuevering, they belong drawing fire so the big guns can get into place.
A turn spent erecting a barrier is a turn wasted when most likely the wizard can significantly wound a large portion of the opposing force.
For every extra turn you keep that block up it costs 1 of its power. They have a duration of until you go again base. It is one of probably 4-5 spells you have in a given combat. And frankly a decently built wizard can defend themselves very well with enchanted items. Armor. Blocks. A decent athletics score. Most of the time they'll be better defended than Everything short of the party tank. My parties wizard was more durable than everybody except the Lycanthrope and the werewolf when she specced her powers to toughness.(Out of a party of 7) That meant the wizard outtanked a Faerie Knight, a Changeling, A Knight of the cross, and the sneakthief phobophage scion who generally worked by hiding in the shadows and spiderclimbing up onto walls allowing passive affects to hide him while he used long range incite emotion fear and thus was almost never attacked, but never spent actions getting to that state.
In the end the Wizard is wasting his time putting up a barrier because he's then done nothing. It fades away having done nothing but get the rest of the party hurt worse.(our poor Knight of the Cross and his frequent severe consequences.)
-
If you do not put up a block, you are the target of the attack. If you do put up the block, you are not the target of the attack. That sorta seems like doing something to me.
It's a turn where nobody on the other side is attacking what's likely the group's strongest attacker--the enemy wizard is spending stress and potentially backlash to attack someone who is, in all likelihood, better equipped to dodge or deal with his attack than the wizard would be unprotected.
And the rest of the group are such defenseless lambs that it's preferable if the wizard gets ganked instead?
If you're not getting hit, then by default, you're ahead of the game. The other side is going to be spending effort and resources while you don't.
And you're right. A smart GM wouldn't attack the guy behind the nigh-invincible barrier. He would have his side maneuver and support one another to get through that barrier--which still results in fewer successful attacks against the wizard's side.
So putting up a shield around the wizard results in either A. the wizard taking a breather while the other side spends stress, effort, and resources attacking everyone else, allowing him to use his own stress and resources when everyone else is already getting tired; or B. the other side focuses on the wizard's shield with maneuvers, in which case they're not attacking the wizard's team and may not even get through the shield.
Or C: The other team totally ignores the wizard while he's sitting there doing nothing behind a shield, his team mates get beaten down because now they are down one action per exchange, and now the wizard is horribly out-numbered. Blocks have zero utility, that's the real crux of the problem. Combine that with the fact that you have to telegraph your defense when you put one up. The idea of defense is to lessen the effect of the oppositions actions against you. In a game like this where action economy is paramount, letting the other side have the full effect of their actions while your side is down an action is not optimal in a straight forward fight.
-
You seem to be under the assumption that the wizard is only erecting the barrier with a complete and utter lack of understanding of any kind of tactics at all. Yes, this is bad. But that's because the player is not using his resources well, not because evocation blocks are badly implemented.
So yes, is it bad if the wizard just sits under his barrier the whole fight and does nothing else? Yes. But that's not a weakness of the evocation block, it's a weakness of the player who's using his resources in a dopey way. There are plenty of situations where a blocking spell does a ton of good.
You might as well be saying that guns are underpowered because a player might decide to empty his clip into a potted plant instead. You're talking about the failings of a player who doesn't know what he's doing, not the failing of the game mechanic.
There's also the issue of the GM playing like a twink instead of playing the enemies in character. A Red Court Vampire doesn't go, "Hm, Dresden's under a 5-shift block, so I should go around him and attack Murphy." A Red Court Vampire thinks, "There's Dresden! Get him!"
-
Exactly. Now I can say that if You're stalling a chokepoint while the party handles another force then sure. If you can defend a portion of the party then sure. But Blocks are not effecive strategy in a straight fight. And they don't work like Harry uses them. He pops one up just before the attack hits, and then attacks from behind it, throwing extra will to strengthen it when its needed. He uses them as a reactive defense. Blocks don't work like that in this RPG.
And no. A Red Court Vampire thinks like a predator. The Wizard is powerful. I should kill the weak one first and then hit the wizard when he is weakened by holding up that silly shield. I believe Jim has mentioned predator mindset more than once. The enemy wizard will be more than smart enough to see, Hmmm. I could break that shield or I could break that mortal with the gun then deal with Dresden.
What we're saying is that Blocks are not strategically viable in regular circumstances. They are incredibly situational.
-
Exactly. Now I can say that if You're stalling a chokepoint while the party handles another force then sure. If you can defend a portion of the party then sure. But Blocks are not effecive strategy in a straight fight. And they don't work like Harry uses them. He pops one up just before the attack hits, and then attacks from behind it, throwing extra will to strengthen it when its needed. He uses them as a reactive defense. Blocks don't work like that in this RPG.
They do if you are holding action and interrupt, or make a declaration that you're preparing it. Remember the rules are an abstract. Harry holds his action until the vampire attacks, then he tosses up the shield. The vampire attacks it, then it's Harry's turn again.
And no. A Red Court Vampire thinks like a predator. The Wizard is powerful. I should kill the weak one first and then hit the wizard when he is weakened by holding up that silly shield.
Okay, then explain why they act exactly like how I described every time they run into Dresden, such as in Changes, where they jump straight at him.
I believe Jim has mentioned predator mindset more than once. The enemy wizard will be more than smart enough to see, Hmmm. I could break that shield or I could break that mortal with the gun then deal with Dresden.
The average mook isn't going to be that smart that they can calculate like that in a fight. You're giving them too much credit.
What we're saying is that Blocks are not strategically viable in regular circumstances. They are incredibly situational.
Everything is situational. Blocks have plenty of use--as a GM, I've seen battles won and lost on the strength of blocks.
-
The biggest problem with evocation blocks, that I have found, is the fact that they only last for one exchange, whether they are useful or not. In my game, we have decided to accommodate this by letting blocks hold indefinitely, but you will get a -2 on any action you want to perform while holding up the spell. That way, you can put up a shield at the start of the conflict and then go about your day, until it is broken.
Though I have to say I like the fate core approach a bit better, where a shield spell is simply an aspect that grants you the power to defend physical attacks with discipline. That way, you can bump your defense with tags and invokes, so you are not limited to the static evocation block. The aspect will not expire after one exchange as well, so it takes care of that problem, and it is all around a great solution.
-
I never threw up a single-person defensive block while playing a caster, but I got a whole lot of mileage out of them nonetheless. Zone-wide blocks against movement by swamping my foes in rushing water, blocks on an enemy spellcaster by scouring away any magic he tried to call up, blocks against perception by bringing up mists, and that's all with one element. A true evoker has a tremendous range of ways he can interfere with the enemy's ability to hit his buddies as well as him.
And the solution to the short duration is, unless I'm badly misremembering, very simple. You call up your big one-exchange spell on the first round, then extend its duration on the second round. Yes, it eats up time, but extending that ten-shift encased-in-ice spell for another six exchanges is worth a second round of action, assuming you've got a team that's helping you out. And if you don't, then you should be extending whatever spell you're using to get the hell out of there.
-
Evocation blocks are fine (especially offensive, an quagmire effects can be really good at setting up an area hammer down), but you may want to note that, for mechanical reasons, enchanted items are much more effective at generating blocks and maneuver stacks than they are at creating attacks. For opportunity cost reasons, this means it's generally better to have offensive foci and not use free form defensive blocks, relying on enchanted items to cover one or two sorts of blocks. This seems to match up with the books, so it's probably not entirely accidental.
-
Let's take a sample battle here.
4 v 4. 1 Wizard, 1 WC Vampire, 1 Vanilla Mortal, 1 Werewolf.
Team 1 Wizard puts up a powerful block defending himself.
Team 2 Wizard Aims a powerful spell at Team 1's Vanilla Mortal.
Team 1 is down a person.
Team 1 WCV attacks Team 2 Wizard and takes him out.
Team 2 WCV and Team 2 Vanilla Mortal Team up on Team 1 Wizard and deal with him before he can manage another spell because WCV's own Wizards because the block doesn't defend against mental attacks.
Team 1 and Team 2 Werewolves handle eachother.
End of Round 1, Team 1 has 1 Shapeshifter and 1 WCV verse a Vanilla Mortal, a WCV and a shapeshifter. Who wins?
Hint, the team that didn't mess around with a block.
Next Scenario.
Instead of a global Block Wizard 1 Blocks off Wizard 2 from doing anything but leaves himself open. It's a net Zero result.
Wizards are better served being blasty cannons than making evocation blocks because they have the highest accuracy and the most damage. Sacrificing even 1 turn of that can doom the party.
As for the uninvested shield. That's her fault for not spending the time to make it worthwhile. a 1 slot enchanted item isn't super reliable for defense purposes.
Im going to use this to explain why blocks can be effective. Also you are going on the assumption that the wizard goes first. For my illistration I am taking out the shapeshifters because, in your example, they took each other out so i will leave them be.
1VM attacks 2Wiz with a pistol dealing whatever damage. 2VM attacks 1WCV. 1Wiz Blocks 1VM from damage. 2Wiz attacks 1VM and has a block to deal with. blah blah blah. It matters how people respond too. As a GM im not having the wizard who just got attacked ignore that fact and attack someone who is not activly dealing him damage. I also am not going to have a person who says "attack that guy!" and then have them change that strategy because a block got put up.
Narativly me putting up a block could be construed as a block comming up at the last second. I just have to make the roll beforehand.
When dresden puts up a block he his making his roll before he puts the block up, not when it happens, the person attacking is just met with the block that dresden prepared earlier.
-
As a GM im not having the wizard who just got attacked ignore that fact and attack someone who is not activly dealing him damage. I also am not going to have a person who says "attack that guy!" and then have them change that strategy because a block got put up.
This, definitely. Neither side of the conflict is, or should be played as, a single entity all under the direct and omniscient control of a being seeking to exploit every vulnerability the instant it comes in. Both sides of the conflict are filled with individuals who are going to be motivated by things other than a calculation of relative skill rolls and block strength.
So yes, a vampire is going to run smack into a wall of force to try and attack the person behind it. Someone is going to attack the wizard even if he puts up a shield, because the wizard is a major target on his own, whatever else happens.
-
People seem to be missing about three things:
1. You can defend more than one person with an Evocation Block. Heck, do it right and you can defend the whole party. Look at the duel in White Night where Harry and Carlos take turns defending the both of them while the other does offense.
2. Wizards are death incarnate on offense, at least potentially, anyone with brains is gonna try to take them out, block or no. If they don't, they can easily get fried en masse. Turn 1: Block. Nobody attacks? Turn 2: Zone Attack with a couple of Declarations piled on it. Dead enemies. This isn't always what happens, but it can happen and anyone who faces Wizards knows it.
3. This is what Enchanted Items are for. They don't take an action and thus play a big part in being an effective spellcaster defensively.
-
2. Wizards are death incarnate on offense, at least potentially, anyone with brains is gonna try to take them out, block or no. If they don't, they can easily get fried en masse. Turn 1: Block. Nobody attacks? Turn 2: Zone Attack with a couple of Declarations piled on it. Dead enemies. This isn't always what happens, but it can happen and anyone who faces Wizards knows it.
If you could kill everything with one spell, why didn't you cast that spell first?
And if your block is strong enough, attacking you is evidence of stupidity. Not intelligence. Doesn't matter how valuable hitting the wizard would be if hitting him is mathematically impossible.
I'm with you on the first point though, and I'd be with you on the third if I thought Crafting counted as Evocation. Occasionally, evocation blocks are really handy. But only occasionally.
-
Blocking yourself is often a tactical mistake. But blocks aren't.
A block preventing the massively strong grendelkin from attacking anyone is effective.
A block keeping the Malks from moving into your zone lets your group pick them off with guns.
A block keeping the enemy spell caster from launching the zone wide fireball is good.
Granted, I allow a house rule to let evocation blocks be cast as a defensive action.
-
If you could kill everything with one spell, why didn't you cast that spell first?
An extra turn of Declarations, possibly allowing your comrades to set the poor bastards up with Maneuvers. Alternately, fear that some will survive and attack you. A more common pattern would be three rounds (1: Set up block, 2: Extend Block, 3. Fry enemies), for safety's sake...but the point is that ignoring the Wizard is not a way to live long.
And if your block is strong enough, attacking you is evidence of stupidity. Not intelligence. Doesn't matter how valuable hitting the wizard would be if hitting him is mathematically impossible.
Totally true after the first attack...but unless they have a lot of Lore (or something else appropriate), a 4 shift Block and a 10 shift block look about the same. Add in the whole 'Wizards are really dangerous' factor noted above, and not at least probing their defenses is not the brightest move. Or serious metagaming.
I'm with you on the first point though, and I'd be with you on the third if I thought Crafting counted as Evocation.
Point. :)
Just noting what Wizards have in the way of defensive options.
Occasionally, evocation blocks are really handy. But only occasionally.
Depends on what else you have available defensively. If you have a good Enchanted Item defense, then yeah, it's gonna be a corner case...if you don't it might be a better idea a lot more of the time.
Blocking yourself is often a tactical mistake. But blocks aren't.
A block preventing the massively strong grendelkin from attacking anyone is effective.
A block keeping the Malks from moving into your zone lets your group pick them off with guns.
A block keeping the enemy spell caster from launching the zone wide fireball is good.
This is also true.
-
I really don't see how they're underpowered. Really, few antagonists that aren't named major NPCs should be attacking from more than 3, so a 4-shift block on its own is pretty effective against most things. If a caster is equipped properly, they should be able to pull off 8-10 shift shields fairly easily.
I agree, they are absolutely NOT underpowered. Many wizards will have a 4 or 5 in Conviction. Many also have a shield bracelet (or an equivalent) that would give a +1. Finally, many wizards spent an enchanted item slot for something like Harry's Duster. Now let me show you how this would play out...
Harry enters a room to find there are guys with guns. He instantly puts up his bracelet with a 6 Power (5 for strength, 1 for 1 extra exchange). Until his next turn, every enemy has to get a 5 to hit him. Keep in mind that 5 is something that is so good, many campaigns don't allow a skill that high. A thug would have maybe a 2 or 3 at guns. A trained cop would probably have a 4. Only the best would have higher. All this is for one mental stress. Even if one gets through, you can use your duster as armor. Your block would cancel out most of the attack, and most weapons are 2 or 3, so the duster would stop most or all of it.
Before I continue, compare having to roll Athletics. Yes, you might get an awesome roll but you are just as likely to get a -2 as you are +2 and how screwed would you be?
Next turn you decide to spend one more casting action to up the duration. Because you have the shield bracelet you can get it for 6 more exchanges. Now you've taken your second stress. (If you had spend an additional stress to make it even higher in the beginning, it would be nearly indestructible.)
Now you have the freedom to move as you please. You can even turn it into an Armor of 2 if you think your block might get canceled (though it then won't stack with your duster). With 6 more exchanges, you have options while they poo themselves because their bullets can't hurt you.
Here's the final kicker... you can use that stored shield energy for another spell. (The rules are on p.260) As long as there is one exchange left it is never a complete waste.
This isn't even including your ability to protect EVERYBODY. I think it's one more power required to protect a person next to you or 2 for a zone. In a group fight, you can put up an area block, saving everybody, then they can attack without fear. If it counts as armor, they can even dodge while getting your bonus.
The final factor you need to consider is how incredibly overpowered wizards are. (Which is ok. I don't mind, my players don't mind) Evocation gives you this boost to your defense that you wouldn't already have. It also gives you an incredibly powerful damaging attack. How many of the other players will have a Weapon Strength: 5 (or higher) attack? Fine, it costs stress that goes away pretty quickly. If you have a 5 in Conviction you'll even have an additional mild mental consequence.
If you throw out Evocation like a thug then, yes, it can be underpowered. Maybe you're facing that creature that is incredibly resistant to magic and is coming towards you to crush everything. Boost that Fuego up and attack the wooden floor, making the creature fall to the lower floor. You can't really do that with gun or sword.
Maybe the entire room is filled with vampires. Heck with it, make it a zone attack and burn EVERYTHING. Conviction:5 means 5 damage to everybody in the room if they don't get a 6 on their dodge. (More damage if they get anything less than a 5.) That only costs ONE STRESS.
-
If you could kill everything with one spell, why didn't you cast that spell first?
Maybe your enemies are mortals and you're worried about the First Law. Maybe they have hostages or bystanders.
A good GM will also make certain people react differently instead of just mechanically. In my games, if a man walks in when people try to gun him down, holds up his hand, and bullets do nothing, they are more willing to talk. That's exactly how it's worked a few times with Marcone.
-
We're not claimig they are underpowered Auspice.
They are very powerful but often functionally useless in comparison to a wizard's offensive options.
If you as a GM have your monsters brainless enough to attack the wizard fine. But that means your Players are fighting enemies who are stupid. Turn Based Combat allows people with zero cmombat experience to fight as if they have combat exerience by giving them more time to think. Your villains, past the very lowest levels of the game, are familiar with combat. They know how to tell when a wizard puts up a shield if they are supernaturally savvy. If not they should be early game or a very easy fight.
Don't play your baddies so that they attack the heavily defended wizard. Your players aren't that dumb. Ask them.
By the same logic don't let your Villains be that dumb.
My Players always loved the outwit the GM aspect. It's part of why they play. Have you ever had the dragons tail get pinned to the floor? Probably not, but it's a effective and clever stall.
How about an overwhelming and tactical force scared out of the church by a plague of centipedes by the badly wounded party hiding in a closet. That's what players live for(Or at least the awesome ones.)
As to the 4 or 5 conviction bit. if you go back in the debate you'll see the mention of an enchanted item worth the cost of your shield bracelet that is much better because it's a 3 use no stress shield at that 5 or 6 power. And it can be used for a mental stress. And it can be used as a reaction. Much better than a min power block in every way. Assuming your Wizard has a half decent Lore Score.
-
That's one aspect of it, but what about the group block? What about the group armor? What about blocking for somebody else? Evocation blocking is not really meant to be the main form of defense. It's meant to be there when you need something powerful right then and there. Dresden usually puts it up when he has yet to figure out what is going on. Aside from that he relies on his trench coat and the old-fashioned getting out of the way.
A block preventing the massively strong grendelkin from attacking anyone is effective.
A block keeping the Malks from moving into your zone lets your group pick them off with guns.
A block keeping the enemy spell caster from launching the zone wide fireball is good.
Plus there's always this.
-
Plus there's always this.
Yup. Speaking of grendelkin, in one of my games, we had a small party fighting one, who had ghouls as its door wardens. While the fighters were in melee, the wizard's main contribution to the fight was to put up and maintain a block on the doorway keeping the Ghouls out long enough for them to bunch up in the hallway...where she could then roast them all wholesale.
-
Yup. Speaking of grendelkin, in one of my games, we had a small party fighting one, who had ghouls as its door wardens. While the fighters were in melee, the wizard's main contribution to the fight was to put up and maintain a block on the doorway keeping the Ghouls out long enough for them to bunch up in the hallway...where she could then roast them all wholesale.
Clever. That's something I had yet to think of... a block used to round things up to be fried. It's amazing what some of the players have come up with so far. One character used earth magic to push a warehouse wall down (the building was already damaged), concentrating on tipping it instead of trying to hit the blocking warlock hiding behind it. He then was subtle enough to use earth magic to soften the mortar on a brick wall for an instant, quiet, breaking and entering.
-
Wow. Some of you folk must be playing a different game. We've used tons of blocks to great effect. I once put up a block by suspending droplets of vaporized holy water in a room to prevent a group of RCV from attacking us. Another time, my block saved one of our guy's bacon when a sniper opened fire on us. I've used a block to stop a speeding car and fend off a wizard attack. Some of the comments make me think you're actually assuming the enemy knows there's a block there and just avoids it. Why assume that?
-
This, definitely. Neither side of the conflict is, or should be played as, a single entity all under the direct and omniscient control of a being seeking to exploit every vulnerability the instant it comes in. Both sides of the conflict are filled with individuals who are going to be motivated by things other than a calculation of relative skill rolls and block strength.
So yes, a vampire is going to run smack into a wall of force to try and attack the person behind it. Someone is going to attack the wizard even if he puts up a shield, because the wizard is a major target on his own, whatever else happens.
+1
-
Wow. Some of you folk must be playing a different game. We've used tons of blocks to great effect. I once put up a block by suspending droplets of vaporized holy water in a room to prevent a group of RCV from attacking us. Another time, my block saved one of our guy's bacon when a sniper opened fire on us. I've used a block to stop a speeding car and fend off a wizard attack. Some of the comments make me think you're actually assuming the enemy knows there's a block there and just avoids it. Why assume that?
And in those situations you A: Stopped combat and removed any melee fighters in your party from offensive duty as well as took advantage of a catch to great affect. In the next two you stopped single entities as reactions to something. Blocks aren't supposed to work as a reaction and as such work badly for the purpose of defense. I've seen them used to great affect too, but in very specific situations. As a part of a straight up fight with multiple combatents on each side they are rarely useful. Trust me, they are rarely worth the resources spent to cast them.(A turn and a spell stress.)(Now, if you make a Block that draws all gunfire to it or a block that the enemy must get by to hurt anybody but doesn't limit the party they can be very useful. )
The problem is attacking with a Wizard almost always results in something taken out, or at least gives a consequence that limits the usefulness of the target. A block doesn't do that.
(I would also like to point out I mentioned Blocks that hold off reinforcements and abuse chokepoints as places where they do work.) Most of what we are debating is that Blocks don't work the way Harry uses them. Most of this comes down to the fact Harry is alone or blocking the rest of the party in almost every instance he uses his shield. Thus all the attacks are directed at him. That is a good use of his block. In gameplay though, it is far and away less useful because the party is usually 4+ people, many of which need to be up close to do much in combat. They are almost always a liability unless used in a very specific set of circumstances, and ones that rarely come up because it is rare that the party is on the defensive past the opening scenes of a story. They are searching, hunting, trying to stop the baddies, etc. You can only run defend the ritual in place once or twice and even then it takes the best caster out of the fight anyway.
-
The problem with this line of thinking is that you are separating Evocation blocks with Evocation. If we are discussing making Evocation blocks more powerful we are discussing making Evocation more powerful.
Everybody already has their own defense rolls based on Athletics or enchanted items. Evocation block is a boost for Wizards to keep them alive and add on maneuvers.
Most of what we are debating is that Blocks don't work the way Harry uses them.
Nope, they are MUCH more powerful in this system. Harry's are usually faced in one direction, he couldn't cast while one was up, he could barely act while one was up, and (before a certain point) they could only guard against kenetic. All things considered, he didn't use his shield bracelet that much. He usually dodged.
-
Why exactly are you saying they don't work as a reaction. That is exactly what they do. You prepare the spell to stop a specific thing from happening so that when it does happen the block goes up. It seems to me you aren't looking at the narrative. When a wizard casts a block first turn it isn't that he puts up a glowing wall around him that everyone can see. He is charging up the spell so that when the trigger happens, he will block it.
-
And in those situations you A: Stopped combat and removed any melee fighters in your party from offensive duty as well as took advantage of a catch to great affect.
I agree on the catch. The other stuff is not the case. Melee fighters were free to melee. In one case they were able to melee without being flanked and surrounded. In other, they were free to melee without getting drilled by a high powered rifle. We had multiple combatants in multiple zones.
In the next two you stopped single entities as reactions to something. Blocks aren't supposed to work as a reaction and as such work badly for the purpose of defense.
No, I knew the guy was going to try to run us down with his car and I had a powerful block as a rote.
Most of what we are debating is that Blocks don't work the way Harry uses them.
Blocks work the way Harry uses them. That's the way they should be used.
In gameplay though, it is far and away less useful because the party is usually 4+ people, many of which need to be up close to do much in combat.
I've never thrown a block that blocked my teammates from going where they wanted to go.
They are almost always a liability unless used in a very specific set of circumstances, and ones that rarely come up because it is rare that the party is on the defensive past the opening scenes of a story.
Like I said, different game. We spend as much time fighting off baddies that have us dead to rights as we do chasing them. We've been ambushed by red court vamps, gunned down in a drive by, attacked by wardens using spells, a sniper 5 zones away and a mind controlled NPC with a satchel bomb. I used a horde of pixies to block during that fight.
-
Is a horde of pixies an evocation block?
Anyway, If they're working for you great. I as a GM have never seen them work well in open combat unless placed on a specific enemy as a hold and even then only because the enemy was mortal and the laws put the wizard in a bind. And My Wizard is probably the smartest player I know. I called him in to explain relativity to me last night for a writing project actually.
If Blocks had a better duration they would be better. If they weren't so easy to get around or break they'd be great. If a Wizard couldn't almost always do more offensively with the stress they'd be useful. And most importantly if they could be raised as a reaction instead of an action they would be great.
But as it is the wizard almost always has better things to be doing with his stress slots than redirecting fire towards the rest of the party.
A large part of the problem is that in every one of your scenarios something actually hit the block. A competent and tactically minded force just isn't going to do that because getting a block to be a reasonable obstruction usually makes it not worthwhile.
-
Not every fight is about blasting the other guy as fast as you can. There are any number of possible scenarios where attacking outright just isn't worth it until there's been time to set things up.
Dresden Files isn't a console RPG where every fight boils down to, "Hit the other guy before he hits you." Good enemies will have goals beyond simple annihilation of the other side, and a good GM will have enemies and scenarios set up so it's not simply a contest of who can make the bigger boom.
And, as stated, a good GM who remembers that DFRPG is as much a roleplaying game as it is a blasting game is going to play those enemies in character, rather than as super-optimized, hyper-competent badasses who can calculate battlefield probability on the fly and change their actions mid-course the instant it's less than optimal for them to keep going.
What it seems to come down to is you saying specific types of evocation blocks don't work with the specific way you and your players play. Which is fine. But that doesn't mean they're bad or underpowered.
-
Again you are determining before hand that the block is something they can see. An entire round only happens in the span of a minute at the most. there really isnt all that much time to say "Oh that guy is putting up a very clear block i will avoid."
Also, like i just said, you arent looking at it narative you are looking at it cause and effect. Blocks act like prepared actions in DND. You decide what effect it is that you are blocking and if that happens then so does your block.
*Ninja'd
-
Again you are determining before hand that the block is something they can see. An entire round only happens in the span of a minute at the most. there really isnt all that much time to say "Oh that guy is putting up a very clear block i will avoid."
Also, like i just said, you arent looking at it narative you are looking at it cause and effect. Blocks act like prepared actions in DND. You decide what effect it is that you are blocking and if that happens then so does your block.
*Ninja'd
The problem with that line of thought is that it goes against the reality of playing the game. Character narration doesn't change the fact that you as the player or GM does know someone put up a block. You can try and play to the nature of the character all you want, but what you as a player know can and does color your in-game decisions.
This typically swings in two directions. A. play as a tactical master because you as a player have knowledge the characters don't. B. compensate in the opposite direction and serve yourself to the opposition on a platter for the sake of narration.
My experience with most RPG battles is it's either a mook fight where the players can't possibly lose (but may get softened up a bit). Or it's an insanely tough fight where players just barely pull through (or just lose).
-
And, as stated, a good GM who remembers that DFRPG is as much a roleplaying game as it is a blasting game is going to play those enemies in character, rather than as super-optimized, hyper-competent badasses who can calculate battlefield probability on the fly and change their actions mid-course the instant it's less than optimal for them to keep going.
What it seems to come down to is you saying specific types of evocation blocks don't work with the specific way you and your players play. Which is fine. But that doesn't mean they're bad or underpowered.
Seconded. Just how many NPC's know about the occult in general and your wizard in particular? That's be a heck of a Lore and/or Contacts roll. Let's assume Johnny Marcone is interested in your Wizard. He could be reasonably assumed to know what a Wizard (and therefore, YOU) are capable of...but it doesn't necessarily follow that he knows what your fav elements, rote spells or enchanted items are. Heck, even with his Contacts and Recources, he still got kidnapped by Denarians. Two: just because a Wizard used a block doesn't mean 1) everyone knows about it now and 2) knows how to counter it--not unless all the villains suddenly put 3-5 points in Lore. If said Wizard used the same block over and over for a significant time period, then yeah, some villains could get wise to it and learn to counter it. Others would simply learn to leave the occult badass alone if they couldn't rustle up some moxie (that they may or may not be able to control--but that's another story).
-
The problem with that line of thought is that it goes against the reality of playing the game. Character narration doesn't change the fact that you as the player or GM does know someone put up a block. You can try and play to the nature of the character all you want, but what you as a player know can and does color your in-game decisions.
This typically swings in two directions. A. play as a tactical master because you as a player have knowledge the characters don't. B. compensate in the opposite direction and serve yourself to the opposition on a platter for the sake of narration.
My experience with most RPG battles is it's either a mook fight where the players can't possibly lose (but may get softened up a bit). Or it's an insanely tough fight where players just barely pull through (or just lose).
I was addressing less the player and more the GM.
Put it this way: How much fun is a video game when the AI is programmed to specifically counter in the most optimal way everything you try to do? Generally speaking, the GM isn't playing against the PCs--he's providing challenge, yes, but on the balance, the PCs' tactics should work and have some tangible effect. The GM shouldn't be playing every encounter as an omniscient singular force using every possible angle to his advantage--he should play the encounters in character.
-
I was addressing less the player and more the GM.
Put it this way: How much fun is a video game when the AI is programmed to specifically counter in the most optimal way everything you try to do? Generally speaking, the GM isn't playing against the PCs--he's providing challenge, yes, but on the balance, the PCs' tactics should work and have some tangible effect. The GM shouldn't be playing every encounter as an omniscient singular force using every possible angle to his advantage--he should play the encounters in character.
To clarify: I was speaking in more general terms for all players, pc and gm, regarding the nature of games like this. That all players have that "god-knowledge" and that no matter how in character you try to be, it does effect your decisions while playing.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that it shouldn't be a "gm versus the pc's" deal. That it should be about making a fun and interesting encounter. But I just have a problem when almost the only time an ability is useful (a self targeted block as a defense) is when the GM is intentionally playing like a heel.
-
Yea but say I have two guys duking it out durring a battle. One wizard one Whatever. The Whatever and wizard have been going at it and so the wizard decides to put up a block on himself (he has a rote or whatever) and is now defended. The Whatever isnt going to then leave that fight and go for another person.
Another situation is when there are two groups. The leader of the GM group (such as Grevaine) says kill that guy to his mooks, His mooks arent going to care that there is a block or that other people are killing the other mooks, they are going after the prize be that he has a block or not.
-
I'm not sure exactly what this argument is about anymore...
Anyway, I have seen blocks be useful. If you're clever and willing to wait for the right opportunity, you can do a lot with a block.
But in your average fight, blasting is better. And the Harry Dresden-style short-duration one-person shield is almost never a good idea. Good blocks tend to be proactive, long-lasting, and group-friendly.
Totally true after the first attack...but unless they have a lot of Lore (or something else appropriate), a 4 shift Block and a 10 shift block look about the same. Add in the whole 'Wizards are really dangerous' factor noted above, and not at least probing their defenses is not the brightest move. Or serious metagaming.
Actually, I think you ought to be able to tell the difference between a 4 shift block and a 10 shift block easily. Powerful magic generally looks about as powerful as it is.
And denying characters important knowledge that players have tends to cause headaches.
Dresden Files isn't a console RPG where every fight boils down to, "Hit the other guy before he hits you." Good enemies will have goals beyond simple annihilation of the other side, and a good GM will have enemies and scenarios set up so it's not simply a contest of who can make the bigger boom.
And, as stated, a good GM who remembers that DFRPG is as much a roleplaying game as it is a blasting game is going to play those enemies in character, rather than as super-optimized, hyper-competent badasses who can calculate battlefield probability on the fly and change their actions mid-course the instant it's less than optimal for them to keep going.
I really don't like this argument.
Maybe your enemies are mortals and you're worried about the First Law. Maybe they have hostages or bystanders.
A good GM will also make certain people react differently instead of just mechanically. In my games, if a man walks in when people try to gun him down, holds up his hand, and bullets do nothing, they are more willing to talk. That's exactly how it's worked a few times with Marcone.
Well, yeah, there's always Compels. But resorting to Aspect stuff generally isn't a good idea when discussing balance.
-
I really don't like this argument.
The game isn't just mechanics and math--it's also the motivations of the characters involved and how they will each individually act. And in a fight, characters don't all act at maximum efficiency to do the most optimal action at any given time--they go after someone they have a grudge against, or who they think is the biggest threat, or just the first person they come across.
The players, well, you can't do much about that outside of compels, but the GM has a responsibility to keep the opposition believable and in character.
-
I know.
But when someone says "this isn't a video game" it implies that the people on the other end of the argument believe what they believe because they think this is a video game.
Same goes for "there's more to it than numbers".
People don't need to be told that.
-
I know.
But when someone says "this isn't a video game" it implies that the people on the other end of the argument believe what they believe because they think this is a video game.
Same goes for "there's more to it than numbers".
People don't need to be told that.
No, I'm implying that they're applying the same type of thinking toward this game as you would find in a video game. Just like I had to remind one of my own players that it wasn't DnD when he took someone out with a Guns roll then lamented that he didn't want to kill him.
But yes, sometimes people do need to be reminded of it, because it's easy to forget in a discussion like this, where one side of the argument appears to read as, "It doesn't work very well if the other side is doing everything to the utmost optimization," when that's not how most encounters are supposed to work. Against high-level named NPCs? Sure, you can reasonably expect them to do things efficiently as a challenge--but at the same time, named NPCs are going to have motivations driving them that will conflict with that. Low-level mooks, however, are reasonably expected to do things pretty dumbly, from a gameplay perspective.
-
Is a horde of pixies an evocation block?
No, it was a horde of pixies hopped up on Cinnabons and Orange Julius. But I did opt to throw that block rather than an evocation.
-
I just want the story behind this.
No, it was a horde of pixies hopped up on Cinnabons and Orange Julius. But I did opt to throw that block rather than an evocation.
-
I concur.
-
I think I've talked about it a little, but it was a great game. I played a powerful but undisciplined sorcerer from a privileged upbringing and Morgan played a by-the-book Wizard from the other side of the tracks. Game started off with our Mentor being killed by an RCV attack and our being framed for the murder by the Warden of Los Angeles. By the ultimate battle we had added a plain vanilla mortal with a score to settle with the Red Court and the emissary from the Egyptian or Etruscan god of death and bureaucracy. The showdown was set in a cemetery with The turncoat warden weilding massive earth magic, another Warden gun mage, a third attacker five zones away with a sniper rifle and our one friendly Warden who my character had grown fond of. She'd been mind controlled into carrying a satchel bomb.
In an earlier session I summoned a pixie known as Lilly much like Harry calls on toot-toot, only she's all about THE CINNABON and THE ORANGE JULIUS. So as we roll out of the car and the battle commences, I spend a fate point for effect and as the door opens there's a little avalanche of cinnabon wrappers and Orange Julius cups. I'd asked Lilly to bring her friends, all of them (I hadn't read very far in the series yet, so I can't be accused of plagiarism).
-
I like the Wee Folk meself!
-
No, I'm implying that they're applying the same type of thinking toward this game as you would find in a video game. Just like I had to remind one of my own players that it wasn't DnD when he took someone out with a Guns roll then lamented that he didn't want to kill him.
But yes, sometimes people do need to be reminded of it, because it's easy to forget in a discussion like this, where one side of the argument appears to read as, "It doesn't work very well if the other side is doing everything to the utmost optimization," when that's not how most encounters are supposed to work. Against high-level named NPCs? Sure, you can reasonably expect them to do things efficiently as a challenge--but at the same time, named NPCs are going to have motivations driving them that will conflict with that. Low-level mooks, however, are reasonably expected to do things pretty dumbly, from a gameplay perspective.
First, that's not how video games work. AI enemies are generally much dumber than people, and random mooks in DFRPG tend to be as smart as people because they tend to be people.
Second, it's just plain rude to dismiss people's arguments like that.
And third, people generally refer to RPG stuff as video-gamey when they're trying to denigrate it. (Especially when D&D4 is involved.) So if you're not aiming to be insulting, you should avoid the comparison.
-
First, that's not how video games work. AI enemies are generally much dumber than people, and random mooks in DFRPG tend to be as smart as people because they tend to be people.
Second, it's just plain rude to dismiss people's arguments like that.
And third, people generally refer to RPG stuff as video-gamey when they're trying to denigrate it. (Especially when D&D4 is involved.) So if you're not aiming to be insulting, you should avoid the comparison.
This isn't the movies! :-)
-
No, I'm implying that they're applying the same type of thinking toward this game as you would find in a video game. Just like I had to remind one of my own players that it wasn't DnD when he took someone out with a Guns roll then lamented that he didn't want to kill him.
But yes, sometimes people do need to be reminded of it, because it's easy to forget in a discussion like this, where one side of the argument appears to read as, "It doesn't work very well if the other side is doing everything to the utmost optimization," when that's not how most encounters are supposed to work. Against high-level named NPCs? Sure, you can reasonably expect them to do things efficiently as a challenge--but at the same time, named NPCs are going to have motivations driving them that will conflict with that. Low-level mooks, however, are reasonably expected to do things pretty dumbly, from a gameplay perspective.
The issue I have with that is pretty much all of that should be handled with compels. I don't feel a GM should be expected to handicap themselves, the other players certainly don't do this.
Compels are what the GM uses to monkey wrench players and keep them from taking the most optimal action every time. I don't see why it should be any different when the tables are turned, seeing as how it's within the players ability to call compels on npc's.
-
So wait.. What you are saying is that a GM should use a compel to cause an enemy to attack a character who has a sheild because the leader of the group told his minions to attack said sheild holder?
-
First, that's not how video games work. AI enemies are generally much dumber than people, and random mooks in DFRPG tend to be as smart as people because they tend to be people.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm more talking about the player viewpoint where every conflict boils down almost entirely to, "How can I reduce the opposition to nothing in the most efficient way possible?" instead of taking into account things like, "Well, this goon has a grudge against me because of _____" or "I'm going to attack this guy because he said my mother was a hamster and my father smelt of elderberries."
Second, it's just plain rude to dismiss people's arguments like that.
I'm not entirely sure where I did this.
And third, people generally refer to RPG stuff as video-gamey when they're trying to denigrate it. (Especially when D&D4 is involved.) So if you're not aiming to be insulting, you should avoid the comparison.
Again, I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that DFRPG doesn't and shouldn't be video-gamey--that fights are just as much about roleplaying and being in character as they are about winning the fight (occasionally more so). That a good GM will have the opposition act in character rather than just focusing on the most optimal course of action.
The issue I have with that is pretty much all of that should be handled with compels. I don't feel a GM should be expected to handicap themselves, the other players certainly don't do this.
Compels are what the GM uses to monkey wrench players and keep them from taking the most optimal action every time. I don't see why it should be any different when the tables are turned, seeing as how it's within the players ability to call compels on npc's.
Granted, but really, a Red Court Vampire should still be acting like a Red Court Vampire even if the players aren't spending fate points. If a powerful wizard is attacking the group to get at your wizard specifically, it doesn't make much sense if all of his actions end up targeting everyone besides your wizard just because you threw up a block. Call it a self compel if you must, but your nameless mooks aren't going to get much use out of a fate point anyway.
And I wouldn't say the players can't be expected to handicap themselves--mine do it all the time. I've got a cop that will always spend his first turn on a verbal warning against something that can pass as human (usually resulting in him getting decked at least once before he can open fire) and on another occasion charged into melee against a Black Court vampire instead of reloading or using his shotgun just because the vampire pissed him off, a couple wizards who regularly self-compel to injure themselves by calling up too much power, and so on.
-
I'm not entirely sure where I did this.
You said that the reason people think evocation blocks are weak is an error in their approach to gaming. That's pretty dismissive.
Again, I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that DFRPG doesn't and shouldn't be video-gamey--that fights are just as much about roleplaying and being in character as they are about winning the fight (occasionally more so). That a good GM will have the opposition act in character rather than just focusing on the most optimal course of action.
The issue here is not a misunderstanding.
I just have little tolerance for "if you were a roleplayer and not a rollplayer, you wouldn't be having this problem" and everything like it.
And having vampires not attack somebody they don't think they can hurt makes perfect sense.
-
You said that the reason people think evocation blocks are weak is an error in their approach to gaming. That's pretty dismissive.
The issue here is not a misunderstanding.
I just have little tolerance for "if you were a roleplayer and not a rollplayer, you wouldn't be having this problem" and everything like it.
And having vampires not attack somebody they don't think they can hurt makes perfect sense.
I'm going to tread carefully here since many people that have posted in this thread seem to be so much smarter than I am and I do not wish to give offense or insult, especially given my preference for a quick cheap laugh. With respect to the both of you, I believe what this may boil down to is 1) the concept/role of the Adversarial GM in a DFRPG and 2) the unsuitability of such a Storyteller in a DFRPG, regardless of my own thoughts on the subject. (For those not clued-in, an Adversarial GM is a Referee that does more than just make your character's life interesting, but actively tries to kill or stymie the player character at every turn with all NPC's optimized to take you down, complete knowledge of your strengths and weaknesses, etc.)
-
I suppose I'm not really qualified to comment on this, but really, it just seems to boil down to keeping a balance between 1) not playing NPCs like they're omniscient, and 2) not playing NPCs like they're complete idiots.
-
You said that the reason people think evocation blocks are weak is an error in their approach to gaming. That's pretty dismissive.
Apologies, then. More I meant they were making a very narrow argument--saying that the blocks are weak in the situation of only blocking yourself when the enemies are apparently aware of all the in-game math and acting in perfect concert accordingly, which really isn't how either side of the fight would realistically act.
The issue here is not a misunderstanding.
I just have little tolerance for "if you were a roleplayer and not a rollplayer, you wouldn't be having this problem" and everything like it.
Real quick, what does the "r" in "DFRPG" stand for again?
I'm saying that roleplaying should be as much of a concern as rolling dice. For characters and the GM. You wouldn't let your players capitalize on knowledge they have but that the characters couldn't, right? So why should their opposition get that benefit?
And having vampires not attack somebody they don't think they can hurt makes perfect sense.
And how, pray tell, can the vampires tell that they won't be able to hurt someone? A vampire during melee isn't going to think, "Okay, that's a 6-shift block, and my Fists skill is only 3, so statistically speaking I have very little chance of getting through it." A vampire during melee is thinking, "If I smack it hard enough, I can get through that wimpy wizard's shield!"
As you yourself have said numerous times, the mechanics are an abstract--Harry throwing up a 4-shift shield probably looks almost exactly the same as Harry putting up an 8-shift shield. So how, exactly, are the non-mage members of the opposition exactly calculating his spell power in such a way as to predict who they have a reasonable chance of attacking? A vampire, untrained in magic, shouldn't have any idea of a shield's strength until he's tried to get through it.
-
As you yourself have said numerous times, the mechanics are an abstract--Harry throwing up a 4-shift shield probably looks almost exactly the same as Harry putting up an 8-shift shield. So how, exactly, are the non-mage members of the opposition exactly calculating his spell power in such a way as to predict who they have a reasonable chance of attacking? A vampire, untrained in magic, shouldn't have any idea of a shield's strength until he's tried to get through it.
Staying out of the rest of the debate, I'd like to note this point. Underline it, so to speak. It's valid and well-stated. Figuring exactly how powerful a spell is should totally be doable. Hell, I'd likely give that info free to a wizard with the right element (and maybe even one without) with no rolls or anything...but it's by no means automatic for most non-spellcasters, meaning they should likely waste at least a turn on even the most impossibly powerful block just finding out how badass it is. Or, depending on temperament, ignore a Wizard protected by a block of any size, even ones they can easily get through, I suppose. Either's an exploitable and useful reaction.
You the GM might know how many shifts it is, because players have to tell you, but the characters you're playing probably don't. Now, in fairness, the same standards should be applied to players, but that's as easy as not telling them how many shifts the villain's block is...something I'd guess few GMs do at in person games anyway.
-
Apologies, then. More I meant they were making a very narrow argument--saying that the blocks are weak in the situation of only blocking yourself when the enemies are apparently aware of all the in-game math and acting in perfect concert accordingly, which really isn't how either side of the fight would realistically act.
Real quick, what does the "r" in "DFRPG" stand for again?
I'm saying that roleplaying should be as much of a concern as rolling dice. For characters and the GM. You wouldn't let your players capitalize on knowledge they have but that the characters couldn't, right? So why should their opposition get that benefit?
And how, pray tell, can the vampires tell that they won't be able to hurt someone? A vampire during melee isn't going to think, "Okay, that's a 6-shift block, and my Fists skill is only 3, so statistically speaking I have very little chance of getting through it." A vampire during melee is thinking, "If I smack it hard enough, I can get through that wimpy wizard's shield!"
As you yourself have said numerous times, the mechanics are an abstract--Harry throwing up a 4-shift shield probably looks almost exactly the same as Harry putting up an 8-shift shield. So how, exactly, are the non-mage members of the opposition exactly calculating his spell power in such a way as to predict who they have a reasonable chance of attacking? A vampire, untrained in magic, shouldn't have any idea of a shield's strength until he's tried to get through it.
I mainly want to address "You wouldn't let your players capitalize on knowledge they have but that the characters couldn't, right? So why should their opposition get that benefit?"
in short, I do let them. I know the information, they know the information. Everyone pretending they don't just leads to a stilted game. This is one of the unavoidable issues of player to character disconnect. The only two options are to deliberatly hamstring yourself, or just let everyone play with the information that's on the table. I personally prefer the latter, as there's still plenty of x-factors by way of declairations and compels on both sides.
The second issue I have with it is it treads on dangerously thin ice. It's just shy of a GM dictating exactly what sort of actions a player can and cannot do. If a GM tried to tell me I HAVE to attack the wizard behind an 8 shift shield I know I won't break, he better have a damn good compel in mind. Having an npc do nothing put up a shield is not justification to force the players to attack them.
-
With all due expect, I think it's not even close to a Gm telling you what you can't and cannot due. You have plenty of options even if you don't put up all the information. And no one here is talking about making anyone else's character do anything.
-
I don't really see where the assumption that enemies can't tell roughly how strong your block is comes from.
I mean, sure. IC they aren't aware of the exact mechanics. But if the block is strong enough that they have no meaningful chance of getting through, I figure vampires or soldiers or whatever can tell.
There's nothing really solid in the rules about this either way. I'm just going by what makes sense to me, and what's likely to prevent metagaming.
But all that aside, I would like to restate what I've been trying to say for the last few posts.
It's bloody rude to tell people they're approaching things from a video game-y perspective, or to tell them they aren't really roleplaying, when they worry about mechanical imbalances.
And on top of being rude, it's pretentious and dumb. Pretentious because it implies that your method of playing pretend elfgames is somehow more sophisticated than other people's. Dumb because it implies that making stupid decisions is somehow more correct or more verisimilitudinous than making smart ones.
-
I don't really see where the assumption that enemies can't tell roughly how strong your block is comes from.
I mean, sure. IC they aren't aware of the exact mechanics. But if the block is strong enough that they have no meaningful chance of getting through, I figure vampires or soldiers or whatever can tell.
There's nothing really solid in the rules about this either way. I'm just going by what makes sense to me, and what's likely to prevent metagaming.
Again, really staying out of the rest of this discussion and addressing this point specifically:
That doesn't seem to mesh up with the reality of the books very well, where Harry can create an invisible dome of force if he wants to, and Listens-to-Winds (and some of Elaine's) magical defenses take the form of simply not being there when things hit. And where Harry can't seem to tell exactly how strong Carlos's entropy shield is at first glance. And where even Kincaid, who's been around quite a while, hasn't seen a lot of pure battle wizardry. So...I'm a bit skeptical of most people being able to judge such magic at a glance.
-
It might depend on the type of block...a stone wall is going to look as tough as it is.
But that provides a mechanical advantage for describing your spell in a specific way. Which is obviously unbalanced.
And it promotes metagaming by separating player knowledge from character knowledge.
So if people want to cast spells that other people can't identify, I'd expect them to pay extra. If I were to allow it in the first place.
-
It might depend on the type of block...a stone wall is going to look as tough as it is.
That doesn't necessarily follow. Especially since most people don't really know that much about stone walls. I'd allow an Assessment to figure out how tough one was, but wouldn't allow it automatically on magic any more than I would with an actual stone wall (well, a Declaration would do for an actual one, I suppose).
But that provides a mechanical advantage for describing your spell in a specific way. Which is obviously unbalanced.
No, I'd apply that standard (ie: non-spellcasters need an Assessment to tell how badass a spell is) pretty much universally. It'd usually be a Lore assessment, though I might allow Scholarship or (in cases like the stone wall) Craftsmanship if those seemed appropriate.
And it promotes metagaming by separating player knowledge from character knowledge.
I usually don't tell characters mechanics stuff, just what appears to have happened, ie: 'You punch him and he loses teeth', or 'He raises a wall of fire'. I tell them any Consequences they inflict, but beyond that I usually don't worry about giving them mechanical details too much, as, IME, it tends to make things less narrative and more mechanic focused, which I personally like to avoid...if doing things this way the only one who needs to avoid metagaming is the GM...and he needs to do that anyway.
That's obviously not the only way to run a game...but it does sorta solve that particular problem.
So if people want to cast spells that other people can't identify, I'd expect them to pay extra. If I were to allow it in the first place.
There's not really a provision for that...but maybe there should be. Hmmmm.
-
It's unbalanced if the invisible dome is invisible and he stone wall looks like a stone wall?
-
Would someone like to clue me in as to just what it is about a solid wall of stone (or other opaque solid substance) seen only face-on that tells you, for instance, how thick that wall is?
-
Magic
-
Does the 'magic' of a veil, then, similarly broadcast to the world precisely how closely they must examine their surroundings in order to penetrate this block designed and implemented for the sole purpose of evading detection?
-
It's pretty clear in the books that figuring out the nature and strength of a shield or ward or veil or whatever takes some doing. It just doesn't happen in Dresden fights. When Harry has time, he can learn all sorts of things about a ward, but he doesn't just know who's warded and who's not by virtue of having magic. Similarly other wizards attack him while shielded all the time. And there'smoothing in the rules that says you automatically get to know there's a block up and how strong it is. Use the sight, use thaumaturgy, make a lore assessment, fine. Absent that, you learn when your spell bounces off of it.
-
I don't really see where the assumption that enemies can't tell roughly how strong your block is comes from.
Wizards have to do a Lore check before they can counterspell anything--including blocks. So wizards, who know magic inside and out, do not automatically know the strength of a spell they're up against. Why would an untrained vampire know exactly how strong a wizard's block is relative to his own strength?
I mean, sure. IC they aren't aware of the exact mechanics. But if the block is strong enough that they have no meaningful chance of getting through, I figure vampires or soldiers or whatever can tell.
That's rather the point--there is no way for them to know. Your players don't find out an enemy's defense roll until they attack and the enemy defends, right?
There's nothing really solid in the rules about this either way. I'm just going by what makes sense to me, and what's likely to prevent metagaming.
I see it the opposite. That knowing the total block strength is something the players may know, and the characters don't. So letting all the characters automatically know the power of each spell is metagaming. It's a character benefiting from the knowledge the player has that the character has no way of knowing.
It's bloody rude to tell people they're approaching things from a video game-y perspective, or to tell them they aren't really roleplaying, when they worry about mechanical imbalances.
And as I have said, roleplaying is as much part of the game as mechanics. In the Dresden system, roleplaying is part of the mechanics.
And on top of being rude, it's pretentious and dumb. Pretentious because it implies that your method of playing pretend elfgames is somehow more sophisticated than other people's. Dumb because it implies that making stupid decisions is somehow more correct or more verisimilitudinous than making smart ones.
Sophisticated? No. I'm just saying that the game, being a roleplaying game, is meant to have the characters stay in character and their actions make sense. Having your vampires not know things that a vampire wouldn't logically know isn't "stupid," it's in character.
Because hey, in real life, and in the books, characters do not always make the most intelligent decisions. So yes, characters not always making the most optimal choice in the heat of battle is more "accurate" than everyone knowing things they shouldn't have any way to tell and acting with the utmost efficiency with every actions.
I mean, look at the books. Enemies are shooting, clawing, and blasting at Harry's shield spells constantly. By your argument, none of them should ever take a shot at him because they know his shield is stronger than their ability to attack. But that doesn't happen. Enemies only get a sense for the other side's abilities when they test them.
If a wizard has to make a lore check to figure out the strength of a spell to counterspell it, I see no reason at all that untrained characters should automatically be able to look at a shield spell and instantly and accurately determine exactly how strong it is.
-
Wizards have to do a Lore check before they can counterspell anything--including blocks. So wizards, who know magic inside and out, do not automatically know the strength of a spell they're up against. Why would an untrained vampire know exactly how strong a wizard's block is relative to his own strength?
That's rather the point--there is no way for them to know. Your players don't find out an enemy's defense roll until they attack and the enemy defends, right?
I see it the opposite. That knowing the total block strength is something the players may know, and the characters don't. So letting all the characters automatically know the power of each spell is metagaming. It's a character benefiting from the knowledge the player has that the character has no way of knowing.
And as I have said, roleplaying is as much part of the game as mechanics. In the Dresden system, roleplaying is part of the mechanics.
Sophisticated? No. I'm just saying that the game, being a roleplaying game, is meant to have the characters stay in character and their actions make sense. Having your vampires not know things that a vampire wouldn't logically know isn't "stupid," it's in character.
Because hey, in real life, and in the books, characters do not always make the most intelligent decisions. So yes, characters not always making the most optimal choice in the heat of battle is more "accurate" than everyone knowing things they shouldn't have any way to tell and acting with the utmost efficiency with every actions.
I mean, look at the books. Enemies are shooting, clawing, and blasting at Harry's shield spells constantly. By your argument, none of them should ever take a shot at him because they know his shield is stronger than their ability to attack. But that doesn't happen. Enemies only get a sense for the other side's abilities when they test them.
If a wizard has to make a lore check to figure out the strength of a spell to counterspell it, I see no reason at all that untrained characters should automatically be able to look at a shield spell and instantly and accurately determine exactly how strong it is.
The problem with this line of thought really has nothing to do with mechanics versus roleplaying, or even with this game itself. The problem is that it ignores human psychology. Once you learn something, you can't forcibly unlearn it. Play a game of chess by yourself and you will subconsciously begin to favor one side over the other.
This isn't something that can be roleplayed away. It's hard-wired human thought process.
It's also already been mentioned that outside of compels, there's NO way to enforce this kind of thinking onto the players without turning into GM Dictator. A GM can say "well your character doesn't know the guy is behind a magic shield" till they turn blue. A playing can still say "okay I don't know that. I'm still not attacking him because I get to choose who my player attacks."
-
The problem with this line of thought really has nothing to do with mechanics versus roleplaying, or even with this game itself. The problem is that it ignores human psychology. Once you learn something, you can't forcibly unlearn it. Play a game of chess by yourself and you will subconsciously begin to favor one side over the other.
This isn't something that can be roleplayed away. It's hard-wired human thought process.
It's also already been mentioned that outside of compels, there's NO way to enforce this kind of thinking onto the players without turning into GM Dictator. A GM can say "well your character doesn't know the guy is behind a magic shield" till they turn blue. A playing can still say "okay I don't know that. I'm still not attacking him because I get to choose who my player attacks."
Except of course not telling players things like this their characters are unaware of.
Am I the only one who does this? I'd rather thought it was the norm... ???
-
Except of course not telling players things like this their characters are unaware of.
Am I the only one who does this? I'd rather thought it was the norm... ???
I can't say if it's the norm or not, but I don't. I try and maintain the same level of transparancy with my players as they have to with me. With Fate even more so than other systems, given the collaborative nature of the game. That and I know a few roleplayers who would probably resent a GM for hiding their roll results if it prevented them from making an informed decision haha.
-
What? My understanding is that players explicitly aren't supposed to know everything that the GM knows. For every game i've seen here as a PbP, the GM never just says "these are the monster's stats and tendencies". You're lucky if he tells you what it is.
But I was a DND 3.5 junkie for a while, so I might have a skewed perspective.
-
Our GM doesn't tell us about blocks we have no way of knowing about, and he's super transparent. Why would I want him to tell me "Before you consider attacking anyone, please know the Vampire is protected by a Block 7 shield, the ghoul has a block 10 shield protecting him. So you should probably attack the Vampire." How about instead if I jump in, blast away at the Vampire (or the Ghoul) and then he say's "Cool! Let's see if it gets past the shield. You'll need to beat a 7. That's what a great evocation?"
Then there's all sorts of cool effects as my spell either bounces off the shield, or blows it away. And I get to invoke my aspects and all that fun stuff that Fate does.
For something we would know about, like being pinned down by bullets, sure. He might say, "You'll need a great athletics roll to run through that" or whatever. A wall of fire, sure. We'd see a massive wall of flames, but we'd have to do more to get any idea about it's strength. Heck it might be an illusion.
But a magic shield that we can't see? Why would he tell us about that before we throw our attack?
-
And like you said, even if you do see it, you aren't going to know it's strength until you try to attack it.
-
Except of course not telling players things like this their characters are unaware of.
Literally impossible.
Characters don't know about Aspects, dice rolls, skill ratings, Powers, or Fate Points.
You have to inform your players about stuff their characters don't know.
Of course, there are plenty of places you can draw the line and from what I know about your approach it sounds reasonable. But I'm dead certain that even you inform your players about things the PCs don't know.
No, I'd apply that standard (ie: non-spellcasters need an Assessment to tell how badass a spell is) pretty much universally. It'd usually be a Lore assessment, though I might allow Scholarship or (in cases like the stone wall) Craftsmanship if those seemed appropriate.
Could work, but I dislike the idea of giving spellcasters special extra abilities beyond what's in the rules. They really don't need that.
I usually don't tell characters mechanics stuff, just what appears to have happened, ie: 'You punch him and he loses teeth', or 'He raises a wall of fire'. I tell them any Consequences they inflict, but beyond that I usually don't worry about giving them mechanical details too much, as, IME, it tends to make things less narrative and more mechanic focused, which I personally like to avoid...if doing things this way the only one who needs to avoid metagaming is the GM...and he needs to do that anyway.
I never tell the characters anything. (Were you making a distinction between character and player there? I can't tell.)
But I can't really be bothered to keep basic mechanical stuff secret from the players. It's a hassle, especially when Aspects get involved, because when somebody misses they'll often want to know whether they could hit by spending a Fate Point.
Would someone like to clue me in as to just what it is about a solid wall of stone (or other opaque solid substance) seen only face-on that tells you, for instance, how thick that wall is?
A 2-shift stone wall is probably like a low fence made of rock. A 12-shift stone wall is a huge-ass granite dome or something similar.
That's the way I run it, at least. Looking at the thing lets you tell whether you have a decent shot at getting through.
I'm actually kind of surprised that so many people would make a 2 shift and a 12 shift block look identical.
It's unbalanced if the invisible dome is invisible and he stone wall looks like a stone wall?
If the stone wall gives away useful information to your enemies and the invisible dome does not, the dome is better. They cost the same. That's not balanced.
Wizards have to do a Lore check before they can counterspell anything--including blocks. So wizards, who know magic inside and out, do not automatically know the strength of a spell they're up against. Why would an untrained vampire know exactly how strong a wizard's block is relative to his own strength?
I've said repeatedly that an untrained vampire wouldn't know exactly how strong a wizard's block is. But they'd generally be able to tell if the block is so strong as to make attacking futile.
I'm a pretty mediocre fighter. Fair Fists, tops. But I can tell whether my punches are likely to land long before I throw them.
This isn't hard. Anyone with even the slightest skill can tell when they're up against a (mundane) defence that outclasses them completely.
Magic could be different, but I don't see any particular reason to make it so.
That's rather the point--there is no way for them to know. Your players don't find out an enemy's defense roll until they attack and the enemy defends, right?
They know when the roll is made. That goes for blocks and defence rolls and pretty much everything else.
I see it the opposite. That knowing the total block strength is something the players may know, and the characters don't. So letting all the characters automatically know the power of each spell is metagaming. It's a character benefiting from the knowledge the player has that the character has no way of knowing.
Ugh. This is some pretty ugly circular reasoning, dude.
If you start with the assumption that people can't tell how strong a block is by looking at it casually, then obviously you'll reach the conclusion that it's not appropriate for people to be able to tell how strong a block is by looking at it casually.
But if you assume that blocks look about as strong as they are, then the question of metagaming does not even arise. Characters know more or less what players know, completely legitimately, so OoC knowledge cannot be exploited.
Sophisticated? No. I'm just saying that the game, being a roleplaying game, is meant to have the characters stay in character and their actions make sense. Having your vampires not know things that a vampire wouldn't logically know isn't "stupid," it's in character.
The issue is the nonsensical elitism, not what it's appropriate for characters to do. Don't tell people they're playing the game wrong. Just don't. Ever.
Informing people how the mechanics work is okay, but even then you have to be careful to avoid passing moral judgement. This can be tricky and I'm sure I've screwed it up a few times, but I try. And so should you.
Also, an action being in character does not make it not stupid. IC stupidity is totally a thing. And that's okay, but it's not mandatory. Especially if Compels aren't involved.
Because hey, in real life, and in the books, characters do not always make the most intelligent decisions. So yes, characters not always making the most optimal choice in the heat of battle is more "accurate" than everyone knowing things they shouldn't have any way to tell and acting with the utmost efficiency with every actions.
I mean, look at the books. Enemies are shooting, clawing, and blasting at Harry's shield spells constantly. By your argument, none of them should ever take a shot at him because they know his shield is stronger than their ability to attack. But that doesn't happen. Enemies only get a sense for the other side's abilities when they test them.
First, Harry's shields suck and attacking him when they're up is pretty sensible. Harry is like the perfect example of what not to do with evocation blocks.
Second, Compels are important. They're what prevents ultra-rational decision making.
And third, characters frequently scope one another out at a glance. It's not even slightly rare.
Suppose the Merlin were to throw out a weapon 12 zone attack. Everyone can tell that that's a big attack. I don't see much reason to treat blocks differently.
PS: Is this argument connected to the original one? I don't see much of a link. But I'm OK with topic drift, as long as the rest of you are.
-
A 2-shift stone wall is probably like a low fence made of rock. A 12-shift stone wall is a huge-ass granite dome or something similar.
That's the way I run it, at least. Looking at the thing lets you tell whether you have a decent shot at getting through.
I'm actually kind of surprised that so many people would make a 2 shift and a 12 shift block look identical.
And what rating do you give to the block made from a 2mm-thick encompassing stone dome?
I'm pretty sure I could punch through it with only minor effort, and I wouldn't give myself more than an Average fists score at most. And yet, if I found myself standing under that dome, I don't believe for an instant that I could tell at a glance that it was that thin and consequently fragile.
-
I've said repeatedly that an untrained vampire wouldn't know exactly how strong a wizard's block is. But they'd generally be able to tell if the block is so strong as to make attacking futile.
So they can't tell exactly, but they can tell close enough that it makes no difference?
Again: Wizards, who know magic inside and out, who work with and can see magic on a wavelength that almost no one else can, need to stop and do a Lore check before they can know enough about a spell's power to counterspell it.
But untrained goons can take one look at a spell and decide, "That's too powerful for my ability to aim with guns or throw my fists to get through?" What frame of reference are they using?
I'm a pretty mediocre fighter. Fair Fists, tops. But I can tell whether my punches are likely to land long before I throw them.
This isn't hard. Anyone with even the slightest skill can tell when they're up against a (mundane) defence that outclasses them completely.
Magic could be different, but I don't see any particular reason to make it so.
I have to ask, how many fights have you actually been in? Because I wrestled for 12 years, and frankly, that isn't true in the least. Going up against someone new, you have no idea what they're good at or able to defend against until you try it out against them. Only if you had a chance to see them wrestle before could you maybe have an idea.
And with all the random variables involved with a fight or a wrestling match, even a defense that "outclasses" you can be beaten. Back in the day I could go toe-to-toe with a wrestler who was 100 pounds heavier than me, and a hell of a lot stronger, even when I was playing to his strengths, and sometimes win.
They know when the roll is made. That goes for blocks and defence rolls and pretty much everything else.
Right, they don't know until they roll to attack, and the enemy rolls to defend.
Ugh. This is some pretty ugly circular reasoning, dude.
If you start with the assumption that people can't tell how strong a block is by looking at it casually, then obviously you'll reach the conclusion that it's not appropriate for people to be able to tell how strong a block is by looking at it casually.
But if you assume that blocks look about as strong as they are, then the question of metagaming does not even arise. Characters know more or less what players know, completely legitimately, so OoC knowledge cannot be exploited.
Going by the fiction, we have no reason whatsoever to assume that blocks look as strong as they are (Harry's blocks in Storm Front are described as visually almost identical to his blocks in every other book, even after we know for a fact that he's strengthened them).
First, Harry's shields suck and attacking him when they're up is pretty sensible. Harry is like the perfect example of what not to do with evocation blocks.
Actually, by the time of Small Favor Harry's shields are probably up around 6 or 7 shifts, given that he's made a better focus item and talks about how much tougher they are to get through. Which means it's not "sensible" at all for someone with an attack skill of 3--like most vampires--to attack him. And yet they do. Constantly, as recently as Changes.
And third, characters frequently scope one another out at a glance. It's not even slightly rare.
Show me where, in any of the fiction, has any character taken a quick, casual glance at a wizardly shield and figured out how strong it is from just that. To my recollection, it doesn't ever happen, even between wizards.
Hell, how many times has Harry thrown a spell at someone only to find out later that he didn't have enough strength to punch through their defenses? By your argument, Harry should have already known he couldn't get through that shield/around that speed/through that block.
By this logic, when the Merlin and LtW threw up a ward offscreen in Proven Guilty, the whole Red Court would've given up and gone home because they knew they couldn't get through it.
Suppose the Merlin were to throw out a weapon 12 zone attack. Everyone can tell that that's a big attack. I don't see much reason to treat blocks differently.
They'd know it was a big attack because it's filling the entire zone. Would you be able to look at, say, Luccio's laser in Dead Beat (pre-body switching) and tell that it's got a huge attack power at a glance? Logically, you'd think that Harry's beams are stronger because they tend to be a lot thicker.
With the books and the game, we're never given the implication that putting more power into a spell makes it bigger and more obviously stronger--hell, veils are the exact opposite, the more power into it the less obvious it is.
-
So they can't tell exactly, but they can tell close enough that it makes no difference?
Again: Wizards, who know magic inside and out, who work with and can see magic on a wavelength that almost no one else can, need to stop and do a Lore check before they can know enough about a spell's power to counterspell it.
But untrained goons can take one look at a spell and decide, "That's too powerful for my ability to aim with guns or throw my fists to get through?" What frame of reference are they using?
I have to ask, how many fights have you actually been in? Because I wrestled for 12 years, and frankly, that isn't true in the least. Going up against someone new, you have no idea what they're good at or able to defend against until you try it out against them. Only if you had a chance to see them wrestle before could you maybe have an idea.
And with all the random variables involved with a fight or a wrestling match, even a defense that "outclasses" you can be beaten. Back in the day I could go toe-to-toe with a wrestler who was 100 pounds heavier than me, and a hell of a lot stronger, even when I was playing to his strengths, and sometimes win.
Right, they don't know until they roll to attack, and the enemy rolls to defend.
Going by the fiction, we have no reason whatsoever to assume that blocks look as strong as they are (Harry's blocks in Storm Front are described as visually almost identical to his blocks in every other book, even after we know for a fact that he's strengthened them).
Actually, by the time of Small Favor Harry's shields are probably up around 6 or 7 shifts, given that he's made a better focus item and talks about how much tougher they are to get through. Which means it's not "sensible" at all for someone with an attack skill of 3--like most vampires--to attack him. And yet they do. Constantly, as recently as Changes.
Show me where, in any of the fiction, has any character taken a quick, casual glance at a wizardly shield and figured out how strong it is from just that. To my recollection, it doesn't ever happen, even between wizards.
Hell, how many times has Harry thrown a spell at someone only to find out later that he didn't have enough strength to punch through their defenses? By your argument, Harry should have already known he couldn't get through that shield/around that speed/through that block.
By this logic, when the Merlin and LtW threw up a ward offscreen in Proven Guilty, the whole Red Court would've given up and gone home because they knew they couldn't get through it.
They'd know it was a big attack because it's filling the entire zone. Would you be able to look at, say, Luccio's laser in Dead Beat (pre-body switching) and tell that it's got a huge attack power at a glance? Logically, you'd think that Harry's beams are stronger because they tend to be a lot thicker.
With the books and the game, we're never given the implication that putting more power into a spell makes it bigger and more obviously stronger--hell, veils are the exact opposite, the more power into it the less obvious it is.
Hey, you! Stop being reasonable. I want to metagame! Waah! ::)
-
The wresteling analogy is flawed. We aren't talking about two people duking it out. This is more like the difference between trying to jump over a 5 foot chain link fence, and trying to jump over a 15 foot brick wall. It's certainly possible to scale a 15 foot wall, bit it requires an entirely different approach. And I agree with the notion that narrative flavoring should not give mechanical benefit. Remember by the RAW a block is a block is a block. There's mechanically no difference between a giant wall of fire as a block, or an invisible shield as a block.
Now you can of course make an arguement for hiding block strength results, though I'm roundly against that for a multitude of reasons. The first being it's an arbitrary decision to hide roll results of one specific mechanic. Second it implies it's not okay for the players to know OoC information, but it's perfectly fine for the GM. This not only facilitates, but encourages adversarial behavior between GM and players, and downright shady behavior with the wrong kind of GM.
Making exceptions, hiding roll results, and making the game generally more convoluted with no real rules to back it up, all for the sake of narration that likely isn't even plot relevant? It just doesn't sit well with me personally.
-
The wrestling analogy is flawed? It's not even an analogy. They were talking about two people duking it out. Check above.
-
The wresteling analogy is flawed. We aren't talking about two people duking it out.
That was more in response to Sanctaphrax's argument that anyone with the least amount of skill could accurately assess whether their punches would land:
I'm a pretty mediocre fighter. Fair Fists, tops. But I can tell whether my punches are likely to land long before I throw them.
This isn't hard. Anyone with even the slightest skill can tell when they're up against a (mundane) defence that outclasses them completely.
This is more like the difference between trying to jump over a 5 foot chain link fence, and trying to jump over a 15 foot brick wall. It's certainly possible to scale a 15 foot wall, bit it requires an entirely different approach. And I agree with the notion that narrative flavoring should not give mechanical benefit. Remember by the RAW a block is a block is a block. There's mechanically no difference between a giant wall of fire as a block, or an invisible shield as a block.
The point was, there's no way to tell how strong a block is just by looking at it. A 15-shift block might be a five foot chain link fence (that's electrified), and a 3-shift block could be a 15-foot-high brick wall (that has crappy mortar and will fall over with enough force).
Now you can of course make an arguement for hiding block strength results, though I'm roundly against that for a multitude of reasons. The first being it's an arbitrary decision to hide roll results of one specific mechanic. Second it implies it's not okay for the players to know OoC information, but it's perfectly fine for the GM. This not only facilitates, but encourages adversarial behavior between GM and players, and downright shady behavior with the wrong kind of GM.
Making exceptions, hiding roll results, and making the game generally more convoluted with no real rules to back it up, all for the sake of narration that likely isn't even plot relevant? It just doesn't sit well with me personally.
I should clarify that I'm not talking about hiding block strengths from players--as was said earlier, they're going to need to know whether or not spending a fate point, for instance, will make a difference. As a GM, I'm generally against my players wasting fate points if it won't make any difference.
My argument, mainly, is about the GM and how he acts with the opposition.
-
I would tell the character what the strength of the block is, after they decide that they want to attack. Or if they want to try and make an assessment. Those would be the only reasons that a player should get to know the strength of the block. Now for the GM, he needs to know the block because the players roll it, but the characters he is controling shouldnt immediatly decide to attack someone else because there is a block. They should at least try to attack.
Though I ussally decide who will attack who before the battle starts
-
I usually describe the obstacle. Sometimes it's described to give the players an idea of how difficult it may be to overcome, but sometimes it isn't. I never give them the numerical value of a block either way. There's no need and it will may influence what they will do. Sometimes, if a player is waffling on his action, I'll give him a clue. I mean, while their character is there, the player isn't there and my description may be flawed...so I'll say something like, "you've scrambled over walls like this before, but it is sooo smooth that it's going to be much more challenging." So I've told them it's possible, but difficult.
Most people have an idea of their limits. I've rocked climbed for a very long time and I can look at a wall and know if it's going to be tough or not...but I really have to look at it. Even then, there might be a tricky bit that I over/under estimate. I definitely can't just go running at it and, at a glance, know how tough it's going to be.
Honestly, I like that better. If a player wants to take a chance and run at the 8 shift wall blocking his path, go for it. I'll give him a clue as to how it compares to his abilities...maybe. If he wants to know exactly how tough it is to climb, he needs to make an assessment.
-
Now the question now is, how do you handle your NPC's as a GM in that situation?
-
I usually describe the obstacle. Sometimes it's described to give the players an idea of how difficult it may be to overcome, but sometimes it isn't. I never give them the numerical value of a block either way. There's no need and it will may influence what they will do. Sometimes, if a player is waffling on his action, I'll give him a clue. I mean, while their character is there, the player isn't there and my description may be flawed...so I'll say something like, "you've scrambled over walls like this before, but it is sooo smooth that it's going to be much more challenging." So I've told them it's possible, but difficult.
Most people have an idea of their limits. I've rocked climbed for a very long time and I can look at a wall and know if it's going to be tough or not...but I really have to look at it. Even then, there might be a tricky bit that I over/under estimate. I definitely can't just go running at it and, at a glance, know how tough it's going to be.
Honestly, I like that better. If a player wants to take a chance and run at the 8 shift wall blocking his path, go for it. I'll give him a clue as to how it compares to his abilities...maybe. If he wants to know exactly how tough it is to climb, he needs to make an assessment.
The thing about that, though, is what happens when he wants to invoke an aspect to climb it? Do you at least let them know if the +2 will make a difference in them climbing it?
-
@Lavecki: I play them like I'd play a character. If they have a reason to think they'd be unable to scale the wall, they'd try to find another solution. If they beleived they could do it, they'd try. Once one of them failed, the rest might not try...or maybe they'd assume their associate was a clumsy oaf and they'd try anyways.
It depends on the situation. I try to play my NPC's as close to how a real person would act in a situation. Sometimes, if I see that the PC's are stomping the opposition and it's turning into a real boring fight, I might meta-game a bit to make it more interesting...but I rarely do that. Players notice and they don't like it.
@Mr. Death. Yes. I always let them know. FP's are a metagame tool and I don't let Players waste them. Of course telling them that a FP will or will not help, will give them a good idea what the difficulty of the task...but that makes sense because they tried it, so it makes sense to have that knowledge.
-
And what rating do you give to the block made from a 2mm-thick encompassing stone dome?
I'm pretty sure I could punch through it with only minor effort, and I wouldn't give myself more than an Average fists score at most. And yet, if I found myself standing under that dome, I don't believe for an instant that I could tell at a glance that it was that thin and consequently fragile.
Good point.
On the other hand, I tell people what's up when the block is established. And I think it's reasonable to say that if you watch it form you can tell roughly how thick it is.
So they can't tell exactly, but they can tell close enough that it makes no difference?
Again: Wizards, who know magic inside and out, who work with and can see magic on a wavelength that almost no one else can, need to stop and do a Lore check before they can know enough about a spell's power to counterspell it.
Yes.
My impression is that counterspelling requires some kind of magic-science analysis. But I generally ignore counterspells so I'm not exactly an expert.
But untrained goons can take one look at a spell and decide, "That's too powerful for my ability to aim with guns or throw my fists to get through?" What frame of reference are they using?
...
I have to ask, how many fights have you actually been in? Because I wrestled for 12 years, and frankly, that isn't true in the least. Going up against someone new, you have no idea what they're good at or able to defend against until you try it out against them. Only if you had a chance to see them wrestle before could you maybe have an idea.
Funny. That's the same amount of time I've spent doing martial arts.
I find that a quick look at somebody's stance and how they move once the fight starts gives you a pretty good idea of what to expect.
But I wouldn't be surprised if it was different for wrestling.
And with all the random variables involved with a fight or a wrestling match, even a defense that "outclasses" you can be beaten. Back in the day I could go toe-to-toe with a wrestler who was 100 pounds heavier than me, and a hell of a lot stronger, even when I was playing to his strengths, and sometimes win.
That's what the dice are for.
Right, they don't know until they roll to attack, and the enemy rolls to defend.
And with a block, the roll is made well in advance. So the information arrives in advance.
I don't necessarily tell everyone "this guy has Great Fists, dudes" but I've found that if somebody ever makes a roll it's easier just to be transparent about where the numbers come from. And if somebody asked "what are my odds of hitting this dude?" I'd tell 'em whether they're any good.
Going by the fiction, we have no reason whatsoever to assume that blocks look as strong as they are (Harry's blocks in Storm Front are described as visually almost identical to his blocks in every other book, even after we know for a fact that he's strengthened them).
I can't be bothered to look it up, but this doesn't square with my memory.
Actually, by the time of Small Favor Harry's shields are probably up around 6 or 7 shifts, given that he's made a better focus item and talks about how much tougher they are to get through. Which means it's not "sensible" at all for someone with an attack skill of 3--like most vampires--to attack him. And yet they do. Constantly, as recently as Changes.
Maneuvers can look an awful lot like attacks, narratively. And of course there are Compels.
Plus, given the need to pay for duration and the like, it's likely that Harry's shields are about Superb. So it'd often be worth attacking him with skill 3-4.
Show me where, in any of the fiction, has any character taken a quick, casual glance at a wizardly shield and figured out how strong it is from just that. To my recollection, it doesn't ever happen, even between wizards.
Sorry, my books are in a different house and buried under a bunch of stuff. Can't be bothered to do proper research for the sake of an internet argument.
But I do remember something with Harry and Molly and a snowball fight. Think it was in Summer Knight.
Hell, how many times has Harry thrown a spell at someone only to find out later that he didn't have enough strength to punch through their defenses? By your argument, Harry should have already known he couldn't get through that shield/around that speed/through that block.
That's what dice rolls are for.
By this logic, when the Merlin and LtW threw up a ward offscreen in Proven Guilty, the whole Red Court would've given up and gone home because they knew they couldn't get through it.
Or maybe they got together and tried to break it down, because maybe with teamwork they could smash it in time to chase the wizards.
Either way seems fair to me.
They'd know it was a big attack because it's filling the entire zone. Would you be able to look at, say, Luccio's laser in Dead Beat (pre-body switching) and tell that it's got a huge attack power at a glance? Logically, you'd think that Harry's beams are stronger because they tend to be a lot thicker.
Harry is impressed when he sees the laser. He can clearly tell how impressive it is.
(IIRC)
With the books and the game, we're never given the implication that putting more power into a spell makes it bigger and more obviously stronger--hell, veils are the exact opposite, the more power into it the less obvious it is.
Nonetheless, the power of a veil is pretty obvious when you look at it.
-
Or maybe they got together and tried to break it down, because maybe with teamwork they could smash it in time to chase the wizards.
So...wouldn't this be the answer to the discussion? I mean if they want to get at one person, they will. Regardless of the power of the block. So for narrative bad guys, dictated by the GM, they should do that.
-
And for the Players, they can represent their narrative attacks with mechanical maneuvers to achieve the same result...IF they (the players) know the block strength.
-
So...wouldn't this be the answer to the discussion? I mean if they want to get at one person, they will. Regardless of the power of the block. So for narrative bad guys, dictated by the GM, they should do that.
I don't even know what the ultimate point of all this is. I'm just going argument by argument.
So maybe?
-
I believe that it is whether GM's should avoid PC with their NPC because the PC put up a block.
-
The characters should not automatically know the block strength. The players should.
Because there's very little difference, narratively, between shooting at someone such that you force them to take cover or suffer the sting of hot lead (a block) vs shooting at someone with the hope of taking them down, but knowing that if they're good enough they may be able to take cover in time to avoid getting too badly hurt (an attack).
There's even less difference, narratively, between 'maneuvers' accumulating stress against a shield and an otherwise-narratively-identical 'attack' finally breaching that suddenly over-taxed shield.
The game-mechanics differences, though, are IMMENSE, and cannot be put to appropriate use by players if you keep them in the dark.
Fate (and the DFrpg by extension) DOES NOT WORK if it's not comparatively quite transparent.
-
I'm...not sure what your stance is here
-
I'm...not sure what your stance is here
Aside from my view that characters should not have automatic knowledge of success probability? Trust your players not to metagame, or play in a system that can actually function where the GM hides game mechanics from the players.
-
Funny. That's the same amount of time I've spent doing martial arts.
I find that a quick look at somebody's stance and how they move once the fight starts gives you a pretty good idea of what to expect.
In DFRPG wouldn't that quick look be an Assess?
It seems to me that the GM has a lot of narrative options. He can show the block, but not its strength.
"The Neuromancer pops out and goes boo! He's surrounded by a shimmering blue electric field of power. What do you do?"
She can not show the block until it is triggered:
"The Neuromancer pops out and goes Boo!"
"I yell Fuego! And launch my fire blast!"
"It erupts against a dome of force which flares with blue lightning. Lets see if you can get through a block 6."
He can show the Block and its strength.
"The necromancer pops out and goes boo! He's surrounded by a shimmering field of blue lightning. You're going to need to blast through a block six to hit him."
Each of these choices colors the experience in different ways and each is a good or bad choice in different circumstances.
-
Aside from my view that characters should not have automatic knowledge of success probability? Trust your players not to metagame, or play in a system that can actually function where the GM hides game mechanics from the players.
Ok. Couldn't understand that from the previous post. Yes that is true. I think the problem is that GM's are using their meta knowledge to ignore characters who put up blocks, thus decreasing the validity of putting up a block.
-
Which is bad. What they should be doing, generally, is using narrative attacks represented mechanically as something else (possibly with one or two mechanical attacks thrown in if there are enough contributors to make such worthwhile).
-
Yes.
My impression is that counterspelling requires some kind of magic-science analysis. But I generally ignore counterspells so I'm not exactly an expert.
Still the precedent is there--the wizard can't know the strength of the spell (blocks included) until he does a deliberate assessment. It isn't right that a wizard has to take an extra effort to assess something that, per your argument, any untrained goon can figure out at a glance.
Funny. That's the same amount of time I've spent doing martial arts.
I find that a quick look at somebody's stance and how they move once the fight starts gives you a pretty good idea of what to expect.
But I wouldn't be surprised if it was different for wrestling.
I'm with noclue on that--that sounds like an assessment action, and one that you're mainly qualified to make because of your experience. Were you untrained in martial arts, you likely wouldn't be able to assess that.
That's what the dice are for.
The dice are unreliable--the vast majority of rolls are going to be +1 and under, therefore it's not very sensible to attack something +2 over your attack rating. And yet it keeps happening.
And with a block, the roll is made well in advance. So the information arrives in advance.
I don't necessarily tell everyone "this guy has Great Fists, dudes" but I've found that if somebody ever makes a roll it's easier just to be transparent about where the numbers come from. And if somebody asked "what are my odds of hitting this dude?" I'd tell 'em whether they're any good.
As I've said, it's different between the players and the GM--in a sense, the players are playing a very different game from the GM--the players do need to know the number (or at least how far off they are from it) so they can avoid wasting fate points. The GM, however, is more about creating the experience and rewarding the players for good tactics--meaning the GM's characters won't always know what they're up against, even if the GM does.
I can't be bothered to look it up, but this doesn't square with my memory.
They're all more or less light variations on the theme of "translucent dome of energy." Aesthetically, he doesn't really describe them any differently, except occasionally they might be more or less transparent or a different color.
Maneuvers can look an awful lot like attacks, narratively. And of course there are Compels.
Plus, given the need to pay for duration and the like, it's likely that Harry's shields are about Superb. So it'd often be worth attacking him with skill 3-4.
Granted, we don't know for certain--but given his base Conviction for spirit shields is 5 as of Storm Front, it's extremely likely that he's taken refinements to boost that considerably later in the series. I wouldn't be surprised if his effective conviction score for spirit was 7 or 8.
And I'm referring to vampires jumping him singularly, one at a time, such as they do in Changes when he's with Murphy. If they could tell how strong the block was, they wouldn't take the tactic of individually trying to jump him.
Sorry, my books are in a different house and buried under a bunch of stuff. Can't be bothered to do proper research for the sake of an internet argument.
But I do remember something with Harry and Molly and a snowball fight. Think it was in Summer Knight.
Molly's kind of an outlier, though--her shields are barely holding together at all in the first place. I don't think they can be used very well as an example of what, say, a 3-shift block looks like compared to a 7-shift block, since to me it looks more like she simply failed to create a block in the first place. I mean, really, if a bunch of pre-teens can get through it with snowballs...
That's what dice rolls are for.
As before, they're unreliable at best. Just making a straight dice roll and hoping to get a +3 on the roll is, as I think you'd put it, sub-optimal.
Or maybe they got together and tried to break it down, because maybe with teamwork they could smash it in time to chase the wizards.
Either way seems fair to me.
I think if you take a full day working together, setting up maneuvers, an still can't break through it with literally an army on your side, you were clearly never going to get through that block. And by your argument, they would have tried a different tactic entirely.
Harry is impressed when he sees the laser. He can clearly tell how impressive it is.
(IIRC)
I'm fair sure that has a lot to do with the fact that she scythed down dozens of zombies in one pass, at least as much as--if not more--than just looking at it.
-
Assessments reveal Aspects. Letting people Assess things without an action messes up the action economy.
Depending on one's situation, attacking when one has a fairly small chance of hitting might be one's best bet.
I'm not too interested in arguing specific examples now that I've provided some, but I will note that it's perfectly reasonable for it to take more than a day to knock down a wall. Especially given the way wards work.
-
So Sancta, is your stance that a GM should have his NPC s ignore PC s who put up blocks simply because they put up blocks? All other arguments aside
-
Sometimes, yes.
If the wizard makes themself untouchable, I think most foes would attack someone else. Or flee, because they realize they're not likely to win the fight.
There are exceptions, though.
I honestly don't feel that strongly about this. But the videogame crack ticked me off so I went into a full rebuttal. Sorry if I went too far with this whole tangent.
-
It's fine. I just couldn't gather your opinion on this part of the argument*
Edit: *discussion
-
I'm with noclue on that--that sounds like an assessment action, and one that you're mainly qualified to make because of your experience. Were you untrained in martial arts, you likely wouldn't be able to assess that.
So, I have to agree with this. I was thinking about it after I made my post about the rock climbing.
I'm able to accurately assess how difficult a climb will be because I have lots of skill/experience in it.
Someone with little to no skill would have no comparison and would be unlikely to know how difficult something would be. THey would therefore have to attempt the climb before discovering how hard it would be to do.
Mechanically, this comes down to an assessment. The avid climber has a high athletics skill (or whatever skill used to assess a climb) and can therfore discover the difficulty of a block.
Someone with less skill, would have a harder time on the assessment and would likely fail. In both cases, trying to overcome the bock (the wall) is the most reliable way.
To me, all this means is someone has to try it. So just because a wizard put up a 10shift sheild block, it doesn't automatically mean the mooks are going to avoid attacking him. Once they do attack(or once they successfully assess the strength of the block), they'll have a good idea of the block strength and therefore try other tactics.
I'm fine, as a gm, to give people the numerical value, but not without having some reason to know it. I think the game still works without know every single detail.